On 19 September 2023, the Stirling Directive was issued to the Scottish Government. The group responsible for drafting the Directive, accompanied by around one hundred witnesses, delivered copies of the document to both the Scottish Parliament and St Andrew’s House – the former being more symbolic than functional, but no less important for that. As you may have read at the time, delivery of the Directive was far from easy and not a happy experience for any of those involved. The impression gained was of a Parliament that is a preserve of privilege and a Government barricaded against the people.
I fully recognise the need for strict security. But it is the responsibility and duty of those managing our democratic institutions to maintain the vital connection with the people regardless. Instead, they use security concerns as a shield to fend off the people they are supposed to serve. This is not how it should be. Scotland is being failed in this regard as in so many others.
Allow me to briefly recap what the Stirling Directive is. It is an instruction to take specified action issued by the people of Scotland to the Scottish Government in accordance with Scotland’s constitution and law. The significance of the Stirling Directive lies only partly in the specifics of the instruction, which relate to facilitation of the exercise of the right of self-determination inalienably vested in Scotland’s people. More important still is the fact that the issuing of the Stirling Directive formally asserts the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and the primacy in Scotland of our own constitution and law.
We have been conditioned to think of the Scottish constitutional tradition as something quaintly historical and of no relevance in our own times. The new thinking behind the Stirling Directive – as well as other initiatives such as Salvo, Liberation.scot and #ScottishUDI – breaks this conditioning. Research undertaken by Sara Salyers and others has established that the Scottish Constitution, founded on the Claim of Right is extant and applicable and arguably more relevant to a modern democracy than it was to the society in which it was formulated. It is our Constitution!
I have stated elsewhere that sovereign is not just what we are, it is what we do. There is no such thing as passive sovereignty. To be the sovereign people of our nation we must act as the sovereign people of our nation. To be the sovereign people of Scotland is to act in accordance with and defence of Scotland’s legal and constitutional tradition. To act in accordance with a legal and constitutional tradition imported from another nation is to neglect and disrespect one’s own sovereignty. To act in accordance with a legal and constitutional tradition imposed by another nation for the purposes of subjugation, is to betray the principle of popular sovereignty upon which true democracy is founded.
The Scottish Government has belatedly and grudgingly issued a ‘response’ to the Stirling Directive which explicitly states its commitment to betrayal of Scotland’s people.
The reason I put the word ‘response’ in single quotes should be immediately clear. Given the nature of the Stirling Directive, we would rightly have expected that it would warrant a detailed response from the Minister for Independence if not the First Minister. Instead, we get a wee note from a functionary in the complaints department. A dismissive and supercilious and almost contemptuous note which doesn’t even mention the Stirling Directive and relates to nothing that is contained in the Stirling Directive. For example,
I should also explain that the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament are wholly separate legal entities…
Condescension such as this would be discourteous if it was addressed to a primary school class. In this context, it is downright offensive and has all the hallmarks of an attempt to belittle the authors of the Stirling Directive. It is possible, of course, that Simon Elder was not aware that he was addressing a group of politically engaged and aware adults writing on behalf of the sovereign people of Scotland. There is certainly nothing in his ‘response’ to indicate that he has even seen the Stirling Directive far less taken the trouble to familiarise himself with its content.
It is not, in fact, a response to the Stirling Directive at all, but to a complaint submitted by Alex Thorburn on behalf of the Stirling Directive Committee when it became apparent that no response to the Stirling Directive would be forthcoming. The note from Simon Elder is barely distinguishable from being ignored.
This is not just a handful of academics, professionals and activists being given the brush-off by the Scottish Government. Given the nature of the Stirling Directive, it is the sovereign people of Scotland who are treated with casual disdain. Not a single word of the Stirling Directive is referenced. Not a single point is addressed. No part of the instruction is acknowledged. It is a non-response. If it was a parrot, it would be a Norwegian Blue!
Why does this matter? It matters because if Scotland’s independence is ever to be restored then the Scottish Government has to be actively, strenuously working towards that end. It matters because afforded an opportunity to affirm the sovereignty of Scotland’s people and undertake to act in accordance with the Scottish Constitution, the Scottish Government chooses instead to dispatch some minion to tell us how it will be rather than ask us how we wish it to be.
It matters because in ‘response’ to a document couched in the language and sentiment of a nation, the Scottish Government has replied in the language of an obsequiously subordinate colonial administration. Instructed to act on the basis of Scotland’s legal and constitution tradition and the fundamental democratic principles of popular sovereignty and self-determination, the Scottish Government reiterates and reaffirms its intention to submit entirely and cravenly to the English/British concept of parliamentary sovereignty which is anathema to Scotland’s distinctive political culture.
