MIA ONCE AGAIN HIGHLIGHTS HOW ENGLAND USES IT TO KEEP SCOTLAND DOWN ILLEGALLY AND IN BREACH OF OUR OWN CONSTITUTION AS OUTLINED IN THE CLAIM OF RIGHT.
Here is a stupid question that I have been asking myself since the very first time I heard the words “unwritten constitution” with regards to 21st century UK:
how can something “unwritten” ever be qualified as a constitution in modern times?
The word “constitution”, meaning fundamental principles, implies something static. Something fixed that cannot be easily changed. Like an anchor that serves to keep everything in place. If it is flexible and constantly moving, as an unwritten constitution would imply, then it ceases to be meaningful as a series of fundamental principles.
So how do you keep track that something unwritten has not been changed unlawfully if you cannot compare present and past because you have no register to look, or a standard to measure the change against? How do you know what can never be changed or moved? How can you credibly claim you are adding, removing or even remember all what is supposed to be included in your constitution if it is not written anywhere?
How can the average voter know their rights under such “unwritten” constitution if they cannot read it anywhere?
A constitution cannot be the privy of a handful of lawyers and judges, because if that is the case then it is not a constitution, it becomes a work manual for which an updated version can be released with every government, and it will be thinner or thicker depending of the political party in government. That is not a constitution. It has to be the ownership of the people. Politicians cannot be dictating our constitution. Politicians’ actions should be grounded by that constitution.
I think you are spot on about the reason why this fudge of “unwritten constitution” was created. Perhaps this discrepancy between Scotland’s and England’s constitutions is the reason why Labour, the masters at deception when it comes to protect the union, promoted an English court to the post of “UK Supreme Court”.
With such court, every time a constitutional confrontation between Scotland’s and England’s constitution happens, a veneer of legitimacy can be added to giving English law and English convention precedence over Scotland’s to diffuse the situation, exercise damage control and continue to cast aside the constitutional breach hoping the people of Scotland will not notice or forget quickly.
That is in my view what this court did in their ruling about triggering A50, about the Sewel convention and about Scotland’s continuity bill. I remember asking myself why on earth there were any English judges in the case of Scotland’s continuity bill. It was a matter exclusively of Scots law. A bill that was passed in Scotland’s parliament. There was absolutely no place, in my view, for any English judge there.
I thought the exact same when the triggering of A50 without Scotland’s consent was challenged in that court. In my opinion that was not for an English judge educated in English law and English convention to decide, but for an Scottish one versed in Scotland’s constitution. The way I see it, that court is not the “UK” supreme court, but England’s as the UK supreme court, and it will use English law with a majority of England judges over Scots ones, to silence Scots law at every opportunity.
YOURS FOR SCOTLAND 
As usual Mia, can’t fault the logic or the truth of your post. Spot on, many, many thanks for your contributions to this and other subjects.
LikeLiked by 11 people
Make it up as you go along, dress it up, take as you will, it’s the Westminster way.
Best of all. Keep Jock confused. Keep Jock down. Do it for as long as you can.
And best of all. Get a local Gauleiter and her helpers to help keep it that way.
That’s colonialism.
LikeLiked by 13 people
It is when you see something spelled out that you realise just how much of Scotland and its history and its present and future are being erased bit by bit. The process has been accelerating over the past few years under the watch of the present SNP and its leadership. Every time they fail to take action themselves, fail to support someone who tries to take action or actively persecute people who try to take action they subordinate more of Scotland and its culture to the bigger neighbour.
By the way Willie – I noticed that in the most recent WGD blog it is stated that Scotland is not a colony. So there!
LikeLiked by 8 people
All the more reason to study these blog contributions, find a concise way to express them and start spreading the word to all people you converse with.
LikeLiked by 6 people
It seems that Wee Ginger Dug changed his colours when the dug died. I only met them once in 2014 and have to say I liked the dog.
LikeLiked by 9 people
WGD sold out to the National newsoaper.
LikeLiked by 3 people
WGD describes features of oppressive colonialism that persist in the relationship between a subordinated Scotland and a dominant England, but then desists from coming to the rather obvious conclusion; that independence is decolonisation. Constitutionally Scotland is anything but a colony; however, this does not alter the fact that the relationship with England clearly is and remains colonial – economically, politically, culturally, linguistically and more. This failure to understand that independence is decolonisation implies some people remain in denial, which perhaps explains the inertia of the SNP leadership on progressing Scotland’s decolonisation. Of course, the colonial mindset as an outcome of colonialism means the native may consider his oppression and lack of opportunity to be deserved, i.e. the fault of the native due to his implied ‘inferiority’, never the fault of the ‘superior’ coloniser, a being the native should aspire to be like in all respects – culture, language, values etc.
