The leadership question

In her column in today’s National, Lesley Riddoch addresses a crucial issue. The issue of leadership. She asks whether the leadership shown by Nicola Sturgeon in her handling of an unprecedented public health crisis can transfer to the constitutional issue which, despite having been all but totally ignored by the First Minister for the past few months, still looms largest in Scotland’s politics. As, indeed, it must. Because, as I recently found it necessary to remind Ms Sturgeon, disputes between the Scottish and British governments regarding measures to deal with the pandemic boil down to the matter of who decides. That is the very essence of the constitution. And constitutional politics underlies and overarches all other aspects of politics. To say that decision-making in relation to the coronavirus crisis is nothing to do with politics is, therefore, utter balderdash and totally unworthy of a politician of Nicola Sturgeon’s standing.

Lesley Riddoch describes and accounts for that standing very well. There is no disputing that Nicola Sturgeon has exhibited quite extraordinary leadership skills as she strives to steer Scotland through the uncharted shallows of the viral pandemic and the jagged rocks of the British government’s prideful ineptitude. Ms Riddoch’s exposition relieves me of the need to lay the groundwork for what follows. I think we can take as a given that, even taking due account of the extent to which she is flattered by the walking catalogue of defects and deficiencies that is Boris Johnson, Nicola Sturgeon has done Scotland proud. We could hardly have hoped for better leadership in these most testing of circumstances.

But does that leadership carry over to the fight to restore Scotland’s independence? Are the estimable personal qualities and superb political skills that Nicola Sturgeon possesses fitted to the role of de facto leader of Scotland’s independence movement? Can Nicola Sturgeon provide the kind of leadership that the independence campaign so desperately needs?

Is Nicola Sturgeon the person to lead Scotland through the looming constitutional crisis as well as she has led the nation through the current public health crisis?

Will Nicola Sturgeon lead Scotland to independence?

In seeking to answer such questions, Lesley Riddoch has focused on Nicola Sturgeon’s success in attracting “unlikely bedfellows”. There is every reason to believe that the First Minister has made a very strong impression which has caused many former No voters and even staunch anti-independence campaigners to reassess their opinion of the First Minister. It remains to be seen to what extent this, together with fresh problems justifying the Union, will translate into reluctant acceptance of the need to bring all of Scotland’s government home. How many people will be aboard a train of thought travelling from Nicola Sturgeon’s near-impeccable performance of late to the necessity of restoring full powers to the Scottish Parliament? How many voters will be prompted and provoked to start that journey from No to Yes?

A fair few would be my guess. Among those who voted No in 2014 – or intended to vote No in the next referendum – because of scepticism about the ability of a Scottish Government to govern there can be few remaining who continue to entertain such doubts. The very least that can be said is that Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership has created a very positive impression. Whether it is enough to swing the vote is impossible to say at this time.

But all of this is a quite separate matter from the question of whether the leader who strides with such evident confidence and apparent comfort in the designer shoes of a top administrator and political operator is the leader who can march in tackety-boots at the head of Scotland’s Yes army.

Lesley Riddoch concludes that,

If she has the energy, Nicola Sturgeon’s sense of purpose, clarity and popularity can be carried over into the forthcoming Brexit emergency. But this time the planning, signposting, explaining, communicating and above all the FM’s actions must have one goal – to make it crystal clear to voters that the only way for Scots to guarantee our future is through independence.

She may be right. But, as Lesley herself might put it, ah hae ma doots! In coming to this conclusion Lesley has failed (or declined?) to address a very significant factor. She seems not to have taken account of the Yes movement’s willingness, or otherwise, to accept the leadership which Nicola Sturgeon might offer.

I’m tempted to add “At last!” to that. Because that leadership has nowhere been in evidence over the past several years. But I berate others for constantly looking backwards to past mistakes, misjudgements, missteps and maybe even misdeeds rather than looking to the next phase in the battle to free Scotland from Britannia’s jealous grasp. Nevertheless and at the risk of being judged hypocritical, I must refer to the failures and failings in the Scottish Government’s handling of the constitutional issue over the past five or six years as I make the undoubtedly controversial observation that, while Nicola Sturgeon has been been winning the trust of former No voters, she has been losing the trust of a significant part of the Yes movement.

Like it or loathe it; accept it or reject it, the political reality is that many Yes activists have lost confidence in Nicola Sturgeon. They doubt both her ability and her willingness to lead the independence campaign. Far stronger doubts lurk in the minds of those persuaded that the next phase cannot be a replication of the previous campaign’s obsessive ‘positivity’ but must be instead a down and dirty confrontation with the British political elite in a campaign to end the Union.