Given the chance to choose between the people of Scotland and the British state, the Scottish Government has opted to renounce the former and prostrate itself before the latter.
As you may be aware, on 10 January 2023, a majority of MSPs backed a motion calling on the UK Government to respect the right of people in Scotland to choose their constitutional future. The First Minister has reaffirmed to the Prime Minister that the Scottish Government continues to seek the transfer of powers from the UK Parliament to enable another lawful referendum, consistent with the judgment of the Supreme Court.
The Scottish Government is committed to enabling a process that allows the people of Scotland to express their views in a legal, constitutional referendum and through that for the majority view to be established fairly and democratically.
With these words, the Scottish Government declares that it does not recognise and shall not respect the sovereignty of Scotland’s people but defers to the sovereignty of the English/British parliament. It declares its contempt for the Scottish Constitution and its acquiescence in the imposition of whatever constitutional settlement the British state deems expedient to its purposes. It declares that it serves not the people of Scotland, but the ruling elites of England-as-Britain.
The Scottish Government’s response to the Stirling Directive is a written confession to treachery.
If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s cause.
Thinker. Listener. Talker. Reader. Writer. No attitude immutable. No conclusion final. No opinion humble. Lifelong campaigner for the restoration of Scotland’s independence. View all posts by Peter A Bell
duncanioMaybe we should try the pitchfork, pike and torch approach the next time we visit the Scottish Parliament.Liked by 5 peopleReply
Robert McAllanduncanio, aye, an’ again mibbaes naw. Jist the mention o’ a twa pronged implement led tae Mark Hirst bein’ pit thru’ the wringer for nae reason ither than ill derived spite!Liked by 3 peopleReply
alanc51How about imposing sanctions on the traitors? Refuse them service in shops, restaurants, pubs, hotels etc, come on business owners do your bit.LikeReply
Spear o’ AnnandaleGiven the treatment we received both at Holyrood when Sara Salyers and Suzanne Henderson delivered the Stirling Directive with over 100 witnesses and at St. Andrew’s House where Colette Walker, Julie McAnulty and I delivered another copy, the response although disappointing is not the least bit surprising.At St. Andrew’s House I was asked “who is the letter from?” I told reception that it’s not a letter, it’s a directive to the Scottish Government and it’s not from me it’s from the People of Scotland. However, that made no difference and like Holyrood we were shepherded to the mailroom at the rear of the building, where I was asked again who the letter was from. After repeating my response, we were assured that it would be taken directly to the office of the Permanent Secretary (the highest ranked civil servant in Scotland).4 weeks passed and with no acknowledgement from either Holyrood or St. Andrew’s House, I sent a letter to the FM’s Private Office asking when I could expect an acknowledgement. The response to my letter was shocking because despite all the witnesses they said that it had not been received at Holyrood, so I assumed the same had happened at St. Andrew’s House. I then sent an an email to the FM’s Private Office and to the Office of the Permanent Secretary, who is responsible for the service provided to the FM, attaching a copy of the Stirling Directive and reminding them that the time to respond (22 December) was running out.As you can see from the letter above, the response to me, and therefore to the People of Scotland, is totally insulting and does not answer anything within the Directive. For my small part, I’m not that bothered about the perfunctory and dismissive response – I’m used to that! However, I do care about how the sovereign people of Scotland have been treated from the beginning. The oft-parroted phrase “The People of Scotland are Sovereign” clearly means nothing to the current Scottish Government and is just a form of words to be taken down from a shelf, dusted off and once iterated, is quickly put back on that shelf in case anyone asks then what it actually means.So, it is now up to the Stirling Directive Committee to decide how to respond and on any subsequent actions that may need to be taken.Liked by 10 peopleReply
yesindyref2Thanks for the clarification, but you have to wait until your ultimatum date has expired – the 22nd December. There is also no need for them to acknowledge receipt at any stage.It’s the same as if your business is owed money and after reminders and a final written reminder, you send a final notice giving them 7 days to pay or face court action. There is no need for them to acknowledge receipt of any of your letters – just to pay up in 7 days or face court. I have in the distant past – successfully – had to do just that thing, having checked with the Clerk at my local Sherriff’s Court as to the process to follow for a small claim. I said 7 days but gave them 10 days in case they just wanted to mess me around and waste a £28 court fee – indeed they did as on the 10th day I received payment in full without having to waste £28.Your own process needs to be complete.LikeReply
yesindyref2I’d also suggest by the way, that the SG and SP could plead that the 22nd December is not a working day, and you may be advised to wait until Holyrood resumes in January before further action.LikeReply
Peter A BellFFS! 22 December is a DEADLINE, you numpty. Which means a response is required BEFORE that date, not on it!Liked by 2 peopleReply
Peter A BellIt is NOT the same. There are rules that apply to correspondence with public bodies. They are REQUIRED to respond to any communication within a given period (20 days?). the author of the letter apologises for the failure to respond in a timely manner. The fact that there is a December 22 deadline and the seriousness of the issue may have led the recipient to suppose a considered response would be appropriate and time could/should be taken to formulate that response. The rules, however, still require a response within a given time. If this could not be a full response then the only thing it could be was an acknowledgement.The nearest business parallel – since you seem to see everything in such terms – would be a letter from an existing or potential customer enquiring about some aspect of the product or service being offered. It could be that it would take some time to gather and collate the information required. If you think there’s no need to acknowledge receipt of the communication in such circumstances then I can only assume that any career you might have had in customer services was almost as short-lived as the customers you dealt with wished it was.Liked by 2 peopleReply
yesindyref2And what “question” in the Stirling Directive are you expecting a reply to? The clue to your answer to that is in the word “Directive”. “Directive” is not a question, it is an instruction, a demand.You apparently gave a deadline of 22nd December for your Directive; you can NOT therefore expect any sort of reply before that.LikeReply
yesindyref2I just notice this: “I can only assume”As I said to Alf:“You don’t know me, you don’t know who I am, you don’t know how I think and you certainly don’t speak for me.”Do you recognise that sentiment? Yes, well done, 10 out of 10 says he faux patronisingly, it’s almost a direct quote from you weeks backYour assumptions are ridiculous, and an insult to yourself.LikeReply
yesindyref2Not at all.Thinking in “legal” terms, that letter acknowledges receipt of the letter from Thorburn, and therefore also acknowledges that they (SG and FM etc,) are aware of the contents of Thorburn’s letter which, presumably, draws attention to the Stirling Directive. Therefore, by implication, they acknowledge receipt of the Stirling Directive. THAT is a good step forward, and can be used effectively, in evidence, in any subsequent court proceedings. They can NOT plead ignorance or non-receipt.Secondly, if I remember correctly, the Stirling Directive was presented with an expiry date, a “take action before” date, and again from memory, that is not until some time in December. They therefore did not need to reply to or even directly acknowledge, receipt of the Stirling Directive until that date in December.IANALLikeReply
stuartmcnicollStrong words Peter with which I agree.Liked by 1 personReply
stuartmcnicollSorry, that should have been Golfnut. GolfnutLikeReply
yesindyref2Anyways this is a lost cause. Out of “Thinker. Listener. Talker. Reader. Writer” only 2 of those are true.To put it in easy words even you might dimly understand with a little help:“You – are – jumping – the – gun”.No, no need to thank me.LikeReply
aLurkerI don’t have any special knowledge to add beyond what has been reported here already, but yesindyref2 does have a point, about the date.And I cannot see that there should be much surprise that a minor functionary who sees himself as part of the British Civil Service in Edinburgh has condescended to send an acknowledgement which does not address any of the issues.If you think about it at all, that just makes Alfs point all the clearer. We cannot expect to receive even the slightest cooperation or help from ‘the arms of the British sate’ as Gideon Osbourne has called them.I am also reminded that if you are hoping for a benevolent response from someone in a position of power that could help you, it is counterproductive to be seen to acknowledge that their decision could/will/has gone against what you want, BEFORE they publicly announce what their response is. That way lies near guaranteed failure.I am reminded of the expert media-fu deployed by English National Treasure Joanna Lumley when she comprehensively outplayed British Prime Minister Gordy Broon some years ago while campaigning for the rights of Ghurka soldiers by insisting she felt confident that the prime minister would surely ‘do the right thing’ 😉We all knew he was intending to screw them over, but her polite insistence that he was a fundamentally decent man (HA!) and would DO THE RIGHT THING painted him into a corner in public.He would have loved to ignore it, but she just would not let it go.As far as I can see it is the elected government, i.e. the SNP administration that we need to motivate to act, or at least begin to engage in the process by acknowledging it.Am I wrong in that view? To be clear, I don’t imagine them suddenly acquiring the Vision, Courage or Hootspa to seize the chance at redemption being offered to them, but I do see the opportunity to ‘Joanna Lumley’ them to the point that they have to acknowledge the basics of the argument.I know, hope springs eternal. Let’s no go off the deep end just yet!Liked by 1 personReply
Spear o’ AnnandaleaLurker. That was one of the main reasons that the Stirling Directive was created. i.e. to “paint them into a corner”.If the answer to the S D was positive, then great, get to work and inform the UK government that they hold no sovereignty over the people of Scotland and then organise a referendum with the same franchise used internationally for referendums on constitutional matters. Of course, that does not use the electoral register as a blunt instrument to deny Scots their right to self-determination and independence as it did in 2014.If the answer was in the negative, which so far appears to be the case, then the SNP / Green Scottish coalition government does not believe that the people of Scotland are sovereign and they will continue bow to English Parliamentary Sovereignty and to deny Scots their right to a government of our choosing. The S D was intended to clarify their position relating to our sovereignty and this it has done.As far as acknowledgment of the S D is concerned, I used to work in the Private Office of a cabinet minister, so I am fully aware of the strict procedures and protocols involved in accepting and answering communications. Peter stated this earlier i.e. 20 working days, which is why I waited 28 days before asking for confirmation of receipt. Had I not contacted the SG regarding acknowledgement then we would not have discovered that neither Holyrood nor St. Andrew’s House had received the SD and most likely that would be their response when the last date for reply ran out.However, the reply from the SG is more than an a simple acknowledgement because it sets out the position of the SG when it states “Turning to your correspondence” and then goes on to illustrate that they will continue to accept the UK parliament’s sovereignty over the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. This is shown when the reply states “The First Minister has reaffirmed to the Prime Minister that the Scottish Government continues to seek the transfer of powers from the UK Parliament to enable another lawful referendum, consistent with the judgement of the Supreme Court”.When are they going to realise that there is no domestic route to self-determination and independence? That door was firmly shut and locked by the UKSC!How many times do the people of Scotland have to “express their views” before the First Minister and his coalition government act as the people mandated?Finally, Peter’s title for this article is spot on – our sovereignty has been denied by our own government and in days gone by that act of betrayal would be regarded as treasonous.Liked by 6 peopleReply
aLurkerThankyou for your thoughtful and informative reply. ‘Spear’To us uninvolved laypeople the introduction of this letter makes it impossible to know on whose authority the writer is responding. Who tasked him to respond? Was it the FM, the FMs PPS, or the Permanent Secretary? Was it some other underling? We have no way of knowing. I find this to be both unprofessional and indeed contemptuous and insulting.If I encountered this in commercial business I would communicate the unacceptable handling of an important communication directly to the CEO.I assume here that this is a deliberate tactic to evade accountability.Surely this apalling standard of behaviour is not allowed to be commonplace in government? Perhaps it is. Nothing would surprise me …So from your reply then I take it that this reply could in fact be an official response from the first ministers office.I note that the last two paragraphs are in the form of a reply without an answer in that they do not appear to impart any further information as to a consideration having been made.There is no indication at all as to an actual ‘response’, to the contents of the prior communication, merely a reiteration on previous events.Continuing on from the Gordy Broon / Gurkhas / Joanna Lumley example given above: We have not managed to publicly maneuvre the FM to the point where he either has to be seen to publicly acknowledge to do the Right Thing ( Scottish Popular Sovereignty) or be publicly shamed for active cowardice by choosing to do the unpopular WRONG THING i.e. choosing to abandon his espoused principles and Kow-Tow to English Parlaimentary Sovereignty.With 4 weeks remaining, there is still time to try to organise a checkmate. Being put off by a letter will not cut it. The stakes need to be raised. But HOW?Liked by 6 peopleReply
stuartmcnicollWell said on both your comments alurker. The Stirling Directive is in play and to quote Shakespear ” the games afoot “.GolfnutLiked by 1 personReply
Peter A BellFrom a campaigning perspective, issuing the #StirlingDirective was something if a win/win move. If the Scottish Government responds positively, that’s a game-changer. If the letter from Simon Elder is a true and final response, then the treachery becomes undeniable. All but the most mindless SNP loyalists will be obliged to concede that the SNP Scottish Government is intent on betraying Scotland’s cause – and act accordingly.Liked by 2 peopleReply
duncanstrachanAs has been stated the SG and SP are governed by the Scotland act. They are not governed by the sovereign people. They are following the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty with some justification therefore. In the independence movement and because of Salvo we know we are sovereign in Scotland, the SG know it as well but we continue to vote for their system every time. They are not traitors in the system that formed them. By engaging in their system we give it credence and authority. Isp are correct. Abstain.Liked by 3 peopleReply
Spear o’ AnnandaleThey are definitely part of the system that formed them and that’s the problem – that’s why I am now a member of ISP.Liked by 2 peopleReply
Peter A BellI too might join ISP if abstentionism was more than just a gimmick. If it was part of a larger strategy derived from the ‘new thinking’ on the realities of Scotland’s constitutional situation, I’d be seriously considering becoming a member.This would, however, be no more than my own gimmicky gesture politics. And no more useful than gimmicky gestures commonly are. If we are to avoid descent into fantasy politics – and PLEASE let us avoid that! – then we must be constantly mindful that we are entering a critical period for Scotland’s cause and the SNP is going to be the party of government for the entirety of this period. If we can’t change the SNP’s attitude then we can change nothing.Liked by 1 personReply
surfsensei Re: “the SNP is going to be the party of government..”, yes, sadly I suspect we’re stuck with what we have, or similar, just now… we have to be pragmatic.
Re: “gimmicky gestures… Fantasy Politics”… agree, I think we need to be very clear about whom we are aiming to reach with an action, what we aim to achieve with that action and do the best we can to ensure that it is as well-organised and well-presented/recorded as possible, this despite what appear to be oddly convenient (to any opponent) and non-random “technical issues”.
Who might become our own version of Joanna Lumley? Actually I’m serious, someone with the profile that media and Holyrood politicians will find near impossible to ignore? There are risks in this too, of course.
Otherwise, as far as action that we can all take goes, I’m thinking perhaps a Christmas Card campaign to MSPs with a simple question about their response to the Stirling Directive &/or to whom they regard being sovereign in Scotland, the Scottish people or Westminster Parliament.. What question would you suggest?
Thanks for this post and to the others’ comments; useful stuff to keep in mind. LikeReply
Peter A BellSeveral good points there. The one about the need for a ‘figurehead’ in particular.As regards the idea for a “Christmas Card campaign”, I came up with something a few years back which might prompt some ideas.“Any candidate for elected office in Scotland must be able to answer Yes to all the questions, honestly and persuasively.Do you acknowledge Scotland’s democratic right of self-determination as guaranteed by Chapter 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, and agree that this right is vested wholly in the people of Scotland to be exercised entirely at their discretion?Do you accept the authority of the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and recognise the validity of its decisions as a true reflection of the will of Scotland’s people?Do you denounce the efforts of the British state to deny Scotland’s right of self-determination and condemn the disrespect of the Scottish Parliament evident in the refusal of the British political parties to accept its ruling on the matter of a new constitutional referendum?”Liked by 2 peopleReply
“Do you accept that the sovereignty, self-determination and Independence of Scotland is for its people to have not Westminster’s to give?” Liked by 4 peopleReply
Peter A BellAbstention doesn’t achieve anything other than as part of a larger strategy. That larger strategy is #ScottishUDI. If ISP acknowledged this, they’d be stealing a march on Alba. If Alba had embraced #ScottishUDI from the outset, the outcome of the 2021 Holyrood election might have been very different. And we might have been in a very different place now.It’s daft, really. Because they’ll all have to come around to the ‘new thinking’ eventually. Or admit that they have given up on the restoration of Scotland’s independence.Liked by 4 peopleReply
Ding dong“The Scottish Government’s response to the Stirling Directive is a written confession to treachery”No shit Sherlock.I don’t expect anyone will be surprised at the manner and content of the response. The SNP government are far too busy fighting Alex Salmond’s latest court action, dreaming up who next to pardon in addition to 300 year old witches, pontificating about international matters over which they have no control or influence, spending money on useless ferries and jollies to China, interfering in the running of the legal profession, and promoting trans rubbish at the expense of normal decent people.They have no time to consider such unimportant (to them) things as independence.I’m surprised they didn’t just write “Return to sender”, and go back to the matters which they feel are important.it’s no use knocking when there’s nobody in.Liked by 2 peopleReply
yesindyref2Just offhand, from 2018:https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-international-framework-china-engagement-strategy/pages/4/For instance “173,610 Chinese tourists visited Edinburgh Castle in 2017, accounting for 10.4% of total visits to the Castle (source: Edinburgh Castle)”with from elsewhere, tourists from China staying an average of 8.2 nights, and spending loads of money, from elsewhere China is well in the top 10 for tourists to Scotland, and again from elsewhere:“The tourism sector is one of the most important for the Scottish economy with around 14 million people visiting the country each year. Spending by tourists is around 5% of GDP and the sector accounts for more than 7% of employment in Scotland.“.LikeReply
agalianouI know it’s pedantic, but, when a document has a schoolperson spelling howler in the first line, I tend to regard the author(ess) as a tosser of no importance whatsoever and proceed to whoever is next up the hierarchy. I.e. send the “response” back , highlight the error and ask for a proper reply.Liked by 1 personReply
arayner1936As vI waqs one of those present at the attempt to deliver the Stirling Directive document, I would like to mention the presence at that event ot an eminent European political scientist, Bruno Kaufmann, who is chair of an organisation promoting Direct Democracy. I would be surprised if he did not return to Europe horrified at the undemocratic behavior of the Scottish Government in raising great difficulties in the attempt to deliver this document to our elected representatives on behalf of the Sovereign people of Scotland. If proof were needed as to how little our representatives, infiltrated and funded by our colonial masters south of the border regard our people, it is plain to see from this example. They have made it obvious that we are of little importance to them and their policies, which do not benefit our people, but rather asssist in the continuing plunder of resources that appears to be their objective.Liked by 6 peopleReply
Sam MitchellSorry but not wanting to upset the professional bed wetters… all the talk.. nicely phrased wee letters… pretty wee speeches. are not going to cut the colonial strings that so many of the seekers of some proposed constitutional change clamour for. Our colonial master is never going to give into losing its main energy source… or give up the revenue it takes from Scottish waters… or the feudal private land holdings where game is reared for rural enjoyment. There is only one way to achieve indy and its far from the so called democracy that we are supposed to be grateful for… the one that gives us a voice that no one listens to. Follow the Money and let Scots know how they are being culturally & economically taken for useful idiots.LikeReply
SatanI might Issue the Scottish Government with A Directive About Cycle Lane Parking Restictions, but I’m not that pompous. How on earth did you need a ‘committee’ to write that? And can I have the time I spent reading it refunded?LikeReply
birrell9Yes you are…..and NO!! So you won’t have to waste too much time reading this.Liked by 2 peopleReply
KangarooThe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a bankrupt Corporation and its Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are therefore illegitimate and acting under colour of law.A sovereign government cannot be a corporation because Sovereignty is the source of law and a corporation is a creation of law.Whilst a sovereign people, as the source of law, can create various legal fictions including Corporations, Trusts, artificial legal persons etc, a sovereign government and its sovereign agencies are by definition unincorporated.The true Government of Scotland is lying dormant and is awaiting the people to resurrect it and resume authority over the Nation.Liked by 2 peopleReply
nestatablesThis “Principle Private Secretary” seems to lack any principals. How did that get through 🤔?Liked by 4 peopleReply
nestatablesThe “Principle” Private Secretary lacks any “principals”. At the very least he should get his job title correctLikeReply
Peter A BellWhen you have no respect for those you’re addressing, you feel no need to take care.Liked by 1 personReply
KENNETHWhat Politicians have floating around inside their heads is generally a good indication of what the general pubic have decomposing in their wheelie bins, there is some interesting political agenda at http://www.theaardvarkskettle.com.Liked by 1 personReply
Gregory SelkirkHistory’s repeated lesson is that sovereign rights are not granted, they are seized, then once lost they are all but unrecoverable. Whenever has any seat of power yielded to right arguments or just causes or “Stirling Directives” of the people without the persuasion of martial force? The sovereign ideals of Scottish intellectuals and romanticists can only prevail when they can persuade the commoner to throw a rock through a window.LikeReply
Any article on this website may be republished in whole or part on condition only that Peter A Bell is acknowledged as the author and/or the source is identified as http://www.peterabell.scot. If you would like to make a donation to help with the running costs of this site, please click here.
Archives
Archives Select Month Dec 2023 Nov 2023 Oct 2023 Sep 2023 Aug 2023 Jul 2023 Jun 2023 May 2023 Apr 2023 Mar 2023 Feb 2023 Jan 2023 Dec 2022 Nov 2022 Oct 2022 Sep 2022 Aug 2022 Jul 2022 Jun 2022 May 2022 Apr 2022 Mar 2022 Feb 2022 Jan 2022 Dec 2021 Nov 2021 Oct 2021 Sep 2021 Aug 2021 Jul 2021 Jun 2021 May 2021 Apr 2021 Mar 2021 Feb 2021 Jan 2021 Dec 2020 Nov 2020 Oct 2020 Sep 2020 Aug 2020 Jul 2020 Jun 2020 May 2020 Apr 2020 Mar 2020 Feb 2020 Jan 2020 Dec 2019 Nov 2019 Oct 2019 Sep 2019 Aug 2019 Jul 2019 Jun 2019 May 2019 Apr 2019 Feb 2019 Jan 2019 Dec 2018 Nov 2018 Oct 2018 Sep 2018 Aug 2018 Jul 2018 Jun 2018 May 2018 Apr 2018 Mar 2018 Feb 2018 Apr 2016 Mar 2016 Feb 2016 Jan 2016 Dec 2015 Nov 2015 Oct 2015 Sep 2015 Jul 2015 Jun 2015 May 2015 Apr 2015 Mar 2015 Feb 2015 Jan 2015 Dec 2014 Nov 2014 Oct 2014 Sep 2014 Aug 2014 Jul 2014 Jun 2014 May 2014 Apr 2014 Mar 2014 Jan 2014 Dec 2013 Nov 2013 Oct 2013 Sep 2013 Jun 2013 May 2013 Apr 2013 Mar 2013 Nov 2012 Oct 2012 Sep 2012 Aug 2012 Jul 2012 Jun 2012 May 2012 Apr 2012 Mar 2012 Feb 2012
If you find these articles interesting, please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.
GrahamAnd there was me thinking that the Stirling Directive was going to shake up the whole political scene in ScotlandLike
stuartmcnicollIt will.GolfnutLike
duncanioMaybe we should try the pitchfork, pike and torch approach the next time we visit the Scottish Parliament.Liked by 5 people
Robert McAllanduncanio, aye, an’ again mibbaes naw. Jist the mention o’ a twa pronged implement led tae Mark Hirst bein’ pit thru’ the wringer for nae reason ither than ill derived spite!Liked by 3 people
alanc51How about imposing sanctions on the traitors? Refuse them service in shops, restaurants, pubs, hotels etc, come on business owners do your bit.Like
Spear o’ AnnandaleGiven the treatment we received both at Holyrood when Sara Salyers and Suzanne Henderson delivered the Stirling Directive with over 100 witnesses and at St. Andrew’s House where Colette Walker, Julie McAnulty and I delivered another copy, the response although disappointing is not the least bit surprising.At St. Andrew’s House I was asked “who is the letter from?” I told reception that it’s not a letter, it’s a directive to the Scottish Government and it’s not from me it’s from the People of Scotland. However, that made no difference and like Holyrood we were shepherded to the mailroom at the rear of the building, where I was asked again who the letter was from. After repeating my response, we were assured that it would be taken directly to the office of the Permanent Secretary (the highest ranked civil servant in Scotland).4 weeks passed and with no acknowledgement from either Holyrood or St. Andrew’s House, I sent a letter to the FM’s Private Office asking when I could expect an acknowledgement. The response to my letter was shocking because despite all the witnesses they said that it had not been received at Holyrood, so I assumed the same had happened at St. Andrew’s House. I then sent an an email to the FM’s Private Office and to the Office of the Permanent Secretary, who is responsible for the service provided to the FM, attaching a copy of the Stirling Directive and reminding them that the time to respond (22 December) was running out.As you can see from the letter above, the response to me, and therefore to the People of Scotland, is totally insulting and does not answer anything within the Directive. For my small part, I’m not that bothered about the perfunctory and dismissive response – I’m used to that! However, I do care about how the sovereign people of Scotland have been treated from the beginning. The oft-parroted phrase “The People of Scotland are Sovereign” clearly means nothing to the current Scottish Government and is just a form of words to be taken down from a shelf, dusted off and once iterated, is quickly put back on that shelf in case anyone asks then what it actually means.So, it is now up to the Stirling Directive Committee to decide how to respond and on any subsequent actions that may need to be taken.Liked by 10 people
yesindyref2Thanks for the clarification, but you have to wait until your ultimatum date has expired – the 22nd December. There is also no need for them to acknowledge receipt at any stage.It’s the same as if your business is owed money and after reminders and a final written reminder, you send a final notice giving them 7 days to pay or face court action. There is no need for them to acknowledge receipt of any of your letters – just to pay up in 7 days or face court. I have in the distant past – successfully – had to do just that thing, having checked with the Clerk at my local Sherriff’s Court as to the process to follow for a small claim. I said 7 days but gave them 10 days in case they just wanted to mess me around and waste a £28 court fee – indeed they did as on the 10th day I received payment in full without having to waste £28.Your own process needs to be complete.Like
aLurkerI don’t have any special knowledge to add beyond what has been reported here already, but yesindyref2 does have a point, about the date.And I cannot see that there should be much surprise that a minor functionary who sees himself as part of the British Civil Service in Edinburgh has condescended to send an acknowledgement which does not address any of the issues.If you think about it at all, that just makes Alfs point all the clearer.
duncanstrachanAs has been stated the SG and SP are governed by the Scotland act. They are not governed by the sovereign people. They are following the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty with some justification therefore. In the independence movement and because of Salvo we know we are sovereign in Scotland, the SG know it as well but we continue to vote for their system every time. They are not traitors in the system that formed them. By engaging in their system we give it credence and authority. Isp are correct. Abstain.Liked by 3 people
surfsensei
Ding dong“The Scottish Government’s response to the Stirling Directive is a written confession to treachery”No shit Sherlock.I don’t expect anyone will be surprised at the manner and content of the response. The SNP government are far too busy fighting Alex Salmond’s latest court action, dreaming up who next to pardon in addition to 300 year old witches, pontificating about international matters over which they have no control or influence, spending money on useless ferries and jollies to China, interfering in the running of the legal profession, and promoting trans rubbish at the expense of normal decent people.They have no time to consider such unimportant (to them) things as independence.I’m surprised they didn’t just write “Return to sender”, and go back to the matters which they feel are important.it’s no use knocking when there’s nobody in.Liked by 2 people
agalianouI know it’s pedantic, but, when a document has a schoolperson spelling howler in the first line, I tend to regard the author(ess) as a tosser of no importance whatsoever and proceed to whoever is next up the hierarchy. I.e. send the “response” back , highlight the error and ask for a proper reply.Liked by 1 person
arayner1936As vI waqs one of those present at the attempt to deliver the Stirling Directive document, I would like to mention the presence at that event ot an eminent European political scientist, Bruno Kaufmann, who is chair of an organisation promoting Direct Democracy. I would be surprised if he did not return to Europe horrified at the undemocratic behavior of the Scottish Government in raising great difficulties in the attempt to deliver this document to our elected representatives on behalf of the Sovereign people of Scotland.
Sam MitchellSorry but not wanting to upset the professional bed wetters… all the talk.. nicely phrased wee letters… pretty wee speeches. are not going to cut the colonial strings that so many of the seekers of some proposed constitutional change clamour for. Our colonial master is never going to give into losing its main energy source… or give up the revenue it takes from Scottish waters… or the feudal private land holdings where game is reared for rural enjoyment. There is only one way to achieve indy and its far from the so called democracy that we are supposed to be grateful for… the one that gives us a voice that no one listens to.
SatanI might Issue the Scottish Government with A Directive About Cycle Lane Parking Restictions, but I’m not that pompous. How on earth did you need a ‘committee’ to write that? And can I have the time I spent reading it refunded?Like
birrell9Yes you are…..and NO!! So you won’t have to waste too much time reading this.Liked by 2 people
KangarooThe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a bankrupt Corporation and its Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are therefore illegitimate and acting under colour of law.A sovereign government cannot be a corporation because Sovereignty is the source of law and a corporation is a creation of law.Whilst a sovereign people, as the source of law, can create various legal fictions including Corporations, Trusts, artificial legal persons etc, a sovereign government and its sovereign agencies are by definition unincorporated.The true Government of Scotland is lying dormant and is awaiting the people to resurrect it and resume authority over the Nation.Liked by 2 people
nestatablesThis “Principle Private Secretary” seems to lack any principals. How did that get through 🤔?Liked by 4 people
KENNETHWhat Politicians have floating around inside their heads is generally a good indication of what the general pubic have decomposing in their wheelie bins, there is some interesting political agenda at http://www.theaardvarkskettle.com.Liked by 1 person
Gregory SelkirkHistory’s repeated lesson is that sovereign rights are not granted, they are seized, then once lost they are all but unrecoverable. Whenever has any seat of power yielded to right arguments or just causes or “Stirling Directives” of the people without the persuasion of martial force? The sovereign ideals of Scottish intellectuals and romanticists can only prevail when they can persuade the commoner to throw a rock through a window.Like
Independence not Bust 
Leave a comment