It is the contention of this website that unionists have it within their power to pole-axe the Spouting Nonsense Party (and their creatures) at any time of their choosing, through the simple expedient of:
The UK Government holding a referendum, in Scotland, . . . with the question to be put being: “Should the devolved Scottish institutions have fiscal independence from the United Kingdom Treasury?“.
Please note that this stratagem does not state that HM Government should “fly a kite”, or “consult” on this matter, let alone seek “permission” from the SNP, or create a veto on this, then hand it to the Scottish Parliament, and ask them whether or not they’d like to use it.
Instead, it states that the UK Govt should hold such a vote.
To anyone who thinks that they can’t / shouldn’t / don’t have the right to do this, the answer is clear: Yes they can . . . because this is a reserved matter. Indeed, they are the only ones who do have such power and authority. All decisions as to whether devolution is to be created, continued, curtailed, expanded, extended, or abolished, are down to Westminster.
The first thing to do with any seemingly-intractible problem is to break it down into its constituent parts.
To anyone who is not convinced that this is the way forward, I invite them to consider which way the SNP would urge its supporters to vote when asked this question.
If they urge a “No” vote [or “abstain” or “boycott”], or refuse to pronounce upon the matter – then what possible excuse can they give for that, other than a tacit acceptance that “independence” is simply not affordable ?
Some people would assume that substantial fiscal independence is something which the Disciples of Divisiveness can hardly object to, as their philosophical position would require them to urge a “Yes” vote in the plebiscite which is here proposed – on principle.
However, calling such a referendum would force the separatists away from the abstraction of “principle”, and towards having to address the concrete reality of what they were now urging upon people.
Imagine them being required to come down from their castles in the sky, into television studios, in which they felt compelled by the logic of their own “principles” to argue that people should vote “Yes”, and that, while this would inevitably make those same people poorer, it was all worth it, as a step along the path to full independence.
This is reminiscent of those continental politicians who essentially said: The Euro is, it’s true, a great financial burden; but it’s worth it, on the path towards greater “Europe”. It would have been interesting to have seen British fans of the Euro trying that line on any section of the British public. But now there is the opportunity to force the Disciples of Division on these islands into a very similar position.
They might spend half of their energies on irrelevancies – such as moaning about how they’d like to be talking about different (and more nebulous) issues than cold, hard cash. Their opponents can keep coming back to the fact that those aren’t on the table, and aren’t what the people will be voting on.
Every time that their response is that they’d rather be talking about re-playing the full-blown independence vote, another step has been taken closer to the day when the “Devo-Max” referendum is going to take place, on a date which by then will have been fixed. When they spend the next again day continuing to go on about what they’d rather see instead, well that’s another day closer to the vote which is going to take place, and yet they still haven’t told the people which way they think they should be voting.
They will probably spend the other half of their time ripping each others’ gizzards out, arguing over what is the best position or tack to take – given that all of their options are sub-optimal (from their own point of view).
What could the SNP’s objections to holding such a referendum be ? – albeit one which is limited to only “Devo-Max”, i.e. only going halfway to their ultimate goal. That they believe that all related matters should be considered in the round, the rough with the smooth ?
What “rough” ? Is it not their contention that “independence” is all “smooth”, i.e. simply wonderful in every way ? If they argue that all of its pros & cons, advantages & disadvantages should be considered as a whole, . . . well, what “cons” and “disadvantages” are they now admitting to ?
Another way of testing this idea is to ask how you would define the pro-UK side in such a referendum as having “lost” it.
If the result is a “No” [with or without a large portion of the separatists sitting on their hands, in a huff] . . . then: a) the Scottish people will have voted against “independence” twice in a row; and b) the populace will clearly have shown that they recognise the unaffordability of independence.
Where will the SNP go from there ??
If, however, the result is a “Yes”, . . . then this is not the same as if it had been “Yes” in 2014.
- The Union would still be intact.
- There would be no mandate for full independence.
- Most importantly, the SNP would then be the administration which would have to implement the cuts in public payouts and services, down to £500 for every £600 which it had been previously; . . . a programme of cuts which they had just urged upon the people, whilst all of their unionist opponents had been urging them against such a course of action.
So, what would you do, if you were in Nicola Sturgeon’s shoes, and you were faced with the fait accompli of a referendum on “fiscal” independence ?
How can it be that this proposal produces such a lose/lose outcome from the SNP’s perspective, and such a win/win one from the viewpoint of unionists?
Here’s how:
The issues in the overall independence debate fall into two main groups:
“Head” issues & “Heart” issues.
If, as a thought-experiment, we asked ourselves “what would be the worst thing we could do vis-a-vis the Union ?” – the answer would be to allow the Nats all the running in the debate, where only “Heart” issues were mentioned (e.g. flags, football, William Wallace, “rise, and be a nation again”, etc.), and if it was made clear that Scots didn’t have to worry at all about the finances of it, say because the UK Government had stated that it would maintain the current level of funding for the next 50 years, no matter which way people voted.
All “Heart” issues = something which the SNP can only dream of.
This is why the actual proposal is the complete and diametric opposite of that situation, i.e.
All “Head” issues = a nightmare for the SNP.
The UK Government and Parliament have the power to decide on which ground to fight:
a) because they outrank those institutions which they have devolved, &
b) more specifically, because these are reserved matters.
It makes no sense for those at Westminster to ignore these advantages which they have, and not to make use of them. The time has come to stop playing the SNP’s game, on their terms. Asking questions along the lines of “another full independence referendum has been demanded; are we going to agree to that or not ?” is continuing to do precisely that, in following their agenda.
Those opposed to the SNP should not expend energy haranguing them about them potentially seeking a “Section 30” order too soon (re the pandemic, or anything else). The nationalists should be allowed to issue that request as soon as they like. When it comes, the request for a “Section 30” order should be immediately, formally, refused – along the lines of “No, of course not; you only had one 5 minutes ago”. . . and also that the precise format of vote and question to be asked (which are now being demanded) have already been addressed, and answered.
If some people argue that a substantial body of opinion [however defined: 40% of the population, 30%, 10% ?] wanting there to be another independence referendum means that therefore there should be another independence referendum, then conceding this argument means agreeing in principle to a “neverendum”, because such a condition is likely to exist after every Scottish election.
Therefore, it is appropriate to ask a different question (rather than just repeating the exact same poll, just because the loser didn’t like the result) – a question which does address issues such as: What kind of devolution do the electorate want ?, given that they have already rejected full independence; Do they really want “Devo-Max”/”Full Fiscal Autonomy”, (which is what the proposed vote would be offering them), given what it actually entails in reality ?
So, the refusal of the Section 30 order should straight after be followed by an announcement of the referendum which Westminster will be proceeding with, publishing the referendum bill and its timetable, as well as the date of the referendum, e.g. in September 2022, or in Spring 2023.
This should be as soon as practicable after the effective end of the pandemic, in order to allow sufficient time following the referendum, so that (in the event of a “Yes” vote) the SNP administration has to implement the outcome of their actions, especially as one would probably have to wait until the April 6th following, at the earliest, before the result came into effect.
You don’t want there to be more Holyrood elections until some time after the Nats have been forced into trying (and failing) to “feed the five thousand” – or, to put it another way, into trying to prove that their oil & gas revenues + other revenues are enough to pay for health & education & benefits & social care & everything else – when they’re not.
This could all be prepared now – with the appropriate bills being drafted; that is to say, one bill to put the new referendum onto the statute book asap, and another draft bill, setting out what would happen under fiscal independence. The latter would never be brought before Parliament, except in the event of a “Yes” vote. It should, however, be published as soon as it could be, in order to inform the public as to exactly what fiscal independence means in practice.
[Care should be taken to ensure that, in the draft bill, revenues from, for example, North Sea oil & gas are fully allocated to the Scottish Government – if necessary by rounding slightly up – to prevent any possible claim that under full independence there would be “more”, because the “full” amount due would then be received. Those fighting the unionist corner should be on very solid ground in stating that, following any “Yes” vote, the Scottish Government would already have all of the income they possibly could have.]
Situations which are analogous to a Section 30 order request from the Scottish Parliament (seeking permission to be allowed to hold a referendum) would also need to be covered. For example, if Holyrood were instead to start trying to organise their own referendum, then this should be stamped on through the courts as being clearly ultra vires on a reserved matter [as proven by what happened as a precedent in the run-up to the 2014 vote, amongst other things], and simultaneously announce the referendum which is going to take place.
The announcement of the referendum could make reference to the SNP claiming that their results in May 2021 had given them a new mandate, and that the people had thereby indicated that they wished further steps to be taken towards independence. The SNP are always going on about how much better life will be for Scots when they are divorced from British institutions. “Well, now’s their chance to prove this”, the P.M. could goad – without going the whole hog irreversibly.
This plebiscite would take the sting out of accusations that the UK Govt was just saying “No, No, No”. It would instead be saying that we have responded to the recent Scottish Parliamentary elections, and that we are offering a choice by referendum.
Given the subsidies paid under the current system from the UK Exchequer to Scotland, the attitude of UK taxpayers (and their representatives) to those who have voted for the SNP (or its stooges), or who have told opinion pollsters that there should be another referendum, or that they would vote “Yes” if one were to take place, should be: “It’s time to put our money where your mouth is”, i.e. “Do you really want to give up what you’re already getting ?”.
When referring to the subject of the proposed referendum, all those who support the Union, should make sure that they refer to “fiscal independence – which, of course, is an essential and necessary part of the concept of ‘independence’ as a whole”. Put another way, it could be called the “necessary first step” – on the basis that if the people of Scotland did, at some future point, wish to vote for full independence, then there are various aspects to this. Fiscal independence, is the most important aspect (in deciding whether it is desirable/feasible/affordable). It is at the very core of the concept of a nation “standing on its own feet”. If you’re not willing to put your toe in the water, then you’re not going to want to go fully in, are you ?
In expounding what fiscal independence actually means, one could adapt the lyrics at the end of The Proclaimers’ song “Letter from America”, as in:
Barnet Formula, no more.
Subsidies (from the rest of the UK), no more.
Receiving £6 for every £5 those in England get, no more.
Additional (recently announced) “British” spending, no more.
Free personal care, no more
Free prescriptions, no more.
[ because it wasn’t “free” in the first place, just paid for by someone else. ]
i.e. “Be careful what you wish for.”
The whole underlying strategy of the “defective collective” of a) the Scottish Green-behind-the gills Party, b) Alex Salmond’s ALBAt-useless Party, & c) the Spouting Nonsense Party is to: i) talk about “Heart” issues, such as romantic notions of nationhood; ii) squeak a majority “Yes” vote, even if only 50.01 % of those voting, based on that; then iii) assert that this can’t possibly be challenged, or re-run, as it is now the settled will of the Scottish people – and any financial cost now to be borne by that same Scottish electorate is a necessary part of the process, or unforseen, or the fault of the British Government, or irrelevant (as the decision has already been taken).
Part of their attempt at implementing this strategy is through pure and unalloyed assertion, as in, for example: We have asserted that, after Independence, Scotland would continue to use Sterling just as it does now; therefore, after Independence, Scotland will continue to use Sterling just as it does now. It’s as if “non sequiter” is their middle name.
No-one ever seems to point out that, on questions such as the currency, there is no need to look in a crystal ball, as we can read the book – i.e. it has already happened before. What currency options did the Irish Free State / Republic of Ireland have ? Well, those are the same options which an “independent” Scotland would have [before considering any obligation to join the Euro].
Was a unitary Post Office, or pensions system, or anything else, maintained between the UK and Eire after “independence” ? No. So why would anyone believe for a second the SNP’s blandishments that it’ll be alright, because nothing much will change? What on Earth would be the point of “independence”, other than to change everything ?
On the subject of the currency, no-one ever seems to point out that the separatists’ confusion during the 2014 referendum debate appeared to stem from their inability to understand the different tenses within the English language, viz: The Pound Sterling IS “just as much Scotland’s as it is England’s” because Scotland IS in an equal Union with the other parts of the UK. If the nats get their way, in the future, then Scotland WILL have left Sterling behind, because they WILL have left the Union behind.
So, in a nutshell, the nationalists’ stategy is to talk a lot about “Heart” issues; get the decision they want; then let the Scottish people realise what a “Head”-ache it all is, once it’s too late for them to back out of it.
Therefore, the whole thrust of those who support the Union should be to do the precise opposite, and to bring all of the “Head” issues to the fore, and to keep them there.
Proceeding with the process which is being outlined herein will help to “cauterise the wound”, rather than leaving an open sore, to fester more and more. The time has come to call the SNP’S bluff. They are always going on about how much better off Scotland would be without being entangled with the rest of the UK; well now’s their chance to make that case – why it would be better for Scots to no longer be subsidised by English taxpayers.
This strategy could be applied to any area with a significant independence movement, if it is a net recipient of funds from the centre – but not if it is a “breadwinning” area, such as, perhaps, Catalonia. This latter point is analogous to the failure of “Project Fear” during the Brexit debate. The UK was, throughout her membership, the second biggest contributor to the whole edifice. So, arguing that we couldn’t leave because we couldn’t afford to leave wasn’t going to work. Similarly, if the debate were over (to take a theoretical example) London & the South East seceding from the rest of the UK, then the strategy contained herein wouldn’t work, because they are the ones paying for everyone else. Scotland is in the opposite position, financially; this is why this strategy would work in the case of Scotland.
If there are technical issues, such as a requirement to “consult” within the current devolution laws, then Westminster politicians can change the law; They could, for example, pass a short “Devolution Clarification Act” to make clear to everybody, including the Supreme Court, that what they decide goes, with regard to reserved matters. How could anyone possibly object to such a measure?, when it has no effect on devolution, but only removes any possible ambiguity regarding reserved matters, which are undoubtedly the preserve of Westminster anyway.
Any attempt by the separatists to frustrate the holding of such a referendum as set out here – whether politically, by for example telling everybody to “boycott” it – or legally, by a challenge in the Supreme Court – would be an (at least) de facto concession on their part that “independence” is not affordable for the people of Scotland. This applies whether or not they are successful in their attempts to frustrate it. Thus, this is a worthwhile exercise, even if they do ultimately succeed in preventing it from happening, as what would that tell everyone about their previous assertions that every aspect of independence from the rest of the UK was brilliant in every way ?
“By their deeds shall ye know them.”
It would also show that they were “feart”, or running scared of letting the Scottish electorate decide whether or not to give up the subsidies and transfers, which those who support Devo-Max OR independence want them to.
It is sometimes useful to take actions, if for no other reason than to flush people out into revealing what they really believe. One example was when the LibDems were posturing as people who believed in holding an in/out referendum on the EU. Certain votes on the issue were held, at a time when those who wanted such a referendum were almost bound to fail; but they were worthwhile even at the time, as they exposed the LibDems as abstaining in the Commons, when they were sure that others were going to defeat the motion anyway – but as having to vote in the Lords against what they had previously said they would support, because they weren’t so sure that it wouldn’t get through there.
In essence, the SNP would have a perfect riposte to this proposal (from their point of view) if what they have been saying for the last nine decades had been true, namely that independence would be wholly advantageous to the people of Scotland in every way. But because it isn’t true, they’ll have no satisfactory answer. And them being seen to have no satisfactory answer [and perhaps not even being able to agree on a coherent answer] will demonstrate more forcefully than ever that it is not true, for all to see.
Which way would the referendum proposed herein flush the nationalists?
It would seem that they would only have 3 options, [not counting the 4th possibilty, which is that they get caught in the headlights / fall out with each other / implode]:
1) Maximum Mega Mendacity Mode, viz: Say “Vote Yes, and take the step towards independence which is on offer, because you won’t be any worse off”, i.e. proffer endless and ever more obvious falsehoods, which can be knocked down by everyone who isn’t one of their own zealots, including anyone who is even barely numerate, or who is able to parse the statement that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland to the tune of £10 billion per annum.
2) Say what they really think: “Vote Yes, because even though you’ll be worse off – we want to have nothing to do with the English so much that any form of detachment from them is an inherently good thing.”.
3) Every other option open to them would be an effective admission that “independence” is not affordable – whether that be by saying: “Vote No”, “Abstain”, or “Boycott”, or refusing to opine upon the matter, or bringing legal challenges to it.
They have heretofore endlessly asserted [because mere “assertion” is all they’ve got] that every aspect of “independence” would be simply sublime in every way. So, what possible reason could they have for not seizing upon the “three quarters of a loaf” which is now on offer, by urging people to vote “Yes” ? . . . as to fail to seize the opportunity would be to adopt option 3.
But if they did urge people to vote “Yes”, then that would either be under option 1, which would be an absurd position to try to maintain, easily found out; or under option 2, which would expose the true nature of their Anglophobia, which they don’t want to do, not least because revealing that as their true motivation is not going to lead a majority of Scots to vote for full independence.
The current First Minister acts more like an autocratic “Emperor” with each day that passes. I submit that the proposal contained herein is the best, if not only, way to expose the non-existence of her “new clothes”.
If an argument is put forward that you can’t proceed in the manner suggested here . . . because of “knock-on consequences”, well the track-record on devolution to date has already established what the position is.
Just as with the situation which led to students from the rest of the UK having to pay tuition fees for higher education in Scotland, but students from Scotland or from other EU member states not having to pay them – a matter is either reserved or it is not, in which case it is devolved. This determines which Government and Parliament are the relevant ones to take the appropriate decisions, and everyone else has to deal with the consequences.
If necessary, the whole ballot could be run by post.
This could all be prepared for now, so that the pro-Union side are at least ready to activate it, or to beat the Nats over the head with it, if and when necessary.
It is submitted that the people ultimately making the decision can be brought back to the brass tacks of it (i.e. financially), before they have crossed the rubicon (of approving “independence”). This may be through exposition, during the debate in the run-up to the referendum proposed here, or through experience after it, in the event of a “Yes” vote.
It is not merely a matter of contemplating whether or not Westminster should give Scotland “Full Fiscal Autonomy”. Doing that would lead either to saying “Yes” and changing the devolution settlement by Act of Parliament, or saying “No” and putting the idea back on the shelf, never to be spoken of again. It is a matter of offering it to the SNP (and to the people), and asking them “Do you really want this ?” [“This” being an integral part of the separatists’ whole schtick].
If you do, then why do you want to make the people of Scotland poorer ?
If you don’t, then why do you continue to burble-chunter “independence, independence, independence” all day, every day (at the expense of everything else) ?
This proposal means that, instead of just shelving Full Fiscal Autonomy (because it’s a bad idea), it can be brought to the forefront of Scots’ minds that a) it’s not a good idea, & b) it’s an integral part of the separatists’ whole programme.
Does the SNP want this proposal to go through ?
Well, let’s look at the evidence:
If it was in their interests, they would’ve demanded it ages ago (because they always and only seek what is in their own selfish, self-absorbed, self-interest).
No, they’ve never given any indication that this is something that they’ve even considered.
Therefore, they don’t want it.
Ergo, it is precisely what should be done.
Indeed, the evidence is mounting that they like things just as they are.
At the moment, they can continue to simultaneously a) use anything and everything to fuel their grievance-engine, & b) keep offering “freebies”, which are paid for by the UK/English taxpayer.
Don’t do what they want you to do;
Do do what they don’t want you to do !
Simples.
The more that they squeal about how little they like this idea, the more it proves that this is the way forward for those who support the Union.
This is the way to really get their “Nicola”s in a twist.
Lionel Shriver has mused on the topic of Scottish separatism about bursting the bubble of the other side’s “unrealistic romanticism”, by giving them what they claim to want, and seeing how they really like it. But, of course, if one is talking about a full-blown “independence” decision, then by the time that people realise their mistake, it’s all too late.
The current proposal is a more practical means of putting a spanner in the separatists’ works.
If another referendum on full-blown independence does eventually come about, then the pro-Union side will once again have to put their fiscal and economic cases forward then anyway; so, they might as well choose their own ground (and timing) on which to fight, and make those cases in the absence of distracting sentimental arguments.
Once, following this strategy, Schroedinger’s Catastrophe-for-the-SNP has crystallised one way or another – either by them [or the Scottish electorate] de facto admitting that independence is unaffordable – or by them proving . . . that independence is unaffordable – then that is the time to hold something along the lines of a Royal Commission on optimising devolution across the British Islands.
This project could be called “Operation Liger”, because, if you’re going to throw a cat which is that big in among the nationalists’ pigeons, then you might as well name it after the largest of all known extant felines.
To sum up this whole proposal for a better unionist strategy in three words: ” Show, don’t tell. “
BTC: 32jtRjpH3uRupz8es33R7WboNQWpXu1ofK
USDT: 0x4E39AfB0ca1588981f82d22d6321e71BF70066f8
ETH: 0xD32F92DfD7685AEcb430B66498B7092A6661C0C2
BCH: qpy3a0c42ng8z8na2xygmtw7thw3n8pl559zrp754j
USDC: 0x660E88fEbb0435CfFF8a02c18e7e234d64d50275
oneGB.uk 