Do we think she’s hard enough?

Does she!?

Nicola Sturgeon’s suitability for the task of leading Scotland through the constitutional crisis to a satisfactory outcome has yet to be established. It cannot be assumed from the leadership shown in recent months. For perfectly good reasons, some in the Yes movement will be hard to convince. Nicola Sturgeon has obstacles to overcome if she is to successfully make the transition from the leader she has been to the leader she must be. Many of these are obstacles of her own making.

I hope she makes it. I would like nothing better than to see Nicola Sturgeon bring forth aspects of herself that have not hitherto been much in evidence. I strongly suspect that she has the hardness. I’m not so sure she is prepared to be hard. She may not even be willing to try. There is a perfectly rational argument – which has surely occurred to her – that having built the reputation she has it would not be in her own personal interests to gamble that reputation on a very different kind of politics.

Then again, Nicola Sturgeon may reckon that she needs a win in the constitutional battle as the crowning achievement of her political career. She may defy the doubters and move effortlessly from diplomatic administrator to political cage-fighter. If she does – and I cannot stress this enough – we must back her to the hilt!

If Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership of the independence campaign is to succeed, the Yes movement must be prepared to follow. We must be prepared to set aside our doubts and our grumbles about the past and give her our full support. But she cannot expect unquestioning obedience. Discipline? Yes! But not the discipline of soldiers obeying commands. The self-disciple of people who do what is asked of them because what they are asked to do makes sense.

There is a very simple test of Nicola Sturgeon’s suitability for the task of leading Scotland to independence. One question; the answer to which will determine whether her way makes sense. Is she prepared to reject the Section 30 process?



If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.

Donate with PayPalDonate with Pingit

39 thoughts on “The leadership question

    1. Covered. Note the mention of possible “misdeeds”. That’s as close as I want to get to referencing the matter to which you refer.

      It is, in any case, a great imponderable. It is entirely possible that it will have no impact at all. Sturgeon is well-placed to ride out even a severe storm.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. In addition you’ll have noticed the Unionist parties going very quiet on this Holyrood Commission of Enquiry they were loudly calling for after AS whacked ScotGov with a £500k fiasco (lost civil case where they were caught basically grooming witnesses and had to fold 24 hours before NS’ own private sec was unexpectedly called to give evidence under oath). This, despite revelation in sworn evidence at the AS trial itself that Sturgeon has lied to Parliament about when she actually met AS to discuss these events. You would have thought they would jump on that – Covid or no. Not a peep.

        It may re-surface as we emerge from lockdown, but I also hae ma doots…

        Hard to avoid the conclusion that the WM masters, in a changed landscape post AS acquittal, have instructed their Unionist MSPs to lay off the best SNP ally Boris Johnson can have; Gold Standard Nicola presents absolutely no threat to the British Establishment.

        Like

      2. There is no way to polish that turd. So long as she remains committed to the Section 30 process, Nicola Sturgeon is the best ally Boris Johnson has. But I utterly reject any suggestion that she knowingly chose this. She is guilty of political misjudgement. Not betrayal!

        Like

      1. That’s OK. Your vote isn’t needed. All you have to do is respect the will of Scotland’s people. Few of whom are as proudly bigoted as you make yourself appear.

        TROLL WILL NOT BE FED!

        Like

    1. Sterling performance?! I don’t call the highest dead rate from Covid 19 in the UK per million is sterling. Or the fact that Scotland at the last look had the 2nd highest dead rate. Add to that the Nike conference, the lack of PPE preparation recommended in 2016, the lack of pandemic preparation as per results from an exercise (2018), the on and off testing. Oh, and the high death rates in care homes. And what of the £155million the scottish government sat on for 6 weeks before passing ONLY the first INSTALLMENT on to the local authorities at the beginning of last week, for Covid response? Any challenges that have been put to her in person, have been deflected with verbal attacks on the UK government, without being answered. I think she should step aside.

      Like

      1. Instalment? I think DS was being sardonic. I certainly think that NS can do with a break; come back, be revitalised and can apply to be UN to be some special rapporteur ( whatever that is) for something, or some middle east peace envoy ( I think the job is still vacant after Blair resigned but stand to be corrected) or to be appointed whatever. Might even apply to be the next NATO Secretary general?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Anybody who cites The Scotsman as a source is not to be taken seriously. What is really shocking is not your ignorance but the fact that you maintain this ignorance at a time when it has never been easier to rectify. There are so many sources that are authoritative and easily accessible that it must take considerable effort to remain oblivious to the facts.

