An unsettled issue

Yet again, some dreadful nonsense from Iain Macwhirter.

There’s the woefully naive and deluded idea that the British state does not resort to violent coercion as an instrument of policy. Jealous Britannia’s imperial robes are stained with the blood of millions. There is barely a corner of the world which hasn’t felt the stamp of the British state’s militaristic heel. The days of empire may be long past. But the bloody consequences of imperialist meddling and bullying echo down the decades. British rule may have ended. But the divisions engineered to facilitate that rule still remain.

And the arrogant, imperious exceptionalism of the British ruling elite is undiminished. Indeed, it is finding a vigorous and ever more extreme expression in a revived British nationalist ideology. The notion that the British state might shrink from emulating Madrid’s fascistic repression in Catalunya would be amusingly quaint, were it not for the serious implications for Scotland.

Then there’s the at least equally misguided assertion that the Yes campaign agreed the constitutional issue had been resolved by the 2014 vote. Once more we find Iain Macwhirter recounting the view of Scotland’s politics as seen through the distorting lens of the British media. Nobody in the independence movement “agreed” any such thing. And no adequately informed commentator would ever have supposed that they had.

The drivel about a ‘once in a generation’ vote was always part of the British nationalist narrative – and nothing more. No advocate of independence could possibly allow that the people’s right of self-determination might be limited or constrained on the whim of a mere politician. Even a politician of Alex Salmond’s stature. Everybody in the Yes movement knew perfectly well that Salmond had expressed a personal opinion. Only the British state’s propaganda machine maintained that he had made this limitation part of the Edinburgh Agreement post hoc and by personal fiat.

There was always going to be another referendum. Always! It could not be otherwise. The matter could not possibly be settled by a No vote won on a totally false prospectus.

Which brings us to Iain Macwhirter’s third fallacy. His assertion that the Brexit referendum “unexpectedly reopened” the issue of independence is complete drivel. The issue was not closed. Demand for a new vote on independence started almost immediately in the wake of the 2014 referendum. This demand had been building for more than a year before the EU referendum. The outcome of that referendum could not possibly have been the cause of something that preceded it by many months.

Bad as the whole fiasco is, Brexit is not the reason for having a new independence referendum. Those reasons are as old as the detested Union. Brexit is merely the context in which the campaign to bring Scotland’s government home is proceeding. At most, it can be said to have made this cause more urgent.

As increasing numbers of people are realising, a Yes vote must be secured before the British government has a chance to impose a new constitutional arrangement on Scotland. An arrangement which, if it does not reimpose direct rule, will certainly put Scotland in a position akin to that of Caltalunya. An arrangement which will only aggravate constitutional conflict; intensify demands that Scotland’s right of self-determination be respected; and, notwithstanding Mr Macwhirter’s assurances, lead to repression by the British state of Scotland’s democracy indistinguishable from what is happening in Catalunya right now.

If you find these articles interesting, please consider a small donation.
All monies received are used in furtherance of the campaign
to restore Scotland’s rightful constitutional status.


About Peter A Bell

Thinker. Listener. Talker. Reader. Writer. No attitude immutable. No conclusion final. No opinion humble. Lifelong campaigner for the restoration of Scotland's independence.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to An unsettled issue

  1. daibhidhdeux says:

    Mr McWhirter: The pale brown stain of an apolgetic fart on the Y Fronts of the uber BritNat attempt at a unitary pair of lebensraum English Jockey Shorts apologising to his Mummy whilst whimpering.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. geacher says:

    From ScotGov: Under the heading “Executive Summary”, seek out paragraph 4.
    “Once in a generation” a personal opinion by Salmond? I think not.


    • Peter A Bell says:

      That document refers to a “once in a generation opportunity“, not a “once in a generation event“. The sane people will know the difference.

      Nor is that document part of any official agreement. If you want to keep banging on about this without looking quite such a demented obsessive, show us where this “once in a generation” thing appears in the Edinburgh Agreement or any of the legislation governing the conduct of the referendum.

      Better still, seek counselling.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Geacher says:

        Opportunity: “a time or set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something.”
        Sane, you say?


      • Peter A Bell says:

        Show us where your “once in a generation” nonsense forms any part of any agreement or act of parliament relating to the first referendum.

        I accept that, as a British Nationalist fanatic, you find democracy both incomprehensible and detestable. You shall not succeed in your antidemocratic campaign. Democracy shall persist.


      • Geacher says:

        the only anti-democratic person on here is you and your ilk. We had a referendum in which our country’s people made perfectly clear that we wanted to stay in the Union. if you are saying that the “once in a generation” quote is nonsense, why then is it in the White Paper On Independence? Is there other nonsense on there also? Oh wait, I look at Salmond’s projection for oil income for 2016-2017….maybe you are on to something here……


  3. Aikenheed says:

    Excellent dissection of McW oh so shallow dribbling.
    Not to overlook the “Scotland has no separate language or culture comment. Has he been talking to G Roberts on?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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