Scotland is a Quasi Sovereign country. The political power we have is devolved from a higher authority; that is Westminster. Tony Benn stated in the House, that power devolved is power retained. In contrast, ‘politics is a set of activities associated with the governance of a country. However, the limitation of devolved power constrains our politics to basically what we are allowed to do – this is NOT sovereignty it is subjugation.

We believe the people aspire to recover our Sovereign State, that is represented by a single judicial system and Government. This Sovereignty was signed away in the Act of the Union of Crowns in 1707. I say ‘believe’ because we only know the will of the voters and not the will of the people. There is no mechanism to determine the will of non voters or those who have yet to reach voting age. Any voting decision we make today will impact on every person in the country not yet old enough to vote. JUST THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT!

In an unpredicted and undemocratic manner, Boris Johnson has been elected by the Tory membership, about 0.13% of the population, as leader of the party and thereby the UK PM. To my recollection you could probable give your dog, Rover’s name with all your details and join for £15/a. Not impossible that Boris is in No 10 thanks to some Labs, Poodles and a wee tabby cat for good measure. Famous for his bungling droll, catastrophic blunders and downright lies, he is no friend of Scotland. In fact he is like an overweight Longshanks. His new team resemble a sitting of the Likud party, to whom it pledges undying allegiance. Under Cameron and May Scotland’s future looked very uncertain. Under Boris our future is very certain. He is determined to scrap the Scottish Parliament, the Barnett Formula and push Scotland back to Victorian times while his greedy paws will be busy asset stripping everything of value in Scotland.

In 1979 and 2014 we had a referendum and the score stands at ‘one all’. These referendi were predicated on the aspiration of the people. Our next referendum, in 2020 will not be about passion, aspiration but more importantly … survival; not so much our survival, the survival of our descendants. When I say survival, I don’t say this lightly; Scotland is in serious danger of becoming another victim despite awareness. More and more Scots are informing themselves and becoming informed that we are not a country, not a people and not even a whole passion. Our history ended in 1707 and now we are an asset, an asset of England. Not a valuable asset, much more, we are the asset England needs to survive. When we go in to our next and final referendum, failure is not an option. The stakes could not be higher. England is fighting for its survival as is Scotland and we must treat this as a pseudo war. Our weapon of choice must be the power of PERSUASION and all that entails. By contrast England’s weapon of choice is the LIE and everything that a lie depends on. That’s what they used before with success and they will see no need to change.

SO WHERE AM I COMING FROM?

During my Corporate Life in London my responsibilities as a Director of a Global plc demanded that failure was not an option, it was never an option. So it was that we operated with only one thought in mind, success. And with that thought in mind and my passion for the return of the Sovereign Nation we call Scotland, I commit my thoughts below:

Before I start I would like to remind everyone, albeit we mostly know. In terms of where we are today, if anybody does not believe we were deliberately lied to about the impact of independence then you are either brain dead, total prejudice in a permanent manner or just landed from another planet. Some of the most blatant lies were:

a) The Vow: complete tosh dreamt up by The Daily Record and sold to Gordon Brown – the man who sadly, would die in a ditch to be popular

b) Our own currency: complete tosh. We have every right to use the pound and we have NEVER had a say in it’s variance. The Euro is an option and a strong currency. But, most importantly we ARE NOT OBLIGED TO JOIN THE EURO. It is predicated on the ERM which is voluntary.

c) Pensions would be in jeopardy. Absolute nonsense since we already paid for them. As far as the value, the UK has one of the LOWEST State Pensions in the EU and perhaps one of the reasons the UK wanted out.

d) Remaining in the UK would ensure we could remain in the EU. Regardless of the outcome, Scottish businesses have already taken a massive hit from the May shambles. As far as remaining in the EU they are waiting at the door for us with a warm welcome while England faff about not knowing where they are but realising they were actually a racist, xenophobic nation of Empire yearners.

e) The oil would run out – many predictions had the oil dried up by now. The new Claire field must be a tad embarrassing then.

I could go on and on but I am sure we are all on the same page and hopefully realise how England built it’s Empire by lying, deceiving and plundering other nations – SUFFERING JESUS, THAT’S US?

There can be no doubt that Nicola Sturgeon has fired the starting pistol with the appointment of Angus Robertson to ‘research the opinion of people in Scotland and test their appetite to emulate the most successful small countries in the world’ under #progressscotland and @progressscot. Thus far, his research has revealed that between 60 and 65% of Scots polled want of believe that outright Sovereignty will happen.

I was bitterly disappointed when Angus Robertson lost his Moray seat to the rather dubious part-timer Douglas Ross. It has not escaped me, or even @BBCPhilipSim that Ross appeared to benefit from a sudden massive insertion of postal votes especially after the apparently illegal breach by Tory Scotland leader Ruth Davidson who disclosed the result of the postal vote ahead of the actual poll. Why was she not prosecuted – well I will let that just hang here?

On the positive side, ex-SNP Westminster leader and heavy hitter Angus Robertson now takes the reigns of Progress Scotland to produce the opening telemetry for the 3rd Independence vote. I still count the ’79 vote that SNP won, albeit for full devolution, because had Scotland not been cheated out of the win we would be fully independent and thriving now. I say cheated because there is nothing in democracy that demands a threshold turnout other than the purist 100%, so Scotland was robbed in an ‘only count those with a blue shirt’ moment.

So here I am again, more determined and wiser than ever. With a ‘one all’ draw under our belt failure is not an option and we must think past the deciding Independence referendum to the children of Scotland in the future. We must not let them down or they will never forgive us, and that is too heavy a burden for me, and for you, I suspect.

I took up my position for the 2014 referendum in 2012. I came North from the City of London to the Glasgow where I grew up as a tiny little immigrant in 1951. I had spent 25 years in London in a number of very senior Global roles in business and technology. I felt I was well qualified to pitch in to the campaign.

That said, and since the setback of 2014 I have, as probably most campaigners have, spent a number of years reflecting on what went well, what went wrong and what can we do to succeed next time

And here we are: next time! I want to throw my hat into the ring and express my thoughts. Some may agree, some may disagree. However, the most important thing is to get everything on the table and begin to forge the strategy and dialogue.

From the outset and just to set the mood, Independence, or Self Determination, or better still Full Sovereignty has never been closer. Thanks to May’s Brexit omni-shambles, together with the dire threat that presents to Scotland exiting the EU against our democratic expression to the contrary, we are staring at an open goal. Many of us are impatient for Nicola to simply declare that we have heard enough and we are off. Ian Blackford, arguably our most magnificent leader in Westminster with the support of one of the strongest teams in Parliamentary history, has made Scotland’s position with regards Independence loud and clear and unambiguous. I hope and pray that Nicola is executing a breathtakingly cunning plan. As I write, I remain to be convinced but eternally hopeful. I am encouraged when I look at the political talent we have. I will not single any one out, we all have our favourites, but it is a big list. The would make substantial political leaders in Sovereign Scotland.

So, without further ado ….

WHAT DID WE DO WELL? The short answer is, just about everything we set out to do. We were formed into regional and area group, there was reasonable inter-communications, we had seminars and discussion groups. There were many notable speakers with different skills and knowledge who presented up and down the country. In every area there were groups of leafleters and canvassers who braved whatever the weather, distributing helpful information, knocking and talking and form filling and gathering and correlating statistics. This was like a military operation. Despite the manifest hostile Mainstream Press the campaign was extremely well received by the public, there was very, very little hostility on either part although sometimes passions ran high. Scotland came together in a manner most of us could scarcely have imagined. Very quickly the rank and file in the campaign began developing and building up a substantial political knowledge and awareness.

That said, it seems hard to believe that we fell short. However, however, on reflection I think there were a number of very significant reasons why we failed. In reality, it would have been extremely surprising if we had succeeded. Understanding the full extent of the aspects of the campaign that were not up to standard or missing completely is the key that will unlock our success this time. So here we go:

WHAT MUST WE DO, WHAT MUST WE DO BETTER AND WHAT MUST WE NOT DO?

Organisation and structure during 2014 may have been very good within the SNP but at grass roots level the organisation was fairly abysmal. Enthusiasm and dedication was extraordinarily good. However, this is nowhere near enough and this lacking almost certainly lost us the referendum. The Independence Campaign did not unite all factions of the campaign. There was no consistency of message. Actually, there was manifest inconsistencies. In fact, there was as many versions of the benefits of Independence as there was campaigners. Enough of the negatives. That was in the past and now we must ensure we don’t make the same mistakes. This is the meat of this blog.

Secondly, and hard on the heals of organisation and every bit as important is the communication plan. Get this right and you take a massive leap forward. In 2014 the campaign behaved like most old fashioned business models. Communication from the top down was reasonably good. Communication from the bottom up was abysmal, really abysmal. Communication must be like a window cleaner; up and down the ladder, look up check all is OK and if not back up, down, move along. We were nothing like that. There was a wealth of information gathered from the grass roots leaflets, canvassers, presenters etc. That information should have been passed back up to command headquarters to assess the currency, validity and relevance and if this required some fine tuning the consistent adjustment message should be disseminated quickly as possible. Everyone in the campaign should have instructions, consistent information, clear knowledge of the simple procedures and an ‘always-on’ channel for information.

TAKE POLITICS OUT OF THE REFERENDUM

A cardinal error in 2014 was to conflate the Independence Referendum and the SNP.  Political parties come and go.  Following Full Sovereignty there is every possibility that the SNP and other Scottish political parties may form new parties with differing agendas.  Sovereignty is a lifetime choice predicated on different emotions and must not be confused with day to day politics that react to the current conditions and set out tactical and strategic solutions.

From my experience many people would not vote for Independence because that did not like the SNP, or Alex Salmon etc.  This is such an obvious and naive point.  If I decided to vote against Independence because of Alex Salmon then the next day he decided to quit politics I may feel pretty stupid.  It really is that simple. A county’s sovereignty is greater than any individual or party or anything else for that matter.

The role of pro Independence political parties and the Government is to secure a referendum with all the necessary structures, rights and safeguards.  The Pros and Cons of the referendum should be presented in an apolitical, non partisan manner then all political parties should step back completely from the campaign.  This was clearly the intention with the Yes Campaign under Blair Jenkins but with the best will in the world that did not happen.  Not because the Yes Campaign was found wanting but because the other players would not let go and the overall campaign become a bit of a broth. The Unionist ‘No’ campaign and the media continually brought the argument back to the SNP who allowed themselves to be sucked into an argument they could not possibly win – albeit they almost did.

GET EVERYONE ON THE SAME PAGE – ORGANISATION IS VITAL

In 2014 the only commonality was passion. That is great, but passion without organisation and a clear, concise and consistent message is too easy to spin as radicalism, extremism and ‘ism’ as in racism, nationalism, or even phobia. The social structure and engagement for 2014 on the Yes side was world class, without a doubt. But we were travelers without a route map, just a destination. The campaign must have a narrative, key arguments and a script. The script must be set in stone unless amended ‘top down’ and disseminated to adapt to vital changes. The script must be adhered to by everyone WITHOUT DEVIATION. The script must be accurate, relevant, true and fact check and everyone in the campaign must be instructed on how to STICK TO THE SCRIPT AND AVOID THE DISRUPTERS. This may sound like a stuck record, but better that than a broken one. A typical provocation might be ‘Suppose we get Independence and the oil runs out, we’re stuffed, aren’t we? Answer: We have laid out our case. If you have a factual challenge you must put that to the people. I have no wish to speculate or hypothesize and you have every right to disagree. It’s a tough call, but we cannot hope to win over everybody so we must be prepared to let some go and walk away from any argument. An experienced salesperson smells when a lead has dried up and they drop it and move on to a new prospect.

DO NOT GIVE THE GAME AWAY

In 2014, the SNP produced the White Paper that explained the challenges, benefits and opportunities available to an Independent Scotland. There were two main issues with this. Firstly, this conflated the SNP with Scottish Independence. This was a catastrophic mistake. A county’s independence or rather Sovereignty is not a political event, it is a ‘dream, a passion, an ambition, a hope and a vision for the future; for future generations. All of these and a lot more. Politics in its many guises and on an ongoing and democratic manner must deliver on the achieved State to ensure it continuously meets the expectations of the people and offers an oversight on its performance. Secondly, and most importantly, the contrasting view of Westminster completely and deliberately withheld all definition and explanation of what exactly ‘Better Together would mean. Instead, the counter campaign to the Yes Campaign took as its focus the SNP White Paper. The No Campaign or Better Together or worse, Project Fear rallied their best liars, deceivers, manipulators and spinners and systematically, line by line took the White Paper apart using lies, alternative facts, half truths and conflicting arguments. This lies and misrepresentations were crafted into graphs, papers, reports, charts etc in a deliberate manner to deceive. Example of this abound. People who are not familiar with bar graphs will not be conversant enought to interpret the XY scaling that distorts the chart, if indeed a scaling is included. Many of us are familiar with the BBC map of the UK tilted backwards to make Scotland appear much smaller, and less significant. In the main, people were not privy to the rationale behind the counter argument. People who were undecided remained to be convinced or were not willing to be convinced. The counter argument to the White Paper gave Westminster everything they needed to defeat the case for Independence that was summarised in the White Paper. I am sure the motive in producing the White Paper was honourable, logical and well intentioned. Sadly, from a political perspective it was hopelessly naive. This wasn’t throwing the baby out with the bath water, this was throwing the baby, the water, the bath out and burning down the house. In a sense, politics is like a game of poker. If you place your cards on the table face up, you have better expect to be beaten every time.

There is a rather naive belief that if you speak the truth it will prevail. When the stakes are high, and with Sovereignty they could not be higher. Those opposed to your ambition will exploit the gravitas they have built up over many decades to use lies in a very effective manner. A great example must be the BBC. Professor John Robertson carried out a 1 year study into the BBC and their modus operandi. What he and his team unearthed was astounding. This would have made the Stasi wince. The trickery, the deception and the psychological mind manipulation that is applied to everything at the BBC would be the envy of every tin pot dictator, every fascist and every despot; ever.

The next and final push for full Sovereignty must always bear that in mind, anticipate and compensate for what they will throw at us. We are taking away their ball, their game is over.

So what must we do. That is simple to say – in a word, SUCCEED. With Brexit, this is a clear and present danger for Scots. As they chose their next dictator there can be no doubt that they will curry favour with the, now visible racists and xenophobes in England and strip away everything that we have achieved. The Barnett Formula will be replaced by the begging bowl and we won’t be able to complain to our Government, because that will be scrapped. We will get the same or less deal as London, Birmingham and Leeds – but they are in a much much better position to survive. Think about that? Weeks for a healthcare appointment £9.50 per item on your prescription, parking at hospital will preclude even parking there. University education will leave our kids with £50K+ albatross around their necks. Care for the elderly will mean selling off the house you thought was your kids inheritance. I could go on. Many people, especially the elderly have never left Scotland. I worked in the City of London for 25 years and believe me, the people of Scotland have absolutely no idea what is coming down the track if we remain in the UK after Brexit, no idea!

Some may say we are hanging on to a cliff edge. Not true. We are at the cliff edge, but we are secure. However, we are holding on to our childrens’ hand and their children and they are the ones dangling over the edge. Take that image into you minds – we will survive, they won’t.

Planning for success has been my mantra all my working life and I have achieved these objectives with determination, the right people and a robust Success Plan. So, without further ado, here it is:

WHAT IS A SUCCESS PLAN

Project plans and programme plans failure more often than not in terms of timescale, overrunning budget or the quality of the delivery. The manager may explain they had a success plan – however, they failed. They were not success plans they were just plans. I was delivering project plans and programme plans before they were even called projects. I even worked for Duhig Berry who wrote Prince 2 Project Planning and I provided vital input into the construction of MSP, Managing Successful Programmes. I always delivered successful programmes- some of the most extensive national and international programmes. Success is not about following a process or a set of procedures. Success is about using the relevant tools at your disposal and ruthlessly and relentlessly pursuing success. In other words it is about entrusting the right people to do the job and that does not mean the ones who appear qualified. In 2014 Blair Jenkins was well qualified to deliver the referendum. Sadly, he allowed himself to be compromised by the SNP – not deliberately, but indirectly. Jenkins should have told the SNP in no uncertain terms that their presence was compromising the campaign and would ultimately kill it off if they did not sink into the background and let him do his job. Perhaps, ‘too many cooks’ sums it up.

So let me summaries the 3 components of a successful programme. 1. From the outset the ‘ask’ must be SMART. So it must be Specific: we know what it is we are tasked to do. Measurable: if we cannot measure something we cannot control it. Achievable: We must know and agree the task can be done. Realistic: We must work within the realms of the possible, without assumptions, hopes and wishes – these are intangibles we cannot control. Timely: We must be able to determine from a quality plan that we have sufficient time with a margin of error to delivery on time. If we over promise we will almost certainly under-achieve. 2. We must have the right tools for the job in terms of measures, monitors and oversight, often referred to as a dashboard. Success is always a step by step process and at every stage we must ensure our progress and achievements are commensurate on the expenditure of effort. A key factor is staying on top of reality and that is what I call the amber monitor. Project and programmes invariably report on a RAG status, or red, amber, green. Green means everything is on track and I expect that so I don’t need it. Red I don’t accept. This means a problem has occurred which is a stop against time cost or quality. Over time, red only gets worse until dealt with – as far as I am concerned this is too late. Amber is what I am interested in and this is the criticality of a programme. Something is going wrong. Without intervention this will become red. This is where the programme manager has a job to do, and do it without fail. But it is much more subtle than than that. If the set up of the programme was done thoroughly then the programme manager was already watching out for this amber warning. Not with a crystal ball but with the benefit of the risk assessment. 3. The right people. This is not people with the best qualifications or the best at interviews. In my experience a really great programme managers brings with them many people they have worked with before and trust. These are people who inspire, who bring out the best in everybody and simply do not accept failure. In fact they go looking for failure points in order to avoid them.

If Scottish Sovereignty was a programme this is how it would be define:

The Statement of Requirements for the role of restoring our Sovereignty could not be easier. Get the maximum number of people to vote in a referendum to vote for the restoration of Sovereignty. The second part is much more difficult; engage the person who can deliver our Sovereignty. Nobody is asking me who this might be but I can tell you it will be a passionate, stubborn, ruthless bastard who will recruit like minded bastards. That person will secure our sovereignty then step back having earned their place in history – their job done.

Moving on, let us suppose that person is now in place. These are some of the topics we will recognise:

THE SUCCESS PLAN: ORGANISE AND PLAN FOR SUCCESS

The key to success is organisation. In 2014 the Yes Campaign was exactly the right thing to do. Unfortunately, they were almost always eclipsed or overwhelmed by the SNP or by Project Fear and its many tentacles by-passing the Yes Campaign and taking their arguments directly to the SNP, their main personalities and that bloody White Paper. It may have seemed clever to adopt a positive term for the campaign and ‘Yes’ seems positive and strong. But, Yes is a paired word with ‘No’ and No is also a strong word. A successful campaign title must convey a strong positive message but force the opposition to counter with a weak and negative word pair. A great example of this was Nelson Mandela’s anti-apartheid campaign title, ‘Freedom’. The opposition must counter with an opposite yet powerful title – perhaps that would have been ‘Slavery’. Hardly a great title, not one they could use and as such were effectively denied a Banner . Not a good start, but a great ending! I’m sure Scotland can come up with a great Title. Of course, Apartheid was overturned, Nelson Mandela became President and the title Freedom might just be available for re-use. It is certainly sitting there waiting to be put to good use again. Of course, there will be other, perhaps even better titles, but I am sure you get the picture. More recently, and after some research I believe our campaign should be about Sovereignty. Full Sovereignty has been denied us since 1707. The the Scottish Parliament was established in 1998 with the Scotland Act put into play on 6 May 1999. We might be excused for imagining this was a good kind of Sovereignty. However, Tony Benn clarified that ‘power devolved is power retained’ and the Scottish Government can be scrapped on a whim. So perhaps we should drop the term ‘independence’. It’s actually a very weak term. Every parent will have experienced that moment when the kids leave – suddenly that have the ‘independence’. This is a period of intense worry, concern, uncertainty and it can also be very costly. Do we still think independence is a good title? No country is independent. We want the return of our SOVEREIGNTY. The opposite of Sovereignty is subordination or slavery. On a ballot paper, that would be a very difficult chose; Sovereignty v Slavery – of course I am joking.

The next point is organisation. The campaign must have a world class organisation with all the bells and whistles that go with it. With a solid structure in place, the campaign must run like a highly efficient company. So there is an immediate clue. Secure the services of someone who has run a highly successful business or successful global programmes. Fundamentally, every role should have a person and every person should have a role. This can only be achieved with a Success Plan. It may seem obvious that every plan should be a Success Plan but evidence abounds that about 70% of all plans ‘fail’ against one or more of the basic criteria; time, cost or quality. Think of any project you were aware of and ask yourself this basic question, was it delivered on time, was it on or under budget and did it delivery or better the quality of outcome promised. Don’t think about this too long, because the answer is invariably ‘No’. Of course, this does not necessarily and inevitably prevail. There are plans that meet or better all three criteria; they are called Success Plans. Put more simply, a Success Plan is a Plan that Succeeds. This can only be achieved with the right plan, the right people, the right tools and techniques, the right disciplines and continuous monitors, measures and adjustments to keep it on track. It may horrify some people but not surprise too many to understand that it is far more difficult to achieve a successful plan than to explain a plan going over budget, costing a bit more or delivering something less than was expected. The reason for this is also simple; FAILURE OF A PLAN IS SO COMMON IT IS EXPECTED! Blame culture is common place these days and there are always plenty of innocents around who will take a bullet for the team, albeit unexpected.

A plan to deliver Full Sovereignty for Scotland has only two outcomes; success or failure. Scotland cannot be almost, or a wee bit Sovereign or Sovereign in a wee while. The outcome must be complete Sovereignty and Now, and that is why we must have a Success Plan.

EXPECT TO FAIL

This may sound very negative. Quite the reverse. Complacency is negative, in fact it is a key component of a fail strategy. Opponents in all walks of life try to instill complacency and over confidence in their opposition. They would generally employ statistics and the media and of course that, now recognisable ‘Spin Doctor’. When people become complacent, every time they feel they are in the lead and things get tough they take their foot off the gas. How many marathon runners have been beaten in the last mile or even the last few yards. No point killing yourself; you’re winning – then you lose. On the other hand, if you expect to fail but are determined to win then you keep up maximum pressure, never take your foot of the gas and continually strive to raise you game – then you win. Any athlete or successful sportsperson will endorse this concept. Psychologically, when faced with a major problem successful people contemplate the worst that can happen, come to terms with it then move past it and solve the problem. Works every time.

THE OPPOSITION CASE

Our Judicial system includes the right to see everything that can be used against you in Court. Information, that is presented in Court where the other party has not had sight off is generally challenged. That information is either deemed inadmissible or the Hearing is adjourned until the other party has sufficient time to review the information and prepare a response as required. This is a very reasonable expectation. Accordingly, we have a right to demand timely sight of the opposing view as to why Scotland would be better served in the future remaining within the United Nations of Britain. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT THAT MUST BE AFFORDED THE VOTERS OF SCOTLAND. In 2014 we were bombarded with ‘Better Together’. Nobody and I mean nobody said why at any time, ever. They focused on all the problems of separation, independence, isolation, how bad it would be after assured failure – this is a great example of a success plan – scare the bejeezous out of less able people to get their compliance. Works every time – until now! Now we must bring out the lions.

RIGHT TO VOTE

This is something people should be aware of when we are bombarded with that old ‘will of the people’ bullshit. ‘Our strength is our democracy’ bullshit. We do not have and never have had democracy in our country. When they talk of the ‘will of the people’ they actually mean the voters, or their voters, never more than about 20% of the people – and we call that democracy. So, in 20 years time when our kids say ‘tell me again whey we are not part of the European Union?’ We say it was the ‘will of the people’. They say but we were children 20 years ago, are you saying we were not people? was your role as a parent not to secure a good future for us. What will you say? Oh fuck, simply does not cut it – we ruined their future, they have no future or a very uncertain future. Our more astute kids might say to us, ‘did your parents and their parents not die in ditches, suffer torment and horrible deaths for years to secure your future – and in return you shafted us through ignorance, stupidity and self interest – and now it falls to us to chose your nursing home – nice??

I would like people to consider a fundamental and different form of democratic referendum format, especially when deciding the future of the country. This of course would only be relevant had we not used the Mandate we have in place. However, this new format may be worth considering. The objective is simple: every person in Scotland has a RIGHT and a DUTY to have their say in determining the future for Scotland. The Scottish Government took the unilateral step to lower voting age to 16. That was a great step. Perhaps they should consider a ‘truely democratic’ voting system. here are some key factors:

• Voting should be as close to 100% secure as technology allows and every option must be considered to ensure everybody of all circumstances and abilities is able to exercise their right and duty
• Every PERSON has a say. Children under the age of responsibility should be added to a parent, guardian or legal ‘responsibility’. Unlike any political representative that has a term in office a decision that affects the permanent national status impacts everyone. If parent have two children aged 10 and 8 then one parent has an additional 2 votes on the basis that a parent decides what they believe is best for their children.
• Every person must vote directly, by proxy or other secure method. There must always be an option of ‘No Confidence in Choices ‘NCC’ and all NCC votes compete with all other votes. A win for NCC is a valid result that forces a reconsideration on the referendum or choices therein.
• Any person convicted of an offense that compromises a fair referendum must face a substantial fine and a custodial sentence on the basis that a dishonest result impacts the lives of millions of people
• There is nothing really new in this form of democracy – it is in fact the democracy in its original and intended form. However, the one fundamental change that is fairly unique is where a parent has a voting right on behalf of children not able to vote because they will ultimately have to live in the society determined by the vote.

Footnote: J F Kennedy said that in every community 20% of the people will disagree with everything. Perhaps a generalisation, but every Government has been elected to power in the UK with around 20% of the people and Brexit was selected, albeit it on a tissue of lies, half truths and exaggerations by cc 25% of the people. That said, Brexit will probably negatively affect about 90% of the people over the next decade. That throws up a very obvious question; ‘does the UK run on the basis of what is right for the people or the voters. If it is the voters then that is simply another way of saying the UK runs for the benefit of the political Party in power – in the case of Brexit this is the South East of England.

PREPARE THE CASE

Being in control of your own destiny is a fundamental desire in nature. The pursuit of independence is something we learn, or should learn as part of growing up. Let’s start with a very easy question that the Independence movement often get asked. This is asked in a provocative manner and is actually quite difficult to answer. The reason it is so difficult and people sometimes struggle to respond in a convincing way is because this is not a real question. It appears as a question, just as ‘why are we on this planet’ appears as a question. However, there is the simple response – this is not a serious question and does not require an answer. Leave it at that. If the questioner presses for an answer they are trying to trip you up. Another tactic is to ask for a better or more sensible question.  

I would like everyone to consider this: A question is only valid if the person or persons being asked the question could reasonably be expected to answer the question. The EU referendum is a classic example – this was never a valid question and the EU has pointed out that the UK asked a simple question that has an extraordinarily difficult answer – one which Parliament has demonstrated over 3 years that they cannot answer. Let’s say we ask people what appears to be a very simple question – Do you want a good life? The answer is obviously ‘yes’. Now here is the problem. Somebody has to INTERPRET what ‘yes’ means

‘The pursuit for a good life will include a number of basic aspects. Each aspect may determine, be dependent or compliment other aspects. It is certainly not a check list but it is a basket of things that enable most people to have a good life most of the time or better. These aspects certainly include; Safety, security, health, education, structure, comfort, procreation, satisfaction, a future that is achievable, support when things go wrong, a sense of society that is fair and does not discriminate and which is diverse and inclusive. Just as we pursue a good life we also hope for a good death. The best death is one where we have lived a good life, satisfied we got out of life all we hoped for and perhaps leave some legacy to those coming after us in so far as our life meant something to our survivors’.

Now, this may all seem like motherhood and apple pie. Of course we are not all going to achieve all of the above so we set goals to achieve the best we can. But the best we can runs into a major flaw in life. Competition! Competition is a barrier to be overcome because others who also want the best they can get will compete in a world that is finite.

Of course there is nothing wrong in healthy competition because it encourages us to strive to improve. But what if striving to improve, striving to better ourselves, striving for a better life cannot be achieved because we depend on others and they make decisions for us than are not necessarily in our best interest. This leads us neatly to the concept of community and the greater good. In a sense our most basic identity and the thing that defines us is our nationality, our country, where we were born and live or where we have chosen to live; the country we call home. Within our country we have basic rights and a basic ability to contribute towards decision making and accountability. We may not get what we want but if at least we have been part of a process then we retain a sense of inclusion. Who knows, perhaps the next time we may get more of what we hope for.

If we think of our country as a unit within which we function and have rights, then other countries exist in much the same way. There may be competition between countries and if the playing field is level we at least have a fair shout. However, if one country totally dominates another country in every sense and I mean every sense especially under their form of democratic mandate and the subjected country is vastly wealth and the dominant country is massively in debt then – THERE IS SOMEONE VERY VERY WRONG HERE. We MUST change this, if not for ourselves but for our children. And so we begin to build our argument. Not to the dominant force but to the people in our midst who, in a ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ manner wish to remain with the dominator ……

SUMMARISING THE KEY POINTS:

1. PRODUCE A KNOWLEDGE BASE OF RELEVANT FACT

It is essential that everybody is aware off and can articulate factual information that is relevant to our mission. This information must be clear and simple, stable, have a verifiable source and be non-contentious. This information must be learned and understood but must never be used as the basis for an argument. For example, by International Law Scotland has vast oil reserves. People may challenges the magnitude, the value or ownership but as far as we are concerned that is their view and not ours and neither party has access to full and proper verification so at best it is a differing opinion, not for discussion and LEFT AT THAT. Other types of information will include our size of population, the number of similar or comparative small independent countries, our general demography etc. Again, this must be information we trust and believe and if others have a differing opinion then we agree to differ – IT IS NOT A DEBATE. Never get into discussions about claims, legal matters, politics, financial or accounting positions. These matters by their very nature ARE ALWAYS CONTENTIOUS and must ALWAYS BE AVOIDED. Another area to always avoid is history. The overwhelming volume of history comes in the form of someone else’s account and interpretation. History is one of the most TRIBAL facets of society and must always be avoided. People will always attempt to convince us that the future we seek was tried and failed in the past. That has NO RELEVANCE TO US. I used to hate carrots but I love them now – that is very interesting and no less relevant. But ‘thanks anyway for your interesting input’is an appropriate response.

2. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE OPPOSITION

First, a little anecdote. A hungry lion sees a fisherman getting into his boat. It attacks. The fisherman fights back. He is fighting for his life? Wrong. We are conditioned to think like that. They are both fighting for their life. If the fisherman escapes in his boat, the lion starves to death. If they could communicate the fisherman would tell the lion that if they are smart he can catch fish and on his return they both eat and live. But they can’t communicate. So consider this …..

All we must remember about independence is, by International Law our assets are OUR assets, not England’s. England has a very portable economy, a margin economic a ‘middle man’ economy that is easily removed. Brexit will be testimony to that when their financial markets migrate to Europe. Scotland has drinking water, oil, gas, coal, wind energy, wave energy, fish … the list goes on. This cannot be towed down to Dover or Calais. Without Scotland’s assets, England is in serious trouble. THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES – and, THEY HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF FIGHTING DIRTY. When we are up against someone who is fighting for their life, we had better expect a hell of a struggle. THAT IS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW.

3. UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION

Now that we recognise that England will put up a mammoth, dirty struggle to hang on to our assets it is important to understand the opposition we face. They will hit us with lies, deception and threats. They have control of the purse strings, the politics and the especially the media and they outnumber us massively. We must be smarter, much smarter – and guess what, we have a long history of that – when we put our mind to it. So we must put our minds to it. I will only talk in general terms because I have no control over my 20 odd thousand readers.

4. RECOGNISE THE LIES, DECEPTION AND BEAR TRAPS

One of the first provocations was the ‘too wee, too poor and too stupid’ narrative. I would not be giving anything away by clarifying this – not answering it just clarifying. There are more independent countries smaller than us than larger. On the world census we would be 117th of 236th or bang in the middle size wise in the world. Of course we are not listed because we’re not recognised as a country but lumpted in with the UK. Basically, we are certainly NOT TOO SMALL?

Perhaps we are too poor. In a sense, we are but in much the same way as we have nothing after a burglary. We all know that Scotland has massive oil and gas reserves. By international law this is our asset. However, aside from that Scotland sit on coal, we have the largest fishing rights in Europe, we have huge wind and wave resources to the point we are effectively self sufficient. One of the most exciting new developments has come as an unexpected and perhaps unwelcome bonus but – we will take it as a gift from nature as is many of our national assets. Global warming and the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap has opened up the North East Sea Passage and with it vastly more economical shipping routes to Russia, the Far East and the West Coast of America. This was the geographic advantage that built London and now offers fantastic opportunities to Scotland and particularly the North East. Look at the wealth of Norway and we have many more advantages – but interestingly, much in common. Does any of this suggest we are TOO POOR?

In the 1800s Scotland was the centre of the Enlightenment. Scotland is and always was awash with heavyweight brains that gave us many of the developments the world enjoys such as TV, telephony, commercial steam power, Adam Smith, Robert Owen and the industrial revolution. This list is almost endless and since that time IQs have not dropped off. In a short sentence we are NOT TOO STUPID?

We made a huge mistake in 2014 with The White Paper. This should have been done on a ‘show me yours and we will show you ours’. However, this probably taught us the biggest and most important lesson of all the the KEY TO SUCCESS.

It is essential we don’t get drawn into the purported facts, tables and charts supporting the threats, the lies, the deception and the spin of the Westminster Establishment. This is a bear trap. We must resist the temptation, however compelling, to jump into a defensive role when the opposition have already planned there next moves.

There is a very, very simple way of beating the opposition at it own game – and it is a game. I have tested my theory relentlessly since before 2014 and it is so unbelievably simple. I have focused on antagonists, leaders of Better Together, anybody spouting anti-independence narratives and said simply – OK, TELL ME WHY, WHY, WE ARE BETTER TOGETHER. Don’t tell me THAT we are better together, focus on the WHY question. I have yet to get a single response, NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE other than attempts at insults or further assurance that we are Better Together.

If someone ever comes back with a coherent response we should thank them for their input and ensure them we will get back to them.

It really is that simple and for a very, very good reason. They CANNOT ANSWER THE WHY QUESTION because WE ARE NOT BETTER TOGETHER.

… AND FINALLY:

We will make a fantastic neighbour, a brilliant partner, and a very welcoming destination for New Scots from anywhere in the world and especially England, but first:

WE MUST REGAIN OUR SOVEREIGNTY