An epic tale of revenge is coming to a head in Scotland which encapsulates every cliché uttered on the subject.
‘While seeking revenge, dig two graves – one for yourself.’
‘Revenge is its own executioner.’
‘Revenge… is like a rolling stone, which, when a man hath forced up a hill, will return upon him with a greater violence, and break those bones whose sinews gave it motion.’
It’s also a classic textbook example of a Plutonic relationship gone toes up. Not only have Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, former First Minister and former protegee become First Minister, damaged if not destroyed themselves in the process of a botched series of attacks and cover ups. They’ve also possibly/probably put paid to any hopes of a Yes vote if any Scottish independence referendum ever came round and have torn apart their beloved SNP party when they were at it. Just astonishing.
Previous posts give the detail: 23 February 2021 and January 13 2021. This is additional thoughts.
What’s intriguing about both birth charts is – amongst other things – the Nodal axis being keyed up. Salmond has his Solar Arc North Node conjunct his Midheaven exactly and his Solar Arc Neptune conjunct his natal Capricorn North Node. As well as a trapped, enraging Solar Arc Mars (conjunct Algol) square his Pluto; and tr Neptune conjunct his 10th house Mars, then Moon/Mars midpoint and Pisces Moon over the next three years.
Sturgeon has her Progressed Mars exactly conjunct her Virgo South Node now to the minute of a degree (one sixtieth). Plus her Solar Arc Moon opposition her Pluto and her Solar Arc Uranus exactly square her Midheaven. Tr Pluto is also in the grinding-breakdown phase of a two year opposition to her Cancer Sun, moving on to oppose her Sun/Mars midpoint and then her Mars in 2023/24 which will be completely logjammed and frustrating for her. She does have tr Pluto square her Jupiter in 2022/23 so she will attempt to push ahead nonetheless but it won’t outweigh the more blocked influences.
Salmond’s Pluto is conjunct Sturgeon’s Midheaven and he did foster her progress early on when he was in power. But his Pluto is also square her slippery Neptune and stubborn Saturn in Taurus. And more troublesome her determined Pluto opposes his Mars Moon which was always going to end in bitterness.
Their relationship chart has a composite Pluto Jupiter conjunct the Ascendant – so together they made a go-ahead power couple; and there is a friendly composite Sun Venus in a workmanlike sextile to Saturn. But as ever when the forward momentum slowed and togetherness became a thing of the past, the Pluto energy turned inwards and it became a struggle for the upper hand; and the resentment bred by the one-sided composite Mars square Pluto surfaced as Sturgeon stepped into the top seat.
The composite Mars, just to continue the spooky astro-coincidences, is exactly conjunct the destructive Fixed Star Algol. While they were together plotting to destroy the Scotland/England Union that Mars was focused on their main objective. But when the balance shifted, it started to destroy the relationship itself.
Both SNP charts, 14 December 1933 and 7 April 1934, indicate disappointment and a seismic disruption over the next three years in one case; and an upheaval if not total collapse of the old structure in 2021/22 extending into road blocks in 2023.
Nicola Sturgeon may resign or may brass-neck it out, but her Term chart, 12 May 2016 9.35am has the destabilising Solar Arc Pluto square Uranus, exact in coming two months, which is heading into the May elections. And it has the Solar Arc Saturn exactly square the North Node now, which won’t bring cheer.
Who’s have thought it? I can’t say I was ever in favour of splitting the UK up into bits, though I understood the antipathy to the London political louts. But if ever there was an example of hubris and bitterness bringing the ceiling down on their own heads this is it.
Your post is a demented rant. Question though will Scotland be involved when the “United Kingdom defends itself” given its part of the UK how will this work? Also it would serve you well to remember Scotland was once an independent country and one day it will return to that – it’s natural state and England will have to find a way to manage without it.
Interesting article …. (I totally agree)
We Need A New Act Of Union — And What To Put In It ….
For the last century the United Kingdom has regarded itself as a voluntary union of four home nations. Consent, rather than the force of law, has been the glue that has held us together. This is not normal. Most countries hold themselves together with something rather more robust.
In Spain, the courts, applying the constitution, ruled that it was unlawful for Catalan separatists even to hold a vote on Catalan independence. In the United States the position would be even stricter. Its leading case on the law of secession was admittedly decided in the immediate aftermath of the US Civil War, but the US Supreme Court’s authoritative decision on the matter was unequivocal. When a state becomes one of the United States it enters into ‘an indissoluble relation’ that is ‘final’, the Court ruled. There is ‘no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution’ or with the consent of the United States.
Quebec went through two secession referendums, in 1980 and 1995, after the second of which Canada referred to its Supreme Court the question of whether a province of Canada has a constitutional right to unilateral secession. The Court’s unanimous verdict was to reject as ‘absolutist’ the proposition that, even after a Yes vote indicating a clear desire to leave, there would be any legal obligation on the other provinces or the federal government to accede to the secession of a province: ‘Quebec could not purport to invoke a right of self-determination such as to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties: that would not be a negotiation at all’, the Court said. Were secession to happen, it would have to be done by negotiation and, said the Court, ‘no negotiations could be effective if their ultimate outcome, secession, is cast as an absolute legal entitlement’. And this even after a Yes vote.
No state should be expected to have to endure repeat referendums on their very existence whenever it suits a separatist movement to hold one
We have no such legal clarity in the United Kingdom. Here, it seems, we can be threatened with referendums that have the potential to break up our country whenever a Nationalist government in a devolved administration says so.
If, as the polls predict, Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP win the Scottish parliamentary election in May and demand a second independence referendum, the Prime Minister will of course say No. He will be right to do so — now, as we battle our way out of a pandemic, is not the time for the division and rancour of another plebiscite on secession. But, in Scotland, he will be castigated for doing so. An English Tory denying Scotland her voice, there is a real risk that Boris Johnson just saying No to Nicola will push support for independence up and place the Union in ever deeper trouble. With consent fraying at the edges, what to do?
As the examples of Spain, the US and Canada show, there is nothing to require the UK to continue to think that it cannot or should not turn to the law as a constitutional safeguard. No state should be expected to have to endure repeat referendums on their very existence whenever it suits a separatist movement to hold one. The 2014 Scottish independence referendum was said by the Nationalists to be a once-in-a-generation opportunity. All well and good, except no-one ever took the trouble to define what was meant by a generation.
Perhaps we should stop being so squeamish about the law and clear the matter up. Let history be our guide. There were two Scottish devolution referendums, held eighteen years apart (1979 and 1997). There were two EU referendums held in the UK, 41 years apart (1975 and 2016). Clearly, constitutional referendums can be repeated on the same issue — on this view, no one should say ‘never’ to a second Scottish independence referendum. But giving legal clarity to the ‘not now’ arguments the UK Government will have no choice but to run if the Nationalists win another Holyrood majority next month deserves serious consideration. How much better if it wasn’t just a Tory prime minister telling Scotland that it could not re-run a vote held only a few years ago, but the binding law of the land.
The United Kingdom is perfectly entitled to take to the law to defend itself. Again, lessons from constitutional law elsewhere in the world are instructive. The new South African constitution, lauded around the world as that country emerged from the pit of apartheid, provides for three spheres of government — national, provincial and local. Section 41 of the constitution provides that all spheres of government and all public bodies ‘must preserve the peace, national unity and the indivisibility’ of the country and ‘must be loyal to the constitution’.
The United Kingdom needs a new Act of Union to set out, authoritatively, the rare circumstances in which one part of the country can seek lawfully to secede. As well as defining how frequently referendums on such a matter may be held, the law could at the same time impose obligations on governments and public bodies throughout the land to act with fidelity towards — and not to undermine — the territorial integrity of the country. Nationalists will howl with rage at this proposal. In response to them I would just gently point out that their beloved European Union includes within its treaties a like provision: ‘Member states shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives’.
Time to copy and paste this idea from the EU’s rulebook into our own: ‘devolved administrations shall facilitate the achievement of the United Kingdom’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the United Kingdom’s objectives’. What Europhile Nationalist could object to that?
Adam Tomkins is a Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow and a Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange.
It’s all very well to keep saying that Scotland didn’t vote for Brexit, the truth is that the majority of Scots couldn’t be bothered to vote at all. In any case it wasn’t about individual nations getting their say, but about the United Kingdom voting as one constituency.
The truth is only as you see it nothing more or less. The people in Scotland, the ones that showed up, voted,as a majority, to stay in the EU and the people in England, the ones that bothered to show up, as a majority, voted to leave. Before Brexit this was part of the wider discussion re independence but it was put down as project fear. As the catastrophic consequences to our industries becomes clearer your excuse ‘it was the whole of the UK” holds absolutely no sway up here. Why should we have to put up with this insanity?
It doesn’t alter the fact that 12 people who had access to all the evidence found him not guilty.
Compared that to the cesspit of corruption at Westminster where no one pays the price for any failure public or professional and the national broadcaster shows an alarming lack of interest its no wonder Scotland ( not just the SNP) wants to break away.
I hope you are not speaking for all of Scotland.
Say, In 2014, Scotland did not want to break away.
I’m not going to go into the Salmond Sturgeon drama except to say it has been sensationalised by those with a political axe to grind.
The vast majority of people in Scotland see that.
Scottish independence is NOT dependent on these two personalities.
Ardent Scottish nationalists will support independence in any case. But a substantial number of people will support independence only if they trust the people promoting independence. The current saga has dented that trust. Unless, Scottish government is going to declare independence without a vote, image of those promoting it does matter.
Also, support for independence fluctuates based on the short term happenings. When England was doing worse than Scotland in the Covid times, support for independence was higher. When the vaccine rollout has been done well, primarily, driven by Westminster, support for independence dipped.
If Scotland promoters say they want to join the EU, and if EU is doing well (without any major economic issues in this case) compared to UK, then support for independence will be high.
Logically, it sounds silly how people focus on short term things to vote on long term future .. Brexit, for example, would not have tipped over the 50% mark if not for the migrant crisis in the continent.
Wow I’ve never heard those fishy puns before – top marks for originality. The thing is this is a sad mess and at its heart are women who have been badly let down and Sturgeon( her proper name) will take the fall – she is an honourable woman and will resign. Not at all like that awful woman Patel who breaks ministerial codes and is actually rewarded with better jobs and continues to do what she likes. Also unlike just about every other tory minister who keep their mates pockets lined with dodgy contracts. All of this goes unpunished as the media look away. Now this does not excuse what’s going in Scotland however if anyone thinks this is the end of the independence struggle – now that’s fishy. Why would it be? The suggestion that the Scots will look to Westminster and say “oh yes I’ll keep that – it’s better” is hilarious. Something has to change and as more and more people feel the effects of Brexit and this whole sorry saga between sturgeon and salmond settles down we will have a much clearer picture and independence will pick up again – it’s not going anywhere.
If Brexit has taught one thing, it is how difficult it is to break and Union and co-operation. If the break after 40 years of EU was difficult to negotiate, how easy it is going to be with 300 years union. If the animosity on both sides of the Brexit negotiation was bad, imagine how bad it will be for UK-Scotland split.
Added to this, if Scotland wants to join the EU, what is the solution for the land border between the EU member state (the independent Scotland) and a non-member UK.
EU will definitely flame the fire to split Scotland from the UK to make UK weaker.
This does not mean Scottish independence should not happen if the people wish.
Yes Brexit voted for by the English and Welsh electorate and now because it has gone so badly being used as an excuse against independence. It’s impossible to second guess how negotiations will go – it depends how mature people want to be about it. I don’t know where you are getting the proof that the EU will play those games -far more likely the UK will dirty games given their history.
Spain will put the veto on a breakaway Scotland joining since they are still struggling to quell the Catalonia rebellion.
When UK was part of EU, it was definitely a concern. But with Brexit, Spain need not worry about Catalonia. Scotland will be a new country that broke from a non-EU country and joining EU.
For Scotland joining EU, the main challenges will be , currency and land border with England. Currency issue can be resolved politically easily. Land border with England will be the problem. EU will be concerned about leakage of good across the border. If NI continues to be part of UK, then any solution for Scotland – England border can be applied for NI-ROI border.
It’s possible that Scotland will decide not to join the EU. There will
very likely be a referendum asking the people if they want to join. It’s kind of cool that Scotland would have that choice and Spain has never said it would stop
Scotland – the situation between Scotland and Catalonia are not the same.
@Ronnie,
“It’s possible that Scotland will decide not to join the EU. There will
very likely be a referendum asking the people if they want to join”
There has been no indication till now about such a referendum for joining the EU.
But, good if there is one.
“Yes Brexit voted for by the English and Welsh electorate”
Perhaps the brexit vote was more concentrated in certain areas of England and Wales (but not the much disliked London, ironically). But the cause wasn’t helped at all by the Scottish vote keeping Theresa May in power in 2017. I think this black and white blame game of us V’s them goes nowhere, it’s very Pluto in Capricorn, but getting kinda old..
Love how you talk about ‘black
And white’ and then go on to be black and white about the Scottish vote. Scotland did not vote for Brexit there is nothing black and white about that – it’s a fact. It’s also a fact that, given the recent figures, the food and drinks industry is suffering massively – but hey it’s all fine on the alter of Brexit .
@Ronnie If the same “the food and drinks industry is suffering massively” or some other industry suffers on the alter of Scot-ind, I think you wouldnt mind.
As I have said before, the arguments for or against Scot-ind is the same as for Brexit. Based on the individual’s perception, they may support neither, one or both. If you support one, but not both – there is no logic in demeaning the other one. Talking about the positive of your standpoint is what is sensible.
Regarding Scotland is against Brexit – kind of true. But 30% did vote for Brexit, so not a small minority that can be ignored. If those 30% didnt support, Brexit wouldnt have happened. So, I will say, Brexit vote was won with Scotland’s help.
Just checked, actually it is 38% support for Brexit in Scotland. That is big number.
You started being black and white with the “English and Welsh electorate”, that was sort of the point?
Then the “Scottish electorate” saved the Tories in 2017 – if we are to draw simple conclusions. At least the “London electorate” was consistent…;)
You mean it had nowt to do with the English voting for the tories – it was actually all Scotland’s fault cos some people voted Tory up here. I think that’s called the democratic choice maybe?
Sturgeon/salmon; a ” fishy” story ?? ( excuse the pun)
Bait and see, Aline…..
… regardless, they’re both smoked!
….and alas, not above repoach!
The percentage in Scotland that voted for Brexit have not been ignored – that makes absolutely no sense – we have left – how have they been ignored? The people In Scotland who voted to stay have been ignored . When Scotland becomes independent we will have a referendum and everyone will have a voice whether we want to join the EU and we will go with the majority.
“she take da high road
and he take da lo road……………..”
lets hope she leaves before she’s pushed as the pair of them should hang their heads in shame if these woman are telling the truth. Id like to see the UK stay united myself as love Scotland
There has been a court case where AS was found not guilty.
In other words a jury of men and women did not believe the women’s allegations.
I believe on one charge it was found ‘not proven’ which is an odd Scottish halfway house between innocent and guilty. Probably the latter but not enough proof.
The lawyer who acted for Alex Salmond in his summing up said “If in some ways the former first minister had been a better man, I wouldn’t be here, you wouldn’t be here, none of us would be here. “But I’m in a court of law and I’m dealing, not with whether he could have been a better man because he certainly could have been better. “I’m dealing with whether or not it was established he was guilty of serious, sometimes very serious, criminal charges’” – which require a “very, very high standard of proof”.
After the trial the lawyer was recorded on a train by another passenger, describing Salmond as a “sex pest” and an objectionable bully. “I think he was a nasty person to work for…a nightmare to work for.”
Yes Scottish law is different- unproven isn’t innocent – thanks Marjorie for the reply. I don’t think Salmon or Sturgeon come out well in this. If Scotland do break it will be bitter
Could this be though the final few years of Capricorn Pluto?
After having from 2018 Capricorn South nodes, Saturn and Jupiter as well?
Pluto finishing off the destruction?
And, a new Scotland begins.