        Take “the Nike conference”, for example. There wasn’t a thinking person in Scotland who hadn’t recognised the fuss about this as British Nationalist propaganda. The likes of Ian Murray latched onto it as a way of smearing the Scottish Government and the hated SNP as well as to divert attention from the truth that it was travellers from Europe who brought the virus to Scotland.

        Now, we have the scientific proof that this was so. There was no ‘ground zero’. There was no single initial starting point. The disease appeared in numerous places in Scotland within the same short period. In every instance the local outbreak has been shown to have been initiated by someone who came through either a Scottish or an English airport from one of several places in Europe.

        The question you should be asking yourself is why didn’t I know about this scientific report. You should – but almost certainly won’t – be wondering how you missed this important information. I can tell you the answer. It’s because you didn’t want to see it. You REALLY didn’t want to see it. You had the ‘information’ you wanted. To you, the quality of that ‘information’ wasn’t important. It doesn’t matter to you whether it’s accurate or not. It doesn’t matter to you whether it is true or not. All that matters is that it feeds your dumb prejudices.

        You are ignorant because being ignorant because being informed would mean you’d have to rethink those prejudices. And bigots just don’t do that.

        I expect your immediate, knee-jerk response will be to come back at me with some childish jibe about me not providing sources for that information on the introduction of Covid-19 into Scotland. I actually had to stop myself from doing so. Because this is a learning opportunity for you. This is a chance for you to remove the blinkers of your dumb prejudice and inform yourself.

        But what are the chances you will?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. What’s the point exactly of regurgitating this unionist bollocks here? Surely you can see that the level of discussion here is a notch or two above refuting nonsense pedalled by the British press. Or not?

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Got to comment, you are talking pure and utter crap, are you wrapped in your UJ flag with old betty underpants on and GSTQ playing in the background. sad sad man and obvious Yoon!

        Like

  1. Your point on the Section 30 process is apposite as it is Scotland which must make the decision on independence, not Westminster. We need an alternative to the Section 30 process which makes it clear that Westminster cannot veto the mandate of the People of Scotland for an independence referendum now expressed in four elections.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Correct. We also have to recognise that the process does not exist in any form. That process must be created. There may be bits and pieces of precedent which are more or less relevant. But the reality is that the process is always specific to the circumstances. There is no ‘Independence for Dummies’ to consult. There is no operator manual to follow. We start from scratch and formulate the process that works for us.

      There is one point we can begin with. The process must explicitly exclude involvement and prohibit interference from the British state. We are sovereign. It is our right of self-determination. It is our process. It has nothing to do with Westminster and Westminster must have nothing to do with it.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Hi Peter

    I have made up my mind about Holyrood 2021.

    If the SNP go into the election with a clear message that they will be using the result as a de- facto independence referendum. Then they will get my full support on both votes. If they go in with the message of “Give us another mandate”. Then I will vote SNP 1 and lend my second vote to the possible new independence party.

    I feel we need to have another independence group to put pressure on them to proceed with something other than requesting a section 30. I appreciate that not everyone agrees with tactical voting. However the current inertia regarding the cause of independence , cannot go on for another 5 year term of government.

    I agree Nicola has been superb lately. She is clear, empathetic, contrite, and so honest in her guidance over Covid-19. I have been pleasantly surprised to have former staunch angry unionist Sturgeon haters ,actually express admiration for the Scottish government! Many posts that I have put on Facebook have been liked , by the most unlikely people I know.

    Nicola has won them over. Previous to the crisis they were fed a diatribe of angry propaganda from the MSM. They believed it , and Nicola became a figure of hate for unionists. Either that or they just mocked her.

    This crisis has given them the chance to see what she actually does and who she is , rather than what the MSM say she is.

    Westminster has been exposed as an inept gentlemen’s club. The MSM can’t cover up for Boris and his cronies. The daily deaths and his press conferences show them for what they are.

    Has Scotland finally woken up?

    Yes it has.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I long since wearied of pointing out the futile folly of the cunning plan parties. I am now resigned to just crossing my fingers and hoping that either people see sense before the election or that the cunning plans of the cunning plan parties don’t get anywhere near the worst case scenario. It’s a razor’s edge. There may be only 2 or 3 percentage points between the cunning parties having no significant impact and them allowing the British parties to take control. I’ve never been a gambler. I sure as fuck wouldn’t place a bet where the odds are unknown and the stakes are an entire nation. But you go ahead if it gives you a wee thrill. I still have some despair left.

