One person says:
November 22, 2020 at 3:49 am
Unfortunately, I am not convinced that the SNP will vote with another leader.
If she’s still around, she’ll be a lame duck leader (no change then), but she’ll have compromised both sides of the division. Those who cannot support them will be outraged when asked to compromise their moral principles in support of a rogue leadership and a runaway faction, and those who advocate Indy supporters who end the cause Follow no matter what in their hearts they know they are being betrayed and blackmailed into an endorsement for a lopsided regime. My God, what a great start to any campaign.
They are also fools to believe that Sturgeon “will get away with it”. Just remember, Kirsty Wark and Sarah Smith cackle like witches at the mere opportunity to discredit Alex Salmond, and yet there is little murmur in the press about the mess of sturgeons and the virtually inevitable conclusion that they are up to it to the neck is. It is not difficult to calculate. The May election will be a reckoning for the SNP, Sturgeon will take the Indy thing back to pre-devolution times, and she will have set Westminster a powerful precedent for Westminster to veto Scottish democracy, and so is Scotland’s constitutional sovereignty at great risk.
Sturgeon has to resign, but in my view it would be a much stronger outcome for Scotland to be indicted and removed, guilty of having taken the role of sovereign to override the democratic will of the sovereign Scottish people. She should have been kicked out in 2016, but better late than never.
And for the switherers who can’t decide, let me tell you this. Scotland’s constitutional sovereignty is practically impregnable. Yes, virtual impregnable, not absolute. It has an existential weakness and that lies in the perceived relinquishment of this sovereignty by the sovereign or the sovereign people themselves.
That opens up a real can of philosophical questions about sovereignty, and I’ll explain why. If a king or queen is monarch by divine appointment, if they abdicate the throne as soon as they abdicate, sovereignty is taken from their shoulders and moves to the next in line for the throne. It is the office of the monarch that is sovereign, not the person.
You all know the refrain “The king is dead, long live the king”. This refers to the immediate transfer of sovereignty to his heir. You cannot destroy sovereignty. You can conquer it and become sovereign, but it cannot be destroyed.
How easy and logical it is when you have only one sovereign to worry about. Here in Scotland it’s a degree or two more complicated because since 1320 and recognized since 1328, every person born as a Scot has been given birthright sovereignty.
Our royal line is not hereditary. Our sovereignty is not passed from one person to his or her heir. Scottish sovereignty is spontaneously renewed through the creation of a newborn Scottish child.
Which raises a massive question for us about the constitutional implications of a sovereign people advocating a democratic government determined to abdicate Scottish sovereignty. It’s so illogical that Mr. Spock lies awake at night on Star Trek. It is simply stupid.
I’ll take a leap and try to simplify the answer to this massive question … because Scotland’s sovereign birthright is inviolable. It cannot be removed. Every Scot is sovereign from birth. So we’re good, aren’t we? Not correct.
It puts us in the same position as Scotland after 1320, but before 1328. (It’s not really fun and rolls around with it for now) – we Scots could be clearly sovereign by law. but we are not internationally recognized as sovereign. And in this unfortunate scenario, a native Scottish government for independence which doesn’t even respect the constitutional sovereignty of one’s own nation will be the kiss of death for Scotland’s aspirations for international recognition and thus independence. How can we expect EVERY nation to recognize Scotland if our government in Edinburgh does not?
It is NOT in the power of Westminster to replace Scotland’s constitutional sovereignty. Nor is it Holyrood’s gift to influence Scotland’s constitutional sovereignty. What we do have, however, is a MYTH surrounding the Convention of Parliamentary Sovereignty of Westminster and a “Scottish” government that seems determined that the MYTH should remain the ascending and accepted convention on legitimate constitutional reality.
Regardless, Sturgeon’s really terrible and incompetent leadership, put aside all the corruption, secrecy and nepotism that is consuming the soul of the SNP … they deny the constitutional sovereignty of Scotland and that then makes me totally ineligible.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the SNP has gotten itself into an indescribable mess, but it’s amazing
incapable constitutional failure that buries and deeply buries my voice because it makes Holyrood illegitimate and unqualified to run Scotland like any lord or lady given a seat in the House of Lords.
No, that doesn’t make me a Tory, Labor Lib Dem, or even a unionist or anti-SNP. What it does is to leave me completely dejected because NONE of these voting options will do anything to advance the cause of international recognition and sovereign independence of Scotland. So I would like a plague for ALL of their homes.
Scotland NEEDs its pipes flushed with CONSTITUTIONAL Drain Cleaner and nothing really crucial can happen until it’s done.