Featured post

Scotland’s Colonial Status – Suppression of Population

Iain Lawson recently published an excellent article by a guest writer Mia published on his “Yours for Scotland” blog page, entitled – WHAT HAS BEEN THE UNION DIVIDEND?

By coincidence, just before my “sabbatical” I was working on a blog on a similar theme but looking at it from a slightly different angle. This is it.

In the article Mia states tha “a way of measuring the success of a political union is by watching how the population and the wealth of the component countries increase in the same measure, suggesting that the union is balanced and fair.”

Mia correctly argues that Scotland’s “dividend” from the union has been to witness a suppression in population growth due to migration away from Scotland and falling birth rate.

Mia further states that “Migration to Scotland is positive because we need migrants to avoid Scotland’s population contracting. But what we have to be careful about is not to reach a point where the excuse of needing migration is misused as a way to swap huge chunks of Scotland’s original population by population from elsewhere that comes only transiently to Scotland and then leaves without developing any form of allegiance to Scotland or interest for its heritage and culture. It stands to the obvious that a progressive substitution of sectors of the original population of Scotland by another will lead to a loss of sense of nationhood.”

This is where my views diverge from Mia’s as I believe that as an independent nation Scotland could have implemented an immigration policy (just as other normal independent countries have done) which would have attracted people from all over the world (including many of Scot’s decent) who would have built their lives here, grown their families and embraced Scottish culture.

Unionist politicians are constantly telling us that Scotland is supported by the union and is better off from being part of it. Arguments become complex and rebuttal is difficult in the face of false information proffered by self-professed economic experts.

However, there is a very simple and straightforward way to demonstrate how Scotland has suffered and has been kept poor and downtrodden by being part of the union. It also provides further proof (if further proof were needed that Scotland is merely a colony of England). This can be demonstrated by a consideration of the change in Scotland’s population as compared to a number of other nations.

I have chosen to compare populations between 1960 and 2021 although population figures from 1900 to date paint a similar picture.

I have chosen to present in the table below a comparison of Scotland’s population growth with other European nations as well as New Zealand (a country very similar to Scotland in many respects and one with which I am very familiar).

I have also chosen to show the comparison with England – supposedly an equal partner with Scotland in the union.

This table demonstrates just how far Scotland has fallen behind all these other nations in terms of development.

I do not believe that there is an independent country in Europe with as low a percentage increase in population as Scotland.

The implications from this are many fold.

Primarily, as previously stated, it confirms Scotland’s colonial status in that our population has been manipulated and controlled throughout our time in the union by our neighbour and colonial master – England.

An independent Scotland will have the ability to set its own immigration policy and will be able to attract suitably qualified people to augment the workforce as well as taking our share of refugees and asylum seekers.

These people would be encouraged to make their lives here, grow their families here and embrace Scottish culture. They would become new Scots while at the same time, respect would be afforded to their cultures.

They would contribute to the tax system and would help in increasing production and growing the Scottish economy.

They would have a positive impact on the reduction of the average age in Scotland thus easing the ability of the Scottish government to meet and increase pensions.

Had Scotland been independent, particularly through the oil boom of the 1980s we could have expected a similar increase in population as say the Netherlands or Norway (around 50%). That would have resulted in a current population of around 7.5 million.

Let’s now consider England’s population increase from 1960 till the present – 12.76 million. Much of that is derived from immigration, largely as a result of colonisation. By rights, had we been in an equal union Scotland could have expected a 10% share of that increase – around 1.3 million.

Returning to Mia’s comments, she expresses her fears that in an independent Scotland, immigration could become transient resulting in a diminishing of Scottish heritage and culture along with a loss of “sense of nationhood”

I do not believe that would be the case. Consider countries from the above table such as Belgium, Netherlands or New Zealand. The population of these countries has grown considerably over the period shown largely due to immigration. The heritage, culture or sense of nationhood of these countries could not be said to have diminished.

The culture of a country should never diminish if the government introduces legislation and measures to safeguard and sustain it. This unfortunately has never ranked highly (if at all) on the present Nicola Sturgeon led Scottish Government’s priorities.

With independence, immigration and development of the country should go hand in hand and should be widespread all across Scotland. This could lead to redevelopment and re-population of the highlands.

However, for this to happen certain measures would require to be put in place such as land reform by taking undeveloped land from (often absentee) landowners into public ownership.