      I’ve also just about given up on explaining why a plebiscite election is a fantastical notion. Good luck with getting the British parties to agree to that! And no! It cannot possibly work without their cooperation. For reasons that are obvious if you think beyond the first pretty conclusion you come by.

      What I have not given up on is the matter of the message that the SNP take into the election. And you are correct that there needs to be a new body charged with ensuring that the message is right. The only body that can have the necessary clout is one which represents the entire Yes movement. A body which can delegate an individual to speak directly to the SNP and the media and the nation on behalf of the Yes movement – but ONLY on the matter of a strategy by which the independence campaign may be progressed.

      Only this week I launched an experiment to satisfy myself, at least, that there is a will within the Yes movement to form a body which will allow the Yes movement to speak with one voice. It is called White Rose Rising and like the Yes movement itself it has started with a Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/whiteroserising/

      Like

  3. Scotland is among the worst affected countries in the world. It is not as bad as England for sure but then Scotland has several ‘natural’ advantages that England and London in particular does not have, including a likely much later arrival of the virus here in the first place.

    The Scottish Government is as guilty as the UK Government for allowing the virus to spread as it did. It is unarguable that the Scottish Government has handled the effects of the spread far better than the UK Government in almost every way but IT WAS IN LOCK STEP with the initial ‘strategy’ that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths.

    Even the utterly cack-handed management of the Catherine Calderwood episode was made to look competent by the Cummings fiasco. How can you not look good when that is the benchmark?

    But I expect that a different picture of the Scottish Government’s performance will emerge in due course once public inquiries get under way, where decisions and the lack thereof can be forensically examined through interrogation of evidence and witnesses not available at press briefings and FMQs. Already the growing defensiveness of Sturgeon and Freeman and their increasing use of ‘scientific and clinical advice’ as a political shield is telling.

    We have been utterly failed by both our governments. I accept that a full lock down of business in Scotland was not possible until the UK Government had committed to financial support but there was so much that COULD have been done outside of that and we CHOSE to do nothing until Westminster acted.

    We followed the science we chose to follow. We chose not to follow the science that many other countries did. People have to be held accountable for that – they got it catastrophically wrong, including those in Scotland who, at best, went along with it or, at worst, actively argued for it.

    Strategically this was possibly the greatest chance we will ever get to demonstrate how an Independent Scottish policy could deliver markedly better outcomes for Scotland but our leaders bottled it, like they bottle almost everything else when push comes to shove.

    Instead we are left arguing about whether or not our death rates are pro-rata better or worse than the worst affected country on the planet. Oh and, apparently, support for Independence has now SURGED to two percent less than it was in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit Referendum as a result.

    We truly have lost our way. But that’s what happens when you follow people that don’t know how to lead.

    Like

  4. The strategy of seeking independence through a section 30 grant of leave to run a referendum is looking increasingly threadbare . The seat is falling out of that particularly ragged pair of breeks.The suspicion must be that the salaried superannuated cadre of the SNP will cling to what will keep them in posts for the foreseeable future .We’ll likely hear much from them about caution , leaving things to take their course , the unsustainable nature of Westminster’ s opposition to a section 30 and myriad other excuses to avoid grasping the nettle of Indy . A limited managerialsm may well suit the careerists but alienate the grass roots . An influx of folk to the party ranks persuaded by managerial competencies even personal charisma of a leader , does not guarantee a stronger movement towards Indy if at the same time there’s a drift away from the party of those more committed to breaking the Union . Ever at her back , I fear , Peter’s voice in Nicola’ s ear.

    Like

    1. The Section 30 process was always “threadbare”. It was never going to work. It couldn’t possibly work. Even the people who insisted that it was the only way couldn’t explain how it could work. It is one of the great mysteries of our time that a politician of Nicola Sturgeon’s standing could believe it was a plan.

      There may be some truth in the rest of what you say. All the more reason for the Yes movement to get its act together. Because I don’t see any other political force with the potential to shake the inertia out of the SNP leadership. That’s what White Rose Rising is about. It’s my personal last throw of the dice as far as campaigning is concerned.

