My proposal to the movement on the way forward is quite simple and is a hybrid of both Plan A and Plan B. Which should bring together all sides of the movement.

1. The #PeoplesAS30 establishes that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for a second referendum without Westminster consent.
2. The Scottish Government, and pro-independence parliamentarians at Holyrood IMMEDIATELY pass a referendum franchise bill to protect the right to hold a referendum. Included in that bill is a provision for its activation:
"That on a majority vote of the Scottish Parliament a date shall be set and a referendum held on Scottish Independence".
3. This bill having been officially passed prior to the 2021 elections. Pro-Independence candidates stand on the following policy -
(i) That if the Scottish Electorate return a pro-independence majority, a letter shall be immediately sent by the Scottish Government and signed by all pro-independence MSP's to the UK demanding an agreement for a second referendum.
Note I said "agreement" NOT a "section 30 order" because the court having averred that a section 30 order was not necessary, would mean that this would simply be a case of trying to smooth the way as much as possible.
This letter would contain, not an open ended timescale, but a specific deadline for the UK Government to make an agreement by that date (30 days). If they fail to do so, or the response is negative, the second policy would kick in which would be:
(ii) The activation of the bill which had been passed prior to the Scottish Election by a majority vote of the Scottish Parliament, calling a referendum without the agreement of the UK Government.
Standing on this very simple policy of seeking an agreement with a deadline or doing it ourselves would be a plebiscite that plan B advocates could likely get behind. The extension of a final offer to agreement and a deadline would serve those advocating plan A.
The Scottish Electorate would know what was to come and exactly what they were voting for. This would serve as a clear indication to the international community and if the UK Government failed to agree a mutual set of terms, would also show the world that Scotland...
....had tried everything in its power. But the courts having averred that a referendum could be held without a section 30 order, and Scotlands courts being internationally recognised, a referendum held without agreement would be legal. Period.
After a yes vote, our priority should be to negotiate with Europe first for membership of the EU, because that membership would then serve to cut through the bull with Westminster on trade etc (because the UK must trade with all EU countries the same).
Additionally, the Scotland/England border would likely mean softening of Brexit for those left in the UK in order to facilitate cross border trade. So our parting gift to the UK may well be to help restore some of the rights of those in England and Wales.
This is a very simple plan but it relies upon the Scottish National Party mobilising immediately to push through a referendum franchise bill after the court ruling and to actively assist the case, not hinder it.
There may be technical challenges, that's just a fact. But nothing worth doing is ever easy.
In summation:

(1) Court establishes holyrood can hold a referendum without Tory permission.
(2) Holyrood passes bill with activation clause.
(3) 2021 Election is a plebiscite for a mandate to activate that bill.
(4) Westminster given 30 days to agree to a referendum (courtesy only).
(5) If they agree, referendum held. If they don't agree, Scottish Parliament votes to activate bill and referendum held!
For those unfamiliar with #PeoplesAS30 here's a thread I did yesterday.

https://t.co/4p7h8XCD2X

More from Politics

My piece in the NY Times today: "the Trump administration is denying applications submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services at a rate 37 percent higher than the Obama administration did in 2016."

Based on this analysis: "Denials for immigration benefits—travel documents, work permits, green cards, worker petitions, etc.—increased 37 percent since FY 2016. On an absolute basis, FY 2018 will see more than about 155,000 more denials than FY 2016."
https://t.co/Bl0naOO0sh


"This increase in denials cannot be credited to an overall rise in applications. In fact, the total number of applications so far this year is 2 percent lower than in 2016. It could be that the higher denial rate is also discouraging some people from applying at all.."

Thanks to @gsiskind for his insightful comments. The increase in denials, he said, is “significant enough to make one think that Congress must have passed legislation changing the requirements. But we know they have not.”

My conclusion:
I told you they’d bring this up


I was wondering why that tweet had so many stupid replies. And now I see


Seriously, this was “the night before.” If you’re at the march where they’re changing “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil,” you’re not a “very fine person.” Full stop.


There are 3 important moments in that transcript.

1.) When someone asked Trump about a statement *he had already made* about there being blame on “both sides,” he said the “fine people” line.


2. Trump does clarify! “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally “

Okay!

Then adds that there were “many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
How the CIA gets the media to lie to you

https://t.co/vsTrS43Fft


https://t.co/rUTYg42PYH


https://t.co/1r0MbPv8wG


War on democracy - installing US-puppet dictators in Latin America in order to control their economies
#Guatemala #Arbenz #RedScare

Propaganda, "harmless bombing" and a CIA terror campaign


CIA war on Nicaragua

You May Also Like

Still wondering about this 🤔


save as q
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.