LikeLiked by 10 people
Since we are debating constitutional matters, judgement today re the NI protocol
“In dismissing five grounds of appeal, the court of appeal found that the government had acted lawfully, that international treaties were not a devolved matter and that decisions made by a democratically elected national government did not bind future governments centuries or decades later to their decisions.”
However there may be an appeal to Supreme Court
““What we say is there is a hierarchy of constitutional statutes and the Acts of Union, which established Northern Ireland, sits at the top of that hierarchy”
There is also mention of parliamentary sovereignty. I don’t know enough about NI to know whether this English notion extends there, though we’d argue in Scotland it’s the people who are sovereign.
We’ve argued that the 1707 Treaty and Acts of Union have been broken many times so this is something to watch methinks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/14/northern-ireland-protocol-is-lawful-court-of-appeal-rules
Is there a constitutional lawyer in the house???
LikeLiked by 7 people
“Is there a constitutional lawyer in the house???”
Constitutional lawyers appear to be thin on the ground in Scotland, though for a rather obvious reason. Constitutional lawyers would be working with treaties and matters of national sovereignty on a frequent basis. The last time a treaty was drafted for Scotland by Scottish lawyers was probably in 1706. Scotland has been ‘out of the game’ in terms of constitutional and international treaty matters for over three centuries. UK treaties are dealt with by the UK Government principally under English Law. This probably explains to some extent why Scots have lost touch with our own constitutional sovereignty which has lain dormant and disregarded for a prolonged period. On this critically important matter we do seem to be lacking in legal expertise, which perhaps also explains why we are so easily and regularly taken up constitutional blind alleys by the dominant party to the treaty, the latter being rather more expert and worldly in such matters.
LikeLiked by 8 people
While it’s right to say that the UK constitution has never been written down in one single document, it isn’t correct to say that it’s entirely unwritten – it is in fact made up of a number of written documents and acts such as England’s Bill of Rights, Scotland’s Claim of Right, and many others since then, as well as “Common Law”, once largely an English concept but now also a firm element of Scots law. These documents, and court cases that reflect common law, are law and can be relied on. One advantage or disadvantage, depending on how you look at it, is that the laws that make up the UK constitution can be changed fairly easily, moving with the times or reflecting the mores and bias of those in power.
It’s also nice to think that in dealing with matters such as the continuity bill the matter might be left to Scots judges. But sadly the continuity bill, for example, related to Scotland’s position within the UK and the rights of the Scottish parliament as defined by the Scotland Act, itself of course a creature of Westminster. It was therefore considered to be a UK matter.
It’s quite difficult to see how to get round that. It can be argued that matters relating to Scotland’s position within the UK are constitutionally every bit as relevant to the UK as they to Scotland. As I see it, both Scotland and England gave up their sovereignty on the passing of the Act of Union although numbers and wealth have inevitably meant that England and her interests have since then always held the whip hand. Sovereignty, I should add, though given up, can be regained – it’s how one goes about it in the face of an intransigent and more powerful senior “partner” that’s the problem.
DT
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah but they didn’t give up their sovereignty as evidenced by the conditions laid out that made the continuing Constitution a pre condition of the Union
LikeLiked by 6 people
“One advantage or disadvantage, depending on how you look at it, is that the laws that make up the UK constitution can be changed fairly easily, moving with the times or reflecting the mores and bias of those in power”
I could never see that as an advantage. I see it as a profound disadvantage and the most certain way to corrupt by the back door and end any meaningful constitution. A constitution is established by the people, not politicians. It should be the people who dictate how politicians act, not the actions of politicians what dictates the terms of a constitution includes.
If the “laws” of the political party in government of the day can change so easily a constitution, then it is not a constitution. It is a work manual, just like the undigestible compendium of UK tax is.
“It’s also nice to think that in dealing with matters such as the continuity bill the matter might be left to Scots judges”
In my personal opinion, it is not just a matter of being nice. It is the pertinent and the correct thing to do because that continuity bill is a bill passed in the parliament of Scotland by the democratically elected members of parliament that Scotland elected and it is to be included in Scots law. There is no place for England MPs nor England judges to stick their nose in that bill nor in the decisions around that bill nor to gerrymander what enters or not Scots law.