      Like

      1. I think once it became clear the Tory government held not only Scotland but the EU in contempt that they would never grant the section 30. The irony of course is that the good Friday agreement has timetabling for fresh referenda: 7 years. Next year is 7 years from the 2014 vote. There is statutory precedence for having the vote next year. This has never been, to my knowledge, publicly articulated by Sturgeon.

        Like

  5. Peter – Have you studied the D’Hont system.

    The reason I ask is that your description of voting for another party as a gamble . Could just as easily be used to describe voting SNP on the second vote. The SNP gained 4 list seats at the last Scottish election on 42% of the list vote. The Tories gained 24 on 23% of the vote.

    We have to think smarter , rather than just voting out of loyalty or perceived fear. The reason we have the likes of Murdo Fraser 4 time loser. Is because people refuse to accept that the D’Hont system is set up to prevent an independence majority. What they didn’t expect was more than one independence party operating in the system , that can break it.

    If we want to get rid of the seat warmers, then we need to think smarter. A Scottish government that has a 20 seat independence majority. Can make things happen. It’s also good to have a genuine independence party , pushing the SNP to do what it was elected to do.

    It seems to me that you are falling into the old trap of falling back in line , and giving the SNP another chance to let us down. They have done it over and over again.

    My question to you is. What will you do if the SNP get another mandate and then go back to begging the Tories for a section 30.

    You don’t want to utilise the election as a plebiscite on independence. So how are you going to get the SNP to Dissolve The Union , if they aren’t interested.

    I have been an SNP member all my life. I was against the list vote idea, fundamentally against it! Then I studied the methodology, and I have changed my mind.

    Only fear stops change.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ve done the whole cunning plan party thing. I came to it with an open mind. I thoroughly examined the thing from every angle. I have concluded that it is a bit of foolishness that we can well do without. Try searching ‘cunning plan’ on this blog. I have neither the time nor the patience to go through the whole thing again.

      Like

  6. Power dressing and reading from a script does not make a leader and copying other nations scripts albeit two weeks later doesn’t either.

    Like

    1. Except that’s not what happened. It’s what the British media tell us happened. But who is stupid enough to believe them?

      Perhaps the same people who don’t understand the importance of appearance and deportment. Less shallow-minded people recognise that Nicola Sturgeon is constantly under a media microscope. She is constantly sending a message. Given her approval ratings and the respect shown to her even by her political opponents only a fool would claim she’s sending the wrong message.

      Like

  7. Peter A Bell asked for sources for Scotland’s real performance in terms of death during the current crisis. Like him I reject newspapers, and I can’t put them in 2nd place. However, I can show using government figures that we have the 3rd worst death rate globally.

    Scotland’s population – 5.45 Million
    Scotland’s covid deaths by death certificates (NRS) 7th June – 4000
    Scotland deaths per million = 734.

    Using Worldometers Covid coverage, this places us behind only San Marino and Belgium.

    I’d also note that almost half of all deaths (47%) have occurred in a care home setting, I’ve found no evidence for any country who’s record on the most vulnerable is worse, including England who while still having a similar number of deaths among care home residents, did at least move over half of those into a hospital setting.

    Scotland’s performance on Covid19 has been abysmal, and I’m surprised that Peter has went with poplar perception rather than hard fact. Given his requests of others for hard fact, can he himself show me any hard evidence, by way of public statement, alternate plan or alternate strategy, other than the odd day or hour, which shows Scotland and Nicola were not fully on board with what Sir Patrick Vallance would later call Herd Immunity.

    Sources: National Records Scotland 7th June report on Covid19 deaths and Worldometers daily coverage of the Coronavirus outbreak, sorted on deaths per million by country.

    Like

    1. As you grow up you may learn that research isn’t only about finding data, it’s about knowing how to use it. Among the most basic lessons is to ensure that you are comparing like with like. The NRS figure relate any death where Covid-19 is mentioned on the death certificate. Can you guarantee that the same recording methods are used in all other instances? Different countries record fatalities in different ways. Even different agencies within the same country use different methods – because they are using the results for different purposes are, it must be acknowledged, there are political pressures to either maximise or, more usually, minimise the figures.

      Another lesson you have evidently yet to learn is that prejudice render results meaningless. Statistical analysis is highly vulnerable to manipulation – even unwittingly. You did the thing one must never do. You started with a conclusion and set out to ‘prove’ it. Had you been concerned about things like objectivity, accuracy and veracity, you would have taken care to start with a hypothesis and set out to test it. You did what the British state’s propagandists do. They start with the conclusion that Scotland is the most awful place in the world and it’s all the fault of the SNP / Scottish Government / targeted politician, then selectively present only the information which supports this conclusion. It’s not subtle. Few are fooled by it. But it’s like advertising – you have to do it in case others do it.

      You use the NRS figures because their methodology, by design, produces a high death rate. Then you compare with other countries without checking to ensure that they are using the same methodology. Garbage in – garbage out!

      Then there is the prejudice evidenced by your determination to hold the Scottish Government culpable in all things at all times. Again, it’s selection bias. You totally exclude relevant factors. In order the place the blame according to the dictates of your prejudice you have to pretend that the Scottish Government has total control. Only if it has total control can it be totally culpable. So, the fact that it is a devolved administration working under disabling restriction and subject in a swathe of areas to the dictates and impositions of a famously incompetent British political elite is, shall we say, inconvenient to your purpose. So you pretend it isn’t part of the political and administrative reality. In effect, you create a fantasy Scotland with a fantasy government that can be as bad and as guilty as you need it to be.

      Take one massively important factor as an example of the sort of thing you don’t allow in your malign fantasy. It is possible – even probable – that the Scottish Government would have ordered lockdown two weeks or more earlier than it did were it not for the fact that the British Treasury would not release the necessary funds until the British government decides to act. The truth of all this will come out in due course, I’m sure. But I strongly suspect we’ll find that approaches to the British Treasury were made – perhaps as early as February – on behalf of the Scottish Government, and they were rebuffed. One of the most plangent criticisms of Nicola Sturgeon is that she declines to make use of such information for political purposes. If it is the case that Boris Johnson forced Nicola Sturgeon to wait two weeks or more before taking the action she wanted then this will be a major scandal. And rightly so. Lives are involved.

      But you take no account of this. You have decided that the Scottish Government must be totally culpable in all things, so you build a fantasy in which this is so.

      The Nike conference is a case in point. We now know that it was not ‘ground zero’ for coronavirus in Scotland. It was never likely that it was. But those driven by hatred of Scotland and/or Nicola Sturgeon and/or the SNP and or whatever worked very hard at building a fantasy in which it was. This fantasy was then sold the the public as reality by the British media. The actual reality is that coronavirus outbreaks occurred at a number of geographical locations in Scotland few if any of which had any connection with the Nike conference. The common factor in these outbreaks was travellers from various European countries entering the UK through airports with no meaningful precautions.

      But the Scottish Government has no control over airports. The Scottish Government has no control over Scotland’s borders, never mind the UK’s borders. So overseas arrivals had to be discounted as a factor. It was just too difficult to incorporate into your kind of fantasy the pretence that the Scottish Government controlled airports and/or borders. Airports and borders therefore had to be excluded completely from the fantasy Scotland you and other bigots carry around in your heads. The Nike conference better suited your purpose.

      None of this will make the slightest impression on you, of course. That’s what being a bigot means.

      Like

  8. The listing of President Sturgeon’s foibles is a complete waste of time. She is UNTOUCHABLE. It is funny to hear somebody say the Scottish economy will bounce back smartly. What to the disaster it was prior to the pandemic?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. You may want to check the validity of this. If accurate why are we waiting?

    From another post: Dave Liewald shared a post.
    Admin · 31 mins
    Image may contain: text that says ‘Grouse Beater @Grouse_Beater

    The Act of Union Under paragraph 2(1)(a) the Prerogative is expressly declared *not to be reserved*. follows, nothing exists in law to prevent the Scottish Government exercising their Prerogative powers to revoke the Articles of Union and hence the Act of Union! 8:35 PM Jun 13, 2020 Twitter Web App’
    Stand Up For ScotlandLike Page
    June 14 at 8:16 AM

    https://www.abdn.ac.uk/…/article-50-the-articles-of-union-…/

    Like

    1. Was this ever in doubt? Like I’ve always said – it’s for the Scottish Parliament to act and the lawyers to tidy up afterwards. That article, however, does not help – other than in that in illustrates the dangers implicit in gambling Scotland’s future on the eventual outcome of protracted lawyerly argumentation. The conclusion of that article is based on the proposition that the UK Supreme Court would find in favour of the British government in the Article 50 appeal. The court did not so find. (https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/article-50-brexit-appeal.html)

      The link in that comment is wrong. Here is the correct link – https://www.abdn.ac.uk/law/blog/article-50-the-articles-of-union-and-using-the-royal-prerogative-to-end-the-union-between-scotland-and-england/

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.