HE HAS GONE AND DONE IT NOW

SARA SALYERS EXPLAINS

Scotland Needs No Permission?

What is Blackford really talking about? Whether or not he fully understands it, he has just asserted the fundamental principle which underpins –

The Scottish Constitutional Claim

Among the central principles of the UK constitution, currently in force in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK, are a number derived from early English constitutional documents and arrangements. There are none, aside from sectarian principles, that derive from the Scottish corpus. This has given rise to a widespread fallacy that no such principles, or no equally relevant principles, exist for Scotland. When we apply the same criteria, however, to the constitutional documents and arrangements of Scotland prior to the Union, (1310 to 1706), as are afforded to their England counterparts for the same period, we find a core of self-consistent, constitutional principles which collectively reinforce and develop those expressed in the Claim of Right Act of 1689. 

The UK constitution currently acknowledges none of these in practice. The UK Parliament operates, instead, under principles first established for the pre-Union, English Parliament, notably in the Bill of Rights of 1689, which introduced parliamentary privilege and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. 

Parliamentary sovereignty has been described as the central characteristic of the UK Parliament and yet it stands in direct opposition to the Scottish constitutional principle of popular sovereignty articulated in the Claim of Right. How, then, did it come to be universally applied? How did the authority of the Scottish people over their head of state and government come to be replaced by the supreme authority of an English government?  The Bill of Rights did not feature in the terms of the Treaty of Union, while the Scottish Claim of Right Act was ratified by the parliaments of both England and Scotland, its continued force in Scotland guaranteed as a condition of the Union.  Given this guarantee, not only is Scotland entitled to the continued provisions and force of the Claim of Right, but the Claim of Right itself is entitled to parity of standing with the English Bill of Rights within the UK Constitution.

The problem, of course, is how to have a single UK constitution when the core constitutional principles of the signatory nations are irreconcilable. As it was the Claim of Right which was ratified by both parliaments, however, it can be argued that if only one constitution from the two the nation signatories is to be applied in the UK, then the Claim of Right has the superior claim.

What is certain is that the force of the English constitution in Scotland, so far as it violates the guarantees of the Treaty and the provisions of the claim of Right cannot be lawful under either international, Treaty law or domestic, constitutional law.

The restoration of the Scottish constitutional compact, both implicit and explicit in the Claim of Right, represents the righting of a serious wrong committed against the people of Scotland. This wrong continues to the present and in clear violation of the precondition by which the Union was entered into. 

More importantly, it guarantees not merely a route to independence should the majority in Scotland demand it, but the transfer of the power from the hands of an unaccountable few to the population as a whole. It holds out the promise of a restoration of accountability, justice and the reestablishment of the interests and welfare of the whole nation as the primary and inalienable obligation of law and government.

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 SUBSCRIPTIONS

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.

84 thoughts on “HE HAS GONE AND DONE IT NOW

  1. I don’t think that many sensible people reject the fact that Scotland has the right to choose whether or not to stay in the Union. In June 2014 even the Better Together parties conceded that – “Power lies with the Scottish people and we believe it is for the Scottish people to decide how we are governed”. Following the 2014 refrendum the Smith Commission stated “It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose”. The Claim of Right 1989, which was recognised and endorsed by both the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament, acknowledged “the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs”. Even Margaret Thatcher in her 1993 book “The Downing Street Years” said “….as a nation, [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way.” And of course the UN Charter of Human Rights fully supports the rights of people to self determination.

    The modern-day acceptance of the right is there – that’s not the problem. The problem is getting the Scottish people to exercise it.

    Liked by 6 people

      1. I’m afraid that I have no influence with Nicola! But the problem is how do we do it, a problem that is exacerbated by the fact that polls suggest that only a minority of people in Scotland want independence, which is itself exacerbated by the fact that the SNP is doing precious little to try to convince them.

        Liked by 8 people

      2. Just reflect that by playing a canny feint in past dealings with England, Scots have achieved some remarkable successes, perhaps most remarkably with the Declaration of Arbroath, where in 1328 the Holy Cee – the UN of its day endorsed the right of Scotland to self government.

        The bribery (£20,540.17s.7d with names & sums – that parcel of rogues) is on record, as is the bias that extracted revenues from Scotland to support the English National Debt (Scotland had no National Debt in 1707) I just wonder what the settlement might be for extracted wealth over 315 years …

        Let every unionist raise hue & cry over the Article 30 distraction & watch closely the meetings with minimal fanfare between the FM and EU ambassadors, and her trip to the US, with a network of ‘Scotland Houses’ in many cities that could easily transform into embassies in the blink of an eye

        Laying out the landing spot makes a lot of sense if Scotland is to avoid the debacle we’re watching for Brexit

        Liked by 4 people

      3. A reply to d9015 so are you trying to convince us that sturgeon has been playing a canny long game for the last 8 years insisting (wrongly) that a sect30 is the one and only legal way for indy , whilst she has secret meetings with diplomats and world leaders choosing the building specifications and locations for our new embassies

        Is that you Mr Robertson can I call you Angus , if your claim has any validity can you perhaps explain to people who are not so bright as yourself how dividing the whole YES movement by introducing reviled policies that threatens women and children’s safety and security and GIVING AWAY Scotland’s energy resources whilst citizens freeze and starve fits in to encouraging people to vote for independence

        Or is it maybe that you are a sturgeon apologist and sycophant and are content to see people freeze and starve whilst niclas morons waste millions of pounds

        Liked by 3 people

      4. “Let every unionist raise hue & cry over the Article 30 distraction & watch closely the meetings with minimal fanfare between the FM and EU ambassadors, and her trip to the US, with a network of ‘Scotland Houses’ in many cities that could easily transform into embassies in the blink of an eye”

        The problem with that line of thought is the S30 has been, for the last 7 years, an even bigger and deliberate distraction for the yes movement. It has been pushing aside the fundamental question that Sturgeon, her government and her handlers down south are denying us the opportunity to ask. That question is “what path to Scotland’s independence is best FOR SCOTLAND?” We all know what path is best for England – the one where England representatives retain full control over Scotland. But that is not necessarily the best for Scotland.

        A referendum is a feature in just one of the paths, not a must in all of paths available to us and certainly not a feature in the best path. Presenting a referendum as a necessity, like Sturgeon’s SNP has been so busy doing for 8 years, and even worse, presenting it as being totally at the mercy of our equal partner in this political union, is like telling us that there is only one path to get independence. This is disinformation, profoundly dishonest and hints at the fact this “government” has already some form of accommodation with our equal partner that has been arranged behind our backs for quite some time. When you picture such undemocratic move in a context where for 8 years we have been fed incessantly the crap that unilaterally terminating the treaty of union is “undemocratic”, you arrive to the conclusion that if there is a word that forever will define Sturgeon and her government is “hypocrisy”.

        Incidentally, from where I am sitting it seems the referendum is the feature on the worse path Scotland can take to its independence, because it gives full control to the kingdom of England of the timeline, the process and the outcome. At no point in the last 8 years we were presented with any alternatives to this flawed route when alternatives are there for the taking. In fact, we are being categorically and deliberately denied those other options, like it is demonstrated by Sturgeon’s pathetic rushing away from a plebiscitary election in 2021 or by a member of her government cabinet miserably attacking Mr Keatings and his backers to stop Scotland knowing its rights.

        It should be we, the people of Scotland who chooses what path to independence Scotland follows. We cannot leave this choice to a disloyal, corrupt, unprincipled rogue politician who happily colludes with the arms of the opponent (UK the civil service and the COPFS) to suppress fundamental information from us; to effect malicious prosecutions to silence dissent; and to abuse power to frustrate independence and allow England to have its brexit,

        You say that “Scotland Houses” can become embassies. That is nice. Well, I say that if the path followed by Scotland to its independence is to simply exercise its legitimate right as an equal partner in this political union to have its majority of pro independence MPs walking out of Westminster and repealing the treaty of union and the act of union with England, Scotland can have its fair share of the current “UK” embassies and consulates around the world. Why on earth should Scotland have to give up all those embassies and administrative structures all over the world when it helped to create them and to pay for them and simply hand them over to England? Why should it be England only who gets the full benefit of 300 years of union? And in what context do you see that happen? Only in one: if those rogue politicians claiming to represent Scotland, without even consulting the people of Scotland first or giving us the opportunity to choose, have already decided that England will become the continuator state of the UK and will inherit ALL the goodies that Scotland has a legitimate claim on.