When the judges dispense a ruling they have to be seen as being just. An England judge dictating on a matter that is for Scots law and related to Scotland’s own parliament, elected by the Scottish people is not seen as just. It is seen, in my opinion, as a sneaky attempt to impose English law on Scots law, which contravenes the treaty of union.
“But sadly the continuity bill, for example, related to Scotland’s position within the UK and the rights of the Scottish parliament as defined by the Scotland Act ”
It does not matter. It is a bill that was passed by the Scottish parliament, democratically elected by the people of Scotland in Scotland only. Scotland is not the property of England and does not operate under English law or English courts, therefore It is not for England MPs nor England judges to tell the people of Scotland what they are electing or what laws they can have in Scots law and when. From every angle you look at it, it looks an abuse of power and way of keeping a back door wide open, once again, for the unlawful and uninvited intrusion of England into Scotland’s matters.
The people of Scotland is who vote, is who elect and is who get to decide what the parliament of Scotland is.
Scotland’s sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland, so it is the people of Scotland who decides to whom they lend that sovereignty. I have never gave consent for England MPs to take possession of my sovereignty. When I vote in the Holyrood elections I do not vote for the “unwritten and flexible on demand” vision of England MPs of what the parliament of Scotland has to be in their personal or political party opinion to fit their vision of Scotland as an appendage attached to the backyard of England. I vote for what I believe the parliament of Scotland is in MY opinion as a citizen of Scotland.
I see no place whatsoever for England Mps to stick their noses in Scotland’s parliament or to interfere with the democratic processes that happen in Scotland. In fact, I see it as an unwanted, uninvited and unlawful interference of England in Scotland’s democratic processes, parliamentary and government structures.
By the way, the Scotland Act was butchered by England MPs so they could steal Scotland’s powers and control of main assets. The Scotland Act was a contract between Scotland and England’s government. England unilaterally destroyed a couple of conditions within that contract, rendering it voidable.
Considering the original Scotland Act was the status quo we voted for in 2014, you can argue that you cannot retrospectively change those conditions without bringing down at the same time the contract we entered in 2014 and that we accepted with our no vote. You destroy the Scotland Act, as England Mps did, and you destroy the legitimacy of our no vote in 2014 that was underpinned by that Act. it is as simple as that.
So either the Scotland Act as a contract is voidable, and should be void by now because of the unilateral intervention of England Mps, or the 2014 vote is void because a fundamental condition underpinning the vote has been violated. Either one or the other, if not both.
If one of the parties entering a contract decides to breach the mutually agreed conditions at the time the contract was signed without the agreement of the other, the other party is no longer obliged to abide nor binded by the rest or the contract. So, I am sorry, but I do no longer see the pretend constraints of the Scottish parliament under an Act that has been completely butchered unilaterally by England MPs so they could abuse their position of power to effect a theft on Scotland’s powers and assets as lawful.
As far as I am concerned, that contract is now void as it is the validity of our 2014 vote. It is just that we have invertebrate amoebas representing Scotland instead of proper democratic representatives that both the 2014 vote and the Scotland Act being dangled about every now and then as hollowed out ghosts despite their foundations having been completely removed.
By the way, England MPs have two hats, one as Members of the UK parliament and another as Members of England’s parliament for England matters. So what hat would you say they are using when deciding, in their opinion, what Scotland’s parliament is or is not? What hat are they using when they are unlawfully overruling Scotland’s popular sovereignty to impose England’s convention that Westminster is sovereign? What hat do they use when they assault our Claim of Right to award themselves the right to silence Scotland?
What right do Members of England’s parliament have to decide over the Scottish citizens when they do not hold the democratic mandate of a single vote from Scotland because they were elected to represent England’s constituencies?
And for that matter, did you ever see Members of the European Parliament sticking their nose in UK parliamentary matters or EU judges trashing UK domestic laws in EU courts?
So, again, what right do England MPs wearing no matter which hat have to decide what the people of Scotland should vote for or is voting for or what constrains the parliament of Scotland should have?
Isn’t this again a matter of Scotland’s popular sovereignty being violated by the greed of England MPs?
“itself of course a creature of Westminster”
I am sorry but I do not accept that. As I said above, considering Scotland’s popular sovereignty, it is for the people of Scotland to decide what that parliament is and what it represents, not for England MPs. I do not accept authority from no England MP. I do not see the tory party as the legitimate party of goverment of the UK nor I see its legitimacy representing Scotland in any international trade deal or agreement. Only England gave that party a majority. I do not recognise Labour as the party of opposition in Westminter either. Scotland only sent one MP for that party. I see it as the opposition FOR ENGLAND. Needless to say that I do not recognise as legitimate either that a political party with only democratic mandate in England is the one who gets to choose unilaterally who the UK PM has to be. As far as I am concerned, Mr Johnson is the FM of England and has no democratic mandate to represent Scotland.
