6 Comments
Sep 7Liked by Leah Gunn Barrett

Were John Swinney and the rest of them, serious in their 'long claimed/inferred intent' to free Scotland, they would immediately enact anything that would assist in freeing Scotland, from underfoot the Foreign English Colonialist Dictator's Jackboot.

That they have not done so (and probably will not) is because their preference is to hold onto 'Parliamentary Sovereignty', either by continued imprisonment of Devolution and continuance of Scotland being Colonised and subsumed by England.

Or

if they're actually forced into participating (on the back of the research/hard work done by other people, outwith politics), but still try to hold onto Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Attempting to deny the right of We Sovereign Scots, to have restored to us, our Rightful, Sovereignty and Independence, in our Independent Nation of Scotland,

is NOT a good look for any Party, but especially so for the supposed

'Party of/for Scottish Independence'.

Like all the vacuous words (translated means LIES) used by the WM/English Parties, which all proved devoid of anything that would improve the lives of ordinary people,

the SNP have taken to using the same misleading/tactics of pretence/obfuscation/blurring of truth.

Front and Centre ...

Urgent and Essential ...

and

whatever other deceptive soundbites, anything but, 'HOW' they intend to Reclaim and Restore Scottish Independence.

Are they hoping for an 'early Election', in the hope that, as Scots have seen a little of the deceit/lies/etc of the pretendy 'labour' Party, they would choose to vote to return the SNP to power?!

I will NEVER vote for any English Party, or one which does not have stated clearly in their Manifestos, that they will

Take the Oath to the Sovereign People of Scotland AND NO OTHER

NOT take seat/s in Westminster, England

NOT take their seats in Holyrood (the English/WM-Labour construct).

Instead, be Sworn in and take their seats outwith Holyrood, in an alternative Scottish set-up, where our Scottish Parliament can and will be RECONVENED.

Perhaps we should ensure they Swear the above on Oath, prior to the Election, so that, any backtracking, will see them being held accountable.

We've gone past the time where we're able to trust politicians who've led us to dead-end after dead-end.

Shame on we, who would allow that to continue.

It's not what they say/claim

It's what they do, that counts.

Thus far, ten years after the Scottish Referendum (which was run/controlled/interfered with by WM England),

the SNP are proposing to repeat the affront and again ignore the demands/wishes of the majority of Scots

to ASK 'permission' of the Foreign English Colonialist Dictator ...

If they do affront we Scots in such a shameful, gutless, embarrassing way, that is how they'll be remembered!

That will be their legacy of failing Scotland and WE Sovereign Scots.

Again,

It's not what politicians say,

It's what politicians do that counts!

We deserve more 'than the best of a rancid, sell-out bunch'!

Expand full comment

Can you go into more detail on what you're asking for? Direct democracy means referendums on specific issues. But what issues?

Issues chosen by a majority of MSPs? Then it'll only be issue that the government thinks it can win.

Or triggered by a petition surpassing a certain number of names? In which case how would the referendum be worded and would it be binding?

Or as a confirmatory step for a bill to become law, perhaps triggered by 20% of MSPs? That would be a regulatory check on power.

Expand full comment
author

See Henry Fergusons’s reply below.

Expand full comment

I think the underlying idea here is sensible, and if you summarised your ideas in one well-written article of less than 1000 words, it would further your cause.

I might have a go at such an article on my blog at some point.

Expand full comment
author

Go for it. Happy to look at it and share. Wecollect.scot would be a very good resource for you.

Expand full comment
Sep 7Liked by Leah Gunn Barrett

I suggest you check out my website wecollect.scot for complete information on DD.

The Swiss system, which I know well (I’ve lived here for 50 years), works based on a preliminary process of gathering sufficient signatures to « launch » either an initiative or referendum. 2% and 1% respectively of the electorate. Within 18 months or 100 days respectively. Once that’s been done, there MUST be a national vote. No interference from MPs / Parliament.

On Initiatives, the issue must be constitutional and is chosen by every man and his dog. It’s called « agenda-setting” and addresses issues the Government is ignoring or has overlooked.

On Referendums, there are two kinds - Mandatory & Optional and for both, AFTER Government / Parliament has approved a Bill, it automatically becomes “subject to referendum” and entry into effect as a Law is suspended until expiry of the 100 day time limit without opposition through the signature-gathering process.

This process means the entire legislative process is subject to popular control and more or less eliminates Government proposals for what we call Bad Law - proposals which, from the outset, don’t enjoy popular support. Like, say, the GRR, Hate or VWJR Bills in Scotland.

The tasks of each participant are therefore very clear - Parliament prepares and approves legislation and the People either decide to accept or 1% of the electorate decide to object and sign up within 100 days and then there must be a Referendum.

Expensive & Time-Consuming ? Sure it is, but think how much money Holyrood costs not to speak of the useless going round in circles…

…why not spend a bit of time and money listening to the People as well ?

Expand full comment