Legislation could be put in place which ensured that only those with Scottish citizenship could own land or property in Scotland – a measure which is adopted by many countries.

The benefits of citizenship would encourage many immigrants to stay long term and embrace their new culture.

I have spent a number of years working in the UAE and Qatar and have witnessed first hand plane loads of young men arriving for work from countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and many other countries. The majority had never left there homeland before and only spoke there own language. After a short period in the country I encountered many of them on construction sites and they had developed a reasonable fluency in Arabic and English.

People are flexible and adaptable.

Introduction of a certain knowledge of Scots, Gaelic and English and of the Scottish culture as a prerequisite for gaining citizenship would help with sustaining our culture.

Notwithstanding, this will not happen overnight and it will never happen if Nicola Sturgeon is allowed to continue with her inert agenda as regards Scottish Independence. We have lost seven years due to her. She has developed into a “safe pair of hands” for the union.

We need action, and we need action now. We need to put in place without delay, a strategy to plot our course and timescale for independence.

We must encourage membership of Alba as the only party with the capability, attitude and determination to fight for independence. We should also encourage membership of Now Scotland as an umbrella group that can unite the Yes movement.

The urgency cannot be over-stressed. Time is running out for Scotland.

The Facebook Censors

Unfortunately a number of pro Indy Facebook sites have turned out to be merely pro SNP sites and have blocked a number of bloggers. We have managed to frustrate these efforts to close us down through our readers sharing our articles and building our audience.Sharing in Facebook or on Twitter is very important and helps the Independence message to reach a much wider audience. In addition many have taken out free direct subscriptions. Please follow me on WordPress. I would very much appreciate this support.

Featured post
Scottish Achievements

Organisation of the Yes Movement

It is quite incredible how quickly ideas start to trend on social media and then really take off.

I am referring of course to the ever increasing demand to maximise the independence vote at the 2021 Scottish election by voting for an independence list party to augment the haul of constituency seats anticipated for the SNP.

I have been posting blogs on this subject for many months now.

I have received quite a lot of comments a number of positive responses.

A number of blogs and posts are now appearing along similar lines, with many very similar ideas.

However, my blogs have not reached out to as many people as I would have liked.

I must make it clear right now that I do not write these blogs through any sense of self-importance.

I seek no kudos.

I do not seek praise for “a well written article”.

It is the message that is important.

All I ask is that you read it and offer me criticism where warranted and offer suggestions as to how the ideas can be improved upon.

I want to engage with people, encourage discussion and illicit ideas as to how to improve on the proposal and receive cooperation with converting ideas into action.

I have known Pat Lee for some time now. He is a passionate and committed supporter of independence. He has been working tirelessly to initiate and develop the Alliance Party with the aim of fielding candidates for list seats.

Collette Walker has stared up the ISP with the same aim. They seem to be picking up support.

Perhaps several more pro-independence groups may want to field list candidates.

My belief is that we need to start from the top and work down.

There needs to be a democratically elected leadership group to give guidance and direction to all parties, factions and sectors within the entire Yes movement.

This would involve every group right across the entire spectrum of the Yes movement putting forward delegates to elect a committee who would then elect a leader and a leadership team. It goes without saying that this should involve the SNP and the Green Party.

It is my opinion that the SNP don’t speak for the entire Yes movement. I think that there should be a formalised organisation of the Yes movement (which would include the SNP).

I am not for a minute suggesting that the Yes movement could dictate to or even speak for the elected Scottish Government. However, they should be able to apply pressure to the SNP with regard to strategy.

This Yes movement committee could also develop the strategy for harnessing all groups and organising an Indy list party.

This will only work if it is all inclusive and encompasses all factions of the Indy movement.

The strategy can be developed in such a way that, with full cooperation from all groups, decisions can be taken as to the party with the best chance of winning list seats in each region. For example, as things transpired in the last Scottish Election, the SNP picked up list seats in South of Scotland. Accordingly, the SNP, the Greens, Alliance and ISP can be allocated the regions, in which they have the best chance of winning seats. This would require full agreement and cooperation from all parties and would ensure maximisation of the number of Indy party list seats.

There must be only one list party on the ballot for each region.

Many people are becoming critical of the SNP, particularly with their insistence that a section 30 agreement is the only way to achieve independence but also for their general reticence to show any urgency about responding to the demands of the Scottish people for independence.

If the SNP are to be believed that they are genuine about their desire for independence then they must cease the disingenuous rhetoric of SNP 1 & 2 and cooperate fully with the rest of the Yes movement.

I readily acknowledge that the SNP are the largest single group in the movement with over 100,000 members. However, I would argue that there are at least another 100,000 activists in the wider Yes movement. Many of these people have lent their votes to the SNP in the interest of fighting for independence. Notwithstanding, there are many in the wider movement who, although passionate about independence, would never support the SNP.

This is not about Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. It is not about Patrick Harvie and the Green Party. It is not about Tommy Sheridan and Solidarity. It is not about Colin Fox and the SSP etc, etc. It is not even about Alex Salmond. It is about every person, every single one of us across the entire Yes movement who puts our heart and soul into achieving the ever increasingly tangible goal of independence for Scotland. Every one of us who is totally committed and prepared to do what ever we can and what ever we have to in order to free Scotland from the chains of oppression binding us to the UK.

Furthermore, an organised Yes movement would in many respects benefit the SNP

The SNP would be left to concentrate on their duties as the Scottish Government without interference from the Yes committee.

The First Minister and the Scottish Government could not be criticised for neglecting the “day job” and pursuing independence. That would lie with the Yes movement.

Any internal disputes within the SNP would then be seen as a party matter for them to resolve and would not reflect on the Yes movement.


 The entire Yes Movement to be led by a committee democratically elected by every Yes group.

 The committee would elect a leader who would be the chief spokesperson for Yes.

 This committee would be responsible for developing the strategy to take us to independence by the fastest, most direct route.

 The committee would coordinate and work with all groups.

 If the developed strategy involved utilising the Scottish Election as a route to independence, then discussions should be held with all parties to decide if and where individual parties should field candidates to maximise the number of independence MSPs.

I realise that there may be flaws in some of the above but that is why we must have meaningful dialogue to iron out the flaws.

One thing is certain is that we are running out of time for dialogue.

We need to be entering the “action” phase.

Boris Johnson and his cohorts in the british establishment will not be hanging around talking.

They will very rapidly be putting their plans in place to dismantle the Scottish Parliament and to fully assimilate Scotland as a region of the U.K.

There must be a change in our approach to achieving independence and it must happen quickly.

Iain Cameron – Alba Party Candidate for Banff & District

On the eve of poll can I please ask all people in the Banff & District Ward for Aberdeenshire Council, to consider voting for me, as number 1, tomorrow?

If you don’t feel able to vote for me as no. 1 candidate, I would appreciate it if you give me your, second or third vote.

I have been campaigning for independence for Scotland since 1964 and I was a member of the SNP for 55 years, but their lack of urgency and commitment to independence led me to join the Alba, party, as it is more aligned with my own priorities which are:

  • Scottish Independence as a matter of immediate priority
  • Protect the rights of women and girls
  • Tackling the cost of living crisis

I am proud to be standing as an Alba candidate for this election.
If elected I promise that I will stand up for the people of Banff & District:

Supporting the campaign to save Canal Park and protecting green spaces.
Provision of facilities and opportunities for young people.
Campaigning for the urgent upgrading of Banff Bridge.
Campaigning for the regeneration of Banff town centre.


Vote Iain Cameron #1


This is a fantastic post from Iain Lawson and one which I can associate with. Estonia is a beautiful country with wonderful people.

I have only been to Estonia once, for a football friendly in 2004, 27th May to be exact. The significance of this date is that Estonia officially joined the EU on 1st May 2004 so there was still an air of celebration about the place. I had presumed the celebrations had continued from the successful referendum the previous year. I was really impressed with the positive attitude of everyone I met. I also had the privilege to have a meeting with Meelis Atonen, the Estonian Communications Minister along with the late West Lothian Councillor Jim Sibbald.

Christine always believed that I travelled with the Tartan Army for the football and the bevvy (not necessarily in that order). However, I liked to look on my trips as also being a bit of a fact-finding mission and saw myself as a bit of an ambassador for Scotland and Scottish Independence.

I spoke to a great many people there, mostly in Russian, for which I apologised in advance. There was no love lost for their former oppressors. I could not speak Estonian but had a reasonable command of Russian. There was a lot of support amongst the people I spoke to for Scotland becoming an independent country.

HOW I HOPED It was May 1993 when I first set foot on Estonian soil. The country was in turmoil having re established Independence in August 1991 from…





This is an excellent article by Mia published by Iain Lawson via his “Yours for Scotland” blog page. It highlights the damage that has been enacted upon Scotland through being part of this atrocious union.

By coincidence, just before my “sabbatical” I was working on a blog on a similar theme but looking at it from a slightly different angle. I will publish this shortly.

Not genetically programmed to make political decisions

It is hard to believe that there are so many people who still blindly follow Nicola Sturgeon.

It is not that they don’t want Scotland to be independent but they genuinely believe everything that Sturgeon says and fervently defend her. When she states that now is not the time for indyref2, they admonish everyone to have patience as “oor Nicola knows best”.

When Sturgeon launches a bitter attack on Alex Salmond the flock embellish the message and launch their own vitriolic attacks on Alex and on anyone who defends or supports him. They then blame Alba party supporters for creating division in the Yes movement.

They refuse to acknowledge facts or question anything, even when it is pointed out that Sturgeon has failed to act on seven mandates and has not taken Scotland any closer to independence than we were in 2014.

Why is it that these people are unable to see what is happening?

I have a theory about it. Make of this what you will.

Does anyone remember the gaffe made by labour’s Scottish branch manager, Johann Lamont in 2014? She stated that “Scots are not genetically programmed to make political decisions.”

I would suggest that this wasn’t a gaffe and Johann was quite correct in what she said. Remember that Johann’s terms of reference were very narrow – in fact she was limited to the confines of the Labour Party. Therefore her statement really should have been “Labour supporters in Scotland are not genetically programmed to make political decisions”.

Now we know that to be true. It was often correctly stated that if you put a chimpanzee in a suit with a red rosette, labour supporters would vote for it.

Over the years labour supporters were conditioned to accept anything that the party said or did without question.

Then in 2014, after the referendum, the “great migration” occurred which saw many of these labour people moving over to the SNP, bringing with them all their learned behaviours.

Therefore when they were told that Nicola Sturgeon was the saviour who would lead them to the promised land, they enthusiastically believed every word without the slightest hesitation.

They were like religious converts who become more fervent than those who have followed a religion all their lives.

There was always going to be a problem with membership growing from around 20,000 to 120,000 within a matter of weeks, particularly as they tore up the rule book with regard to assimilation of new members into branches. The dynamics and balance within branches was altered. Many branches were effectively being manipulated by those newcomers who would endeavour to explain the way business should be conducted (presumably from their experience in the Labour Party or trade unions). Older party stalwarts were being marginalised.

This should never have happened this way. These people should have been consolidated into the Yes movement not used to satisfy Nicola Sturgeon’s megalomania.

The rule book was well and truly shredded a few months later when they rushed through vetting for stand as candidates in the 2015 General Election people who had newly joined the party. Hitherto the rule had been that before anyone could apply to stand as a candidate, they should have been a member of the party for at least 12 months.

This allowed them to parachute in a number of celebrities and carpetbaggers who did not have any previous connection to the SNP and in some cases, no previous connection with the Yes movement. John Nicholson springs immediately to mind. He was living in London with his partner, working for the BBC. He was invited to go up to Glasgow to compère the circus that was Nicola Sturgeon’s coronation. He would tell a few jokes, introduce the musicians and usher celebrities on an off the stage, all the while working the clap-o-meter. He was then invited to become an SNP candidate for the 2015 Westminster Election. He won the seat (along with 55 other SNP candidates) out of a total of 59 seats. It couldn’t have worked out better – a new highly paid job and he wouldn’t even have to relocate from London. On top of that he wouldn’t even have to enter into discussions about independence as Nicola Sturgeon had made it clear that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence.

Many long-standing SNP activists were dismissed at vetting, myself included. I suspect that a major factor in my case was that I made it clear that independence would always come before party loyalty. Before anyone accuses me of harbouring bitterness towards the SNP due to failing vetting, let me state categorically that I have never harboured any bitterness towards the SNP, only to those who currently mismanage the party. In any case, there were those more worthy to be selected as candidates than me who failed vetting – Craig Murray for one.

One thing that this vetting process did was to confirm that my previous concerns for the way the party was going were well founded.

I did in fact have reservations about how the vetting process was conducted. That was why I decided to appeal on the grounds that I believed the assessment panel’s decision was “procedurally unfair”.


I have attached a copy of my appeal document along with copies of the invitation to vetting letter and decision letter.

The appeal was in three parts and is fairly self explanatory. However, perhaps one of the most significant points was that there were five events scheduled on the agenda and only certain people participated in all five. I was only given the opportunity to participate in three. It was as if it had been predetermined.

I attended the appeal hearing panel which composed of Ian Hudghton and Colin Beattie. Colin sat like a garden gnome and didn’t say a word. I presented my appeal to Ian Hudghton, who glanced at it and threw it back across the table at me stating “rubbish – we don’t have to justify our decisions.”

So I left.

Whether the decision of the vetting panel was correct or not is irrelevant. (I had passed vetting with the SNP in the Past). However it was obvious that the party had now reached a point where transparency and democratic decision processes were no longer being applied.

Incidentally, Hannah Bardell attending the same vetting session as I did. Almost immediately after she entered the room she proceeded to tell everyone that she had gone to work in the north east to help Alex Salmond and she was a really good and close friend of his and she continued to mention this throughout the day in case anyone had forgotten. The impression she was giving was that it was “in the bag”.

It didn’t take very long for her to turn on her “bestie”.

After Alex Salmond was acquitted of all charges by a majority female jury, Bardell through her connection with Rape Crisis Scotland and her girlfriend, Brenna Jessie, she continued to attack him and effectively dismiss the verdict.

She is another SNP MP who has much higher priorities on her list than independence.

There were many other entryists who were pushed through vetting at the expense of long standing SNP members. They all had their own agendas. Some even had a gimmick. The main thing is that they all met with Nicola Sturgeon’s requirements and bought into her plans. They all went down to Westminster to settle in to join those experienced at settling in like comfy slippers Pete Wishart.

I must clarify that at least two SNP MPs should not be included in the foregoing – Joanna Cherry and Angus MacNeil.

As for the majority of the SNP MPs, there is no fight in them, no bottle and no obvious desire for independence. They are spineless. They have put loyalty to a corrupt SNP leadership before the needs and desires of the Scottish people. Why did none of them speak out before the recent Scottish election and state that “both votes SNP” was wrong and would gift seats unionists? The same reason that none of them are prepared to make a principled stand and walk away from a Westminster Parliament that does not serve Scotland – a fat salary, a fat pension at the end of it and a cushy lifestyle.

I may have appeared to digress from the original theme of my blog but my contention is that without the blind, unquestioning support of the cult following (including the MPs) Sturgeon would not have been able to put her plans into action. The flock have enabled and empowered her. They have made her virtually untouchable. They have acted like Sturgeon’s Palace Guard, keeping the Yes movement at bay and unleashing their venom on anyone who dares to criticise the Dear Leader. This has kept the pressure of Sturgeon and allowed her to keep dangling carrots without the slightest intention of delivering independence or even a referendum. Her main objective is the retention of power and perhaps using it as a stepping stone to even greater things.

Now I do concede that not all that came from labour to support the SNP in 2014 can be categorised as above. I know this to be a fact. Also, not all members of the cult following are ex-labour party. Some are long term SNP members. I also know this to be a fact.

However, I believe my theory stands for the majority of the sheep and I’m sticking to it.

One glimmer of hope (if my theory is correct) is that these people eventually woke up from their slumbers when they realised what the labour party had become. Hopefully they will wake up before it is too late and see what the SNP has become under Sturgeon.

2015 – Split in Yes Support

I was going over some of my archived posts and I came across this one below from 2015.

I had forgotten just how suspicious I was of Sturgeon’s motivation even back then and my concerns over the direction the SNP was taking.

It helps to put in perspective why we are no nearer independence today than we were in 2014.

————— ———- —————

Reflecting on the past year in Scottish politics, it would appear that the SNP have managed to create a division in the Yes support. There are those who appear to believe that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP can do no wrong and they accept everything that the party tell them without question. What is more, they dutifully repeat all the mantras and sound bites.

On the other side there are those who, having been fired up by the referendum campaign and the overwhelming support for a pro-Indy party at the General Election, expected to see the momentum being carried forward along with the announcement of a second referendum. They expect independence as soon as possible and refuse to accept the SNP’s call for patience.

Looking back to the referendum, it was disappointing that’s the SNP refused to acknowledge any possibility that the vote was rigged but it was equally disappointing that they refused to put people in place to monitor polling station, follow vans carrying ballot boxes and scrutinize the counts. It is worth noting that an acknowledgement that the vote was rigged would by implication have meant that at least 50% supported YES.

Following the disappointment of the referendum, the YES supporters became galvanized and determined to push on for independence. They flocked to join the SNP in droves and those who did not actually join the party, pledged to support it. It was therefore a real slap in the face to those people who were supporting the party through their desire for independence when Nicola Sturgeon announced prior to the 2015 General Election that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence. Winning 56 out of 59 or 95% of Scottish seats at the General Election should have been taken as a clear mandate for independence. The massive increase in support for the SNP came from people who had pledged themselves to independence. Does Nicola Sturgeon honestly believe that the SNP actually picked up votes from unionists?

As already mentioned, there is now a split in the Yes support and it appears to be growing. It isn’t helped by those who shout down and dismiss anyone with a different viewpoint. In particular, there is a band of what can only be described as SNP fanatics who refuse to listen to any criticism of the party or the leadership whatsoever. They are often abusive and consider anyone who criticizes the party as being a closet unionist. I think it would be beneficial if we could all try and understand each other’s opinions. In other words, rather than just rubbishing a point, try and do some research into it and present a reasoned argument. A case in point is the refusal to accept that anything other than both votes for the SNP in May’s election will allow unionists parties to get seats. However, it has been clearly shown by a number of people that this is not the case and in fact vote 1 for SNP and vote 2 for another pro-Indy party will have a better chance of keeping the unionists out.

I would like you to consider this analogy:-

Two preachers are addressing a group of people.

Preacher A tells them that his religion is the only one that can offer them a way to heaven and if they don’t believe in his religion they will suffer eternal damnation.

Preacher B tells them that he would like them to follow his religion but it is their choice because either of these two religions will offer a path to heaven.

Which preacher would you trust?

I would like to see all Independence supporters coming together again as we were during the referendum campaign.

I would like to see the SNP initiating talks with all the other pro-Indy parties to develop a strategy and an understanding of the way forward to independence.

It is not good enough to constantly be told “have patience!”, “wait till we are sure we have enough support”, “trust us”, “wait till a major event happens” etc etc. We need to know what the plan is. I have been a member of the SNP for over 50 years and throughout most of that time Independence used to be the very reason for the existence of the party. If it still is then they need to make it clear that is is. If it isn’t then they need to say why.

Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see the SNP forming the first government of a newly independent Scotland. However, the people of Scotland will not allow them to drag their heels. The people of Scotland will decide when we retake our independence.

Change the biased franchise

I would urge everyone to read this blog by Iain Lawson which is the third paper in the excellent series by Professor Alf Baird. 


This should be widely distributed and discussed.
As well as getting involved in and supporting immediate action such as rallies and marches, I believe we have a responsibility to discuss, inform and help develop strategies that are essential to our ability to achieve independence. 
The fact that the SNP have signed up to the franchise that was used in 2014 is clear evidence that they are not committed to achieving independence. This franchise allowed for anyone resident in Scotland (even on short term / temporary basis) to vote in the referendum. The present system is open to extreme abuse.
All Boris Johnson’s bluster about widening the eligibility to cover Scots living in England is just that – bluster. He is quite happy with the arrangements that the SNP have in place as he can make provision for the transfer to Scotland of sufficient numbers to win the vote.Sturgeon will play her part in the charade and that we retain the current system which will be conceded and she will wrongly claim victory.
This franchise must be changed. We must write the rules for eligibility to vote here in Scotland. These eligibility rules must provide for a fair and just voting system the result of which is not skewed by in comers. At present around 50,000 people per year move from England to Scotland. 
We must consider whether the eligibility should be restricted to indigenous Scots living in Scotland or, if we allow those who have immigrated to Scotland to vote, should the eligibility rules state that they should be permanently resident (primary home) in Scotland for a period of e.g. five years prior to the referendum.
We should develop this idea and spread it as widely as possible, encourage feedback then start applying pressure to the Scottish Government.