        How exactly is that acting on Scotland’s interests?

        I have zero confidence or trust that the present, corrupt and dishonest individual claiming to be Scotland’s FM has anything other than her own personal interests at heart in those trips and meetings to the USA. In fact, in June 2015, just over a month after we sent 56 SNP MPs to Westminster and at a time when we were all expecting Sturgeon to act as a real pro independence leader fighting for Scotland’s rights and interests and to start negotiating the end of the treaty of union, if you believe the press, she travelled to USA to hold some TV interviews there to amuse the USA public. Meanwhile, here in the UK and down in Westminster our 56 SNP MPs, those she should have been leading out of Westminster and to vote to terminate the union, proceeded, by intent or by accident, to sell us to the Kingdom of England. They did this by legitimising with their presence in the green seats the vote that led to what appears to be the biggest assault on Scotland’s democratic rights and sovereignty we have seen since the first devolution referendum. And all for England’s effing brexit. June 2015 was the time when England MPs self-awarded themselves the absolute right to veto Scotland’s vote in the EU referendum about a year before it even happened and when it was already known that Scotland would vote in large numbers to remain in the EU.

        Our 56 MPs, with their participation in the vote in a parliament where Scotland’s voice is ALWAYS silenced by 10 times more MPs from England, instead of denying those England MPs their self-awarded right to silence Scotland, gave it to them again. This vote, right there, in June 2015, would determine the outcome of the EU referendum for Scotland no matter what vote Scotland decided to cast in that EU referendum. That vote in Westminster basically determined that our participation in that EU ref would be academic because the result had already been decided for us. Yet, Sturgeon’s clouded judgement saw of far more importance at that crucial moment in history, to promote her personal profile in a USA TV studio than in acting as the pro independence leader she was elected to be and be at the point where she should have been, Scotland, and doing what she should have been doing: leading those SNP MPs out of Westminster and denying England MPs the legitimacy to continue acting on behalf of Scotland when stealing our democratic rights.

        7 years on from that TV interview in USA and that trip, please tell me, how far has this woman led Scotland towards its independence? Because from where I am sitting, the odometer still shows a big fat 0 and I still see the same problem we had 8 years ago: England has sufficient infrastructure to act as an independent state from day one, but it is not clear Scotland does. And what is worse, Scotland has been forced to pay for all that nice infrastructure in England but England has not replicated the favour to ensure Scotland has the infrastructure at the same level and ready to be an independent state from day one. Again, how much infrastructure you have seen created in Scotland in the last 7 years since that trip to USA? How many ports in Scotland have been prepared to act as international exporting ports? Where is our national bank? Where is our stock exchange? Where is Scotland’s civil service? Where is our national broadcaster? Where is our new constitution? Why is our gold/reserves backing our Scottish notes in circulation sitting somewhere in the bank of England when they could be in Scotland’s national bank?

        So forgive me for twisting my nose and be most suspicious that every time this woman travels to USA it might be because something real nasty is about to hit Scotland and this coward simply has been instructed by her expensive spin doctors (and handlers) to be out of the way, in the best position to dodge accountability, scrutiny and Scotland’s expectations of acting as what she was elected to be: a pro independence leader who uses EVERY single assault on Scotland’s rights and sovereignty as the excuse to terminate the union, and not as an opportunity to allow our partner to weld us to them more tightly.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Why in a Union of two Nations does one get to impose their history on the other?
    The simple example of Q11E being and example James 1 and 6 and James 2 and 7 acknowledged the history of both. Scotland has never had a Queen Lizzie. A trivial example perhaps but the hisory of the UK is the history of England…Why?

    Liked by 15 people

    1. Because the history of Scottish political development reveals constitutional principles irreconcilable with those of England. And the sovereignty of parliament especially is not legitimate on Scotland. Most people think there is no constitution in the U.K. which is a very convenient myth given the consequences of widespread knowledge and the questions that are likely to follow! Check the British Library, U.K. constitution for jaw dropping clarification. Then consider that ours was acknowledged and ratified by two parliaments. Finally, that constitution doesn’t say a word about independence. But it prescribed limits to govt authority, sovereign rights of the people over govt. and specific remedies for redress of the abuses of power. In other words, under our protected constitution the question becomes not whether we want independence but whether crimes have been committed against our rights and our people and whether we wish to sack those responsible. Along with the right to determine this and to apply the prescribed remedies is the right to the instruments with which to do so. Even those uncertain about Indy might well be ready to restore the rights of veto, sanction and removal on defence of the common good which come with the Claim of Right of 1689 and offer a means of escape from the corrupt and lethal regime we see today

      Liked by 16 people

    2. As a teenager in 1952, I realised this was wrong, though I did think blowing up pillar boxesto the possibleinjury of innocent passers by, was not the rigjht way to prevent this. I think the matter was resolved by having post boxes in Scotland without a number so just ER. Unfortuneatly that does not prevent the UK and most foreign governments referring to the currenr Queen as Elizabeth the Second.

      Liked by 6 people

  3. England does not have a constitution, what it claims as such is a moving feast of legalese nonsense so complex NOBODY understands it but many pretend to.

    It is irrelevant to Scottish independence

    D

    Sent from my iPhone

    Liked by 9 people

  4. Just a wee thought to determine a sovereign Scot. If you and both your parents were born in Scotland then you can be a sovereign Scot. If you have just wandered in from some other part pf the planet be that yesterday of 20 years ago, you have no say whatsoever. Otherwise its a mockery, we had to put up with that crap in 2014

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Sovereignty is both individual and collective. Collectively we have authority over the government and whatever provisions entitle someone to vote in Scotland make that person part of the collective.

      Liked by 8 people

    2. Wullie, wee thought is right! My German mother was brought to Scotland after marrying my Scottish father in Germany during the war, and she loved her adopted country.

      Are you seriously suggesting that I’m not eligible to decide on the destiny of the country of my birth, after campaigning relentlessly for our independence since I was educated here, an education that taught me enough to see through the colonial strictures under which Scotland was run?

      Liked by 10 people

    3. Willie you are right 2.2 million colonial settlers in Scotland getting a vote on our democracy when their allegiance is with their Mother country England, some dafties in the SNP think they will vote for independence . This is the Naivety that lost the last Referendum, personally I would like a pebiste but if we do get a 2nd Referendum we must change the voting franchise form a local authority franchise to a constitutional voting franchise for the indigenous population only as recognised by the UN. This is the only way it would be fair.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. In practical terms from someone who moved here from another country (England) myself I would feel much better if everyone voted in Council elections (maybe even a compulsory requirement) because in matters pertaining to local living it seems fair that everyone, including children, should have a say. For the election which selects for Government though, only Scots have the vote, and how Scots are defined could be determined by themselves. It seems doubtful that anyone turning up here to suit themselves would have or acquire the knowledge of custom and practice to make informed decision on Scottish philosophy or governance, even after some time in residence. Using the electoral system to differentiate in such a way could enable the culture that has been preserved for centuries some protection from voting incomers with very different culture and aims who currently can influence, often in favour of their continued allegiance to their native land. Such a system would have the benefit of input from Local Councils possibly through regional councils, who would have first hand knowledge of anything that worked well locally which could translate to national benefit. Giving Local elections such status could ensure that a constant flow of ideas and their evaluation and possible revision could influence and prevent a solidifying or in-group mentality developing in national government. We are going to have to recognise what we have and what we value and look after it not as a source of revenue for someone with big ideas but little sensitivity or moral fibre (and possibly an eye to the main chance) , but because we love it for what it is and by simply being the land itself gives us so much of what we really need, which is not always money. Scotland has, like many countries in this world, been (and still is) pillaged for monetary gain. We need to make our own minds up how we want to relate to this fantastic country, and everyone having a say at local level but not at national level might help. Doesn’t have to be for ever, evaluate and revision would work in this too, but for this sensitive time we need something to protect Scotland but give a fair living to all who live here. Hope this makes a sort of sense, ideas in progress.

        Liked by 4 people

    4. Wullie, I’ve lived in Scotland for 67 years, since I was born. My mother was Scottish, going back as many generations as can be traced, and she married a Polish soldier, stationed here after WW2. I;ve voted SNP since I was 18 and YES in 2014. I’m an activist for YES, regularly attend marches and distribute leaflets. By your definition I am not a sovereign Scot and should have no say whatsoever. You, Wullie, are a xenophobic eejit.

      Liked by 2 people

    5. Wullie: that would take out a lot of people who have one Scottish parent or who have lived in Scotland for many years. That would be grossly unfair. It is the S30 referendum route that makes people think about changing the voting qualification, and while you might be justified in taking out people who have been here only a few years or who are ‘passing through’ or who have no connection with Scotland other than owning great chunks of it, it would make the whole exercise exceedingly difficult. Better by far to find a different route altogether and hold a ratifying/confirmatory referendum once independence is realised. That will give people the opportunity to stay or go if they can’t stomach an independent Scotland, and it will take away any right of any person to deliberately stymie the inalienable right of a people to their independence because of selfish and self-centred motives.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I take the point Lorna but I am against it because it creates a big incentive for England to be very disruptive in the talks to dissolve the Union. I prefer them to face a definite decision already made where talks can be built round being good neighbours and being constructive for mutual benefit.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Yes, I get that, Iain, but it is a dead cert that England, aka the UK, will try to be disruptive whatever we do. I agree that we need to be good neighbours, but I think that won’t come either till we have been independent for a few years. There is a still a cool atmosphere between the UK and Ireland, but, yes, I can see the advantage of a settled position.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. We are sovereign, Democracy is our right. We just need our useless MPs and MSPs and their useless Leader to cotton on to this fact. Dont hold your breath.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. Or we re-establish the Conventions of the Estates – and we sack that party, for introducing laws which the people were not consulted on.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Yes, I understand that, but who and how? Who calls the convention? How are delegates chosen for it? In the absence of government support, who finances it? What legal authority would it have? And how do you sack the SNP other than by persuading people not to vote for them any more? It may all eventually work, but it’s such long term.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. He has gone and done it now.
    Na. He still uses that filthy word referendum, as has been said before that route will be suicide,

    Liked by 11 people

  7. Has Ian Blackford actually acquired a pair of male appendages which he and all other recent leaders of his party seem to have lost up to now?
    I think he should be congratulated on this speech, now permanently recorded in Hansard, and urged to press this point every time he stands up in the Westminster Parliament, as should the FM in Holyrood.
    I think that if the people of Scotland heard this fact repeated regularly by our leaders, they would be pressing for a vote to see that this principle is respected and that Scotland no longer has to accept the rulings of a parliament we did not vote for.
    We must hold his feet to the fire and insist that he carries out the implication behind his words which is that we do not have to submit to London rule.

    Liked by 14 people

  8. For 8yrs all we have heard is the Gold Standard, can I ask the right honourable gentleman whats changed from the poster “My vow is to make Scotland stronger at Westminster” and why has the New SNP been lying about the Gold Standard. I’m even more interested now is seeing this so called legal advice the SNP is feared to release into the public domaine . I’ve just had a look at my bank account and there isn’t any money I can give to the New SNP for a Ref.

    Lets not for get “We won’t be dragged out of the EU against our will”. The SNP leader has been ignoring the claim of right since she was elected, protraying herslf as a president when she’s a simple MSP and the worst FM we have ever had.

    Liked by 15 people

    1. I have to say that I’m astonished that the SG should be required to disclose advice received from its lawyers. Normally such advice is covered by absolute legal privilege and I would have thought (and hoped) that privilege would attach to the advice the SG obtained. Otherwise it makes a mockery of the law that one party to potential litigation should be obliged to disclose legal advice it received to its potential opponents. I hope that the SG appeals the decision which I regard as really quite outrageous.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The people have a right to know if the SG and the New SNP have been lying in order to obtain votes to stay in power for last 8yrs, calling the S30 the gold standard, its leader saying Independence isn’t about one person and then making Independence about one personality NS. I fully endorse the claim of right and all it repersents, the idea that a handfull of people should know the fate of the Scottish people is contrary to the claim of right, and all it gifted to the Scottish people. If a king has to answer to the people of Scotland then I see no reason why a commoner like a FM shouldn’t asnwer to the Scots. I’ll make this point what ever advise the FM and the SG has been given the UK government already knows it, so the only people who FM doesn’t want to know this legal advice is the Scottish people , WHY?

        Liked by 14 people

      2. You clearly have no knowledge of law and the fact that legal privilege is a right enjoyed in both Scotland and England. Basically, it means that when someone asks for legal advice, that advice is strictly private and will normally advise the client as to both the strengths and weaknesses of his case and how they can be used to best advantage or countered. It is absurd to think that such advice should then be handed to the client’s opponent which is why such documents are regarded as privileged. In this case, moreover, it wasn’t “the people of Scotland” who requested that the advice be made public – it was the virulently unionist Scotsman newspaper.

        I see you fully endorse the claim of right and “all it represents”. Have you read it? While it does have some constitutional significance, it is largely an anti-Catholic rant.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. You call it absurd and yet that is exactly what happened in regards to Alex Salmond’s legally privileged information. The Scottish Government, via Donald Cameron the principal private secretary to Leslie Evans shared his legally priviledged information with others including ace investigator Judith Mackinnon. That despite giving repeated assurances to Salmond’s lawyers that they would not do so.

        Liked by 16 people

      4. Daveytee you turn on people and insult them by inferring they have no knowledge of law , you are obviously correct in that legal advice between client and lawyer is sacrosanct and also that the hootsman is insisting on the exposure for political reasons , BUT the ombudsman or whatever you call him has ruled that the circumstances determine that the advice is released . I think MIA has exposed the client lawyer conundrum in this case adequately which I agree with

        TBQH I am also becoming more and more OUTRAGED at the continued use of the term “NOT IN THE PUBLIC’S INTEREST” which appears to be the catch-all for hiding or obfuscating information which will show maladministration , corruption or just ordinary lies , successive uk governments of all parties have used the terminology to cover their blunders and lies and sturgeon is now catching up with the benefit of its use , and quite honestly this opposition to the legal advice being revealed is just another avenue to be used to conceal

        Liked by 3 people

    2. “It is absurd to think that such advice should then be handed to the client’s opponent which is why such documents are regarded as privileged”

      So why has it?

      What gives those individuals in the Scottish government cabinet the right and authority to call themselves “the Scottish government”? Wasn’t it our democratic votes?

      If it is our democratic votes what gives those individuals the right to call themselves “Scottish government”, who is it that they are expected to legally represent? Isn’t it us, the people of Scotland?

      If they are representing us, who are they expected to request that legal advice on behalf of? Isn’t it us, the people of Scotland?

      Who exactly was paying for that legal advice? wasn’t it us, the people of Scotland?

      And if the Scottish government is representing the people of Scotland and requesting that legal advice on behalf of the people of Scotland, who exactly is the ultimate “client” in this legal matter? Isn’t it us, the people of Scotland?

      So if us, the people of Scotland, are paying for that legal advice, if it is us, the people of Scotland who that Scottish government is acting on behalf of and therefore requested that legal advice on behalf of, and it is us, the people of Scotland, who is the ultimate client of that privileged information, why is it that us, the people of Scotland have not yet had access to that information we have paid for and which has been requested on our behalf?

      In the name of whom was the Scottish government requesting that legal advice? because they were elected to represent us, the people of Scotland, nobody else. If they did not request that legal advice on our behalf, who were they requesting that legal advice on behalf of and who gave them the consent to do so? Because we did not.

      And if the client is not us, why is it that that client is abusing our taxpayers’ money and our democratic structures to get legal advice by the back door to act against the people of Scotland and to keep them in the dark and nobody within that government or outside it is scrutinising those actions?

      Who is the actual client here? Who are the UK civil service and the COPFS protecting while it acts against the people of Scotland?

      Has Nicola Sturgeon’s government gone completely rogue to the point it has been abusing taxpayers money and access to legal privilege requested on behalf of the people of Scotland to go directly and purposely against the interests of the very people it should be representing and acting on behalf of?

      Who is Nicola Sturgeon representing?

      Liked by 11 people

      1. Herself and only herself – I’m not sure she ever represented anyone else, though I confess to being fooled by her by a good few years

        I cringe at the sight of her now

        Liked by 5 people

  9. “it guarantees not merely a route to independence should the majority in Scotland demand it”

    So… how do you establish that the majority of people want it other than through a referendum? I must be missing something here because it looks to me like all roads lead to a referendum which would no doubt take place under the same franchise as last time with the same result.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I think that a plebiscite vote held in a general election on a first past the post basis would be even less successful than a referendum. It would also require the full co-operation of the SNP. The same franchise as last time, incidentally, wouldn’t matter if we could persuade more actual Scots to support independence.

        Like

      2. I’m all for that, but let’s say the SNP declare the next GE a plebiscite (stretching the bounds of fantasy a bit, but let’s pretend) and get all the seats on 45% of the vote. What then?

        I actually think a plebiscite would lessen the issue of people voting in a referendum who shouldn’t be voting as they’d then get split to some extent through the various unionist parties. It still doesn’t get round the “majority of the people in Scotland” problem though even though many of them shouldn’t be included in that phrase.

        Like

      3. Dave, I entirely agree. It’s long been my opinion that in a constitutional matter such as independence seats gained under a flawed and undemocratic system are of little importance compared to the popular vote. I don’t believe that only 45% of the popular vote would be a proper mandate for independence regardless of how many first-past-the-post seats we won. That’s why a referendum is the only true method of ascertaining what the majority of the people want.

        As for the other point you raise regarding a plebiscite election, I don’t think votes would be split among various unionist parties. If there was to be a plebiscite election, I think that it would only work if the various indy supporting parties were to put their differences aside and submit a single Independence candidate in each seat. But the unionists are no fools and if the election was indeed to be a plebiscite one I anticipate that they wouod respond by putting up a single Unionist candidate in each seat, making it a straight fight between single Independence and Unionist candidates, As I pointed out in an earlier thread, only in 10 Scottish constituencies at the last election were over 50% of votes in favour in independence candidates; in the remainder, more people voted for unionist parties than independence ones. It therefore seems highly uncertain that we’d do any better in a plebiscite election than in a referendum.

        As for the majority of people in Scotland, proper steps should be taken to ensure that second home owners, absentee landlords, and those who are here only on a temporary basis don’t get to vote. But otherwise I think it only right that anyone who has committed thesmselves and their family to living in Scotland should be able to vote.

        Liked by 4 people

    1. You could actually try reading Sara Salyers’ work, Or try watching the podcasts where she is a guest. She explains it all there. ‘Building the Scottish State’, ‘Through A Scottish Prism’ & ‘Tweet Street’…. she guests on them… if you are really interested, have a listen.

      Liked by 11 people

      1. My understanding of Sara’s position is that she says that the people of Scotland are sovereign, that they have the right to have that sovereignty returned or recognised, and that they can then use that soveregnty to obtain their independence. However, it also seems to me (see my initial posting) that there is no real dispute that the Scottish people are sovereign – that hes been recognised in documents much more recently that the rather unimpressive Claim of Right 1689 (unimpressive in its unacceptable sectarian views). What Sara fails to do, in my opinion, is to provide any realistic means of exercising that sovereignty to obtain our indepepndence.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Look at Kenny MacAskill’s call for a convention of elected representatives. Every elected representative in every regulatory body has a constituency and a mandate. This is an internationally recognised expression of a representative body should it gather enough support. What would such a convention do? Well, it *could* use the CoR to assert its right to stand as a free and fair expression of the people, (and an exponentially more representative body while fulfilling the non-parliamentary requirement of such a body). Then dissolve the Union. Might be challenged by Holyrood though.

      But in point of fact the ’emergency’ function of the CoR – “a core constitutional document” – authorises the convening of what is effectively a national jury. Not an electoral vote, not a referendum, a hearing law in by the highest authority in the land, the people through representatives already elected and an election from the ranks of the ‘folk’ exactly according to the organisational principles laid down by the last such gathering, the Revolutionary Convention of the Estates 1689. No one ever pretended that a jury had to be composed of an entire population! It has to be reasonably representative and stick to the matter of the case and then produce a verdict. In terms of the violation of the Scottish constitution as set out in the CoR, *only* this jury can do it. No other court in the UK has that authority because courts are subject to the constitution which is created, in Scotland,only by the people – notify parliament. With me so far?

      To be clear: This massive jury, fulfilling the constitutional provisions and international provisions for representative capacity, is not required to be, never was and never could be a replacement for parliament. It is the summoning of the tribunal of Scotland to hear charges under extremely specific, statutory (Scotland) and constitutional (UK ratified) legal stipulations. It quite literally puts the Westminster government on trial. It can hear from anyone it wants, lawyers and witnesses of all stripes, and but the outcome is based on very simple questions: did the accused commit the crimes constitutionally prohibited under the CoR? Did those crimes violate the constitutional compact guaranteed to continue in Scotland under the CoR? Were the violations so fundamental that the violator has forfeited power in Scotland? Does the Assembly, on behalf of the people, instruct the court of Session to declare the Act of Union to have passed into desuetude (that provision currently still on the statute books) in consequence of these violations and according to the prescribed penalty? If so, then the Assembly has authority to stand in place of parliament until elections can be held and new government installed.

      Thereafter it becomes a second chamber, elected MP’s returning to parliament while this ‘jury’ remains to ensure oversight, accountability, access to information, public participation, and, most of all, the adherence of the govt and regulatory authorities to the compact which is centred on the common good.

      Sounds like a fairly story doesn’t it? Romantic rubbish. Immature imaginings?

      Every damned principle and practice I have just described existed in Scotland, was enacted in Scotland, is inherent as well as explicit in the Cor, its composition and the principles (as distinct from effects) it articulates. Every one. And there is one reason and one reason only that it all sounds far fetched and ‘unrealistic’ and imaginary. The induced amnesia that has allowed total erasure of our past, our character and our constitutional principles by a foreign, colonising, oppressive power. Read that again and weep.

      Then read again what I have written above about the provisions of the CoR and the national jury. Try to see, to be ablate believe, what has been stolen from us. Ian Blackford has just announced *for the first time in our history* from the floor of the House of Commons, that parliamentary sovereignty does not apply in Scotland where the people are sovereign. !!!! Do you believe him? If you do, then know that this fact depends on the Claim of Right of 1689. And, if this fact stands today it not only ends Westminster’s right to ignore any referendum we have ever had in Scotland (Brexit anyone) – because the people are as they always were, the final authority, not Westminster – but it comes with exactly the provisions I have just set out.The right to our assemblies, our constitutional safeguards and limits on government and the final sanction of removal of an abusive and constitution-violating power.

      Let that sink in. Please.

      Please.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. It has sunk in , to the sub-atomic level ; but the effects are still * local * . When the chemical interactions become of a sufficient intensity , the chain-reaction/s will permeate everywhere – the * non-local level *. We have the reagent . Who will provide the catalyst ?

        We’re – rightly – suspicious of Mr Blackford’s seriousness about following through on his statement , but it is , at least , a step in the right direction and * maybe * should be – tentatively – applauded .

        The really frustrating thing is , I’m sure if he and Scot/Gov generally were to really embrace and go full-hearted in this direction we would be prepared to put the past missed opportunities , dithering and woeful capitulations behind us and support them all the way .

        First they must convince us the ARE serious . Actions , not more words , urgently required

        Liked by 2 people

    3. “I must be missing something here because it looks to me like all roads lead to a referendum”

      It looks like you are missing the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is that the referendum is not the end point of any road, just a feature present in one of at least three diverging roads. To become independent Scotland can take any of those three roads. The one with the referendum happens to be also the one that has been overloaded with multiple and unnecessary stop signs, road works and traffic lights with a permanent red light on them.

      Until 2007 the SNP (and the England parties and their leaders including Thatcher) accepted a majority of SNP MPs as a mandate to terminate the union. Not to terminate the union of crowns, but to terminate the political union that emerged from the Treaty of Union. In other words, a majority of SnP MPs was seen as a mandate to repeal the Treaty of union. It is crystal clear that if Scotland repeals the treaty of union and act of union with England, the union ceases to exist and obviously Scotland automatically regains its statehood and independence.

      A referendum has only relatively recently been added as a feature in the road to independence. For the last 8 years it has been continuously used as a smokescreen to fool the people of Scotland and as a way to dodge Scotland’s right to terminate the treaty of union.

      As a matter of fact, that referendum has been used for the last 8 years incessantly by Sturgeon and her masters down south as a tool to deny us our exercise in self determination, despite Scotland having sent to Westminster majorities of SNP MPs for the last 7 years. You will agree with me that such a blatant abuse of the concept of a referendum totally surpasses any potential benefit it could have been seen to have brought.

      The question we should be asking ourselves is not when we are going to have a referendum. The questions we should be asking ourselves are three:

      1. if a referendum is and never has been necessary to terminate the treaty of union, why is it being imposed on us now?
      2. what is hiding behind that referendum, what will Sturgeon’s SNP referendum be leading to, and
      3. why, despite having multiple elections at UK, Holyrood and council level in the last 8 years, we haven’t been offered ever the opportunity to decide what road we want to follow to achieve our independence?

      We have been fooled and distracted from the main subject for 8 years. The main subject being WHAT ROUTE should Scotland take to become independent. By deliberately avoiding to give us a date and confusing us with the S30, they have created a fog that has been distracting us from the main point, which is what is actually hiding behind that referendum. We have been asked repeatedly for mandates for the smokescreen (“a referendum”), but at not point it has been made clear to us in those 8 years what it is that this referendum is leading to. What path will we be following if yes wins in that referendum.

      Sturgeon, Blackford, the England parties’ leaders, their branch managers in Scotland and other England MPs keep talking about a referendum as if it was the final step in the road to independence. Well, it is not. What route will Scotland be taking towards independence after such referendum has been won? We are not being told. We are expected to have blind faith in the foul judgement of an individual who has already wasted 8 years of our time, has let expire many democratic mandates without even making an effort to deliver one, has removed the wheels of the SNP as the vehicle for independence when it was predicted a landslide win which should have signalled the end of the treaty of union, and has handed over to England MPs control over our assets and our domestic legislation.

      Why should we have to trust the flawed judgement of such individual?

      Scotland can achieve its independence through at least three very different routes:

      Route a)
      Scotland issues a new claim of right and either declares itself a republic or removes the crown from the incumbent monarch. Without a union of crowns, the treaty of union loses its main foundation and reason to be.
      I am sure we all will be in agreement that this without doubt the path of biggest resistance.

      Route b)
      by repealing the Treaty of Union and Act of Union with England – through this route, Scotland simply exercises its legitimate right as an equal partner in a bipartite union to terminate the political union. Through this route it is not for England or England representatives to establish the path, the conditions or the timeframe of the process. It is for Scotland and Scotland’s representatives and them only to do so. England can take its own route and end the treaty on its own right if it wishes. The outcome, that is, the goodies Scotland walks away with, will be determined by a negotiation between the two equal partners. On this path, Scotland’s participation is active and it has as louder a voice as England. To take this path we need politicians with serious balls and backbone and with serious commitment to Scotland’s sovereignty and independence. We don’t have any of those at present neither in that entity that passes for “Scotland’s government”, nor among all those amoebas sitting in the so called Scotland’s parliament and there is only 2 or 3 Scottish MPs fitting that description in Westminster. This path puts under serious question the blind acceptance that England will be the de-facto continuator state of the UK (this only will happen if Scotland agrees to it). It also presents the risk for the Kingdom of England that if Scotland is given its legitimate volume of voice to represent itself as an equal partner as it should be, England stands to lose the NATO and UN seats among many other things like control over Scotland’s internal market and exports, if Scotland perceives it is being disadvantaged during the negotiations in any way. Because of this, this path will be resisted fiercely by our equal partner.

      Route c)
      by Scotland renouncing to its legitimate right as an equal partner in a bipartite political union and instead demoting itself to the status of a region of the Kingdom of England acting as the UK of Great Britain.
      Under this path, England will determine the procedure, the conditions, the political and administrative structures in Scotland, Scotland’s trading partners and economic theory (neoliberalism, of course), the outcome and the timeframe. Scotland will become a mere a passenger in its own bus, a bus that England will be driving for its own benefit. At some point of this driver choosing, the door of the bus will be opened and Scotland will be kicked out of its own bus with an amount of luggage that will be also decided by the driver. The driver of course will run away with the bus, Scotland’s luggage and all the petrol in the tank. This is the path of least resistance because it is the path that favours England the most – it gives it full control. But it is potentially the worse for Scotland.

      So, having three possibilities, which one is the one Nicola Sturgeon’s unicorn referendum is leading us to?

      Giving credence to the English convention of “Westminster parliament sovereignty” by allowing the Withdrawal bill, that put English convention in law pass, allowing England MPs to trigger A50 in contravention of Scotland’s constitutional rights and allowing them to unilaterally re-write Scotland’s laws to push us away from the EU are hints that either Nicola Sturgeon’s government and party are forcing us to remain in the UK or they are forcing us through route c). This is the route that leaves Scotland without a voice and without assets and the route that leaves the Kingdom of England as the indisputable continuator state with all the goodies this brings.

      The referendum has been a convenient tool in that route, because it has been used on demand as a stop sign or a red light for the indy bus during the last 7 years. The S30, for example, is a red light to give England time to close trade deals and re-write our laws. The continuous stops and red lights in this route are helping paint in our minds the idea that we are so insignificant that we have to ask permission from England MPs to board our own bus and must be grateful for being kicked out of our own bus in a place of our partner’s choosing, but only after they stole our petrol, our luggage, our shoes, our map and our purse. For Scotland to take willingly this toxic route, the idea that Westminster is superior to Scotland has to be imprinted in our minds to remove reality: Westminster is only a byproduct of the political union that will cease to exist if Scotland unilaterally repeals the treaty of union and Act of union with England, which she is perfectly entitled to do. This idea can only be imprinted in our minds by a political party that pretends to seek independence because any attempt by a colonial party to do so will be faced with even more resistance.

      The idea of a referendum is just the smokescreen that has been used by Sturgeon and her masters down south for 8 years to hide the fact we have a choice of path to independence. What we need to look, and look very, very carefully is to what is hiding behind that smokescreen and behind the question in the ballot. Is it actual independence, full sovereignty and statehood, which will be what paths a) or b) would lead us to, or it is just pretend autonomy and being left without control over our main assets, internal market, policies , future trade trade partners and democratic and administrative structures, which is what path c) will be leading us to?

      What kind of independence do we want and how much luggage and pocket money we want to leave this union with? Do we want to take our own bus with a tank full of fuel or are we happy with being dumped in the middle of nowhere and unable to walk far because we have been left with no shoes?

      I would not give much credence to Blackford’s words. It is action what counts, not waffle. The actions which would have counted were Blackford leading the SNP MPs out of parliament to remove legitimacy from Westminster to act on behalf of Scotland during the A50 vote in parliament, the vote on the Withdrawal bill that saw England MPs giving supremacy to English convention over Scotland’s one, and the vote on the power grab. THOSE are the actions that would have counted. Some waffle now, years after the withdrawal bill was passed, acknowledging, too late in the day that Westminster parliamentary sovereignty is an English concept that does not apply to Scotland, frankly, are nothing but meaningless words.

      Blackford, the same as Sturgeon, have had many years and many opportunities to prove with actions that parliamentary sovereignty does not apply to Scotland. He has let every single one pass us by. So why should we now trust he means what he says when his words are not accompanied by meaningful actions to prove it?

      I will start trusting Mr Blackford believes a word of what his says regarding parliamentary sovereignty the day he finds he backbone to lead the SNP Mps back to Edinburgh to vote for the repeal of the treaty of union and the Act of Union with England. Until then, every time Mr Blackford opens his mouth, the only thing I hear is vacuous waffle and platitudes.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Scotland will gain independence by whatever means we choose when her resources have been disposed of by the Union and we are no longer an asset. In this ultra-capitalist society that shouldn’t take long.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. “when her resources have been disposed of by the Union”

        But for that to happen it was necessary first that somebody pretending to represent and act on behalf of Scotland did the precise opposite and instead of protecting Scotland’s assets, handed them over to England MPs and foreign corporations so they could dispose of them in exchange for advantages for the Kingdom of England. Here is where Sturgeon and her Nu SNP come in.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. Can’t they put a bill through Holyrood to the effect that the next Scottish Parliament election becomes a plebiscite? Then let’s see if we get a repeat of the SNP 1&2 mantra.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. She could have done that since 2015… and/or every election since. She’s not interested in Independence. Only the GRA policy.

      Liked by 8 people

  11. It would sound more genuine if people actually thought that he meant it. It is number 2 in his sound byte chart having been uttered many times before also note that there was no mention of the people of Scotland will be having a referendum next year like it or lump it.The danger of having a referendum is that there would be too much interference from Westminster though with no groundwork having been done the prospect of winning would be diminished which would suit the Devolutionists in the Scottish Government just fine meaning no loss of their cosy little earners.It is either a plebiscite election or as Sara and her team are informing us there are other ways for us to regain our Independence. The number 1 sound byte of course being the people of Scotland will not be dragged out the EU against our will which sent the Conservative Government in to a cold sweat and the tremors in the Government benches were felt all over London but they grabbed the nettle and went ahead with it and now we are out of the EU but Blackbeard and his bunch of pirates in the SNP who have let Brexit pass and robbed Scotland of a chance of Independence are still firmly entrenched on the benches of Westminster.

    Liked by 13 people

  12. Excellent post Sara . If only there were more Yaysayers and less Naysayers . As if we have endless time and routes to achieve our goal . We don’t .

    This is where we’re at ……..in my location ( a * village * on the shores of Loch Ness ) there is a campaign to organise a * picnic / street party * to celebrate ( LOL ) Betty 2’s whatever the …. it is – Super Hyper Jewel-Encrusted Jubilee – on the local Facebook page . Suffice to say , the organisers are not * from around here * , one comment in particular illustrates the predominant mentality of these * New Scots * , I quote it verbatim ….” wonderful idea , I’m moving to your beautiful village soon and would love to participate …..” . I checked the present location of the commentor – Blah Blah * Name * …” Lives in Newbury . England ” .

    Aye , people like this are absolutely certain to support Independence , right ?

    Liked by 13 people

  13. NE QUID FALSI DICERE AUDEAT, NE QUID VERI NON AUDEAT.
    (Let him not dare to say anything that is false, nor let him dare to say what is not true)
    Cicero

    Liked by 6 people

      1. I would dearly like to hear more from this Sara Salyers. I only heard of her the other day & I’m impressed with her knowledge regarding all things Scottish. “Legally”
        Iain, I hope she contributes to your page frequently. Is Alex aware of her yet? I sincerely
        hope so!

        Liked by 2 people

  14. Davey: I agree that legal advice is normally privileged, but not always. The Claim of Right is constitutionally sound, although i also agree that it might not be too strong on its own. That is why all our constitutional tools need to be used together.

    Liked by 9 people

  15. Precisely. England, acting as the UK, has been acting ultra vires towards Scotland for over 300 years! In 1707, the English MPs basically seized control of Scotland as a subsumed nation, not as a partner and signatory to the Treaty of Union. In their individual analyses of the Union, Treaty and Scotland’s constitutional position, in answer to the discredited Crawford and Boyle Report commissioned by David Cameron pre 2014, Professors Walker and Campbell (Law Society Journal) uphold Scotland’s partnership position and stress the unconstitutionality of England’s seizure of power. They also warn against any renegotiation of the Treaty, lest something worse arises. A Treaty can be resiled only in international law, not domestic law, and Scottish collaborators in the Lords have been trying to get it renegotiated as a domestic document for several years now, which would place it firmly into the hands of Westminster and domestic law. The answer to a charge of acceptance by omission (i.e. by not challenging) is that we, the present generations of Scots are not liable for the collaborations of our forebears, particularly of those of the Scottish landed classes and bourgoisie.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Thus armed it ought to be no problem for an SNP government to put independence back into centre stage as «a vote for the SNP is a vote for ending the Scotland-England political union and the creation of a sovereign and independent Scottish state».

      Liked by 6 people

    1. Imperial China showed considerably more tolerance of minorities than is now the case. The settling of Han Chinese in border lands was a Maoist initiative applied by subsequent Communist party leaders. Under Xi sinicization has intensified «Mandarin» Chinese aka pǔtōnghuà is being prioritized in state education and culture in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, East Turkistan/Xinjiang and Tibet to the detriment of national identities.
      The CPR is not unique in this. The Imperial Japanese government did similar in Korea. The use of English, as the language of modernity, in India and in British African colonies did much to hinder the development of indigenous languages. Gaelic, Scots, Welsh and Irish suffered similar marginalization and «retardation» in their domains from which they struggle to recover in a still hostile cultural environment.
      As Scotland becomes more «problematic» an increase in anglicization can be expected.
      The answer? Learn your indigenous languages and use them, for everything. They are not museum pieces to be brought out for occasional display.
      I am learning Gaelic, enthused by the political possibilities of a restored Scots and getting on with my own ethnic language, Syriac. I have Iraqi Arabic, French, not bad English and some German….the more the merrier in the war against dread conformity.

      Liked by 8 people

  16. Some thoughts;

    The English constitutional principle of ‘unlimited sovereignty’ was conferred to the Parliament of England in 1689, via the Bill of Rights; that sovereignty originally belonged to the English Crown under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, and was extorted from the Crown to the English Parliament from William of Orange and his wife Mary Stewart as the price of the throne of England, thus creating England’s constitutional monarchy, with the Parliament of England wielding the unlimited sovereignty of ‘the Crown in Parliament’. It basically turned the Divine Right of Kings into the Divine Right of Parliament.

    The Scottish Parliament made its own accommodation with William and Mary, but it involved no transfer of sovereignty, because the Scottish Crown didn’t have any, since it has always been owned by Scotland’s people.

    So far as I can determine, at no point was England’s Crown sovereignty subsequently transferred from the Parliament of England to the new Parliament of the United Kingdom via any formal process. The English Parliament simply made the assumption of unbroken continuity from itself to the new UK one, and indeed the UK Parliament has asserted that unbroken continuity as a matter of pride on more than one occasion.

    But that continuity was thoroughly broken in 1707, because those two parliaments are not the same entity; the UK one was created from scratch via the Treaty and Acts of Union in 1707, and its powers and associated limits and obligations were specified in the Treaty and Acts, and unless those documents expressly authorised the transfer of the English Parliament’s Crown Sovereignty to the new UK one, then that transfer never formally happened, and the UK Parliament therefore does not own its alleged sovereignty, because that died with the old Parliament of England.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. You’re right about the constitutional tools. But before we try to use them we have to educate ourselves as to their standing if given parity with England’s, application and mechanisms. A good number of the provisions of the Scottish constitution lack any instrument of enforcement.
      I’ve just finished a draft summary of exactly what exists under the constitution if you apply the same criteria for establishing constitutional principle as are applied to Magna Carta, Declaration of Parliament and Bill of Rights, all English pre-Union docs which are counted as part of the written but uncodified U.K. constitution. What emerges is breathtaking, established by practice and statute between 1310 and 1689 all ‘inter-referenced’ in terms of founding principle and substantiating and illustrating the principles in the CoR.

      But we live in a kind of twilight world where constitutional history and practice is concerned. The status and application of constitutional principle is in evidence every day but most of us do not know how and where. Getting that established on public awareness is a big task on its own.
      Then people confuse the constitutional CoR with the declaration in 1989. Which has no legal force! That needs explained.

      And once we get that across we need to explain exactly what xaracen explains perfectly above about the nature and application of ‘sovereignty’!

      Finally the constitutional route is both a matter of restoring the terms of Union and restoring the rights of the people. These weren’t and cannot be vested in a parliament because that removes the right of the people to veto, appt for redress from or sanction that parliament when it oversteps its limits. Mutually exclusive roles.

      But here’s my question. How hard would people work, what mountains might they climb however daunting, if the end of that journey wasn’t an inevitably rigged referendum but the return of the tribunal guaranteed under our constitution and he public ‘trial’ and sacking of a loathed and criminal govt and its necessary replacement by a govt and form of govt decided by election? Along with the other rights that would end the rampant inhumanity, greed and corruption from which we are all suffering now?

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Right on the button, xaracen. The biggest problem to getting those facts across is the assumption that is made in England, but also by many in Scotland, that the English parliament did not cease to exist when the Treaty and all the workings around it specifically state that to be the case. I’m no royalist, but Queen Anne herself said as much, too. She also made it plain that she was monarch (separately) of two kingdoms – and this was in 1707, when the Union of thr Crowns, so-called took place in 1603. The facts are that there was no actual union of the crowns in the sense that both Scotland and England became one monarchy. In actual fact, it was the crowned head who became monarch of two separate monarchies. In England, this is barely understood, in common with the misunderstanding about the two separate nations, the dissolution of the TWO parliaments and the Treaty of Union being a joint partnership of two equal nations to form an entirely new state. That is why the whole question of Scottish independence needs to be approached as a constitutional issue for Scotland. The Crawford and Boyle Report stated quite categorically that Scotland had been subsumed, but that England continued. What a load of nonsense. The Report lays down the premise that Scotland was subsumed, then sets out to prove that Scotland was subsumed and comes to the conclusion that Scotland was subsumed. All of these points require to be challenged in a court of law parallel to a constitutional challenge via either a plebiscitary election or a convention. It should have been done right after 2014 instead of caving in to pressure from Unionists. The entire Union has been a farrago of illegal behaviour on the part of England.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Well said! This is precisely the situation and the obvious remedy. Given the propensity of the legal system to uphold Westminster’s pretensions, however, some of us are suggesting that the Convention of the Estates simply be recalled in its function as a tribunal. That’s only a small step beyond the constitutional convention imagined by Kenny McAskill. The standing of the CoR and the constitutional provisions it expresses, should be submitted to international standards – it passes easily – among other tests. (Is it fairly widely accepted that the Crawford and Boyle report – as transparently far fetched as Dicers arguments- was roundly refuted by David Walker?!

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Re the Crawford and Boyle Annex A report, I think it was pretty obviously a kite-flying exercise, an attempt to set the framing that an rUK, or more accurately a restored KoE, would automatically retain all the authority, rights and privileges of the former UK, if the indy vote was Yes. It tried to rubbish any suggestion that an independent Scotland could expect much or any recognition internationally, and that it would be permanently on the back foot in any negotiations, either with our former partner, or with entities like the EU, EFTA, or NATO.

        It was typical Westminster estabishment presumptive arrogance, in other words, and I doubt anyone was either impressed or depressed significantly by it.

        I’d dismissed it when it first came out on the basis of the assertion that the Treaty of Union could not be considered a real treaty because it didn’t involve two or more nations and therefore wasn’t inter-national, but only intra-national. That was such a blatant falsehood that it blew the integrity of the entire report out of the water. And in those days I was a complete tyro on such matters, but it was just so one-sided that it couldn’t be taken seriously, and in fact I only read the David Walker analysis (and others, thank you, Lorna!) a couple of weeks ago after she told me about it in a response in an earlier article on this blog.

        Liked by 2 people

  17. xaracen: I absolutely agree that it was a very cynical ploy, but I believe they would have tried to use it had we voted YES. I believe that both the eminent professors thought so too, although neither, to my knowledge, was/is particularly pro independence, although they might have been/are. I think it was their legal sensibilities that were strained by the falsehoods, albeit the two other professors, Crawford and Boyle, are eminent men, too. Who pays the piper calls the tune! As far as I am aware, Ian Campbell is still in circulation, and he would be a first-rate consultant, perhaps, for the constitutional route and the available tools. The thing with Westminster is that it, with a few notable exceptions, actually does believe in its own constitutional supremacy, it does actually believe that Scotland was subsumed and it does actually believe that the Union was an English takeover. Most of the English population believes that, too, as it believes that Scotland is and always has been subsidised by England. The constitutional realities are mind-blowing in this context and with this backdrop.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. There is something I’d like to hear various folk’s thoughts on regarding the guarantee of the permanence of Scotland’s sovereign constitution, as to whether it should have applied to votes in Westminster.

    One of the issues bothering the 1707 Parliament of Scotland while considering the articles of the Treaty and potential amendments to it before ratification, was how to neuter England’s much larger representation in the new GB Parliament after the Treaty came into effect, given Scotland’s far smaller representation in it, and which if nothing was done about it, would condemn Scotland’s MPs to permanent impotence, being so easily and massively outvoted on any and every matter, and effectively render them completely unable to defend Scotland from any abusive legislation that might be imposed by England’s MPs.

    I’ve been taking the view that the Treaty obligation to uphold Scotland’s constitution was intended to force the recognition that as Scotland’s MPs alone speak for and represent the sovereign people of Scotland, being the sole group representing England’s only sovereign partner in the new GB Parliament, then as such, their majority vote cannot legitimately be overruled by an English majority vote on any matter concerning Scotland and its sovereign people, without that being a direct denial of Scotland’s only voice, and therefore a breach of the Treaty obligation.

    I think that’s a reasonable interpretation, but I’m also aware that reasonable interpretations don’t always have legal or constitutional standing, but in this case, there seems no alternative manner in which Scotland could express a sovereign refusal of an English act of bullying, unless, even after May 1707 there was still a way that a Convention of the (former) Estates could be called into existence to challenge the GBP. I don’t believe that Scotland’s parliament intended Scotland’s MPs in the GBP to be as helpless as Westminster made them.

    Thoughts?

    Like

  19. @Xaracen

    I am not constitutional lawyer, but from what I have read, that is precisely the same conclusion I have arrived to: that a majority of England MPs cannot overrule a majority of Scottish MPs. For this reason, it is my personal opinion, that for example the unilateral veto England MPs self-awarded themselves in June 2015 over the Scottish vote in the EU referendum, the unilateral triggering of A50, the unilateral theft of powers and re-writing of the Scotland Act, the blocking of our continuity bill, the withdrawal bill and of course dragging Scotland into war in the ME were unlawful.

    In what do I base this view? In the Claim of Right. The Claim of Right very clearly states that it is unlawful to impose on Scotland absolute rule. Being dictated by England when there is not a supporting majority of Scotland’s MPs, is absolute rule.

    Looking through the records of Scotland’s parliament prior to the union, I found this from the session on the 4 November 1706, the day the vote to approve the first article of the Treaty of union took place (my capitals):

    “But before voting the duke of Atholl gave in the following protest: That he for himself, and all others who shall adhere, PROTESTED THAT AN INCORPORATING UNION OF THE CROWN AND KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND WITH THE CROWN AND KINGDOM OF ENGLAND AND THAT BOTH NATIONS SHOULD BE REPRESENTED BY ONE AND THE SAME PARLIAMENT AS CONTAINED IN THE ARTICLES OF THE TREATY OF UNION, IS CONTRARY TO THE HONOUR, INTEREST, FUNDAMENTAL LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THIS KINGDOM, THE BIRTHRIGHT OF PEERS, THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE BARONS AND BURGHS, AND IS CONTRARY TO THE CLAIM OF RIGHT, PROPERTY AND LIBERTY OF HE SUBJECTS AND THIRD ACT OF HER MAJESTY’S PARLIAMENT OF 1703 , BY WHICH IT IS DECLARED HIGH TREASON IN ANY OF THE SUBJECTS OF THIS KINGDOM TO QUARREL OR ENDEAVOUR, BY WRITING, MALICIOUS AND ADVISED SPEAKING OR OTHER OPEN ACT OR DEED, TO ALTER OR INNOVATE THE CLAIM OF RIGHT OR ANY ARTICLE THEREOF, and reserving liberty to him and his adherents to renew their protestation against further proceedings in the said matter, and to adjoin their reasons for the same, and desired this his protestation be marked in the records of parliament. Which, being read, the said duke of Atholl took instruments thereon and [James Douglas], duke of Hamilton, [William Johnston], marquis of Annandale, [Charles Hay], earl of Erroll, [William Keith], earl Marischal, [John Fleming], earl of Wigtown, [John Lyon], earl of Strathmore, [Charles Hamilton Douglas], earl of Selkirk, [Alexander Bruce], earl of Kincardine, [David Murray], viscount of Stormont, [William Livingston], viscount of Kilsyth, [Francis Sempill], lord Sempill, [Patrick Oliphant], lord Oliphant, [John Elphinstone], lord Balmerino, [Walter Stewart], lord Blantyre, [William Hamilton], lord Bargany, [John Hamilton], lord Belhaven, [Robert Colville], lord Colville [of Ochiltree], [Patrick Kinnaird], lord Kinnaird, George Lockhart of Carnwath, Sir James Foulis of Colinton, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, Sir Robert Sinclair of Longformacus, Sir Patrick Home of Renton, John Sinclair, younger of Stevenson, John Sharp of Hoddam, Mr Alexander Ferguson of Isle, John Brisbane of Bishopton, Mr William Cochrane of Kilmaronock, Sir Humphrey Colquhoun of Luss, John Graham of Killearn, James Graham of Buchlyvie, Thomas Sharp of Houston, Sir Patrick Murray of Ochtertyre, John Murray of Strowan, James Moir of Stoneywood, David Beaton of Balfour, Mr Thomas Hope of Rankeillour, Mr Patrick Lyon of Auchterhouse, Mr James Carnegie of Finavon, David Graham, younger of Fintry, James Ogilvie, younger of Boyne, Mr George MacKenzie of Inchculter, Alexander Robertson [of Craig], Walter Stewart [of Pardovan], Alexander Watson [of Aithernie], Alexander Edgar, John Black, James Oswald [of Dunnikier], Robert Johnston [of Kelton], Alexander Duff [of Drummuir], Francis Mollison, Walter Scott, George Smith [of Gibliston], Robert Scott, Robert Kellie, John Hutchison, Mr William Sutherland, Archibald Shiells, Mr John Lyon, George Spence, Mr William Johnston [of Sciennes], Mr John Carruthers [of Denbie], George Home, John Bain [of Tulloch] and Mr Robert Fraser, adhered thereto.and he demanded this to be included”

    — End of quote

    Please note that the the Duke of Atholl’s address and the signatories supporting his protestation used the magic two words: “high treason”. In his speech he says “an incorporating union with just one parliament in the conditions stipulated in the first Treaty of Union was contrary to the third act of Parliament 1703, which declares as high treason to alter or innovate the claim of right or any other article thereof”.

    This gives us an idea as to why the England MPs and the unionist lords representing Scotland have not been able to get rid of our Claim of Right just yet.

    In support of this, this bit was also included in the resolutions of that day:


    “Thereafter the first article of union was again read, as also the motion mentioned in the last minute relating thereto, namely that it be agreed to in the first place to proceed to take the first article of union to consideration, with this provision: that if the other articles of union be not adjusted by the parliament, then the agreeing to and approving of the first shall be of no effect, and that immediately after the said first article the parliament will proceed to an act for security of the doctrine, discipline, worship and government of the church as now by law established within this kingdom.”
    — end of quote

    In other words, unless each and every amend to each article made by the Parliament of Scotland was accepted (including those where the Claim of Right is mentioned), the vote to in favor of the first article would have no effect.

    I think this is very interesting, because it clearly indicates that for the parliament of Scotland the validity of the first article was resting on all the other articles. You remove those articles, and you cancel the first. This is not the perspective colonial parties are presenting to us. After reading this, I am beginning to wonder until what point all those changes that England MPs and Lords have done to the articles of the treaty of union so far were actually lawful.

    In his protestation, the Duke of Atholl also states that he “reserved liberty to him and his adherents to renew their protestation against further proceedings in the said matter, and to adjoin their reasons for the same, and desired this his protestation be marked in the records of parliament” . In other words, he was determined to repeat the same thing with each and every vote of each and every article of the treaty of union.

    This had some effect, because before the first article of the Treaty of Union was put to a vote in that session, this was said in the resolutions concerning putting the first article of union to a vote (my capitals):

    —-

    “And, after some further debate upon the said article, a resolve was offered in these terms: Whereas it evidently appears, since the printing, publishing and considering of the articles of treaty now before this house, this nation seems generally averse to this incorporating union in the terms now before us as subversive of the sovereignty, fundamental constitution and Claim of Right of this kingdom, and as threatening ruin to this church as by law established; and since it is plain that if a union were agreed to in these terms by this parliament, and accepted of by the parliament of England, it would in no sort answer the peaceable and friendly ends proposed by a union, but would, on the contrary, create such dismal distractions and animosities amongst ourselves and such jealousies and mistakes between us and our neighbours as would involve these nations into fatal breaches and confusions, therefore, resolved that we are willing to enter into such a union with our neighbours of England as shall unite us entirely, and after the most strict manner in all their and our interests of succession, wars, alliances and trade,

    RESERVING TO US THE SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCY OF OUR CROWN AND MONARCHY, AND IMMUNITIES OF THE KINGDOM AND THE CONSTITUTION AND FRAME OF THE GOVERNMENT, BOTH OF CHURCH AND STATE, AS THEY STAND NOW ESTABLISHED BY OUR FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTION, BY OUR CLAIM OF RIGHT AND BY OUR LAWS FOLLOWING THEREUPON.

    Or, resolved that we will proceed to settle the same succession with England upon such conditions and regulations of government within ourselves AS SHALL EFFECTUALLY SECURE THE SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCY OF THIS CROWN AND KINGDOM AND THE INDISSOLVABLE SOCIETY OF THE SAME, WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT BOTH OF CHURCH AND STATE as the same stands established by the Claim of Right and other laws and statutes of this kingdom”

    — end of quote

    It was only after this resolution that the vote was passed.

    To me it stands to the obvious that the only possible way Scotland could secure its sovereignty and independence of its crown and kingdom and the association of those with the fundamental rights and constitution of the government of church and state, is if our sovereignty was never transferred to England MPs. In other words, a majority of Scotland’s MPs had to vote for something for it to apply to Scotland.

    From this debate and protestation we can also see why the Claim of Right became such a fundamental pillar of the Treaty of Union. Not upholding it unmodified would have been an act of high treason and there is no way they would have ever achieved a majority voting for the treaty.

    So, this was never an incorporating union, like the colonial parties or that Crawford and Boyle report have expected us to believe. It is there in the parliamentary records, in black and white.

    Information taken from The records of the Parliament of Scotland [online]. Reign of Anne (1702-1706); section 1706, 3 October, Edinburgh, Parliament; Parliamentary register for Monday 4 November 1706. Available at https://www.rps.ac.uk/
    Accessed on 14/05/2022

    Like

  20. I’d already decided that use of the excess size of English representation was illicit, long before Sara’s outstanding research was published here.

    The UK Parliament is a joint parliament, and it governs a joint kingdom, not a single kingdom; only the parliaments were joined, not the nations, not the countries, and not the kingdoms themselves. The UK is not a single Kingdom, it is a joint Kingdom with two crowns and two constitutions, two sets of legal systems, two national religions and two populaces with differing sovereignties, and both kingdoms now share the same new parliament, with two sets of representatives, one set from each kingdom. Two sets to represent the two partners, not a single undifferentiated set of anonymous representatives. Neither partner has any authority over the other.

    Westminster deliberately confuses the size of England’s representation with its authority. It only has that size because it happens to have a larger population than Scotland’s, and not because they represent the ‘superior’ partner. Despite their vast numbers they still represent only one kingdom in a partnership of two!

    But more than that, Westminster refuses to understand that joint governance of joint kingdoms means joint decision-making, not unilateral decision-making by the partner with the largest representation. It may have 80% of the votes, but it only has 50% of the say in the Commons, and 0% of authority over its Scottish partner. Joint decision-making requires the joint agreement of both sets of MPs, nothing less. There is nothing joint in England’s MPs overruling Scotland’s MPs on any matter concerning Scotland.

    That the new Westminster establishment in 1707 never amended their old voting system from simple majority voting to qualified majority voting to account for the now dual nature of the representation, is an utter disgrace, and was, all by itself, the key power grab, because it permitted every abuse of Scotland that followed.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Spot on, xaracen: there are, indeed, two kingdoms. One comprises England, Wales and NI, and the other comprises Scotland. Our crown was never subsumed by the English one, despite thr being called ‘the union of the crowns’ and the reading around Queen Anne’s statements to the new parliament of the UK of GB shows that quite conclusively. Oddly enough, this is a fairly recent abuse of Scotland. Constitutionally, the UK comprises two separate kingdoms under one monarch – hat is the union part, not an actual merging of the crowns, albeit the BBC routinely refers to the UK Crown. It is no such thing. Only the monarch is UK, so to speak, and, even then, they usually forget and call her the Queen of England, anyway.

      As I have said, I am no royalist, but even Queen Anne recognised that two separate nation states were pooling a part of their sovereignty to form the new state of the UK of GB. I’m not sure constitutionally that Scotland and England each retained their entire sovereignty, otherwise a new parliament and state could not have been formed. New political entities must have sovereignty from somewhere in order to have the authority required to legislate. However, neither, I think, gave up all of their sovereignty. It is quite incredible to me, and you and many others, that the proper constitutional position of Scotland vis-a-vis both England and the UK has never been established! It is as if everyone just accepted a system of abuse of powers that England, acting as the UK, which it had absolutely no right to do, established, and the same kinds of collaborators are still trying to pull the wool over our eyes today. Thee people are shameless, and they are mainly Unionists. Nevertheless, by collaborating in this charade, even the SNP has let us down badly. ALBA must get its act together now if it is ever to challenge the SNP, by teasing out the real constitutional situation. If it did, we could be independence very soon.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. “I’m not sure constitutionally that Scotland and England each retained their entire sovereignty, otherwise a new parliament and state could not have been formed. New political entities must have sovereignty from somewhere in order to have the authority required to legislate. However, neither, I think, gave up all of their sovereignty.”

    Yes, perhaps I should have said ‘neither partner has any authority over the other, except within agreed terms.’ They each retain their sovereignty, but must exchange a degree of authority for specified purposes to make the agreement work. This would also mean an exchange of obligations, too, and some form of accountability for abuses. And always, any agreement may be terminated, because things change and some or all aspects of an agreement can become a serious burden rather than a benefit. Any agreement of significance should always be subject to regular cost/benefit analysis for that reason.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: