I believe we already have a group of people who are able and willing to take our liberation to the appropriate authorities in the world and I am also sure that they ( for us) would not find it difficult to be supported and approved particularly by many countries in Europe and also further afield who are aware of our plight.
What strikes me about governance in the UK and governance in Scotland is that Scotland has the Claim of Rights proven by documents reaching back into at least the 17th century (and confirmed in the recent past by the Parliaments in Holyrood and Westminster). This stresses that sovereignty in Scotland belongs to the Scottish People and this has been reflected in the policies of the SNP Gov, particularly in its mitigation of adverse policies of the Westminster Gov.
On the other hand sovereignty at Westminster lies not with the people (as you'd expect in a proper democracy) or the Crown, but with Parliament. The absence of a written Constitution (for England or the UK) means that the ruling party gets to wield sovereignty and, if it has a sufficiently big majority, it has absolute authority to dictate policy as it wishes. In other words the UK only practises democracy when there is a hung parliament or a very narrow majority. At other times it is an "elective dictatorship".
These two differing concepts of sovereignty are utterly fundamental to everyday governance across the UK as the UK Gov, largely in power due to to English voters, foists its sovereign beliefs on all UK residents on all matters. That's why they overturn legitimate laws passed intra vires by Holyrood and interfere in Scottish affairs. If/when we Scots do go after independence, that fundamental difference in concepts of sovereignty will be at the heart of all discussions, whether they are with Westminster or with international bodies such as the United Nations. The Claim of Rights definition is far more likely to be recognised as being "normal democracy" by the likes of the UN (with the possible exception of dictators like Putin) than the Westminster definition, so that's 'Advantage Scotland, to use a tennis metaphor.
I'll be publishing a piece tomorrow written by my friend Henry Ferguson on the March 3rd Swiss Popular Initiative votes. This is Direct Democracy in action and since you are correct that Scotland's constitution is based on popular sovereignty, unlike that of England, this model would animate the Scottish principle of popular sovereignty. At its heart lies the power of the People to launch popular initiatives to change the constitution and referendums to oppose proposed government legislation. There is a federal constitution and 26 regional constitutions, which the People can and do amend.
I believe we already have a group of people who are able and willing to take our liberation to the appropriate authorities in the world and I am also sure that they ( for us) would not find it difficult to be supported and approved particularly by many countries in Europe and also further afield who are aware of our plight.
Sadly so recognisably true
What strikes me about governance in the UK and governance in Scotland is that Scotland has the Claim of Rights proven by documents reaching back into at least the 17th century (and confirmed in the recent past by the Parliaments in Holyrood and Westminster). This stresses that sovereignty in Scotland belongs to the Scottish People and this has been reflected in the policies of the SNP Gov, particularly in its mitigation of adverse policies of the Westminster Gov.
On the other hand sovereignty at Westminster lies not with the people (as you'd expect in a proper democracy) or the Crown, but with Parliament. The absence of a written Constitution (for England or the UK) means that the ruling party gets to wield sovereignty and, if it has a sufficiently big majority, it has absolute authority to dictate policy as it wishes. In other words the UK only practises democracy when there is a hung parliament or a very narrow majority. At other times it is an "elective dictatorship".
These two differing concepts of sovereignty are utterly fundamental to everyday governance across the UK as the UK Gov, largely in power due to to English voters, foists its sovereign beliefs on all UK residents on all matters. That's why they overturn legitimate laws passed intra vires by Holyrood and interfere in Scottish affairs. If/when we Scots do go after independence, that fundamental difference in concepts of sovereignty will be at the heart of all discussions, whether they are with Westminster or with international bodies such as the United Nations. The Claim of Rights definition is far more likely to be recognised as being "normal democracy" by the likes of the UN (with the possible exception of dictators like Putin) than the Westminster definition, so that's 'Advantage Scotland, to use a tennis metaphor.
I'll be publishing a piece tomorrow written by my friend Henry Ferguson on the March 3rd Swiss Popular Initiative votes. This is Direct Democracy in action and since you are correct that Scotland's constitution is based on popular sovereignty, unlike that of England, this model would animate the Scottish principle of popular sovereignty. At its heart lies the power of the People to launch popular initiatives to change the constitution and referendums to oppose proposed government legislation. There is a federal constitution and 26 regional constitutions, which the People can and do amend.
Is there any way that ordinary people could organise a plebiscite on independence?