I don’t see Holyrood as “creature” of Westminster. It is no “gift” from Westminster. It was the reconvened parliament of Scotland BY DEMAND of the people of Scotland.
“It was therefore considered to be a UK matter”
By whom? Who made that decision on behalf of the people of Scotland and what right did they have to make that decision? when was the people of Scotland asked what kind of matter they saw it as? Overruling our popular sovereignty again?
“It’s quite difficult to see how to get round that”
I am not sure it is difficult at all. It is a question of England MPs and England judges respecting boundaries and keeping their nose and their fingers in England’s matters and out of Scotland’s business. It is a matter of asserting the will of the people of Scotland, not taking on all what England judges and England Mps tells us we have to accept.
“t can be argued that matters relating to Scotland’s position within the UK are constitutionally every bit as relevant to the UK as they to Scotland”
It can be argued that Scotland choosing to unilaterally end the union is constitutionally as relevant to Scotland as it is to England. That does not mean that if the people of Scotland wants to decide ending that union unilaterally, England has to stick its nose in that decision to make it suit her rather than Scotland. England is perfectly at liberty to make its own decision. With regards to the bill the exactly same applies. England MPs could have passed a parallel bill for England themselves. If they want another parliament they can gerrymander, they can recall England’s parliametn.
They may be using the UK parliament as if it was England’s but in the same way there is a distinction between NHS Scotland and NHS England, there can be a distinction between Scotland’s and England’s bills.
The UK exiting the EU was a matter that affected the entire EU. Did you see EU judges stopping it, just because they could?
” As I see it, both Scotland and England gave up their sovereignty on the passing of the Act of Union”
that is obviously how YOU see it. I see the precise opposite way. Scotland and England were proving their sovereignty when they signed the Treaty of Union, which is a contract. To sign a contract you have to have competence and capacity. If Scotland and England were not sovereign they could have never sign that contract. The Act of Union is just putting an international treaty into domestic law. What matters here is the TREATY of Union, which is under international law.
Would you say the UK lost its sovereignty when it entered the EU?
Would you say the UK lost its sovereignty when it entered in a trade deal with Australia or New Zealand?
Surely not. If the Uk had lost its sovereignty for signing an international treaty then it would have never been able to vote and leave the EU or sign the Withdrawal bill to agree the exiting terms.
Treaties and Trade deals are exercises in sovereignty, the proof that a country has sovereignty. They are not the surrendering of sovereignty. They can be revoked at any time. They are contracts and therefore they can legally end.
LikeLiked by 9 people
So what’s a sovereign state? The dictionary says, IMO quite correctly, that it’s a state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not subject to or dependent on another power.. That does not apply to Scotland. Scotland is subject to and dependent not on England, but on the United Kingdom, which is a sovereign state. The United Kingdom can do what it likes with Scotland. It can give it a parliament, it can decide what powers that parliament has, it can change these powers, it can abolish that parliament. It is sovereign, and it can be argued that it is sovereign through the people who elect it through a universal franchise, even if the electoral system is flawed.
So let’s stop kidding ourselves. Scotland is not a sovereign state and has not been so since 1707. Nor is England, for that matter. So I have grave doubts about any argument based on the unique sovereignty of the Scottish people.
It may well be that prior to 1707 the people of Scotland were sovereign, though I think we have to remember that back in those days the “people” had little power – even as late as 1831 a mere 4,500 men, out of a population of more than 2.6 million people, were entitled to vote in parliamentary elections. Who’s kidding who about the people and sovereignty, even in pre 1707 Scotland?
” I see the precise opposite way. Scotland and England were proving their sovereignty when they signed the Treaty of Union, ”
Of course both countries were sovereign then, but as soon as that Act came into force both had given their sovereignty awy to Great Britan, subsequently the United Kingdom. Of course Scotland was allowed to keep some of its old ways, eg religion, law, and education, but now it was subject to another power that could take these away if it so wished. Scotland was basically left powerless.
“What right do Members of England’s parliament have to decide over the Scottish citizens when they do not hold the democratic mandate of a single vote from Scotland because they were elected to represent England’s constituencies?”
You do have a bee in your bonnet about England. The parliament you refer to is not England’s parliament, it is the parliament of the United Kingdom. Technically, England is as subservient to it as is Scotland although because England supplies most of its members such a scenario is pretty unlikely – mind you, that was apparent from the very start when Scotland supplied 45 of its MPs to add to the 513 English in Westminster. By agreeing to union with England, Scotland accepted that it would be governed by a parliament that was made up largely of English members. It’s what usually happens to small organistaions when they join larger ones. And Westminster has the right to decide over Scottish citizens because Scotland agreed to that and, it seems, still does.
“It does not matter. It is a bill that was passed by the Scottish parliament, democratically elected by the people of Scotland in Scotland only. Scotland is not the property of England and does not operate under English law or English courts, therefore It is not for England MPs nor England judges to tell the people of Scotland what they are electing or what laws they can have in Scots law and when. ”
“England” cannot tell the people of Scotland what do. Unfortunately, however, the United Kingdon can and does, basically because back in 1706/7 Scotland agreed it could. Don’t blame the English for it. It was our parcel of rogues who sold us down the river for English gold.
DT
LikeLike
“It was our parcel of rogues who sold us down the river for English gold.”
Quite, and that is not entirely unusual given that “Colonialism is always a cooperative venture” (Frantz Fanon) between certain native elites and the oppressor power who work together to exploit and enslave the bulk of a colonised people. That still means there are only two actors in the game, “the colonizer and the colonized” (Albert Memmi). It should not really be so difficult to figure out which is which in this scenario.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@daveytee19
“So what’s a sovereign state? The dictionary says, IMO quite correctly, that it’s a state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not subject to or dependent on another power”
Wonderful.
That is exactly what Scotland was when it entered voluntarily into the International Treaty of Union 1707. It could not possibly be any other way, because to enter a treaty you have to have capacity and competence. I hope that unless until here we both agree.
Now let’s take a look at Article 6 of the Vienna Convention in the Law of Treaties:
Article 6 – “Capacity of States to conclude treaties”
“Every state possesses capacity to conclude treaties”
What this article implies is that a state does not lose its statehood by entering a treaty. From this, the conclusion is that Scotland did not give away its sovereignty and statehood by entering into an international Treaty. It lent it. If you look in the treaty of union you will see that nowhere it says Scotland has to give up its parliament. Nor it says anywhere that it cannot open another one or one hundred if it so wishes, whenever it likes.
This fantastic series of articles about the Claim of Right clearly shows a Scottish constitution that is very much alive and that declares absolute rule unlawful. The Claim of Right, an expression of that constitution, is what underpins the Treaty of Union. If the nobility in 1707 were giving away Scotland’s sovereignty on signing the treaty, they would have never bothered demanding the Claim of Right to be a fundamental condition of the Treaty, nor the keeping of Scotland’s crown, seal and a mint in Scotland, or a separate body of law for Scotland and another few things. They clearly had a very strong determination to keep Scotland’s nationhood and distinctiveness in perpetuity. That is not what a nation who is ready to surrender its sovereignty does.
I think you find that the perception of loss of sovereignty is a fabrication through continuous and calculated misinformation and erosion, accompanied by a relentless attack on Scotland’s language and heritage.
I invite you to read about the Malt Tax and the 1713 attempt to repeal the Union. At that point, only 6 years after the treaty of union had been signed, Scotland’s representatives, in both the house of commons and the house of lords, did not appear to believe your version that Scotland had surrendered its sovereignty in perpetuity, hence it could no longer dissolve the treaty and end the union. At that time, they brought a bill to parliament to end the treaty of union and they lost by just a handful of votes.
I have no doubt that had those Scottish MPs be sitting in a parliament in Scotland and the union would have ended in 1713. Scotland got its parliament back in 1999, so there is nothing stopping a majority of pro indy MSPs passing an Act to repeal the Act of Union and end the treaty in the same parliament where the Act of Union was passed back in 1706.
I am convinced that it is precisely to hide this fact that we are being fed over and over again the idea that Holyrood is an appendage of Westminster and it has to abide by Westminster rules and therefore it does not have power even to open its own doors. I think this is nonsense because because those sitting in that parliament are not elected by England MPs. They are elected by us, the people of Scotland. We decide who sits in those seats, not England MPs. Therefore we decide what that parliament has power for and for what not.
So whose opinion are we to consider more credible, that of those that had witnessed the signature of the treaty and knew the conditions in the treaty were not a mere decoration and were prepared to end the Treaty of Union back in 1713, or the England MPs of today, the disinformation units funded by England as the UK government and the useful idiots north and south of the border bribed to help preserve the union?
I most certainly trust far more the judgement of those MPs in 1706.
On the 12 March 2019, there was a heated discussion in Westminster regarding the “Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion”. The discussion was not about the Treaty of Union, as you can imagine. it was about the backstop and NI Protocol. The discussion was a lot around the fact that this protocol did not have an explicit exit clause, just like the Treaty of Union 1707 does not have one.
England MPs were fretting about how to exit the Withdrawal agreement quickly and on demand without an explicit exit clause. If like you say the Treaty of Union was irreversible because it does not have an exit clause, so it would be the NI Protocol the MPs were discussing on 12 March 2019.
Well, you would be delighted to find out that this is not the case at all. If there was something all MPs agreed was in the fact that the Protocol , without its exit clause, could still be ended.
It appeared to be common knowledge in the UK parliament that you would always be able to exit an international treaty without an exit clause if you could demonstrate that your partner used “bad faith”. This is in reference to Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
Article 26
“Pacta sunt servanda”
“Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith”
Well, the England MPs, were really concerned about having to rely only on the EU’s “bad faith” to be able to exit the protocol on their say so. It was obvious that most MPs thought they would not be able to prove easily that the EU was operating in bad faith. At the end of the day the EU is not like perfidious Albion, is it?
What they were saying is that not having an exit clause does not mean you can not exit the treaty, it means that in normal circumstances you may have to rely on being able to demonstrate bad faith from the partner of the treaty to declare it void, as bad faith is a fundamental assumption in International law as reflected in several of the articles of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties.
The Attorney General was trying to put across that “bad faith” is very difficult to prove. Well, heaven forbid the EU dared to pull the same fast one England has been pulling on Scotland for 300 years on the back of a silly treaty and a few silly conditions. As Howe said, “a thief thinks everybody steals”. England MPs clearly know all about how to disguise bad faith as good faith because they have been doing it for 300 years by deliberately misinterpreting the treaty of union 1707 and its conditions to continuously abuse Scotland, trash its heritage and culture and ransack its assets, haven’t they? I mean, the imposition of the Malt Tax in 1713 was already, 6 years in, a breach of the conditions.
There is no wonder that during this discussion in 2019 they were terrified of the EU, much bigger in size than the UK, using bad faith to twist the treaty because they knew very well the consequences of such an action as England’s representatives had been doing it to Scotland for centuries.
But incidentally, when somebody challenged the Attorney General on that point he also said this:
“It is extremely important to remember that there is always a right to terminate a treaty unilaterally if circumstances fundamentally change. There is no question but that we have a right to exit if those circumstances apply.”
So there you have it. The Uk Attorney General in 2019 speaking to UK Parliament and telling us all that a treaty can always be terminated either by proving bad faith or by demonstrating a change in circumstances. I am sure the UK Attorney General knew what he was talking about when addressing HM Parliament and said that, don’t you agree?
I have no reason to question his word. Do you?
This was March 2019. At that point, the circumstances of the UK union had fundamentally changed. In fact, the circumstances had changed continuously in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 with the successive assaults on our democratic rights, our constitution, the Scotland Act, even the Sewel convention. If Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP were really pursuing independence instead of taking the yes voters for a ride of fools and using our votes to preserve the union, they would have initiated right there and then, the dissolution of the treaty on the basis of material change in circumstances. And they should have done so, because also in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties there is this jewel:
“Article 45
“Loss of a right to invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty”
A State may no longer invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or
suspending the operation of a treaty under articles 46 to 50 or articles 60 and 62 if, after becoming aware
of the facts:
(a) it shall have expressly agreed that the treaty is valid or remains in force or continues in operation,
as the case may be; or
(b) it must by reason of its conduct be considered as having acquiesced in the validity of the treaty or
in its maintenance in force or in operation, as the case may be”
In other words: use it or lose it.
I am sure you will agree with me that it would be absolutely unforgivable and nothing short of betrayal and gross dereliction of duty, if the deliberate and calculated lack of action from Nicola Sturgeon and her SNP to declare the Treaty of Union void in the face of the many breaches of the treaty of union and the many changes in circumstances unacceptable to us, we might have lost the opportunity to terminate this treaty under articles 46 to 50 and articles 60 to 62.
Has that opportunity passed us by because of her stubbornness, or perhaps because her political allegiances might lie at the opposite side where she claims she sits? Have her lack of action made it now too late for Scotland to use any of the doors the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties offers for Scotland to exit this union, because her lack of action might be interpreted as “acquiescence of Scotland to the validity of the treaty” ? Such thing would be akin at her forcing on us an unlawful treaty. In other words, we would not be in this union because England is forcing us to. We would be in this union because Nicola Sturgeon has been denying us access to the mechanisms at our disposal to legitimately terminate a Treaty that has become toxic for Scotland. Would you agree with me on this point?
“Scotland is subject to and dependent not on England, but on the United Kingdom”
I think this is incorrect. It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain the entity that is dependent on continuous consent from Scotland to remain as such. I do agree that currently it is the UK of Great Britain what is a state, but because it is the product of an international treaty, the minute that treaty ends, the UK state ends. This is the same scenario with the EU. The EU is the legal entity that negotiated all the trade agreements for its constituent countries as part of the EU. This means that if tomorrow the constituent states of the EU end the treaty that gave birth to the EU, the EU as a legal entity ceases to exist and therefore all those trade deals negotiated with the EU as the legal entity will cease to have validity in the eyes of the law. The Uk is not a country. It is a political union, just like the EU is.
“The United Kingdom can do what it likes with Scotland”
I think this is incorrect for two reasons:
1. The UK is not independent from Scotland – it is Scotland. I think what you may mean is that England can do what it wants with Scotland, because what we have at present is not “The UK”. What we have is a rogue England acting as the UK.
2. As I said above, the “UK of Great Britain” derives its legitimacy to remain as a legitimate state from an international treaty and hence the continuous consent from its two signatory parties for that treaty to continue. So in reality, and because it is a bipartite political union, it is Scotland who can do what it likes with The UK, not the other way round. We will continued to be dictated for as long as we keep doing as we are told. Perhaps we should turn round and start saying “no”. We will decide what to do from now on, thank you.
“It can give it a parliament”
“IT” cannot give what it does not own. The UK parliament does not own Scotland’s powers. It has borrowed them. The parliament of Scotland was RECONVENED by demand of the people of Scotland, don’t forget. It was never a gift from England MPs. They had to because if they didn’t the alternative was the acceleration of Scotland’s independence. The “gifts” of our own powers are being very carefully managed by Westminter by managing our expectations to stop us demand them all back at once.
“it can decide what powers that parliament has”
If it has happened that way until now it is because the people of Scotland is not fully aware of their popular sovereignty. It has happened that way because the UK’s survival is entirely based on foundations of deception. EVen devolution is a deception. For instance, did you notice that the powers allocated to Scotland’s parliament in 1999 were decided AFTER the vote took place? Did you notice that the powers handed back to Scotland in 2014 were decided AFTER the vote took place? In what democratic world do you cast your vote before you know what you are getting? This is pure damage limitation.
Why do you think the people of Scotland has never been asked what powers they want to have in their parliament?
Because the English ruling elite is scared the people of Scotland are going to turn round and demand all powers back. They have been for decades desperately trying to slam down the breaks on a process that started the day after the Treaty of Union was signed.
“It can abolish that parliament”
I dare them to even suggest it
“Scotland is not a sovereign state and has not been so since 1707”
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You claim it is not a sovereign state. I claim it has put its sovereignty on hold and can restore its statehood whenever its people, where its sovereignty lies, reclaim that sovereignty back. The only thing they need to do is to ignore Sturgeon’s bleatings about her unicorn neverendum, find a suitable vehicle to bypass Sturgeon and her toothless SNP and declare the Treaty of Union 1707 void.
“You do have a bee in your bonnet about England”
Do I detect an attempt to send me on a guilty trip? Don’t bother as you would be wasting your time. I make no apologies whatsoever for expressing the truth as I see it. England has been exploiting and abusing Scotland for centuries. England by means of its representatives and monarch has imposed absolute rule on Scotland for its own benefit, in direct breach of Scotland’s constitution and by default the treaty of union. England has pocketed the bulk of the profits from Scotland’s vast oil resources and is now pocketing the profits of Scotland’s renewables. In England’s eyes, the assets of every nation of the Uk are hers and her debt is everybody else’s, yet England is the only one that has a huge, and I mean huge, deficit of trade of goods. We are talking about over 100 billion. England has used Scotland to pay a share of England’s debt, to pay for its vanity projects and the corruption of its political party’s negotiations, like the PPE and test kits recent scandals. England is using Scotland as its own nuclear waste back yard. England’s representatives are undermining and deceiving Scotland continuously for the sake of preserving what looks like an unlawful treaty that should have been declared void the day after it was signed.
There, I said it and I still no sign of the bee.
“The parliament you refer to is not England’s parliament, it is the parliament of the United Kingdom”
It may be called like that but it most certainly is not the UK of Great Britain Parliament. It is England acting as the UK parliament. Take a look at the EU parliament to see what a union parliament looks like. 705 members for the entire EU that has around 447 million people. England alone has 553 MPs for 55 million people. For the larger EU countries there is a cap in the number of members. Germany has 83 million people and only 96 seats (13%) England’s proportion of seats in the England as the UK parliament is 83%. That is not a “UK” parliament. That is England’s parliament. Proof of this is that we have effectively England MPs determining by themselves to increase England’s representation even more at the expense of decreasing the representation of Scotland, Wales and NI. As it is, with no cap, they could vote to take over all seats from NI, Wales and Scotland. Would you still call it then “the UK” parliament of by then you would start to consider it being England’s parliament?
” Technically, England is as subservient to it”
Please don’t make me laugh. England has been acting as “the uK” ad keeping everybody else silent and subservient to its own needs for as long as I remember. There is nothing subservient about England.
” By agreeing to union with England, Scotland accepted that it would be governed by a parliament that was made up largely of English members”
Scotland did not accept anything. A handful of bribed aristocrats did.
“And Westminster has the right to decide over Scottish citizens because Scotland agreed to that”
When? Our 2014 contract which we accepted with our no vote is void. The minute England MPs unilaterally butchered the Act of Scotland which underpinned the status quo that gave legitimacy to that vote, they butchered the agreement.
On 8th May 2015 the people of Scotland sent an absolute majority of SNP MPs to Westminster. Democratically speaking, that removed that right from Westminster to act on behalf of Scotland. If it didn’t is only because Sturgeon removed the wheels of the SNP in preparation for that vote.
Furthermore, since 2016 there has been a mandate for an independence referendum on the table. A mandate for an independence referendum is not an agreement for Westmisnter to continue actiong on behalf of Scotland and business as usual. That mandate means Scotland has been questioning since 2015 that right and demands an opportunity to decide. Until the time that referendum or a plebiscitary election on independence in its place, Westminster does not longer have that right. The people of Scotland took that right away in 2015 and from 2016 the people of Scotland has said by means of that referendum mandate that until that vote takes place, that right is not restored.
“Unfortunately, however, the United Kingdom can and does”
I disagree. The only reason why we are doing what England as the UK tells us is because we have an elite, like Prof Baird says, that have reached and agreement with the colonialists. if we had real representatives instead of colonial administrators we would not be told by England what to do.
“Don’t blame the English for it. It was our parcel of rogues who sold us down the river for English gold”
Not quite. There are several parties to the betrayal:
1. those from England who engineered the gerrymandering of the Darrien scheme and the Alien Act to coerce the parliament of Scotland into conceding.
2. Those behind bribes and the dirty tactics to not call the members of parliament to ensure those who oppose the Treaty were in minority
3. The cowards and betrayers who pocketed the gold coins in exchange for selling their Kingdom
4. Those north and south of the Hadrian wall who have misinformed, obfuscated, deceived and abused power through history to keep an unlawful Treaty going against the interests of the people of Scotland and for the sake of England, the insatiable greed of its elite and its wars.
5. The current cowards that Scotland has as government who, watching breach after breach of the Treaty, they choose to sit on their hands like cowards and look the other way instead of ending the Treaty and its misery.
Besides the coercion mentioned above with regards to the Darrien scheme and the Alien Act, From the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties:
“Article 50 – Corruption of a representative of a State”
“If the expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the
corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke
such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty”
Buying the vote of sufficient MPs in 1706 with money, peerages or other sinecures falls very nicely within the concept of “corruption of a representative of a State”, don’t you agree?
This means the treaty was void even before the day it was signed. Scotland has remained trapped in this union not because of the Treaty in 1707 or because the bribes with English gold. Scotland has remained trapped in this union because successive governments and waves of MPs and MSPs did not find the guts neither to repeal the Act of Union in Scotland’s parliament nor to drag this treaty aberration into an international court of law and end its misery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This UK unwritten constitution is based upon “My word as an Englishman” mythology- for the use of the unscrupulous and sly, and for the obedience of fools. The unwritten UK constitution is a nebulous cloud of deceit.
LikeLiked by 7 people
I think this is where the TransCult got the idea….”it means whatever we say it means…”
If it’s not written then the bad guys get to decide how it is interpreted.
Sadly we have the English version based on the Magna Carter and the Sovreignity of the English Parliament jumbled up with the English Monarchy. The Sovereignty of the Scottish People is simply dismissed. English Law dominates in the UK….how did that happen in a Union that defined Scottish Law protected?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Why is This Not on Twitter, FaceBook & Instagram? WHY???
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLike