Sacking Jason Leitch would be a mistake

Jason Leitch became a household name in the Covid pandemic after the resignation of Catherine Calderwood who served as the Chief Medical Officer, Calderwood had attended her second holiday home and got caught after creating a bunch of rules saying that basically – you should be staying at home. The Scottish Government decided to platform a host of other clinicians to try and reduce the risk of them all getting cancelled in succession.

Now I’m no covid or vaccine denier, I believe both are real and both had public health legacies that will last many years, rather the opposite is true in fact – I was a trialist for the Valneva vaccine. I strongly believed the solution was in vaccinating quickly and beating the virus that way. However I believed for a long time we had been captured in the country by excessive lockdowns and punitive measures that were never likely to succeed. 

In hindsight we know the virus was not as bad as initially feared, the restrictions imposed caused, on balance, more harm than expected, and the vaccines were never as good as dreamt. 

We have a motto around here “it’s never as bad as you feared and never as good as you hoped”. 

Now Catherine Calderwood committed the trivial crime of visiting a full other empty house, but she was eviscerated by the government opposition parties and the media. Did it matter she previously had rather (publicly) anonymously risen the ranks and become the CMO on the merit of her contributions? No. Out went Calderwood and all her experience for what now would be reflected on as “Oh really that was it?”. 

One thing that did go well from the unceremonious removal of Calderwood is that we got a whole host of new characters on our daily soap of covid. We’d tune in to the technically poor broadcast briefings of the First Minister and her panel of co-hosts.*

*A small fact we decided to over look, leaving your own home to visit a building to meet other people to brief on covid was perfectly fine, even though it could cripple the government as we seen in Westminster. Do remember Dear Reader – visiting your own empty house was a sackable offence. 

I didn’t take to the messaging of Catherine Calderwood, she was several levels of medical intelligence above the average person, spoke on that level, seemed convincing that the end was near and we’d best bunker down. Alas she did not believe the content she was proclaiming as with all her medical knowledge she knew it wasn’t terribly risky and act. 

One of the new characters was Jason Leitch, you will know him, but do you know why? Leitch was a pretty charismatic speaker and a very friendly upbeat sort of guy. He was the anthesis of Calderwood, he was warm, approachable, funny and informative. He spoke on the level of average Joe. 

Neither of these people sold fake versions of themselves as politicians are trained to do, instead I rather believe they are as they portrayed themselves. It was refreshing to be spoken to on the correct level and without the proclamations of doom and gloom. 

I didn’t agree with everything Jason Leitch would say, but I found him entertaining, and on the sort of programs and clips I was watching at the time. It’s hard to understate how hard it is to break into the general sphere of public awareness and he succeeded in that. 

Given that we have now concluded the covid pandemic we can understand this will have been recorded as a medical success. The NHS did not collapse, society has returned to cultural norms, most people have accepted the situation and moved on. Sadly, many people died but significantly less so than pandemics of the past in this country. 

We’ve now rolled into one of the topics I’m more passionate about – open and transparent government. Believe it or not, there is a lot better than just the Freedom Of Information Act and its outputs. There is even better than inquiries that steal juicy stuff. There are ways we can be even more open and transparent, where we can iterate and learn. 

Leitch was open, candid, honest and a true reflection of himself in his now public WhatsApp messages. I respect the man for that, highly. When the nation called, he answered and did it with the same process he clearly uses for everything else. His chat logs make him the sort of person that I’d enjoy feeling their energy, passion and banter. 

Calling some politicians thick is not a crime, nor should it be a sackable offence, offending the opposition and the media is basically impossible to avoid. Crybulling is now a national sport, while its still *checks notes* legal to offend, we cannot start cancelling people who are talented, committed, passionate and did a good job because they may have called us not nice names. 

Many people call me lots of names, I am not in the slightest bit offended. I enjoy my right to publish this sort of long form blog on topics that barely anyone reads – I enjoy further that people disagree with me and iterate to better. 

Would I advise Jason to play the ball and not the man, yes, however it’s hardly a cancellable offence. By all accounts (now public) he seemed to be the most approachable public health representative for the whole cabinet. He was fair in his disparagement of all parties including Nicola Sturgeon – daily winner of the podium ownership game. 

We already got it wrong cancelling Catherine Calderwood, why must we now attempt our level best to get it wrong with Jason Leitch? The pandemic has ended and we now need to look to the future – and he seems the sort of chap who’s enthusiastic about that. 

Let’s consider the lessons we did learn. We had no pandemic plan. I reckon we still have no pandemic plan or it would be published. If we published it – people would rightly poke holes in it, but that is good, that is the power of iterative thinking. That’s how we have a really good one next time. 

Likewise – what did we learn with the WhatsApp saga? Should people just be better at deleting messages or making sure snitches get bigger stitches? Or should we find a way to radically shift our governments data platforms so that a messaging platform that’s accessible for multi party responses is available and preferred? Should we not just have a bot recording the messages and holding them securely before publishing at date X in the future after the event? 

It’s commonly reported there is a shortage of people entering the teaching profession, in no small part to the meteoric rise in poor behaviour in schools, which you guessed it – was one of societal harms of locking people down and stunting social development. The other contributing factor is cry-bullying by agitators making those disrupters untouchable – go figure.

It turns out its not unique to kids though – as we’ve seen once you shift from having meetings in office buildings with clear codes of conduct and business hours – you get a shift of social working where people are more liberal with their discourse. I don’t particularly think in all instances it’s a bad thing. 

We need to have a chat about the need for a government data platform that gathers this information as a matter of course, and publishes it well in the future, after those individuals have left office. It teaches us much more than the condensed notes they send out pretending that was the discussion. 

Another startling thing is the amount of information thats kept as power and weaponry around government, the idea we can’t let people know or see things because they might just contribute and it may be better than your contribution is frankly mental. Is it genuinely beyond government to just host a Wikipedia internally and let people contribute and update live with all the changes tracking that it has built in by default? In 2024 are we really still sending attachments to each other by email on a “please ask” basis? Can we not just let people see the information they need to do their jobs? It’s all available later under freedom of information act requests anyway. 

So we wrap up, what we could learn; be prepared for the next time and publish it, commit to being more transparent and share more of this stuff, develop better tools to avoid a lot of the conversation being needed – and lastly and importantly stop cry-bullying and sacking people who are quite effective at their jobs. It would be a terrible outcome if the next move is to sack the guy who the public liked most because some cry-bullies are predictably and irrationally upset. 


Let me tell you a story…

That’s how I started a recent speech at the SNP Annual Conference. Not because I had thought long and hard about the subject and had written a carefully crafted speech but precisely the opposite. It was the sixth or seventh time I had spoken that weekend and I just hadn’t had time to prepare anything and I needed to say something that would engage my audience and try to get them thinking about the problem that we were there to address in context.

Storytelling has increasingly been something that I am conscious of as an important part of being human but over the last few years I have begun to realise just how critical a part it is, not just of communication, but as a fundamental feature of my own mind and how I relate to the world.

I am immensely blessed to be married to an incredible, smart, funny, insatiably curious woman. Whilst I have been studying Politics as a mature student at the Open University she has been busy studying English Literature and Linguistics at the same time. She has just started a Masters in English Literature because there are always new horizons to explore.

This has hugely benefited me because I have learned a tremendous amount about a subject I otherwise would never have deigned to even investigate through a sort of academic osmosis. The male gaze, the Scottish Uncanny, the timeless appeal of the Heart of Darkness, all subjects I would never have encountered, that have enriched my life and my understanding of human nature.

Story, like cooking, running, song, dance, and sex, is a fundamental part of the human experience so basic, so primeval, that most of us are not even aware of the gravity it exerts over our lives and our minds.

Cooking, for example, has existed and been a core part of human experience since before our minds were any more complex than those of Chimpanzees. It was the invention of cooking that allowed us to diversify our diet and acquire the excess calories and time we needed to evolve a mind capable of something as astonishing as language or free will. It is not an accident that we find the flavours of the fire so powerful. The smoky flavours, the caramels, the crispy bits around the edges of bacon, they are all evocative of the new flavours our minds were being exposed to as we began to evolve into what we are today. The powerful impact that cooking and eating ‘good’ food has on our subconscious is a result of that interdependency. The ‘good’ flavours are very often the ones virtually no other species has ever experienced, that are associated with using fire to transform stuff that was previously inedible into stuff that our species could survive and thrive on. Cooked food is something that is embedded in bits of our brain that have existed for longer than almost any other part of what sets us apart from other primates. And that is why it is such an important part of our lives and always will be. All that science fiction rot about sucking protein paste out of a toothpaste tube in some antiseptic deep space future is never going to happen unless we genetically alter our own minds out of all recognition. It’s who we are, who we always will be, an ape that cooks.

What cooking unlocked, a thinking, conscious mind capable of planning, innovating, communicating, and teaching is something that has storytelling written right through it, like a stick of rock.

Those first primitive minds, once they had begun to evolve language as a way to communicate, evolved storytelling as the essential medium of that communication. Like the communications protocols that shape our digital communications networks today.

Before we had writing we had oral traditions, songs, and tales as old as time that hung their essential message and the information and lessons they transmitted on a scaffolding of storytelling tropes that are as prevalent today as they were forty thousand years ago. Indeed they persist because they form a fundamental part of how our emerging intellect evolved to understand the world and to share that understanding with others. They are burned into the structure of our brains by the very DNA that creates our intellect.

I am at heart a physicist. As a kid I was fascinated by the theories of Einstein and by the mysterious realm of quantum mechanics. I’ve known since I was knee high to a grasshopper that, while there is a degree of measurable objective truth in the universe, there are limits to it, that there is a sort of essential level of fuzziness, rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty, to quote the great Douglas Adams.

But, even though the various multi-verse theories have a certain attraction to them, there is a comfort in knowing that at a macroscopic level all of those uncertainties collapse into one objective reality that we all share.

Unfortunately, as I have gotten older, I have been forced to conclude that, at the subjective level of conscious thought, the universe fractures again into an infinite hall of mirrors, a collage of billions of overlapping narratives that are all subtly incompatible interpretations of that objective reality.

Because every conscious human mind interprets the world through the lens of narrative storytelling and in particular generally casts itself as the hero of the story. Whoever you are, however humble, the stories you tell yourself in your own head to make sense of the world are stories where you are the protagonist and however hard you try you are spinning those narratives to present yourself in the best light, not just to everyone else, but crucially to yourself.

And this truth is the source of all conflict in the world. To the extent that my story is compatible with yours we can get on and work together and with each other towards the greater good, or at least towards our own triumphant ascension. But when our stories diverge, when the way I spin the world to keep my story in the spotlight is narratively incompatible with your similar narrative, then there is a problem. What I do then is rewrite your character as one of the Others. You become someone that is wrong or deluded to a greater or lesser extent depending on the degree of incompatibility between our two stories. That can vary all the way from disliking or avoiding someone who introduces minor, uncomfortable incongruences into our own narrative, to actively seeking to harm someone whose story is entirely incompatible with our very notion of ourselves as the hero of the tale.

Early in Dale Carnegie’s infamous ‘How to win friends and influence people’ he points out an important truth. There are no guilty men in Sing Sing he says. Every man that had committed a crime, however heinous, that resulted in his being detained in that infamous prison felt justified in his actions, felt like he had done the right thing and that it was unjust that the world had conspired to punish him in this way. Because in truth, almost by definition, nobody ever does anything they do not think they are justified in doing, indeed much of the time people only do things that they feel like they have no choice but to do. How could I possibly have done anything else but what I have?

Even when objective reality is incompatible with our own heroic narrative we can simply choose to reinterpret the ‘facts’ to rationalise and justify ourselves. Often in small ways but the further our story diverges from objective reality the more liable we are to choose to reinterpret the world in a manner that simply breaks with that reality. We like to tell ourselves that madness and delusion are the result of some sort of defect, a defect that we do not possess, but the truth is that much of it is the result of a perfectly healthy mind living a story that is in conflict with the truth and objective reality. When reality conflicts with our sense of self it is often reality that we are willing to abandon first.

We are all unreliable narrators telling a ‘choose your own ending’ story where we are the heroes and everyone else is at best a sidekick.

Evidence, logic, and objective facts are irrelevant if they are in conflict with that narrative.

But why have I chosen to tell this story and lead you down this rabbit hole?


Because as a social animal it is flat out impossible to achieve anything of significance without the cooperation and assistance of other human beings. The real secret to getting anyone to do anything that you want them to do is understanding that to them, you are not the hero, you are the sidekick.

Now I know you don’t want to be a sidekick. The truth is that you are the real hero not them but the fact is that nobody wants to be the sidekick and you are never going to convince anyone to choose to be yours. The most epic superpower known to man is the ability to voluntarily transform into a sidekick.

The best storyteller in the world is the one that doesn’t try to tell their own story but that helps others tell theirs. By facilitating the stories of like-minded others that have the same objectives as our own we can conduct a symphony without ever having to play a single note.

True leadership lies in coaching other leaders to fulfil their potential and in the process achieve your own by choosing to centre their stories rather than yours.



Thoughts on leadership: The Do-Ocracy

Leadership Method

  • Do-ocracy
  • Iterative development
  • Membership
  • Values
  • Conflict resolution


The ‘Do-Ocracy’ or ‘Meritocracy’.

The idea behind a do-ocracy is that those who ‘do’ the work are the ones that set the direction.

Empowerment is automatic and work completed is considered the current course. This enables those with an interest to get on and make progress, without needing to facilitate those who slow progress down by excessive deliberation without contribution.

One of the fundamental problems of the movement is chronic infighting and deliberation rather than actual ‘movement’.

However, within silos, there is significant progress on ‘Big Ticket’ items. See for example the Scottish Currency Group – without the drag of ‘everyones’ opinion, they have a considered and advanced currency proposal for an independent Scotland.

In a do-ocracy – the only way to challenge the default acceptance of this would be to out-compete the proposals, by doing the level of research, analysis and publication required to present a more concrete proposal.

Iterative development

What is more likely – is that contributors will gravitate towards existing projects and will iterate upon what has come before. Iteration and the power of a contribution is a better method for advancement than establishing new and competing organisations.

In situations where iterative contributions are not welcome or are too large of a divergence. The concept of ‘forking’ comes in – where you can go off and do as you please, however, to replace the incumbent proposal – you would need to attract larger support or present a stronger contributive piece.

It is not possible to cause factional infighting – as the substantive work is the contribution rather than the debate. An opinion matters less than work contributed. Only those opinions that are formed into contributions will be given any space or time. Think of it as a reverse sunk cost fallacy – where we use only the sunk cost in developing a solution to give it merit.

Membership / Elective council

There will need to be a board for representation of the project and this creates the largest example of where ego and personal opinion will create aggravation. We must stop electing leaders who do not contribute anything other than opinion.

To do so the board should be elected by the elective council. The membership of the elective council should only consist of active contributors to the project.

Initially, there would be admittance to the project by the interested parties as members of the elective council, within 90 days, the new elective council would be defined based on those who have contributed advancements.

Membership of the elective council is transient and can drop and gain – on a 90-day cycle. The elective council would propose a board.

The decision of contribution would be considered by the board in line with the adopted values.


The values of the project should be documented clearly and will be an ever-evolving (but always simple) document. They should exist in both simple bullet points and expansive form.

The values are the guiding light of the project and should focus on contribution and iteration versus celebration.

The values should clearly define the minimum requirements to be considered a contributor and the minimum number of contributions to be ascended to the elective council.

Conflict Resolution

The board would be the representatives of the movement, however, would also fill the role of conflict resolution, this would be a documented process that values contribution rather than individuals.

Dramatic additions and resignations are not of detrimental effect as all contributions would be assigned by Creative Commons licensing – leaving the movement in possession of the ideas and contributions.


For the love of EFTA

Last night was the penultimate debate of the SNP Leadership candidates. However we are geeks and we love a bit of policy detail, so let us explore it.

Humza Yousaf made this claim to Ash Regan:

So you have backed EFTA over EU membership which is not of course backed by our membership.

Humza Yousaf –

However it’s worth pointing out, on page 39 of Scotland’s Place in Europe, a document authored and prologued in Nicola Sturgeons name, this is exactly the position that was set out.

A bit of a #HumdingerForHumza there.

There are many benefits to EFTA, such as rather quick acceptance – you only need the current 4 countries of Iceland 🇮🇸 , Liechtenstein 🇱🇮 , Norway 🇳🇴 and Switzerland 🇨🇭 to agree, and accept the rules of EFTA, that if you read the whole 62 document of the Scottish Government, we essentially do anyway.

Iceland 🇮🇸 is the closest analogue that applied in November 1968 and became active in January 1970 in EFTA. A year and one month.

Usefully Scotland 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 would have a two year transition to independence, which would be more than enough time, especially following the digital revolution since the 70s. Scotland also has the benefit of being nearly fully aligned already.

What does EFTA not include?
– Common Agricultural Policy
– Common Fisheries Policy
– Customs Union
– Foreign affairs or Security Policy
– Justice
– Monetary Union

So essentially – the controversial bits in Scotland – are already exempt from any effect of joining. Scotland can maintain its own fisheries and agricultural policy, which may be of some advantage versus EU membership.

Annual contribution would be around £10m from looking at the payments made by the current members and it’s worth noting – Austria 🇦🇹 , Finland 🇫🇮 and Sweden 🇸🇪 were all members of EFTA that later transitioned to being EU members.

It seems like a good idea.


Where are the investigative journalists?

The contest for the new leader of the SNP is underway. It’s been illuminating thus far to see what real proposals may actually emerge. Admittedly due to real life, it’s been hectic and we’ve not covered it in as great detail as I would have hoped, I’ll take a crack at looking at week one.

A small reminder that this particular blog runs on contributions by many voices, and if anyone has a point they’d like to make – please drop it into us

Ash Regan announced first, Humza Yousaf and Kate Forbes practically tripped over each other – Humza held a launch event, with Kate announcing at the same moment. There were frantic calls for Ash’s launch campaign – which made little to no sense – given the nomination period hadn’t ended. However that makes less entertaining TV.

Kate made her pitch next to a rock somewhere near home, her video editor was obviously a person who enjoys long drone shots, who put together a decent presentation.

Humza launched in a random community hall with a large mix of friends, family, activists and, curiously, under an illuminated green exit sign.
Ash launched with the Bridges coming together in the background, with a nice set of imagery and a large press contingent – and this is where the wheels come off the wagon.

The journalists haven’t had a feast of an SNP leadership election, and somehow only have absolutely diabolic Conservative Party and Labour Party leadership elections as a reference point. In the scenario of the Party famed for unity arguing with itself – the media stepped up to the plate.

I’ll admit before I go on, I find religion to be thoroughly interesting for all the wrong reasons. I honestly am baffled with trees defying Noah and his ark, dinosaurs predating creationism, and churches that sit riddled with scandal – surely no one really believes this? Alas, it seems they do.

First up, Kate Forbes. Making no secret about her religion, she got absolutely battered. Mostly, because her religious views suck. They really do. I don’t know why she went out defending them, suggesting somehow they wouldn’t cloud her judgement in a political sense. They’re regressive nonsense that churches cling to. Amusingly, the main reason we see secularism rising isn’t to do with any real atheist or humanist campaign, but rather people realising that perhaps we can find a stronger morality by not taking instruction from a 2000 year old book.

However, as proponents of free speech – it’s fair to say: bash on and believe whatever you like and talk about it proudly. The nice bit about freedom of speech is in its cousin – freedom of opinion. You can quite easily form your own opinion of whether what was said was mental or not.

Humza Yousaf couldn’t quite let Kate out of the gate without tripping over his own feet either. Somehow, he managed to have a meeting that he couldn’t escape for five minutes from to vote, in support of equal marriage. Yousaf will defend that his meeting was involving the life of a person abroad and that’s possibly true, but he could have voted, he was in the building, it was possible and it was a free vote. It’s not the lie that gets you – it’s the cover up.

However given that the matter was conclusively settled – I am bamboozled at why journalists believed this was a major ‘gotcha’ or ‘story’. Even if we understand every fact, uncover every issue, get to the absolute root of the story – we’re no further forward. No one in the entire SNP would know what policies or changes the SNP would enact. If any First Minister tried to renege on marriage rights – they’d be First Minister for only a few minutes more.

Onto the next big issue. Our journalists don’t bother to to investigate anything. Scottish politics is very much ‘he said’ and ‘she said’. Playground antics abound, no actual reporting, no exploring of policy beyond “someone else said no”.

I’m going to pick on Ash Regan’s policy declarations – as they’re the easiest to find, and the most fleshed out – they’re core arguments for any future Independence campaign.

Statement 1: Ash Regan identifies a method to get Independence – she calls it the VEM (Voter Empowerment Mechanism). It’s basically a general election that gets Independence by winning a plurality of votes.

In the event of a Westminster election, if pro-Independence parties, with a disclaimer in their manifesto saying “Independence approved” win a majority of votes – the result is an Independent country a few years later after some negotiations. In 2019 – this would have been 46% – resulting in continued Unionism.

In the 2021 Holyrood election, we must do some basic maths to add up all the pro-Indy parties on both the constituency and the list vote, then divide them by the valid votes cast. This hits home at 49.55% for pro-Independence parties – no wonder the Unionists don’t like the idea. We might actually achieve it.

“But this isn’t legal and the UK will say no” shout journalists who obviously forget to do the very basics of their job. I’ll break it down – but let’s think about how this should go:

Person 1: It’s raining
Person 2: It’s not raining
Journalist: I went outside, it is indeed raining, and we can conclude person 2 was lying.

Well this is Scotland, so rather than checking the facts, we openly just accept that person 2 is a bit older and wiser, and has been around forever, so they must be categorically right, no need to check.

Person 2 in this is the UK Government.

Apparently escaping the notice of our Press pack – is that the UK is the successor state of the British Empire, of which 65 countries have left. In every circumstance the Government of the day has negotiated. – some of the negotiations were as recent as the 1970’s. There is a slight chance some of the negotiating team may even be alive to be interviewed. Imagine that!

To save them time, I’ve compiled a list of the methods used and it’s at the end of this article. Some are barbaric and should never be repeated, some are entirely peaceful – common themes that include setting up a Constitution and then voting for it in a General Election or Referendum. 100% success rate though in getting the UK to the table. 100%. Yet our media estate think because the UK Government said no this time (and every time in the past), they may just stick to it. They have a track record of negotiating every time. Hammer this home folks. 100% of the time!

Has anyone asked the runner up of the Conservative Leadership race and current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak how he could possibly block it? On understanding the principle of self-determination, being prided as a descendant of once-colonial India?

Anyway let’s set that aside. The Supreme Court says no.

Another huge “win”. A UK Government non-ministerial department said no. In a surprise to no one.

However they didn’t even say no. They said that an advisory Referendum could not be permitted as it would probably affect the standing of the Union- a vote that would have the power to overpower a Westminster Parliament. We should probably count the UK Supreme Court as endorsing Ash Regan’s campaign at this rate.

Yesterday, the UK Government beamed with pride about a deal for Northern Ireland – that they a year ago announced that under no circumstances would do.

Again, 100% of the time, you can count on them to negotiate. They always do, they absolutely, without doubt, always do.

Currency, another Regan policy that astonished the journalism core. Forgetting the whole negotiation period of a few years after the vote – they reported that a new currency and central bank would be setup in about 12 weeks. Not what Regan said, but they were too thick to understand the content. She said the preparatory work could be done now, rolled out during the negotiation period, and then fully established and open as near to day one of Independence as possible, taking about three months.

Astonishment continued. No actual investigative journalism occurred, or they’d see from fairly recent and modern examples that Slovakia took 1 month, Slovenia took 3, and Estonia took 10. This in a world where we didn’t have the wonders of interconnected digital banking.

Our media fail us as investigative reporters. They are so involved with scandal politics involving the politicians we have, so invested in gotchas and whodunnits – they forget that sometimes a little bit of research might enlighten everyone. We aren’t discussing these policies on their actual merit, we’re discussing them in reactions and sound bites, it also seems. Only Ash Regan bothered to do any reading.

States that got Independence from UK/British Empire, and in short, how.

  1. Afghanistan – Treaty following a war.
  2. Antigua and Barbuda – Termination of Association Order.
  3. Bahrain – United Nations poll on Independence, declared Independence, called upon UN Secretariat to resolve.
  4. Barbados – Constitutional Conference, followed by informing UK.
  5. Belize – Demanded Independence, passed a constitution.
  6. Botswana – Ascended a constitution, confirmed with a general election.
  7. Brunei – Ascended a constitution, published a roadmap.
  8. Cyprus – Civil unrest / war.
  9. Dominica – Declared and passed a constitution.
  10. Egypt – Civil disobedience.
  11. Eswatini – Ascended a constitution, general election.
  12. Fiji – Ascended a constitution, general election.
  13. Ghana – Declared Independence.
  14. Granada – Opened negotiations following election.
  15. Guyana – Constitutional conference.
  16. India – Ascended a constitution, negotiations.
  17. Iraq – Proclamation.
  18. Israel – UN Resolution, Declaration.
  19. Jamaica – Constitutional Amendments, progressed, then declared.
  20. Jordan – Treaty and negotiations.
  21. Kenya – Uprising and negotiations
  22. Kiribati – UN Special Committee, Referendum, Privy Council.
  23. Kuwait – Negotiations, ascendancy.
  24. Lesotho – Constitution ascendancy.
  25. Libya – Military coup
  26. Malawi – Negotiated
  27. Malaya – Negotiated
  28. Maldives – Negotiated
  29. Malta – Negotiated
  30. Mauritius – Negotiated, general election
  31. Myanmar – Civil unrest
  32. Nauru – UN Council, Constitutional Convention
  33. Nigeria – Constitution, election
  34. Oman – Negotiations, treaty
  35. Pakistan – Civil unrest, negotiations
  36. Qatar – Constitution, declaration
  37. Saint Lucia – Constitution
  38. Saint Kitts and Nevis – Constitutional conference
  39. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – Referendum
  40. Seychelles – Negotiated
  41. Sierra Leone – Negotiated
  42. Solomon Islands – Negotiated
  43. Somaliland – Civil unrest (unrecognised)
  44. South Yemen – Civil unrest, British withdrawal, declaration
  45. Sri Lanka – Negotiated
  46. Sudan – Referendum
  47. Tanganyika – Double election
  48. The Bahamas – Election and referendum
  49. The Gambia – Independence conference
  50. Tonga – Ceased to be protectorate
  51. Trinidad and Tobago – Election, negotiation
  52. Tuvalu – Referendum
  53. Uganda – Negotiation
  54. United Arab Emirates – Negotiation
  55. United States of America – Civil unrest, American Revolutionary War, declared Independence
  56. Vanuatu – Conference of nations
  57. Zambia – Election, consultation
  58. Zanzibar – Internal revolution
  59. Zimbabwe – Civil unrest, election
  60. Australia – Referendums
  61. Canada – Negotiated
  62. Ireland – Civil unrest, civil War,
  63. Dominion of Newfoundland – National convention, referendum, joined Canada.
  64. South Africa – Referendum
  65. New Zealand – Declaration