QUITE A LIST OF CHARGES.

A Mia comment highly relevant to the current debate over the Claim of Right.

“Is it too much to hope it will give them renewed enthusiasm for the prime reason they were voted into power”

Personally I think it is about hope but also about trust. A trust they have broken. They have had 7 years and many, many opportunities to do the right thing for Scotland. Yet, they did not use every single one of them.

In my view they repeatedly cross a line they had no right to cross. That line is the one of surrendering Scotland’s sovereignty to an English convention. From where I am sitting, they have done this repeatedly during the last 7 years. If not, brexit would have never happened. There are many examples. Some of them: 

1. they participated in the vote to trigger A50 when they had no consent from the people of Scotland to allow brexit to ever happen. They had no right to allow that article to ever be triggered on behalf of the people of Scotland given that 62% of the people who voted in that referendum in Scotland did so against brexit. However, by sitting in that parliament, allowing that vote to proceed and taking part in it, that is precisely what they did. At that point, when the SNP held an absolute majority of Scotland’s seats in Westminster and the largest share of the seats in Holyrood, all what they had to do to uphold Scotland’s rights was to demand either the idea of brexit to be abandoned immediately or to demand the end of the treaty of union so England could pursue its brexit alone. As it is, forcing brexit on Scotland was akin to force absolute rule on Scotland in direct breach of the claim of right 1689 and by association, of the treaty of union that rests on that claim of right.

It remains to be proved if they did this out of ignorance, after being very ill-advised by someone, after being coerced or they did that to force brexit on Scotland because that is the path somebody other than the people of Scotland had already decided for Scotland. A path would allow England to survive its own folly, out of the EU, by continuing helping itself to Scotland’s market and assets without the worry of the threat of a hard border and different standards between Scotland and England that would put Scotland in direct competition with England should Scotland return to the EU. I think the third option would be totally unforgivable, an assault on Scotland’s democracy and a dereliction of duty. Un unnecessarily high number of people in Scotland lost their lives to COVID because the pretend pro indy leader we have as FM chose to embrace a bogus “4 nations approach” instead of asserting Scotland’s autonomy and sovereignty as she was expected to do. Had SNP MPs stopped that A50 being triggered or forced the end of the treaty of union and many of those people who died to COVID could have been alive if Scotland had follow its own rules and had exercise control over its own borders during the pandemic. So such decision to let A50 to be triggered on behalf of Scotland was not innocuous. 

2. They allowed an English court to trash a bill already passed in Scotland’s parliament. This does not only undermine Scotland’s claim of right, but it is, in my opinion, in direct breach of the treaty of union that stipulates Scots law cannot be trashed by English courts under the guise of English law. It was not even English law what this English court used to trash our bill, but rather an English convention, that of Westminster’s sovereignty, something that was not included in UK law at the time. The treaty of union should have ended after this. Instead, our MPs choses to sit on their hands and let it pass.

3. They also allowed that same English court to trash the Sewel convention a fundamental foundation of the 2014 contract Scotland entered with England to continue the union. That should have been sufficient to declare the 2014 result void. Yet, not a move from our allegedly pro indy MPs or FM to end that contract either.

4. They also allowed the butchering of the Act of Scotland, which was re-written without Scotland’s consent to legitimise the theft by England MPs of Scotland’s assets. This action violated two things. For starters, it was akin to imposing absolute rule on Scotland and therefore, violated the Claim of Right and by association the treaty of union resting on it. In addition, this Scotland Act was a fundamental, weight bearing condition of the status quo for our vote in 2014. Rewriting the Scotland Act, without Scotland’s consent was therefore, together with the trashing of FFA that rendered the promise of Devo Max a misinterpretation of the exchange in the contract, and the trashing of the sewel convention, that rendered the condition of independence of Holyrood in devolved matters, also misunderstanding, in my opinion, rendered the “contract” the people of Scotland entered in with England in 2014 with their no vote, voidable. 

Many if not every single one of the conditions (aka the vow promises and ) included in that contract have been breached. Yet, 8 years after, we are still to see any movement, any at all, from Nicola Sturgeon or the MPs/MSPs she commands to declare the 2014 contract void as the Scottish people have had every right to do given the continuous violations of those conditions and the weight bearing points of the status quo by our partner. That contract should have become void the 19th September 2014 when Cameron announced EVEL. Yet, by allowing that voidable contract to stand, Nicola Sturgeon and the MPs set out a precedent: that violating the conditions of our contract was acceptable for Scotland. They had no right to do that. Violating the conditions that supported our vote in 2014, the same as violating the articles of the treaty of union and violating Scotland’s Claim of Right is completely unacceptable. Allowing it to happen for somebody’s career advancement or for the political posturing of the political party they belong to when you have been trusted by the people of Scotland to protect those things and to stop those breaches happening, is also completely unacceptable.

3. They allowed English convention of parliamentary sovereignty to be included in UK law with the withdrawal bill, against the will of the people of Scotland and in direct violation of the Claim of Right 1689. Again, this is akin to stealing Scotland’s sovereignty and forcing absolute rule over Scotland. Again, given the Claim of Right is one of the fundamental foundations of the Treaty of Union, by breaching the Claim of Right with the stamping of that bill, our partner and the monarch themselves were in breach of the Treaty of Union. Instead of stopping that vote ever happening by immediately removing consent from the so called UK parliament to act on behalf of Scotland, NuSNP MPs participated in the vote legitimising it and letting it enter UK law. That vote should have not been ever allowed to take place in the context of the UK union. That our MPs allowed it to happen and let England MPs undermine our sovereignty is unforgivable.

4. The Treaty of Union is very clear in its trade articles. No part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and NI entered that treaty as one of the domains of the Kingdom of England, can have different trade conditions than the rest. This part of the treaty has been directly violated by the favourable agreement given to NI on the brexit negotiations. I have seen no move, other than vacuous waffle and useless political posturing, from Nicola Sturgeon, the MSPs or MPs to put immediately that wrong right or to demand the treaty of union to end. Again giving our consent on our behalf for those breaches of the treaty of union to take place as if they were innocuous is completely unacceptable and a dereliction of duty.

The bottom line is Nicola Sturgeon and the MPs and MSPs under her command have repeatedly failed to uphold Scotland’s rights under the Claim of Right and the Treaty of Union. They have witnessed breach after breach after breach of that treaty making it voidable one hundred times over under their watch, and yet, they have not lifted a finger to demand an end to that treaty not even once or to remove UK’s legitimacy to continue acting on behalf of Scotland to stop the abuse. Clearly they are totally useless as custodians of both and, after 7 years of ill-serving Scotland’s interests, they cannot be relied upon anymore in changing their ways. They have had plenty of opportunities in the last 7 years to prove their moral values and respect of Scotland’s Claim of Right. Instead, they have chosen to let those opportunities pass us by one after another, allowing the abuse of Scotland in the hands of our treaty partner to continue so England can survive its own ill-advised brexit folly.

Out with them all, I say. If we wanted MPs and MSPs who acted to protect the union and England’s elite’s interests above those of Scotland, we would have voted for any of the colonial parties, for which we are spoiled for choice.

MY COMMENT

The blame here is not solely with Nicola Sturgeon it lies with every elected member of the SNP in both Parliaments. They know why they were elected. They know who supported and worked for their electoral campaigns. They know it was people who wanted Independence for Scotland, who thought their actions were helping build a team of people capable of defending the Scottish interest. If any of those who were elected are reading this, ask yourself how are we doing? If any of you think this is acceptable then I am sorry but you should not be there in the first place. History will not be kind to any of you as you have become part of the Great Betrayal.

I am, as always

YOURS FOR SCOTLAND

BEAT THE CENSORS

Sadly some sites had given up on being pro Indy sites and have decided to become merely pro SNP sites where any criticism of the Party Leader or opposition to the latest policy extremes, results in censorship being applied. This, in the rather over optimistic belief that this will suppress public discussion on such topics. My regular readers have expertly worked out that by regularly sharing articles on this site defeats that censorship and makes it all rather pointless. I really do appreciate such support and free speech in Scotland is remaining unaffected by their juvenile censorship. Indeed it is has become a symptom of weakness and guilt. Quite encouraging really.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Are available easily by clicking on the links in the Home and Blog sections of this website. by doing so you will be joining thousands of other readers who enjoy being notified by email when new articles are published. You will be most welcome.

32 thoughts on “QUITE A LIST OF CHARGES.

  1. When you read the betrayals it becomes crystal clear that the SNP have not just gone soft on independence but are, actually working hard to undermine independence.

    Working for and on behalf of their English paymaster s, replacement of the current crop of elected representives with representatives who will pursue independence is the way forward.

    And that is why Sturgeon and the deep state worked so hard to destroy people like Alex Salmond, Craig Murray, Mark Hirst and others leaving only the treacherous leadership and time serving troughers happy to accept their paymasters wages, pensions and expenses.

    Liked by 19 people

    1. If anyone is in a position to make a mail shot to all SNP members then this opinion from Mia and the previous analysis from Alf and Sara should be that mailshot.

      Liked by 14 people

  2. To paraphrase Alf Baird in the previous post – Scotland’s Claim of Right Part 1 – colonialism is a partnership between the (master) colonial power and the (servant) native administration.

    Liked by 15 people

    1. Reply to your comment Iain…….Every time I see a post complaining about the actions of Westminster or the Tories on an SNP MP or MSPs Facebook page I reply telling them that I know how they can get us out of it. We voted for them on the basis that they told us they were going to achieve independence. If they actually did as they said we would have control over how our country is governed and they wouldn’t have to complain about Westminster again. Only one has ever replied, Gillian Martin and she offered to discuss it with me if I was a constituent. I’m not but at least she responded.

      Liked by 14 people

  3. Spot on with your comment Iain, Sturgeon let the cat out of the bag when being interviewed on television – she said “My job is to keep the SNP in power” and she doesn’t give a shit how she accomplishes that task and certainly does not give a shit what the Scottish voters think or say, just like Labour before her keep weighing in the votes, keeping us on the green branches at Westminster and all on board the gravy train, (how long I wonder before the SNP believe that taking up a seat in the Lords, would be beneficial to “Scotland”) as yet she has seen no threat to her power base.

    Liked by 15 people

  4. The Claim of Right and all the other assertions about Scottish sovereignty mean nothing unless a significant majority of the Scottish people (at least 60%) supported Independence. Anything less is a very shaky platform on which to embark on building a new state.

    Electors can be very fickle and promiscuous with their votes. To depend on the promiscuous floating voter to establish a new state is a recipe for hell.

    NS understands this. It’s not the referendum that matters or some other political device, it’s having a solid majority base of support which the SNP does not yet have which counts.

    Instead of kangaroo court charges can we not have a bit of maturity and campaign on a one to one basis to change hearts and minds.

    How do you answer someone whom you’re trying to convert when he says how do you expect me to vote for independence when you constantly condemn NS and the SNO when they are the elected government of Scotland?

    Like

    1. You sum up perfectly why NS must be removed. It was her that created the disunity. The first ever SNP leader who created several new Pro Indy parties. It was her supporters who disgustingly set out to frame AlexSalmond. No Graeme you need look closer to home.

      Liked by 18 people

    2. “The Claim of Right and all the other assertions about Scottish sovereignty mean nothing unless a significant majority of the Scottish people (at least 60%) supported Independence.”

      No true. Majority support is 50% +1. Why use 60% anyway? Why not 97.5%? That’s arbitrary and ridiculous. In any case what have the SNP, and particularly the leadership, been doing to achieve the magical 60% for Indy?

      “It’s not the referendum that matters or some other political device, it’s having a solid majority base of support which the SNP does not yet have which counts.”

      The objective is not about maximising support for the SNP. It’s about restoring Scotland’s full self-government. These two things are not one and the same thing. And a majority of SNP MPs and MSPs does not lead to the return of Scotland’s statehood. (See Scottish history and elections since 2015).

      “Instead of kangaroo court charges can we not have a bit of maturity and campaign on a one to one basis to change hearts and minds.

      How do you answer someone whom you’re trying to convert when he says how do you expect me to vote for independence when you constantly condemn NS and the SNO when they are the elected government of Scotland?”

      If this is a cry for unity of purpose then perhaps you should address the question to the SNP leadership: perhaps you should be asking them why they did not endorse SNP 1 / Alba 2 at last year’s Holyrood election.

      Liked by 11 people

    3. “The Claim of Right and all the other assertions about Scottish sovereignty mean nothing unless a significant majority of the Scottish people (at least 60%) supported Independence”

      I couldn’t disagree more. The Claim of Right is what is underpinning the monarchy in Scotland and the Treaty of union. It was thanks to that Claim of Right that Westminster could be established as the UK of Great Britain’s Parliament. If that Claim of Right means nothing, then the Treaty of Union would mean nothing and consequently Westminster and n10 would by default would mean nothing too.

      60%? That is a completely arbitrary figure. Where do you get that from? Why not a 40% or even a 25%? They are figures as valid as 60%. At the end of the day, wasn’t only a 25% the support Scotland showed for the tories and what, allegedly if we are to believe Nicola Sturgeon and her SNP, was enough to force brexit on Scotland?

      So why adding extra obstacles to the yes movement with an arbitrary 60% when the figure of 25% has already been validated by England MPs for constitutional change? When was the last time an individual England party in control of the UK government got a 60% of the vote in Scotland?

      “Anything less is a very shaky platform on which to embark on building a new state”

      Says who? If tories and labour accepted a 25% as enough to force a huge constitutional change like brexit is on Scotland, enough to butcher our Scotland Act, enough to trash the Sewel convention, enough to steal our assets and enough to unilaterally rewrite our policies and laws without our consent to stop us getting back to the EU, then a 25% is more than enough to “embark on building a new state”

      “Electors can be very fickle and promiscuous with their votes”

      Sure. Particularly when you take into account that the UK state might have been encouraging and promoting activists/military personnel/refugees/civil servants etc, etc to register to vote in Scotland and frustrate the Scottish people’s perceived voting intention and outcome of the vote.

      In the present circumstances and with the present franchise, local or for general elections, Scotland will never achieve a 50% for pro indy parties, never mind a 60% unless the Uk establishment is happy for us to. You don’t have to be a genius to realise of that. There was ALREADY over 50% of the vote for pr-indy parties at the 2015 GE. But that majority was rendered innocuous for the UK state because Nicola Sturgeon had helpfully taken the wheels out of the SNP as a vehicle for independence by claiming that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence. In other words, she ensure that majority was useless.

      One wonders how high is the likelihood she might have already known the pro indy vote would be in that election over 50% at the time she was taking the wheels off the SNP when announcing that a vote for the SNP would not be a vote for independence. I mean, there had been polls published already in October 2014 that predicted a landslide for the SNP in that election. It stands to the obvious there must have been a prediction of the voting intention as well.

      The population of Scotland is so small that they do not need to move many voters across from down south/NI to change the outcome. I am sure Nicola Sturgeon knows this, and yet, the “majority of the vote” has continued to be floated and kept as a lead weight around the neck of the yes movement for 7 years and the permanent excuse to continue stalling independence. You will only get over a 50% of the vote when you adjust the franchise and remove all the external interference. In seven years I have seen no move whatsoever from Nicola Sturgeon to do that. On the contrary, she has enthusiastically opened doors to even more interference.

      “NS understands this”
      NS may understand a lot of things but so far in 7 years she has done nothing to progress Scotland’s autonomy, to deliver independence, to protect our assets or rights and to protect the people of Scotland. On the contrary. This woman has lost us more powers and rights and has allowed more insults to the Claim of Right go unchallenged than all the previous unionist FM’s combined.

      ” It’s not the referendum that matters or some other political device, it’s having a solid majority base of support which the SNP does not yet have which counts”

      I couldn’t disagree more. The referendum does not matter because Nicola Sturgeon has transformed it into a red herring, a tool to stop Scotland’s exercise in self determination. She has done this by handing a veto to England’s MPs to deny us our right to self determination, she has done this by keeping a franchise that is so flawed that the only thing it currently ensures is that yes cannot win and she has done this by continue to allow England parties, England entities and England’s money to pour in the campaigns and interfere in Scotland’s constitutional question. She and her party were elected to deliver independence, not to frustrate it like they are doing. As I said above, change that franchise, bring it in line with the franchise for voting in constitutional change that other countries in EU have and watch the yes vote surpass the 50%.

      A solid majority base of support for the SNP, you say? You have to be joking. Look around you. After delivering nothing for 7 years, after regressing Scotland’s autonomy and defying the wishes of the people who put them in power, after letting our perfectly legitimate democratic mandates expire on purpose, after sending the lord advocate to frustrate the Keatings’ case on behalf of the Uk state, you should not be hoping for the SNP to get a majority base. You should be praying that not many voters find out of what the SNP under Sturgeon have done to frustrate independence so they can keep some MP in the next GE.

      Give us some credit, please. We know that for as long as achieving a majority for yes is relying on a political system and a franchise that appears designed to frustrate that possibility, you will never achieve that majority. Tighten that franchise and you already had a majority for yes in 2014. Plenty of unionist rags have published that Scotland’s natives voted yes but their vote was frustrated by non-natives, just like it happened in Quebec for the French speaking population. Fool us once, it is on you. Fool us twice, it is on us.

      “Instead of kangaroo court charges”
      You mean like the kangaroo court that send Mr Murray to prison? Or the kangaroo court that gave anonymity to perjurers so they could continue demonising an innocent man from the shadows and so evidence could be hidden from the public eye? or the kangaroo courts that used malicious prosecutions to silence dissenters? Or the kangaroo court that walked all over our Claim of Right to let A50 being triggered unilaterally by England? You mean that kind of kangaroo courts?

      “can we not have a bit of maturity”

      This site is showing far more integrity and maturity than Nicola Sturgeon, her Spads, the corrupt UK civil service in Scotland’s government, the SNP MPs and MsPs, the SNP executive, some judges and the genderwoowoo machine all combined. So how about Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP start showing a bit of respect for the yes voters who put them where they are and a bit of that maturity they appear to have forgotten they had the day the first majority of pro indy MPs ever walked into Westminster on the 8th May 2015?

      “campaign on a one to one basis to change hearts and minds”
      Change “hearts and minds”? In which direction, towards or against independence? Because at present I am no longer sure in what direction the SNP under Sturgeon is going. What is the point in “changing hearts and minds” in the ground towards independence when the “leader” and her coterire have been really busy during the last 7 years removing the wheels of the vehicle for independence and taking away the control of the party from the membership? Sorry but that soundbite comes across as yet another attempt to distract the yes voters while the rug is being taken away from under their feet. Another nice sounding platitude to add to mile long list of soundbites Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP have been busy at collecting and gathering for the last 7 years.

      Didn’t she tell us more than once that she would call a referendum if:

      1. there was a sign the people of Scotland wanted independence
      Tell us, how many polls did we have since 8th May 2015 that put yes ahead? didn’t we even had one that put Yes at a 56-58%? So why didn’t she call the referendum? Because she had never any intention to call one.

      2. If there was a change of material circumstances compared with the status quo of the 2014 vote.
      Tell us, what material circumstances have been left unchanged since that vote? Because I see none. Everything, and I mean everything, has moved. The status quo of 2014 has been shredded to bits. So why didn’t she call a referendum? She has had one hundred opportunities to do so, one for each of the things that changed since 2014. She did not call the referendum because she never had any intention to call one and has been stalling independence since the 14 November 2014. What right did she have to leave our mandates expire?

      So no, no more campaigning for the SNP. Time to act. The SNP under Nicola Sturgeon has unforgivably wasted us 7 precious years. I will be damned before I cast a vote for those losers ever again.

      “How do you answer someone whom you’re trying to convert when he says how do you expect me to vote for independence when you constantly condemn NS and the SNO when they are the elected government of Scotland?”

      Oh boohoo!!! Crocodile tears!! 7 years asking us to wheest for indy and still at it. Are you asking us to continue watching this useless leader butchering Scotland’s sovereignty and handing over our assets but do nothing and say nothing because that may upset no voters? You have to be kidding. What about all the yes voters Nicola Sturgeon and her toothless version of the SNP have been upsetting for 7 years due to her embarrassing inaction?
      What about them? What makes you think the excuse of a no voter to not voting yes is more important than highlighting the enormous damage to the yes voters’ trust and hopes, and to Scotland this useless leader has caused?

      From the perspective of a yes voter, after 7 years of watching Sturgeon doing nothing to progress independence while hiding like a coward behind the excuses of “Westminster’s sovereignty” or “converting no voters” whose numbers continue to increase as they flow from down south into Scotland, frankly I couldn’t care less about the excuses no voters come up with to not vote yes. That is their prerogative. What I care about is that this woman and her party have been hiding behind no voters to ignore the the interests of the yes voters who put them in power. All the while the number of no voters imported from elsewhere continues to grow. That I find completely unacceptable.

      Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP were elected TO DELIVER, not to stall independence. They were not elected to hand over our rights and assets, to indulge the English establishment savaging our Claim of Right and Treaty of Union nor to help it forcing brexit on Scotland or helping them changing our laws and standards without our consent.

      7 years and they delivered nothing on autonomy. They protected nothing. They failed at capitalising at every single opportunity that came their way to defend Scotland’s claim of right and Scotland’s interests, and there were many. In any other part of the UK failed leaders and political losers like these would have been shown the door many moons ago, not wrapped in cotton wool in case you upset no voters or England parties’ representatives and members.

      Liked by 19 people

    4. Graeme: she has done everything in her power to ensure that we never reach that 60%. Campaigning is the answer. Pointing out every dirty trick in the book is the answer. Bringing every Westminster underhand proposition into the open and under the light is the answer. Fighting every inch of the way to protect Scottish assets is the answer. Battling to keep jobs and services and industries and banks in Scotland is the answer. Setting up a central bank and optional currency is the answer. Diverging from UK policy that penalises Scotland is the answer. Not jumping on naive and, frankly, insane social and geopolitical policies is the answer… Have any of these things been done or even attempted? I should cocoa!

      Liked by 13 people

  5. It’s party before country for the SNP. They’ve waited a long time to become the dominant political force. All that lovely short money is hard to walk away from and it’s unlikely any of their benchwarmers would command such lavish salaries out in the real world.

    However, they’ve started to display a New Labour sense of entitlement to the pro-indy vote. No wonder their leader squeals like a set of punctured bagpipes at the mention of Alba or the man whose boots she couldn’t lace.

    Liked by 16 people

    1. Dave: I would argue that only a smallish part of that SNP contingent at Holyrood and Westminster is actually SNP or has even a passing interest in independence. The foot draggers, who form the majority, are devolutionist by instinct. Then we have the pseudo woke contingent, which sees the SNP as the vehicle to massive social change that has nothing to do with independence and who view independence as an upstart philosophy that would hamper their ambitions to give everyone a choice of gender and abolish biological sex to the outer fringes of the universe. Then come the Green contingent, outwardly concerned with saving the planet, but hell-bent on making the poorest pay for it all and driving Scotland down the road of total bankruptcy. They, like the pseudo woke see the SNP as the vehicle for their ambitions. So, we have at least two groupings within the SNP – and, remember, the Scottish civil service is also pseudo woke, and so is at least half the Scottish MSM, with the other half decidedly Unionist – and no room to manoeuvre. You could count on the fingers of one of your hands the elected representatives in the SNP parliamentary party, who are genuinely independence supporters.

      Liked by 16 people

  6. with regard to Mia’s point No 4:
    “The Treaty of Union is very clear in its trade articles. No part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and NI entered that treaty as one of the domains of the Kingdom of England, can have different trade conditions than the rest. This part of the treaty has been directly violated by the favourable agreement given to NI on the brexit negotiations.”

    In my view this is not a valid argument
    It was rejected in court recently when NI Unionist parties (DUP and others) claimed the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP) breached the 1800 Irish Act of Union.

    Briefly, Mr Justice Colton rejected the argument that the NIP breached the 1800 Acts of Union, declaring that “much constitutional water has passed under the bridge” since then.
    Colton determined that the 1800 Acts of Union and the Brexit withdrawal legislation were both laws of a constitutional character but said his role was to rule on which one should prevail in law.
    A starting point, based on fundamental legal principles, was that the most recent legislation should take precedence.The acts (2018 and 2020 Withdrawal Agreement Acts) have been approved and implemented pursuant to the express will of parliament and any tension with article six of the Acts of Union should be resolved in favour of the agreement acts of 2018 and 2020

    I admit it would take a Scottish lawyer to determine whether these legal arguments (or similar ) are valid for the 1707 Scottish Act of Union, though I cannot personally see why they wouldn’t be.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/30/belfast-court-dismisses-legal-challenge-to-brexit-northern-ireland-protocol

    Like

    1. The NI position is arguably a different matter. There is of course a difference between a Treaty and an Act, and more especially a Treaty that is and remains absolutely conditional on a previous Act in the auld Scottish Parliament relating to the Claim of Right and Scotland’s distinct constitutional sovereignty.

      Liked by 16 people

      1. Alf: you are correct in that an Act is a piece of domestic legislation and the Unionists would be laughing all the way to the next oil field if they could manage to persuade us neep-eaters that it was a fair swap for the Treaty. The Treaty is an agreement in international law and can ONLY be resiled in international law unless we agree differently. A Scottish court could ‘sound’ it in domestic law before its being remitted to international law. It would take some time, though. I think we should go for broke and place our request for negotiations on all fronts: Treaty; Claim of Right; electoral mandates. Let’s see how they would react. Any hope of the SNP doing that? Is that a small, porcine creature with rudimentary wings I see up there? Not a snowball’s chance in hell. The SNP parliamentary grouping at both Holyrood and Westminster need to be hollowed out first. Start with the local elections and then the UK elections, but, and it’s a huge BUT, we cannot allow the Unionists in, so we need to have other candidates in place to fill the void that has existed in the SNP for nearly eight years now.

        Liked by 13 people

    2. As Alf says. The 1800 is an ACT of union, that is, domestic legislation that can be legally modified by Westminster. The Treaty of Union 1707 is a TREATY between two sovereign entities, aka international law. Frankly, I would think, although I may be wrong, that breaches of the Treaty of Union like that should go beyond the scope of any English court, including the one they like to call “UK Supreme Court”.

      In my opinion there is a very good reason why Nicola Sturgeon and her toothless SNP let NI go alone in chasing this, instead of throwing Scotland’s weight behind the claim of breach of the Treaty of Union. I suspect if Scotland as a constitutional part of the UK union had been the challenger instead of NI and the challenge had been in an international court of law, instead of in an English one acting under English law and under the English convention of Westminster’s sovereignty, the outcome of this breach might have been rather different.

      The lack of appetite from Sturgeon and her toothless SNP in pursuing this was another sign for me that neither her nor the version of the SNP she “leads” had ever any interest whatsoever in ending the union.

      Liked by 17 people

      1. To be honest Mia I could not understand why FM Sturgeon did not pursue the “Breach of the Union” issue.
        She might not have wanted to make common cause with Unionists like the DUP et al who advocated Brexit despite the majority in NI being against it.
        But she could have done it on other (Treaty) grounds as you and Alf pointed out.

        Liked by 11 people

      2. If they ever manage to persuade the neep-eaters up here to swap the Treaty for a domestic law Act, were are up the creek without a paddle. A Treaty can be resiled ONLY in international law, although it can be ‘sound’ in domestic law in a Scottish court. It may be that everyone is too feart to have it ‘sound’ in law in case it has no substance after 300+ years, but I’d bet on it. I think we should go for broke: Treaty; Claim of Right; and electoral mandates. Place them before Westminster and wait for the inevitable political explosion.

        Liked by 11 people

      3. Correct Lorncal, and if the Treaty was found to have no substance then neither do any of the articles stipulated in it which guarantees inter alia: the continuing privileges and status forever of the Scottish legal system, the dominance of the national Church of Scotland, Scotland’s four ancient universities, the Claim of Right, and all else stated in the Treaty as conditions of the Union.

        Liked by 7 people

  7. I think this is the very reason the wider YES movement needs to raise awareness of the claim of right, digital covenants and other innovative ideas. It has to be assumed that there will be interference (at the very least) in the current, or any political party in holyrood which claims to be pro-indy. Even if (a big if) the SNP manages to schedule a referendum, we would have to be very naive to think the London civil service running the Scottish govt would not do everything in it’s power to keep Scotland in the UK.

    We need to embarrass the incumbent ‘pro-indy’ politicians by publicly asking them to acknowledge our sovereignty and to publicly sign a digital covenant.

    Liked by 15 people

  8. Ben: because she never had any intention of taking us out of the UK on the Brexit promise. Since she took office in 2014, she has deliberately avoided every single opportunity that has come her way, and she has had many more than Alec Salmond in his tenure, yet he did keep his promise.

    Liked by 15 people

    1. Re Mia and Brexit:

      I can agree with Mia on everything except when she says “Brexit wouldn’t have happened”. Indeed, because we shouldn’t have been in in the first place. The UK took us in and now, as the UK was the member state, we are out!

      It seems an odd proposal for a nationalist to make: “Let’s fight to get out of London control and then submit to worse Brussels control via the EU”. I certainly wouldn’t vote for that. Let’s try national freedom first.

      Like

      1. I think being a dog on a leash represented by it’s Master is quite different to being directly represented. You cannot compare direct membership of the EU to the previous BritNat set up.

        I would prefer EFTA myself but as I have said many times such issues are for the People of Scotland to decide AFTER Independence.

        Liked by 11 people

      2. Editor: I wouldn’t have said it a few years ago, but I think now that we would be best to join a grouping like EFTA before embarking on rejoining the EU, if we ever do.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. I agree with clootie the UK is a colonial master slave relationship, the EU is inclusive, look at how Brexit has effected the UK economy and how the media pretends that everything is rosy in the sunlit uplands .I see the EU as protecting peoples rights and striving to make peoples lifes better ,penisions, health the environment and trade ,what benifit does a Brexit UK bring to the table. Under a coercive Union our living standards are returning to the 30’s. Privatisation which was sold to us as a drive for efficiency and making things cheaper has had the opposite effect especially with the utility’s. The consumer is ripped off and milked at every oppurtunity. The war in the Ukraine is being used by the elites as a smoke screen and hide their daylight robbery. Brexit part two the great reset for the establishment is on it’s way. You will own nothing and be happy. It time to wake up folks ,the nightmare is real.
    Politicians and especially Sturgeon has betrayed our trust it is now time for us the people to take back control and vote her out . Meantime let’s have a petition of no confidence in Sturgeon traitorous leadership and it’s time to serve notice on a duff SNP. That will embarrass the pretend independence party
    Few politicians have made me feel the way that I do about Sturgeon even Thatcher but in all fairness Thatcher never pretend to be anything other than who she was, a right wing facist. Where Nicola is a Britnat chameleon, lying, backstabbing and betraying the independence movement at every oppurtunity for her colonial masters.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Hello lorncal,

      I agree with you completely about joining EFTA, a trading organisation, rather than the EU with its completely politicised aims and organisation

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Well Iain Why don’t You & Your Alba Eejits put Your Money where Your Erse is & take out a Private Case for Scotlands Independence in the UK Supreme Court!
    No, We didn’t think So – You are All Wind & Piss!

    Like

Comments are closed.