MIA QUESTIONS THE BLACKFORD STATEMENT.

“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 no 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.

MY COMMENTS

I enjoy Mia’s regular contributions. She raises questions that need answers and exposes the less than stellar performance of those elected, repeatedly, to take forward Scotland’s road to Independence. When I get my hands on a hot poker I am going to give it to Mia to operate.. I think it will be safe to guarantee a much greater level of effort and progress at that stage.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland.

BEAT THE CENSORS

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

FREE 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.

51 thoughts on “MIA QUESTIONS THE BLACKFORD STATEMENT.

  1. The Referendum route was SNP policy long before Nicola became FM. I personally was put in my place by a senior SNP parliamentarian when I suggested the majority SNP MP route. That was 2010.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree it was 1999 it was changed. The year before I had stepped down from the NEC to pursue business interests in Estonia. To be fair though there was no mention of requiring Westminster’s permission or a S30 at that time. It was merely a mechanism to determine majority support for Independence. These complications came later.

      Liked by 5 people

    2. “The Referendum route was SNP policy long before Nicola became FM”

      True. But she has had 8 years to change that policy and plenty of reasons to do so, one being the enormous interference from our “equal” partner in this union, the second one of course being forcing brexit on Scotland.

      She has managed in those 8 years to disembowel the democratic structures of the party and to disengage the membership so a handful of corrupt and self-serving careerists keep full control of the party. Having the power to do something like that means that if she did not revert the policy to what it was before 2007 is only because she did not want to.

      The constitution of the party indicates that its aim is to seek independence for Scotland. The day the unionist press gloated about the yes native vote being trashed by the no non-native vote made it clear a referendum with such a flawed franchise and with so many doors left wide open for the British state to get in and interfere with the process, would never be the route to achieve Scotland’s independence. Only a fool can still see it as a valid route.

      The logical thing to do at that point, and frankly what she was expected to do as a leader of a political party who seeks independence, was to find an alternative route. She has spectacularly failed on this quest. Hell, she hasn’t even tried to close the loopholes to ensure a re-run of the same type of referendum is fair.

      Polls were showing a landslide win for the SNP during GE2015 from already October 2014, that was one month after the 2014 referendum. What does that tell you? It tells me the will of the people of Scotland was nowhere near being settled by the official result of the 2014 referendum. This is confirmed by the fact that the percentage of the pro indy vote in that GE 2015 was above 50%, just, but above. This puts a huge question mark on the veracity of the official result we were given for indyref14.

      Please note that it was not until around March-April 2015 that Sturgeon removed publicly the wheels of the SNP as a vehicle for independence and rendered it useless. This was done at the precise time in history when Scotland was about to be subjected to the biggest democratic and sovereignty assault in its history (I am referring to the June 2015 vote in the commons by which England Mps self-awarded themselves a veto over Scotland’s vote in the upcoming EU referendum). She did this by claiming a vote for the SNP was “not a vote for independence, not even for a referendum”. Yet, already from October 2014, before she made such announcement, before she removed the wheels of the SNP as a vehicle for independence, it was known that the SNP would win a majority of Scotland’s MPs. This means people in Scotland was preparing themselves to vote in masse for the SNP UNDER THE ASSUMPTION the SNP was a vehicle for independence. The logical conclusion from this is that increasing their vote share was never the intention behind removing the wheels of the SNP as a vehicle for independence. I suspect the aim was the opposite- the first step to disenfranchise yes voters in the long run.

      So, was Sturgeon’s move to remove the wheels of the SNP a result of superlative incompetence or was it the product of a sly, cowardly move to help the British state derail independence and retain Scotland to ensure England could have its brexit?

      I go for the second option. Why? Just tell me how many poker players win a game by handing over their best cards to their opponent. That is exactly what this woman did in 2015, then again in 2017 and in January 2020 with her capitulation speech.

      Had she not conveniently removed the wheels of the SNP before the 2015 general election, Scotland would have been expected to terminate the union before an “UK” EU referendum had any opportunity to happen. Without Scotland’s assets, its market to lean on and the prospect of a hard border with Scotland, there is no way England in such circumstance and without any trade deal with anybody else, would have been able to satisfy its taxdodgers and face the prospects of its own exit from the EU.

      If Sturgeon removed the wheels of the SNP as a vehicle for independence and did not revert that policy to what it was before, once it was proven a referendum in the form it took place in 2014 could not be used as a fair route to independence, it was never for the benefit of the Scottish people, but rather for the benefit of the Kingdom of England’s ruling elite.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. I think Sturgeon has been got at by the British state. I suspect they have kompromat on her or a close loved one. Applied when it looked like we were going for it after the Brexit vote when she marched us up to the top of the hill then left us there.

        Liked by 9 people

  2. Our approach should be like that of a lawyer presenting a case, one where there are back-up options which can be tried in order of preference until we get one that wins favour. My order of preference would be:

    1. Claim of Right (1689)

    We could simply assert the supremacy of Scotland’s political representatives (of the Scottish sovereign people) in a National Convention of MPs, MSPs and Councillors.

    2. Treaty of Union (1707) breach(es)

    Scotland could rescind the Treaty of Union due to many breaches since 1707, most recently Brexit.

    3. Decolonisation

    We approach the United Nations claiming that dominance from our English neighbours effectively makes Scotland a colony and that we wish to decolonise.

    4. Plebiscite Election

    Stand pro-Indy candidates on the single issue of statehood for Scotland at Holyrood and/or Westminster.

    Note:

    1. Popular ratification by the people is required but ….

    2. … this MUST NOT be a “Gold Standard” S30 referendum with Westminster, as the British will ensure that it is gerrymandered and undermined.

    Liked by 17 people

  3. Well written article Mia

    London, Whitehall in particular, are experts in deflection, endless conventions, consultations, etc etc. They will give you every assistance short of actual help. It always ends with no action to progress any issue. The status quo is holding power.

    We have been sucked in to the lair of the experts in building mazes.

    The “Referendum” opens endless opportunities to their skill set. They have already won the battle on who can vote and when it can be held by their control of Sturgeon via the “be nice”, “gold standard” routine of politics. They have an array of legal challenges open to them to buy more time. Waiting in the wings is “a confirmation referendum” then a “ are you really sure Referendum”……and all the time 50.000 Unionists retire each year to North Britain.

    The worst part is knowing that even if you leap every hurdle they will try to damage Scotland as they did to India, Ireland, etc etc.

    You only need to look back 100 years to see how Ireland was treated in the talks. Note the conditions imposed that that led to a Civil War and the North being held by sectarian division with it’s roots in The London elites Plantation.

    If you think you can trust London look at their current behaviour over the Protocol.

    The Greenwich Meridian runs through London to ensure that every Map produced in the World has London at the centre. That is the mindset you have to deal with.

    Liked by 12 people

  4. Please spend time on other things. Scotland cannot become independent without UK gov approval under any circumstances. It’s just fantasy.

    Like

    1. People like Craig Murray have stated the exact opposite to be the case ie …” There is NO route to Independence that goes via WM ” . To imagine the Britglish State will EVER willingly ” allow ” Independence is , truly , ” just fantasy “

      Liked by 11 people

    2. “Scotland cannot become independent without UK gov approval”

      That entity that calls itself “UK government” and that other entity that calls itself “UK Parliament” can only act as such if Scotland continues to recognise them as such and continues to grant them the legitimacy to act and make decisions on behalf of Scotland.

      In the event Scotland refuses to recognise them as such and removes their present legitimacy to act on Scotland’s behalf, please explain how can those entities legitimately continue to give or deny approval for Scotland to do or not do something.

      Thank you.

      Liked by 12 people

    3. You will no doubt be thrilled to learn that in no situation in the world has a partner to a treaty required the permission of the other partner to withdraw. Brexit being a case in point. The only question is by what legal mechanism withdrawal can be effected. And the requirement of either national will (sovereignty) or the the violation of a fundamental condition of the Treaty and Union both provide the mechanism. The latter further requires a hearing by the ultimate national authority, which in Scotland is a representative tribunal formerly the Convention of the Estates to which both the old Scottish parliament and the present Court of Session are required to defer. This is a matter of ratified constitutional law on Scotland. Blackbird just let that particular genie out of the bottle.

      Liked by 3 people

    4. No thanks. If you don’t like what’s being said, move on to another blog. Your comment is just fantasy. 64 countries have left the UK. Not one of them sought the ‘permission’ of WM and nor did one of them use a Ref. We can do exactly as they did, if we choose to. You really need to read more, listen to more podcasts with guests more conversant with Constitutional knowledge than yourself. You’d be amazed what you can learn!

      Liked by 3 people

      1. While no countries have needed permission, I think it’s true to say that most, save one, reached agreement with WM, sometimes pretty hard fought. The only one that didn’t was Rhodesia and that didn’t do well out of it. When Scotland achieves independence it would obviously be advantageous if it were to do so by agreement.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. The decision by the SNP to go down the referendum route was a major mistake by Alex Salmond. When I was active in the party (I am no longer a member) I, and others, argued against the need for a referendum foreseeing such a situation as now pertains sadly to no avail

    Liked by 9 people

    1. We didn’t have a majority of Scottish MPs in 2014, that came in 2015. We should have returned them to Scotland when Brexit was voted for, declaring independence due to Claim of Right / breaches of the Treaty of Union

      Liked by 14 people

    2. “The decision by the SNP to go down the referendum route was a major mistake by Alex Salmond”

      It is very easy to say that in hindsight. But Mr Salmond could not know the level of interference the British state would muscle in to stop a yes vote. I doubt he would know at that point either to what extent the non-native vote would act to frustrate the native’s yes vote or how the vote would be abused by those with second homes in Scotland but living most of the year somewhere else.

      However, not knowing that is no longer a excuse Sturgeon can have. It is in the open. Ignoring it can only be interpreted as negligence of deliberate to stop a yes vote.

      Liked by 9 people

  6. @Mossyrooper, I agree, Alex should never have gone the route of a referendum there was no-one in the SNP who knew WM better than he. So why did he take that route.

    I am an Alex Fan, always have been since he restored the party after SWINNEY lost it 4000 members. I still think he did the most to make life easier for the people of Scotland when he was FM.. And still believe he is the best FM we have had. But he too made some mistakes and that referendum & accepting the result, especially the postal vote result) where it was impossible for there to be such a high postal vote in many areas of Scotland..

    Even to this day we are NOT hearing ALBA or ALEX shout a vote for them will be a vote to END the TREATY/UNION. Yes a vote for them will be a vote for Independence, but what route would Alex take today, if he got another chance?

    He & ALBA need to let the people know, because she/her asking for another mandate is causing many to lose faith in INDY altogether, something I know she/her will be happy with, as it is as obvious as the blackhead on your nose that she/her and her heir in line to her selfie camera, along with so many in the SNP now, believe DEVOLUTION is the best outcome, & it IS for them, continuing their high salaries, expenses, and huge pensions.

    Scotland needs the sort of leadership that won the Irish their independence, this half way house only works for England..

    Liked by 15 people

  7. Quite frankly a referendum contaminated by the hand of the British establishment is a cul-de-sac built by Gerry Mander and similar.

    As commentator after commentator has said, a referendum is not the sole route to delivering independence.Moreover the SNP have had more than enough time, more than enough mandates to pursue alternative routes.

    That they dilly, dally, defer whilst all the time undermining on all fronts the march to independence it is more than clear that they have become an anti independence, pro devolution party who’ve settled in. Indeed, could you see Sinn Fein settling in the way the SNP at Westminster have. Could you see Michelle O’Neil or Mary Lou McDonald wanting to be Speaker of the House of Commons. The difference is utterly striking.

    And meanwhile in Queen Nicola House it seems the complaint made to police by Jim Sillars about the criminality of the Government allegedly having no records and no recollections about the ferry fiasco contract awards has engendered a miraculous discovery of an email fingering the departed discredited Derek MacKay and or patsy John Swinney.

    An absolute Tammany Hall of a Scottish Parliament with a bunch of Lards down at the Big House. But we have the power to change this, and change it we ultimately will. 2014 was a trial run. They played dirty, used every dark lever they could and we ran them close, much closer than we are led to believe.

    Liked by 11 people

  8. Poor Ian Blackford. People here have long criticised him for not speaking up about independence. Now he does and what do people do? Criticise him for it. Much better to back him, show our approval and encouragement, and hope it’s not a one-off. But there again, I’m always reminded of the old adage “Those who can, do; those who can’t, criticise”.

    So Mia, two routes to independence (I’m discounting route c as it isn’t a route to independence). Route a) basically involves rebellion which will I’m sure be attractive to the hotheads but not to the public at large. People will refer to the Irish in 1916, but the main reason that that eventually resulted in independence was not the rebellion as such, but the brutal way the British treated the so-called rebels. I don’t think we’ve got anyone who’s prepared to stand up against a wall and be shot for their beliefs, nor do I think that the Scottish public would fancy a three-year post-independence war such as the Irish got. So that’s a no-go. (Incidentally, I was listening to Rod Stewart’s version of “Grace” when I drove into town this morning – a great song, and a reminder to me of my trip to Dublin many years ago when I visited and was inspired by Kilmainham Gaol. If you go to Dublin, a visit to Kilmainham is a must; the museum there is a very fine tribute to the bravery of the men who put their lives on the line for Ireland’s independence and to see the cells where they waited execution, the chapel where Joseph Plunkett married Grace Gifford just hours before he was shot, and to stand in the yard where over a ten day period 14 leaders of the rebellion faced the British firing squads is a very moving experience)

    So route b), “through this route, Scotland simply exercises its legitimate right as an equal partner in a bipartite union to terminate the political union.” Simply? How? If there’s a majority if independence MPs, do they merely tell Westminster that they’re renouncing the Act of Union and expect that there and then Scotland is an independent country? Or is this something that the Scottish Parliament does even although it will be largely ineffective and, I suspect, ignored by much of Scotland and almost all the UK? Some people here have advocated that the Convention of Estates should be called and that that should declare independence. In some ways I quite like the idea of a Convention (honestly!) but I really don’t know how you’d bring it about or how it would differ from the Scottish Parliament. So maybe those who advocate it would let me know who would call the convention? How are delegates chosen for it? In the absence of government support, who finances it? What legal authority would it have?

    And perhaps most importantly of all, how would you convince the Scottish public that it’s the way to go? People were worried about the outcome of a referendum even though that guaranteed a safe, negotiated and legal route to independence – how are you going to convince them to agree to something that would no doubt be declared illegal by the UK government? Would pensioners still get their pensions? Would civil servants still get their salaries? What would the military and the police do? Would the NHS fold when no funds were coming from Westminster? All these would be possible consequences of an “illegal” declaration, and no doubt would be overcome in time, but I think you’ll have a job convincing people to put their and their families’ welfare on the line.

    You also mention that Scotland and England are “equal partners”. That phrase is often used by people of an independence persuasion, but I wonder if there is any authority for it. There’s no mention of equality in the Act of Union and it seems plain to me that if a small impoverished nation merges with a much larger and richer nation and agrees that its parliamentary representation should be much less than that of the bigger nation, there’s no indication at all of equality, far from it in fact.

    Oh, and Mia, you say regarding route b): “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 …..” Maybe that’s because in an elective democracy the people don’t want them. First and foremost if we want independence is to take the people with us. At present they don’t seem to be with us. I’m not at all sure that it will help our cause to confront them with schemes that they may regard as extreme, although we could certainly do with a bit more passion from our elected representatives (but isn’t that what Mr Blackford has just given us?).

    Finally, in putting forward your options you missed out a plebiscite election which I know is the favoured route of many who participate in this blog. Any reason for that?

    Like

      1. I want a realistic route to independence that will carry the majority of the people with us. Because of that, I believe that a referendum agreed with Westmister (I know, I know, you’ll hate that bit) is the quickest and by far the simplest way to obtain internationally recognised independence. And I know people will go on about the Franchise, but the fact is that the vast majority of voters are Scots and if we can’t convince enough of them to support independence then maybe we just don’t deserve independence. Because of that I shall be fully behind the SNP if it does indeed do what it says it’s going to do and holds a referendum next year. I hope that every one here will do likewise. If the Supreme Court prohibits such a referendum, then the SG should immediately hire a firm of international lawyers, preferably from outwith the UK, to petition the UN under the self determination provisions of the UN charter.

        Second favourite route? Probably a plebiscite election, though I think that could leave us worse off than a referendum. Also, even if we won it, Westminster might refuse to accept it or negotiate which would make independence very much harder to achieve. UDI seldom works.

        The others? First, I’m in my 70s and they’ll all take far too long. Why? Because we’ll have to convince the people to go along with them and I think that’ll be very hard – as a democrat, I cannot countenance our becoming independent unless that is the will of the people living here. All our MPs withdraw from Westminster and declare independence? Well, even if these MPs managed to get elected on such a manifesto, I think that there’s a serious danger that any subsequent vote and declaration by them would be ignored. And notwithstanding what’s been said here, I really can’t see that a convention would be any different from a parliament, I doubt very much indeed if you could keep politics out of it, and once again you’d have to persuade people to vote for delegates in the knowledge that these delegates would then declare independence without any negotiation with the rest of the UK and almost certainly without international recognition.

        So there you are, Angry. What’s your preferred route?

        Like

    1. @Daveytee19 (– what you said; * my response)

      –“Much better to back him, show our approval and encouragement”

      *Lies and misleading the voters should never be rewarded with “approval and encouragement”. Should be facing strong criticism and rejection.

      –“two routes to independence”
      *I see three

      –“I’m discounting route c as it isn’t a route to independence”
      *It may be very long term but it is still a route to a form of independence where Scotland eventually will become a separate state.

      –“Route a) basically involves rebellion”
      *No, it does not. It involves explicit rejection of the monarchy. It requires a resurrection or creating the nuovo a new version of the Convention that wrote the Claim of Right 1689 and that put the crown on an English monarch. If Henry VIII powers, which predated our Claim of Right, were resurrected by England MPs, I don’t see why the Convention cannot be resurrected in Scotland too. But as I said above, this is the route that will present the biggest resistance because it is not only England Mps who you are opposing. It is also the interests of the crown.

      –“which will I’m sure be attractive to the hotheads but not to the public at large”
      *Ask around how many people supports the idea of maintaining the royal family. You would be surprised.

      -“People will refer to the Irish in 1916, but the main reason that that eventually resulted in independence was not the rebellion as such, but the brutal way the British treated the so-called rebels”
      *Actually, if you read Hansard, you will see that the reason why they got their independence is because those sitting in Westminster acknowledged that the Irish saw themselves as a different nation and would never accept English rule. Looking today at the way Sinn Fein behaves and comparing it with Nicola Sturgeon’s toothless and compliant SNP and you begin to understand why those down south will never take us seriously with this lot.

      –“Simply? How?”
      *By the leader of the SNP calling the SNP MPs back to Holyrood, inviting the other Scottish MPs and holding a vote on terminating the treaty of union and the Act of Union with England. Just like in 1706 the MPs were invited to vote to approve the articles of the treaty of union and the Act of Union with England.

      –“If there’s a majority if independence MPs, do they merely tell Westminster that they’re renouncing the Act of Union and expect that there and then Scotland is an independent country?”
      *No, they withdraw from Westminster and hold a vote. If the vote is in favour of repealing the treaty of union, then they inform the Monarch of the result. After the treaty of union has been repealed unilaterally by Scotland, Westminster ceases to have any legitimacy to control Scotland and to continue acting as the “UK of Great Britain” parliament.

      –“Some people here have advocated that the Convention of Estates should be called and that that should declare independence”
      *That, in my view, will be route a). The Convention of the Estates is who wrote the Claim of Right 1689 that put the crown in the current monarch. That convention of States would be therefore who can remove the crown from the monarch.

      –“But I really don’t know how you’d bring it about or how it would differ from the Scottish Parliament. So maybe those who advocate it would let me know who would call the convention?”
      *Sarah Salyers is the best person to answer that question. My guess would be by applying popular sovereignty: you seek support of a majority, by collecting signatures or holding a parallel vote somewhere. You need a driver, of course. But this has to be an entity that has nothing to do with politics. Why? Because political parties come and go. This entity has to remain in place after political parties come and go.
      Look at how ERG got established, got control of the Uk parliament, government and the EU ref. If they can, Scotland can too.

      –“In the absence of government support, who finances it? “
      *The same who is financing Holyrood – the people of Scotland.

      –“What legal authority would it have?”
      *Whatever legal authority the people of Scotland wants to give it.

      –“how would you convince the Scottish public that it’s the way to go?”
      *By doing what Sara Salyers is doing: educating people in Scotland’s history and constitution.

      –“how are you going to convince them to agree to something that would no doubt be declared illegal by the UK government?”
      *First you will have to explain to them what the Uk government and parliament really are: by-products of the treaty of union and therefore subordinated to Scotland’s sovereignty, not the other way round.

      –“Would pensioners still get their pensions?”
      *Why wouldn’t they? Don’t the English ex-pats living in France, Spain or Scotland still get their pensions?

      –“Would civil servants still get their salaries?”
      *Not as Uk civil servants, I hope. I see no place whatsoever for Uk civil servants in an independent Scotland.

      –“What would the military and the police do?”
      *What they do now, but to serve the interests of the people of Scotland, not the interests of the English ruling elite and its rogue puppet government in Scotland.

      –“Would the NHS fold when no funds were coming from Westminster?”
      *What do you mean funds coming “from” Westminster”? Westminster does not “generate” funds. It only administers the funds Scotland, Wales, NI and England send to it. In an independent Scotland, instead of having to send our taxes down south so England can help itself to them and administer them “on our behalf” for its own benefit and that of its ruling elite, we will administer our taxes ourselves. It is more likely that Scotland’s NHS will be better funded on independence than it is now.

      — “ “illegal” declaration”
      *Illegal under whose perspective? Personally I consider the triggering of A50, Brexit, the Withdrawal bill, the unilateral destruction by England MPs of the Scotland Act while forcing us to abide by what they left standing, their retrospective change of law to trash our continuity bill and the unilateral re-writing of our internal policy illegal.

      –“I think you’ll have a job convincing people to put their and their families’ welfare on the line”
      *My family’s welfare has been put in the line with Sturgeon’s appalling handling of the borders during the pandemic and with her woeful stewardship of Scotland that has led to Brexit being forced on us resulting in an increase in my food bills of over 20% and my energy costs in more than 50%. Nobody has convinced me to put my family’s welfare on the line. I have been forced to do it against my will.
      The Scottish people has to be shown that their family’s welfare will not be worse of on independence, when Scotland takes full control of its own assets, borrowing, expenditure and taxation than it is now with England’s Brexit and a bunch of incompetents with the hand in the UK’s purse.

      — “You also mention that Scotland and England are “equal partners”. That phrase is often used by people of an independence persuasion”
      *I invite you to read Hansard from 1800 until today. You will find there countless examples where unionist Scottish MPs, England MPs and Scottish lords will always resource to the excuse of the equal partnership to claim that Scotland does not need independence because it is as if it was independent already. I remember even an instance where one of those waffling in Westminster went to the lengths of saying that we were already like a federal state.

      –“There’s no mention of equality in the Act of Union”
      *There is no mention of non-equality in the Act of Union. If in a dual partnership agreement there is no clear statement of who will make decisions and who will get the profits of the partnership, the default assumption is that BOTH do.

      — “and it seems plain to me that if a small impoverished nation merges with a much larger and richer nation”
      *Richer nation???? Did you actually read the articles of the treaty of union? Take a look at article XV:

      “Whereas by the Terms of this Treaty the Subjects of Scotland for preserving an Equality of Trade throughout the United Kingdom, will be lyable to severall Customs and Excises now payable in England, which will be applicable towards payment of the Debts of England, contracted before the Union….”

      So Scotland had to pay for the debts of England contracted BEFORE the union. No mention of the debts of Scotland contracted before the union, though. Would it that be because it had none?

      –“there’s no indication at all of equality, far from it in fact”
      *I see no indication of inequality, far from it.

      –“Maybe that’s because in an elective democracy the people don’t want them”
      *Well, sure! Because all what the people of Scotland want to be represented by is useless amoebas totally lacking a will of their own and who cave in at the minimum sign of pressure, but who can deliver a mean, albeit vacuous speech and can produce truckloads of waffle and platitudes on demand!. Clearly that is the way to ensure Scotland’s interests are looked after. Are you having a laugh?

      –“First and foremost if we want independence is to take the people with us”
      *No. First and foremost we want to identify the best route FOR SCOTLAND to recover its statehood. You will never bring sufficient people on board if you don’t have a good map and a clear destination to where you intend to go.

      –“At present they don’t seem to be with us”
      *Sorry, but I think that is rubbish. GE2015 did not show that. It showed Scotland is ready for independence. This is a parliamentary democracy. All what you need is for Scotland to send a majority of pro indy MPs. Scotland has been doing that since GE 2015. If Scotland is not independent today is because Sturgeon took the wheels off the SNP in 2015.

      –“ I’m not at all sure that it will help our cause to confront them with schemes that they may regard as extreme”
      *Well, we were confronted with the most extreme scheme in the 21st century so far, which was Brexit, and here we are, expected to get along with it.

      –“although we could certainly do with a bit more passion from our elected representatives”
      *“a bit” more? Try with some at all!

      –“but isn’t that what Mr Blackford has just given us?”
      *Nope. He has given us just waffle and platitudes. Passion would have been not wearing a white rose and instead refusing to take their seats during the Queen’s (Johnson’s government’s) speech in protest. But you need balls and a backbone for that.

      –“you missed out a plebiscite election”
      *No, I didn’t. A plebiscite election, like a referendum is not “a route to independence”. It is a feature of a particular route. A plebiscite election may tell you Scotland is ready for independence. But then what? Unless that plebiscite election is to decide on two or more options with all the steps you will be following to actually effect that independence, it is not a route to anything.

      Repealing the treaty of union and Act of union with England , reconvening the Convention of States to issue a new Claim of Right and remove the crown from the monarch, or waiting for England’s ruling elite to exhaust, give away or rob all our natural assets and then to spit us when we no longer hold any value for them, are routes to independence. A referendum or a plebiscite are not. They are only a way to demonstrate Scotland wants independence. 3 general elections have already shown Scotland wants independence and we are still, 7 years later, at the starting point and without a map. We don’t need more of the same. What we need is the opportunity to choose a route. A plebiscite will only be meaningless if it has attached the route that will be followed to take us to independence.

      Here is an example of a plebiscite as part of a route to independence:

      A majority of pro independence MPs or MSPs will be taken as a mandate to repeal the treaty of union and the Act of Union with England.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Thanks Mia, you answered all my questions. I can’t say I agree with all that many of your answers, but you did provide them.

        As for the equal partner thing, whatever people might say because it suits them to do so, Scotland is not an equal partner in the Union and it never has been and never will be. To pretend otherwise is a fallacy. Nothing is said in the Act of Union about equality or otherwise, but the fact that the new Parliament of Great Britain would contain only 46 Scots MPs (unelected, incidentally, but hand-picked) as opposed to 486 elected English ones speaks for itself. Today is if anything worse – 59 out of 650, 543 of whom represent English constituencies. As a result our potential will always be limited and we will never have control over our own country. That is why we have to get our independence.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “Scotland is not an equal partner in the Union and it never has been and never will be”

        I refer you to the reply I have just written to xaracen in the blog entry “He has gone and done it now”.

        Here is a taster from the parliamentary records of Scotland:

        “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 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 SUCESSION 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”

        I am sure you would have read by now the Claim of Right and you will know that it states clearly that imposing absolute rule over Scotland is unlawful. Forcing the will of England MPs, England’s government or the monarch over Scotland without Scotland’s agreement is imposing absolute rule and therefore in direct breach of the Claim of Right that is fundamental condition of the treaty of union.

        From the parliamentary records of Scotland 1706, it is evident the Scottish parliament entered this union under the condition that this was a union of equals, because as stated above in the records, securing the sovereignty and independence of the Kingdom of Scotland and its crown and its indissolubility with respect to Scotland’s constitution was a fundamental resolution in order for the first article of the treaty of union to be accepted in parliament.

        It seems to me that not treating Scotland as an equal partner might have been a direct violation of the treaty of union and the resolutions of the parliament of Scotland which underpinned the acceptance of the first article of the treaty.

        If our Scotland MPs represent our sovereignty and in line with that resolution above our sovereignty and independence of the kingdom remains intact, then it does not matter if we have 45, 56 or 100 MPs. Unless a majority of them vote on something, it cannot be lawfully imposed on Scotland.

        And there is another thing, that resolution prior to the vote of the first article of the treaty of union flushes down the toilet the assumption that Westminster has unlimited sovereignty. Westminster can only claim to represent the UK for as long as a majority of Scotland’s MPs recognise it as such and for as long as majorities of England MPs and Scotland’s MPs agree on something. As you can read from the bit from the parliamentary records of Scotland above that says “reserving to us the sovereignty and independence of our crown and monarchy”, England MPs do not represent Scotland’s sovereignty and never did. Only Scotland’s MPs do.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. @Daveytee19

        From the resolution of the parliament of Scotland of 4 November 1706 that states “reserving to us the sovereignty and independence of our crown and monarchy”, it is evident, in my personal opinion, that the power to terminate the union has always lied with our MPs.

        Therefore the imposition of a referendum has always been unnecessary. In line with that resolution, a majority of Scotland MPs voting to repeal the treaty of union has always been sufficient to terminate the union legitimately. Needless to say that the cries from colonial parties that the people of England should participate also in a vote for Scotland’s independence are laughable.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. I’m not concerned with sovereignty. I accept that Scotland has sovereignty. I was sceptical about that at one point, but now, thanks considerably to posts on this blog, I believe it is probably the case. But that doesn’t make any difference unless the people of Scotland are prepared to, first acknowledge that they are sovereign, and secondly exercise that sovereignty. “The people” – not just a group of MPs or a hand-picked convention. That’s why I think that most of your ideas as to how we gain independence are unrealistic because the people will find them too risky. If they’re asked to vote for someone who promises that he (or she) will declare Scotland independent without any negotiation with or agreement from Westminster, the people won’t go for it. And as I have repeatedly made clear, there can be no question of independence unless the majority of the people agree to it. If they’re sovereign, they can exercise their sovereignty either to leave or remain in the United Kingdom.

        As to equal partners, yes the Scots wanted to retain their sovereignty, etc, but the parliamentary records to which you refer were not reflected in the actual Treaty or Act. The sovereignty and independnce of the Scots crown and monarchy was not reserved. There’s nothing about Scotland being equal. In fact, not much of the stuff in that record was actually carried through into the Act . As the Act specifically stated: “All Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void”.

        But does it matter? Because in the real world, dealing with facts, Scotland has never been an equal partner and never could be. To base an argument on Scotland’s being an equal partner will inevitably fail because there’s just too much to show that it never has been and precious little to suggest that it ever has. If Scotland had genuinely been an equal partner it would have had the same number of MPs as England and the same legislative clout. It never has. English MPs have always been able to out vote Scotland, something an equal partner would not have been able to do, and Scotland has always accepted that, again something an equal partner would never do. But not being an equal partner in fact surely strengthens Scotland’s right to independence as so long as we remain a minor UK player we will never achieve our full potential. Westminster will always be able to tell us what to do because we are not an equal partner. The sooner we’re out of it the better.

        Like

      5. “If they’re sovereign, they can exercise their sovereignty either to leave or remain in the United Kingdom”

        That sovereignty was exercised in 1706 by Scotland’s representatives when the Treaty of Union was passed in the parliament of Scotland, and can be exercised again by our MPs repealing that treaty and Act of Union,

        “As to equal partners, yes the Scots wanted to retain their sovereignty, etc, but the parliamentary records to which you refer were not reflected in the actual Treaty or Act”

        That depends how you look at it. The crown of Scotland remains in Scotland for a reason. The royals have different titles in Scotland for a reason. The Claim of Right became the fundamental document that underpins the Treaty and remains extant today.

        “The sovereignty and independnce of the Scots crown and monarchy was not reserved”
        For as long as the Claim of Right is extant, yes it is.

        “There’s nothing about Scotland being equal”
        There is nothing about Scotland not being equal. That record clearly shows the mind frame of Scotland’s MPs when they voted for the article and they reserved to themselves the sovereignty and independence of the crown of Scotland and the Kingdom.

        “In fact, not much of the stuff in that record was actually carried through into the Act”
        The fundamental part which was the Claim of Right and that enshrines the sovereignty of Scotland and the constitution, was. You cannot uphold the treaty without looking at the circumstances in which it was approved. You cannot ignore the frame of mind of the MPs when they voted for it. Article one was passed under those circumstances and those circumstances and conditions cannot be ignored.

        “All Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void”.
        If the Claim of Right becomes void the entire treaty folds.

        “But does it matter?”
        Well, of course it does.

        “Scotland has never been an equal partner and never could be”
        Scotland has always been an equal partner. A different matter is that England MPs and shamefully Scotland Mps have not treated it like one.

        “To base an argument on Scotland’s being an equal partner will inevitably fail”
        In the same way you cannot simply ignore Hansard, you cannot ignore the parliament records of Scotland. Those records are clear.

        ” If Scotland had genuinely been an equal partner it would have had the same number of MPs as England”
        That is a very poor argument. Take a look at the countries of the EU. They are all equally sovereign, yet they do not have the same representation in the EU parliament, do they?

        “English MPs have always been able to out vote Scotland”
        Because Scotland’s Mps have never been really acting on behalf of Scotland and exercising its sovereign right. It has always been about preserving the union. As per lords, it seems that only those who support the union are elected. None of this mean that Scotland MPs can at any time of their choosing exercise that sovereignty and reject being outvoted and that is, quite frankly, what they are expected to do. That is precisely why it feels so wrong that 56 SNP Mps instead of ending the union abused our pro indy votes to preserve it.

        “Scotland has always accepted that”
        Err, speak for yourself. I am beyond outraged that Sturgeon has used my pro indy vote to preserve the union still of terminating it as she should have done in May 2015.

        “But not being an equal partner in fact surely strengthens Scotland’s right to independence”
        Sorry, but Scotland is an equal partner. It is clear as day in that parliamentary record that that was the frame of mind of the MPs when they voted for the first article.

        “Westminster will always be able to tell us what to do because we are not an equal partner”
        No. Westminster will only be able to tell us what to do for as long as our MPs continue to sit there like amoebas and give England Mps the legitimacy to do so in order to preserve this union instead of exercising Scotland’s sovereignty to protect Scotland’s interests. It is not the treaty what made us an unequal partner. Those records make it clear. It is the Mps that Scotland has sent to Westminster for 300 years what has done so by allowing Scotland to continue to be humiliated and exploited as a colony. Goodness, looking at those records from 1706 made me realise those MPs on the day had far more gumption than, bar a very few, all the MPs Scotland has ever sent to Westminster put together. It is embarrassing quite frankly.

        Liked by 2 people

      6. Two documents worth looking at here. One is the Claim of Right 1689. As far as I’m concerned it is a most unsatisfactory document. In England, James II had fled and gone into exile and the English were therefore able to make the case that he had abdicated and they were therefore entitled to offer the throne to William. The Scots could not make a similar claim because James VII had not been resident in Scotland and his going into exile in France did not mean he had abdicated. They therefore decided to get rid of James because he was a Catholic whileas William was God’s instrument to deliver the Kingdom from popery and much of the document is therefore an anti-Catholic rant. But what I’ve been trying to find amidst all the rants is something to say or confirm that the people are sovereign, or even just more sovereign than the people of England under their Bill of Rights and I can’t find it.

        Thus while for the sake of argument I’m prepared to accept that the people of Scotland are theoretically sovereign, I think that is meaningless. Look at the Claim of Right itself. It said that the Estates were “assembled in a full and free representative of this Nation”. Poppycock. About 99% of Scots didn’t have the vote then. The vast majority of people then had little if any say in how the nation was run. Of course Scotland was not alone in that – in most European countries the common people had a minimal say in the administration of their nations. But the fact remains that in Scotland in 1689 there was no popular sovereignty as sovereignty was reserved to what would nowadays be called “The Establishment”. (Some may say that little has changed since then in that regard). To say therefore that the Claim of Right confirmed or established the sovereignty of the people is just plain wrong. It didn’t because it had no concept of what popular sovereignty actually meant and it certainly wasn’t practised in Scotland at that time.

        I’m also not clear about the difference in sovereignty between the Scots and the English, or indeed the inhabitants of the current UK. Here we have parliamentary sovereignty – what parliament says goes and there are few fetters on its power. But Parliament is the servant of the people; every five years the people vote to elect their representatives in Parliament and so the people can, if they so wished, turf the whole lot out. And it the people can do that, then surely the people are sovereign and they exercise that sovereignty through parliament.

        Turning now to the so-called equal partnership, I couldn’t care less what is said in Hansard. What politicians may say in parliament carries little if any legal weight and is more often or not said the appeal to their constituents or party leader. One thing that struck me recently is that some clauses in the Treaty of Union permitted the continuation of Scottish institutions such as the burgh and legal systems. However, most clauses stated that Union was to be obtained by Scotland adopting the existing English form: customs and excise duties, weights and measures and coinage. There are no clauses permitting the continuation of English institutions. Why not? Because effectively Scotland was being absorbed into England and therefore anything Scotland can still do differently has to be clearly set out whileas anything England does differently to Scotland is just taken for granted. Scotland, with its paltry 46 unelected MPs, is becoming a region, often subsequently referred to by the demeaning term “North Britain”. Just look at everything that happened in the real world since 1707. A lot of it, particularly in the first couple of centuries, was quite good for Scotland; more recently it hasn’t been. But an equal partner? You can say all you like that Scotland is an equal partner, but it still doesn’t make it true.

        As for the EU parliament, I’m sure that you’re aware that the real power in the EU lies with the EU Council. There each country is represented by a single member, decisions are taken by consensus and effectively each country has a veto. That’s a sign of true partnership.

        Anyway, that’s quite enough. I feel, Mia, that in relying ion documents and so-called rights going back over 300 years you aren’t going to help the cause of independence. I don’t think that your various contentions would be upheld in any court and i don’t therefore see much point in pursuing them – when trying to convince people to support independence it is, I believe, far better to look at Scotland now and in the future, rather than back to the dim and rather murky past. I do however understand that you are as entrenched in your opinion as I probably am in mine so I’m not going to continue this conversation in this thread.

        Like

      7. daveytee19 (– your quote; *my reply)

        –“Two documents worth looking at here. One is the Claim of Right 1689. As far as I’m concerned it is a most unsatisfactory document”

        *With all due respect, that you like the document or not is completely academic and besides the point when it is still extant in law and it constitutes the main foundation over which the ratification of the articles of the treaty of union rest. It is there, it is valid and that is not going to change if you decide to ignore it.
        If you dismiss the Claim of Right 1689, then you dismiss as invalid the treaty of union and worse, the union of crowns since 1689. Was that your intention?

        –“what I’ve been trying to find amidst all the rants is something to say or confirm that the people are sovereign, or even just more sovereign than the people of England under their Bill of Rights and I can’t find it”

        *If I may be so bold, I think this is nothing more than a distraction from the point we are discussing here, that will send us in some sort of goose chase I have no intention whatsoever to join. The matter at discussion here is the fact that the parliament of Scotland entered in this union under the assumption it was a union of equals and Scotland would retain its sovereignty, independence of crown and kingdom and constitution in perpetuity. The discussion here is that the assumption in November 1707 is that Scotland’s sovereignty would be represented by Scotland’s MPs.

        Frankly, that England had more or less popular sovereignty or where they decide to place the sovereignty of their country is totally beyond the matter and not our business. What is our business is the decisions our parliament made in 1706 and to what point those decisions were ignored and abused by the UK of Great Britain parliament.

        The parliament of Scotland was very clear “Reserving to us the sovereignty and independence of our crown and monarchy, and immunities of the kingdom and the constitution and frame of the government, both church and state, as they stand now established by our fundamental constitution, by our claim of right and by our laws following thereupon”

        That England had more or less popular sovereignty will not change anything because from that resolution of the parliament of Scotland it stands to the obvious that it was never its intention to transfer ANY of Scotland’s sovereignty to England MPs.

        –“Thus while for the sake of argument I’m prepared to accept that the people of Scotland are theoretically sovereign, I think that is meaningless”
        *It is your prerogative to believe what you wish, but not to expect everybody else must also believe it so your narrative can hold any weight. Lord Cooper in 1953 stated in court that because the parliament of Scotland in 1707 did not have unlimited sovereignty, it could not have passed it to Westminster. The principle of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty is an English concept.

        –“It said that the Estates were “assembled in a full and free representative of this Nation”. Poppycock. About 99% of Scots didn’t have the vote then”
        *Following your line of thought, if 99% of the Scots did not have the vote, how can you consider legitimate for the Parliament of Scotland to have ever ratified the articles of the treaty of union? it works both ways. If you are not prepared to respect the Claim of Right, applying the very same rules, you should not recognise the ratification of the Treaty of union by a parliament who was only elected by 1% of the population. Either you accept both or you accept none.

        –“But the fact remains that in Scotland in 1689 there was no popular sovereignty”
        *I am sorry, but I believe you are wrong and I think this is easy to demonstrate:

        1. Who redacted and issued the Claim of Right 1689? Was it the parliament of Scotland or a different entity?
        I think it is pretty well established that it was not the parliament of Scotland, but rather the convention of states. Differently, the bill of rights in England was passed by its parliament.

        2. Didn’t that Claim of Right 1689 transfer the crown of the Kingdom of Scotland to a different monarch?
        Yes, it did, therefore telling you that somebody other than the parliament of Scotland had more far more authority, enough to determine who would hold the crown of Scotland. If somebody other than the parliament of Scotland had the supreme power to determine what monarch would hold Scotland’s crown, it stands to the obvious that the parliament of Scotland had limited sovereignty.

        3. Did the parliament of Scotland have to abide by the Claim of Rigth or could just ignore it?
        Well, I invite you to take a look at the speeches by the Duke of Atholl on the 4 Nov 1706. The Duke of Atholl quite categorically stated that not abiding by the Claim of Right was considered “high treason”. It was this address with all his backers that forced the parliament of Scotland to issue a resolution. Part of it is as follows:

        “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;”

        –end of quote

        There you go. The Parliament of Scotland did not have other choice than abiding by the Claim of Right that had been generated by a completely different entity. I think all this is clear evidence the parliament of Scotland did not have at any point “unlimited sovereignty”, in fact, it had less sovereignty than other contemporary entities.

        –“To say therefore that the Claim of Right confirmed or established the sovereignty of the people is just plain wrong. It didn’t because it had no concept of what popular sovereignty actually meant and it certainly wasn’t practised in Scotland at that time”
        *Actually, I think I have just demonstrated to you above that you are wrong and that the Claim of Right 1689, which ultimately transfer the crown of the Kingdom of Scotland from a monarch to another and which was written by a different entity than parliament clearly proves Scotland’s parliament did not have unlimited sovereignty. If it did not have unlimited sovereignty it is impossible for it to have transferred Scotland’s sovereignty to anybody else.

        I think it is very amusing how you attempt to change my interpretation of the Claim of Right on the basis of what you interpret as “practised in Scotland at the time” but you totally refused in your previous comment to accept the frame of mind in Scotland’s MPs when article one of the treaty of union was passed. Frame of mind that quite clearly showed that on the 4 November 1706, Scotland’s sovereignty, crown and kingdom were to remain independent and indisoluble from Scotland’s constitution. Forgive me but I have the feeling you are attempting to dig rather flimsy escape routes to avoid scrutiny of a narrative that starts to tumble as soon as you start looking at it.

        –“I’m also not clear about the difference in sovereignty between the Scots and the English”
        *One obvious difference springs to mind:
        In 1689, in Scotland it was not the parliament of Scotland who determined the succesion to Scotland’s crown or who restricted the powers of the monarch.
        In England, however, it was parliament who determine the succesion to the kingdom crown and who restricted the power of the monarch.

        In any case, what does that have to do with the frame of mind of the Mps in the Parliament of Scotland at the time the first article of the treaty of union was passed? Nothing. As I said above, the amount of popular sovereignty England has or has not, has absolutely no relevance whatsoever on the debates that took place in the Parliament of Scotland on the 4 November 1706.

        –“Turning now to the so-called equal partnership, I couldn’t care less what is said in Hansard”
        *Well, that is of course your prerogative. But if you couldn’t care less what it says in hansard, then by default you couldn’t care less about what is being said in the parliament of the UK and what has been accepted by that parliament. Hansard is not an interpretation of what has been said in parliament, but what WAS said in parliament.

        –“What politicians may say in parliament carries little if any legal weight and is more often or not said the appeal to their constituents or party leader”
        *Do you reckon? Then, am I to understand that you consider the Scotland Act, the votes on A50, the withdrawal bill or the theft of our powers nothing more than waffle to appeal constituents and party leaders?
        If the speeches in Westminster are worthless, what do we have a parliament for and why are records kept?

        –“One thing that struck me recently is that some clauses in the Treaty of Union permitted the continuation of Scottish institutions such as the burgh and legal systems”
        *permitted??? I think you find it was a demand from the parliament of Scotland as indicated in the ratification of the articles of the treaty of union on the 16 January 1707: “Article 21: That the rights and privileges of the royal burghs in Scotland, as they now are, do remain entire after the union, and notwithstanding thereof”
        The royal burghs were the local government, therefore here you have a beautiful example as to how this intended to be a union of equals.

        –” However, most clauses stated that Union was to be obtained by Scotland adopting the existing English form: customs and excise duties, weights and measures and coinage. There are no clauses permitting the continuation of English institutions. Why not?”
        *Because they had no particular interest in preserving them? Because England was far more centralised and all forms of local government were subsidiary of its parliament? Or simply because this was a condition established by the parliament of Scotland for them to ratify the treaty?

        –“Because effectively Scotland was being absorbed into England and therefore anything Scotland can still do differently has to be clearly set out whileas anything England does differently to Scotland is just taken for granted”
        * No. Scotland was never absorbed into England. There are plenty of clues that this was never the case. Firstly, if Scotland had been absorbed by England, the new parliament would not have been called the parliament of Great Britain or created de nuovo as it was. It would be the parliament of the Kingdom of England. Secondly, if Scotland had been “absorbed” by England, England would have never had to change its flag or its seal. It did. If Scotland was being absorbed by the Kingdom of England, Scotland’s parliament would not have demanded a mint in Scotland, a proportional share of taxes revenues or preserving in perpetuity its constitution, laws and church. Goodness, daveytee19, the verbal acrobatics you are stretching here to fit your idea that Scotland was annexed by England really are unprecedented.

        –“Scotland, with its paltry 46 unelected MPs, is becoming a region, often subsequently referred to by the demeaning term “North Britain””
        *Scotland never became a “region”. Scotland is treated as England’s region because we have been punished with light weights and spineless MPs and Lords who, whilst sent to represent Scotland, protect her interests and ensure our partner abide by the treaty, they chose to represent themselves, their parties and to protect the union above Scotland. They are responsible for how Scotland finds itself today, exploited and abused. From the records of the parliament of Scotland in 1706, it is obvious those MPs in 1706 left enough safeguards to protect Scotland. It is subsequent MPs that, blinded by the bribes, bling and pomp of Westminster, failed to uphold them. And I include here Sturgeon and her brigade of feart amoebas that still call themselves “SNP”.

        “But an equal partner? You can say all you like that Scotland is an equal partner, but it still doesn’t make it true”

        Yes, that is right. An equal partner. You can say all you like that Scotland is not an equal partner, but it still does not make it true. In the articles ratified by the Parliament of Scotland there are plenty of examples that show this was meant to be a union of equals. Let me give you a few:

        1. Here is an example regarding taxation:

        “And in regard that after the union, Scotland becoming liable to the same customs and duties payable on import and export, and to the same excises on all excisable liquors as in England, as well upon that account as upon the account of the increase of trade and people (which will be the happy consequence of the union), the said revenues will much improve beyond the before mentioned annual values thereof, of which no present estimate can be made. Yet, nevertheless, FOR THE REASONS AFORESAID, THERE OUGHT TO BE A PROPORTIONABLE EQUIVALENT ANSWERED TO SCOTLAND, IT IS AGREED THAT, AFTER THE UNION, THERE SHALL BE AN ACCOUNT KEPT OF THE SAID DUTIES ARISING IN SCOTLAND, TO THE END IT MAY APPEAR WHAT OUGHT TO BE ANSWERED TO SCOTLAND, AS AN EQUIVALENT FOR SUCH PROPORTION OF THE SAID INCREASE AS SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF THE DEBTS OF ENGLAND. And for the further and more effectual answering the several ends hereafter mentioned, it is agreed that, from and after the union, the whole increase of the revenues of customs and duties on import and export, and excise upon excisable liquors in Scotland, over and above the annual produce of the said respective duties, as above stated, shall go and be applied for the term of seven years, to the uses hereafter mentioned; AND THAT UPON THE SAID ACCOUNT, THERE SHALL BE ANSWEWRED TO SCOTLAND ANNUALLY FROM THE END OF SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE UNION, AN EQUIVALENT IN PROPORTION TO SUCH PART OF THE SAID INCREASE AS SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO THE DEBTS OF ENGLAND, AND GENERALLY THAT AN EQUIVALENT SHALL BE ANSWERED TO SCOTLAND FOR SUCH PARTS OF THE ENGLISH DEBTS AS SCOTLAND MAY HEREAFTER BECOME LIABLE TO PAY BY REASON OF THE UNION, other than such for which appropriations have been made by parliament in England of the customs or other duties on export and import, excises on all excisable liquors, in respect of which debts, equivalents are herein before provided”

        –end of quote

        As you can see quite categorically in the above bit, Scotland never entered the union with the prospect of being used as England’s cash cow to pay for England’s debt. It is quite clear there that it was expected that, at all times, Scotland was given its rightful proportion of taxes. Now, did that ever happened? No. how many vanity projects in England were paid with Scottish cash and we received nothing in return? The Barnet formula is a complete joke. England MPs have a nack for designating as “UK” expenditure what is in fact payment of England’s debt. For instance, every year England generates a deficit of trade of goods of over 100 bn pounds. Scotland is expected to pay around 1/10th of that. That is 10 bn per year that we should be getting only from that. Do we see a penny out of it? No.
        Remember the ghost ferries or the fine the clowns in England government had to pay for not putting things to tender?
        We had to contribute a share to that debt caused by England. Where is our proportion of that payment back in Scotland?
        What about the cost of the PPE and Track and Trace in England caused by the superlative incompetence of England’s gov? Again, this is England’s debt that we are expected to pay. Where is our share?

        If I was in control of the negotiations for the termination of the union, rest assured that I would have gone painstakingly over each bit of England’s debt that Scotland was forced to pay and add it all up to present them with the bill.

        Here is another lovely example that the expectation was that Scotland was going to be kept as an equal partner and not exploited as England’s colony:

        “That all the public debts of the kingdom of Scotland as shall be adjusted by this present parliament shall be paid and that £2,000 per annum, for the space of seven years, shall be applied towards encouraging and promoting the manufacture of course wool within these shires which produce the wool, and that the first £2,000 sterling be paid at Martinmas [11 November] next, and so yearly at Martinmas during the space foresaid, and afterwards the same shall be wholly applied towards the encouraging and promoting the fisheries and such other manufactures and improvements in Scotland as may be most conducive to the general good of the United Kingdom”
        –end of quote

        As you can see, Scotland’s parliament did not envision Scotland being transformed into a barren land by the greed of successive England governments. They expected it to be treated as an equal partner, with appropriate investment to make it prosper.

        Here is another example that parity between England and Scotland was expected:

        “That from and after the union the coin shall be of the same standard and value throughout the United Kingdom as now in England, and a mint shall be continued in Scotland under the same rules as the mint in England…”
        –end of quote

        A mint each

        Here is a nice example of the expected independence of the Kingdom of Scotland:

        “that all other laws in use within the kingdom of Scotland do, after the union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in the same force as before (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent with this treaty) but alterable by the parliament of Great Britain, with this difference between the laws concerning public right, policy and civil government, and those which concern private right: that the laws which concern public right, policy and civil government may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom, but that no alteration be made in laws which concern private right, except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland”
        end of quote

        The Parliament of Scotland expected the laws to remain in perpetuity and in particular established that laws concerning private right could not be changed.

        Here is another example:

        “That all heritable offices, superiorities, heritable jurisdictions, offices for life and jurisdictions for life, be reserved to the owners thereof as rights of property, in the same manner as they are now enjoyed by the laws of Scotland, notwithstanding of this treaty”
        –end of quote

        And another we already mentioned:

        “That the rights and privileges of the royal burghs in Scotland, as they now are, do remain entire after the union, and notwithstanding thereof”
        –end of quote

        the Burghs represented local government, therefore it was enshrined in the treaty that Scotland was to keep its local government intact without England’s interference.

        And another already mentioned:

        “That, from and after the union, there be one great seal for the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which shall be different from the great seal now used in either kingdom….and that a seal in Scotland, after the union, be always kept and made use of in all things relating to private rights or grants, which have usually passed the great seal of Scotland, and which only concern offices, grants, commissions and private rights within that kingdom”
        –end of quote

        If the Kingdom of Scotland was not envisioned by the parliament of Scotland to remain as independent, why would they bother in preserve a seal independent from that of the UK one for Scottish matters?

        And another:

        “And that the crown, sceptre and sword of state, the records of parliament and all other records, rolls and registers whatsoever, both public and private, general and particular and warrants thereof, continue to be kept, as they are, within that part of the United Kingdom now called Scotland, and that they shall so remain in all time coming notwithstanding of the union”
        –end of quote

        Again, if they did not expect the Kingdom of Scotland to remain as independent, why did they insist in keeping in perpetuity Scotland all the records, registers, warrants, the crown, sceptre and sword of state?

        –“As for the EU parliament, I’m sure that you’re aware that the real power in the EU lies with the EU Council”
        *Equally, in 1689, the real power did not lie with the parliament of Scotland, but rather with the convention of states, which is the entity who wrote the Claim of Right and determine how would be successor to the Scottish throne.

        –” I feel, Mia, that in relying ion documents and so-called rights going back over 300 years you aren’t going to help the cause of independence”
        *I couldn’t disagree more. You can only understand the present if you have an understanding of the past. Knowing what the frame of mind of those ratifying the articles of the union was at the time they did it, is fundamental to understand what type of union this was meant to be and to what extent that treaty has been abused by our partner for its own advantage.

        –“when trying to convince people to support independence it is, I believe, far better to look at Scotland now and in the future”
        *I couldn’t disagree more. It is necessary for the people of Scotland to understand the extent of how much our partner has abused this treaty that was meant to be for a union of equals. It is also necessary for the people of Scotland to realise of how much they have been let down by those sent to Westminster to represent the interests of their country and that it is ultimately them who should be blamed for their weakness and for putting the preservation of a toxic interpretation of the union by our partner ahead of the interests of Scotland and their duty as her representatives.
        It is also necessary for the people of Scotland to understand what the actual status of Scotland in this union is and more importantly, that the only reason this union has legitimacy to continue is a treaty of union that can be repealed at any time.
        It is also fundamental for the people of Scotland to understand the power they have to terminate a treaty that has been breached right, left and centre to the continuous detriment of Scotland.

        From here it looks that because what the records show completely trash your interpretation of this union, you expect everybody else to ignore them so your interpretation can hold some credibility. Don’t count on me getting onboard of that bandwagon. Scotland is and always has been an equal partner in this union. The fact it has not been treated as such constitutes grounds to repeal that treaty for once and for all and it is an embarrassment that the SNP under Sturgeon has held majorities in Westminster for 8 years but instead of terminating the treaty and the abuse, they have used our pro independence votes to perpetuate it. Those and Scotland’s MPs and Lords for 300 years are the real parcel of rogues, who blinded by England’s gold transformed Scotland’s status as an equal partner into England’s colony.

        I have the impression that your narrative might have one objective and one objective only: to float the idea Scotland was always “a region” of the Kingdom of England therefore England should have the automatic right to become the continuator state of the UK and inherit all the goodies Scotland helped paid for and has a legitimate right of claim as well. I am afraid with the treaty of union in place, that is a complete misinterpretation of the situation, a misinterpretation that appears designed to, once again, disadvantage Scotland for the benefit of England. As equal partners, who becomes the continuator state of the UK, if any, should be a mutual decision between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. It cannot be just England’s decision.

        Liked by 2 people

      8. Mia: If you dismiss the Claim of Right 1689, then you dismiss as invalid the treaty of union and worse, the union of crowns since 1689. Was that your intention?
        DT: That’s a Strawman reply.
        DT: –“what I’ve been trying to find amidst all the rants is something to say or confirm that the people are sovereign, or even just more sovereign than the people of England under their Bill of Rights and I can’t find it”
        Mia was unable to answer this point. Not surprising, perhaps, as there is nothing in the claim of right to assert that the people of Scotland are sovereign.

        Mia: The parliament of Scotland was very clear “Reserving to us the sovereignty and independence of our crown and monarchy, and immunities of the kingdom and the constitution and frame of the government, both church and state, as they stand now established by our fundamental constitution, by our claim of right and by our laws following thereupon”
        DT: The Parliament of Scotland may well have said what it wanted. Unfortunately, neither the Treaty not the Act gave them what they wanted. It’s the Act that matters, not the wishes that the Parliament may have had.

        Mia: The principle of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty is an English concept.
        DT: Indeed it is. But as Parliament is the servant of the people and the people elect their representatives to parliament at stated intervals, the people control parliament and are therefore sovereign through parliament. It was exactly the same in Scotland except, of course that not many people had a vote.

        DT: (The Claim of Right) said that the Estates were “assembled in a full and free representative of this Nation”. Poppycock. About 99% of Scots didn’t have the vote then”
        Mia: *Following your line of thought, if 99% of the Scots did not have the vote, how can you consider legitimate for the Parliament of Scotland to have ever ratified the articles of the treaty of union?
        DT: Strawman reply. I’m referring to sovereignty. It is difficult to see how a document gives the people sovereignty if popular sovereignty was not practised in Scotland and was an alien concept to those who governed. The fact that Scotland’s rulers ignored the wishes of the people when they enacted the Act of Union is a clear example of the lack of popular sovereignty in Scotland at the time, and indeed for many years thereafter.

        Mia: 1. Who redacted and issued the Claim of Right 1689? Was it the parliament of Scotland or a different entity?
        DT: It was the Convention of Estates, an unelected body which was little more representative of the people than was the Parliament. It sat every now and again, usually to deal with financial matters. Your point?
        Mia: 2. Didn’t that Claim of Right 1689 transfer the crown of the Kingdom of Scotland to a different monarch?
        DT: Yes it did. No doubt Parliament would have done it but Parliament couldn’t sit because the King had not summoned it (hardly an example of popular sovereignty!). The Convention didn’t need the king’s authority to sit, so it carried out the deed.

        Mia: Did the parliament of Scotland have to abide by the Claim of Right or could just ignore it?
        DT: It could ignore it and in proceeding to pass the Act of Union it did ignore it. Not surprising in fact because other than recognising William as king it was a pretty ineffective document (unless, of course, you were a Catholic). I think, incidentally, that your quote referred to Parliament’s decision do ensure the continuation of the Church of Scotland after Union., By doing so, it satisfied the objections of the Kirk, which up until then had been a prime opponent of the Union. Of course, if Scotland was to be an equal partner there would have been no need for any such protection, not for the Kirk to have any worries about it. The fact that the majority of people objected was immaterial and not taken into account.

        DT: “To say therefore that the Claim of Right confirmed or established the sovereignty of the people is just plain wrong. It didn’t because it had no concept of what popular sovereignty actually meant and it certainly wasn’t practised in Scotland at that time”
        Mia: *Actually, I think I have just demonstrated to you above that you are wrong and that the Claim of Right 1689, which ultimately transfer the crown of the Kingdom of Scotland from a monarch to another and which was written by a different entity than parliament clearly proves Scotland’s parliament did not have unlimited sovereignty.
        DT: It proves nothing of the sort. All it shows was at that time Parliament was unable to enact the necessary legislation because the king wouldn’t summon it. It certainly doesn’t answer my point that there was no popular sovereignty in Scotland at the time, there being a very limited franchise and the vast majority of the people being powerless. If there was no popular sovereignty, how could a document confirm it?

        Mia:………you totally refused in your previous comment to accept the frame of mind in Scotland’s MPs when article one of the treaty of union was passed. Frame of mind that quite clearly showed that on the 4 November 1706, Scotland’s sovereignty, crown and kingdom were to remain independent….
        DT: I have read an extract of what may have been in their frame of mind. If that was indeed their thinking, why then was it not recorded in the Treaty and enacted in the Act? They could think all they want, but unless it was then put into statute or treaty it was no more than wishful thinking. The Act is law, the frame of mind of Scotland’s parliamentarians isn’t.

        DT: –“Turning now to the so-called equal partnership, I couldn’t care less what is said in Hansard…..What politicians may say in parliament carries little if any legal weight and is more often or not said the appeal to their constituents or party leader”
        Mia: *Do you reckon? Then, am I to understand that you consider the Scotland Act, the votes on A50, the withdrawal bill or the theft of our powers nothing more than waffle to appeal constituents and party leaders?
        DT: To a considerable extent, I’m afraid so. As I indicated above, it’s not what people say or wish that matters – it’s what actually appears on the statute book. All the evidence, right back to 1706, shows that Scotland knew it wasn’t going to be an equal partner and it wasn’t an equal partner and never has been. That’s why we’re in the state we’re in now.. Do you really think that England would have taken on the near-bankrupt Scotland as an equal partner?.
        Mia: If the speeches in Westminster are worthless, what do we have a parliament for and why are records kept?
        DT: Now there’s a question I sometimes ask myself. We have a parliament to govern through what has become an over-powerful executive. The executive appears to take little notice of backbenchers and I do often wonder why it is necessary for them to turn up and make speeches which are by and large ignored if they don’t support the views of the Executive.

        DT: “One thing that struck me recently is that some clauses in the Treaty of Union permitted the continuation of Scottish institutions such as the burgh and legal systems”
        Mia: *permitted??? I think you find it was a demand from the parliament of Scotland as indicated in the ratification of the articles of the treaty of union on the 16 January 1707: “Article 21: That the rights and privileges of the royal burghs in Scotland, as they now are, do remain entire after the union, and notwithstanding thereof”
        DT: Sorry, but yes, permitted. Scotland had to ask England to agree to this measure and so it was recorded in the Treaty, as was protection for the legal system and the Kirk……. However, most clauses stated that Union was to be obtained by Scotland adopting the existing English form: customs and excise duties, weights and measures and coinage. There are no clauses permitting the continuation of English institutions. Why not?”
        Mia: *Because they had no particular interest in preserving them?
        DT: No. Because they didn’t have to. It was taken as read that existing English right, privileges, etc., would continue. Unlike Scotland, England didn’t have to ask for them. The fact that Scotland did is yet another demonstration of the fact that Scotland was not an equal partner – in fact, the more I think about it, I’m not at sure that the term “partner” applies at all.

        DT: …….effectively Scotland was being absorbed into England and therefore anything Scotland can still do differently has to be clearly set out whileas anything England does differently to Scotland is just taken for granted”
        Mia: No. Scotland was never absorbed into England.
        DT: I said “effectively” absorbed into England. The various examples you provide in an attempt to show that that was not the case were little more than window dressing. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Scotland was absorbed into Great Britain, but as you yourself have stated in the past, Great Britain was really nothing more than England.

        DT: But an equal partner? You can say all you like that Scotland is an equal partner, but it still doesn’t make it true”
        Mia: Yes, that is right. An equal partner. You can say all you like that Scotland is not an equal partner, but it still does not make it true. In the articles ratified by the Parliament of Scotland there are plenty of examples that show this was meant to be a union of equals. Let me give you a few:
        DT: And here you went on to provide a number of examples meant to show that it was a union of equals. I’m not going to bother going through them all because none – that’s right, none of them actually do or indeed even come near to it..

        Finally, you said: have the impression that your narrative might have one objective and one objective only: to float the idea Scotland was always “a region” of the Kingdom of England therefore England should have the automatic right to become the continuator state of the UK and inherit all the goodies Scotland helped paid for …..
        Actually, that had never crossed my mind. But it is an example as to why it is so desirable that the terms of independence should be negotiated with the UK, something that might be well-nigh impossible if Scotland was to unilaterally declare independence in the ways that you advocate. In international law I think the situation is fairly clear; either the matter can be settled amicably, with both debt and assets being divided by agreement, or alternatively the newly independent state can walk away with no liability for any of the national debt, but not with any of the assets either save for those on its own territory.

        I’m a bit annoyed with myself because I hadn’t intended to continue this conversation, but look what I’ve done. Go on, Mia, don’t you enjoy having someone who actually debates with you rather than just agrees with everything you say?

        Liked by 1 person

      9. Mia: If you dismiss the Claim of Right 1689, then you dismiss as invalid the treaty of union and worse, the union of crowns since 1689. Was that your intention?
        DT: That’s a Strawman reply.
        ==Mia b – No, it isn’t. It is pure logic. Yu may not like it, but that is exactly what it is. If you dismiss the Claim of Right 1689 because as you claim only 1% of the people had the right to vote, then you surely have to dismiss the decision of a parliament elected by that 1%.

        DT: –“what I’ve been trying to find amidst all the rants is something to say or confirm that the people are sovereign, or even just more sovereign than the people of England under their Bill of Rights and I can’t find it”
        Mia was unable to answer this point. Not surprising, perhaps, as there is nothing in the claim of right to assert that the people of Scotland are sovereign.
        ==Mia-b- not true. I believe I have indeed provided you proof that the people of Scotland are sovereign and the parliament of Scotland in 1707 had no unlimited sovereignty.

        Mia : The parliament of Scotland was very clear “Reserving to us the sovereignty and independence of our crown and monarchy, and immunities of the kingdom and the constitution and frame of the government, both church and state, as they stand now established by our fundamental constitution, by our claim of right and by our laws following thereupon”
        DT: The Parliament of Scotland may well have said what it wanted. Unfortunately, neither the Treaty not the Act gave them what they wanted. It’s the Act that matters, not the wishes that the Parliament may have had.
        ==Mia b – No, sorry. To interpret a document written over 300 years ago you have to see the full context here it was written. Again, this is common sense. For instance, over 300 years ago the church had a much more central role in government than today. You simply cannot ignore that when you look at the Claim of Right.

        Mia: The principle of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty is an English concept.
        DT: Indeed it is. But as Parliament is the servant of the people and the people elect their representatives to parliament at stated intervals, the people control parliament and are therefore sovereign through parliament. It was exactly the same in Scotland except, of course that not many people had a vote.
        ==Mia b-You are mixing potatoes with oranges here. You are forgetting here the fact that in Scotland In 1689 there was an entity parallel to parliament that appeared to have higher power, enough for determining the succession of a monarch. Scotland’s parliament did not have that power, therefore proving Scotland’s parliament did not have unlimited sovereignty.
        The situation in England was completely different. In England that parallel entity did not exist and it was parliament who had full power and who issued the bill of rights. Why is this relevant? It is because today we have England Mps and England judges presuming unlimited sovereignty for Westminster when history tells us that only England could have conferred “unlimited sovereignty” to its Mps, but never Scotland. Scotland’s parliament could not pass on to the parliament of Great Britain what it did never have itself.

        DT: (The Claim of Right) said that the Estates were “assembled in a full and free representative of this Nation”. Poppycock. About 99% of Scots didn’t have the vote then”
        Mia: *Following your line of thought, if 99% of the Scots did not have the vote, how can you consider legitimate for the Parliament of Scotland to have ever ratified the articles of the treaty of union?
        DT: Strawman reply. I’m referring to sovereignty. It is difficult to see how a document gives the people sovereignty if popular sovereignty was not practised in Scotland and was an alien concept to those who governed. The fact that Scotland’s rulers ignored the wishes of the people when they enacted the Act of Union is a clear example of the lack of popular sovereignty in Scotland at the time, and indeed for many years thereafter.
        ==Mia-b- again. No strawman reply, it is straight forward logic. You had representatives from the burghs in the Convention of the Estates. That is the equivalent to council representatives today. That is popular sovereignty, not parliamentary sovereignty. Prior the convention of states there were the General Councils also parallel to parliament and with ability to legislate. Did England have anything remotely similar?

        I am sure you are fully aware that the union was artificially maintained from day one and still is today. You can confirm this by checking the UK parliament website (End of the Scottish parliament, accessible on https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/end-of-the-old-scottish-parliament/
        It says “Since Scotland’s small electorate would probably have expressed strong dislike of the Union it was decided to avoid a direct election” In other words, the first round of MPs to be sent to the first parliament of Great Britain had to be elected among the MPs that were already in parliament and in support of the union because they feared that if they had a proper election and the actual people could vote, the union would end before it started.

        That tells you exactly who has the ultimate word. This continues to this day: the union did not end on the 8th May 2015 because Sturgeon, the British state puppet, removed the wheels of the SNP just in time to neuter a majority of 56 SNP Mps, The union has been kept on life support ever since by Sturgeon keeping the wheels off the SNP and by the collusion of the press, national broadcaster and deep state attempting to put Mr Salmond away from politics for good and silencing Alba to disenfrachise fundamentalists. The union is surviving only because democracy has been bypassed by denying the people of Scotland the option of voting for a party to deliver independence in 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021. What does that tell you? That it is the people of Scotland who has the ultimate power and sovereignty. Sturgeon, the SNP, Holyrood, the crown and Westminster can only manage that sovereignty by removing the main option the people of Scotland wants. But they will not be able to do that forever because the people of Scotland will have another route, just like it happen with the referendum in 1979.

        Mia: . Who redacted and issued the Claim of Right 1689? Was it the parliament of Scotland or a different entity?
        DT: It was the Convention of Estates, an unelected body which was little more representative of the people than was the Parliament. It sat every now and again, usually to deal with financial matters. Your point?
        ==Mia b – A little more representative? It had representatives from the burghs. That is the equivalent to council representatives today.

        Mia: . Didn’t that Claim of Right 1689 transfer the crown of the Kingdom of Scotland to a different monarch?
        DT: Yes it did. No doubt Parliament would have done it but Parliament couldn’t sit because the King had not summoned it (hardly an example of popular sovereignty!). The Convention didn’t need the king’s authority to sit, so it carried out the deed.
        ==Mia-b. If the convention did not need the king’s authority to sit while parliament did, it stands to the obvious that had more sovereignty that parliament. Hardly an example of parliamentary sovereignty.

        Mia: Did the parliament of Scotland have to abide by the Claim of Right or could just ignore it?
        DT: It could ignore it and in proceeding to pass the Act of Union it did ignore it. Not surprising in fact because other than recognising William as king it was a pretty ineffective document (unless, of course, you were a Catholic). I think, incidentally, that your quote referred to Parliament’s decision do ensure the continuation of the Church of Scotland after Union., By doing so, it satisfied the objections of the Kirk, which up until then had been a prime opponent of the Union. Of course, if Scotland was to be an equal partner there would have been no need for any such protection, not for the Kirk to have any worries about it. The fact that the majority of people objected was immaterial and not taken into account.
        ==Mia-b. Now you are starting to make things up. No, it did not ignore it at all. The Claim of Right is included as a fundamental condition in the Treaty of Union, so much so that it is extant today and will have to remain extant for as long as the union survives. The Act of Union is only domestic legislation, you know that. It is the ratification of the articles of the Treaty of union what determines the fundamental conditions of the international treaty between England and Scotland. Breach of those conditions gives Scotland grounds to end the treaty, as it was demonstrated in 1713 where the union was almost ended. It is the Treaty of Union what has validity under international law, not a domestic act of legislation. Surely you are aware of that.

        DT: “To say therefore that the Claim of Right confirmed or established the sovereignty of the people is just plain wrong. It didn’t because it had no concept of what popular sovereignty actually meant and it certainly wasn’t practised in Scotland at that time”
        Mia: *Actually, I think I have just demonstrated to you above that you are wrong and that the Claim of Right 1689, which ultimately transfer the crown of the Kingdom of Scotland from a monarch to another and which was written by a different entity than parliament clearly proves Scotland’s parliament did not have unlimited sovereignty.
        DT: It proves nothing of the sort. All it shows was at that time Parliament was unable to enact the necessary legislation because the king wouldn’t summon it. It certainly doesn’t answer my point that there was no popular sovereignty in Scotland at the time, there being a very limited franchise and the vast majority of the people being powerless. If there was no popular sovereignty, how could a document confirm it?
        ==Mia-b Yes, it does. Come on daveytee19 you are clutching at straws here. If parliament could not enact legislation because it depended on the monarch to summon it but the convention of states did not require being summoned by the monarch to determine the succession of the monarch, who has more sovereignty of the three? It stands to the obvious that it is the convention of the states. You are saying it yourself, the parliament of Scotland never had unlimited sovereignty.

        Mia:………you totally refused in your previous comment to accept the frame of mind in Scotland’s MPs when article one of the treaty of union was passed. Frame of mind that quite clearly showed that on the 4 November 1706, Scotland’s sovereignty, crown and kingdom were to remain independent….
        DT: I have read an extract of what may have been in their frame of mind. If that was indeed their thinking, why then was it not recorded in the Treaty and enacted in the Act? They could think all they want, but unless it was then put into statute or treaty it was no more than wishful thinking. The Act is law, the frame of mind of Scotland’s parliamentarians isn’t.

        ==Mia-b It was in the treaty in many ways, one of them being the fundamental condition that the Claim of Right had to be respected in unmodified form in perpetuity. The other one is the demand that the burghs had to be left alone. The other one being that the Scottish constitution remained in perpetuity and other that the legislative body of Scotland was to be maintained separate and never subordinate to any court in England. And this was put in the treaty, so no wishful thinking at all here. An act is DOMESTIC law, not international law, like the ratification of the articles of the Treaty of union is. If the frame of mind is a resolution that is collected in the parliamentary proceedings and records, then it is not wishful thinking at all. On the 4 November 1706 that resolution is what determined that the first article of the treaty of union was passed and that is a circumstance and the context that you simply cannot ignore.

        DT: –“Turning now to the so-called equal partnership, I couldn’t care less what is said in Hansard…..What politicians may say in parliament carries little if any legal weight and is more often or not said the appeal to their constituents or party leader”
        Mia: *Do you reckon? Then, am I to understand that you consider the Scotland Act, the votes on A50, the withdrawal bill or the theft of our powers nothing more than waffle to appeal constituents and party leaders?
        DT: To a considerable extent, I’m afraid so. As I indicated above, it’s not what people say or wish that matters – it’s what actually appears on the statute book. All the evidence, right back to 1706, shows that Scotland knew it wasn’t going to be an equal partner and it wasn’t an equal partner and never has been. That’s why we’re in the state we’re in now.. Do you really think that England would have taken on the near-bankrupt Scotland as an equal partner?.
        ==Mia-b That is incorrect. All the evidence present in the records of the parliament of Scotland from 1705, when the idea of a union with England was first floated to the moment the articles of union were ratified, indicates that at no time the members of parliament intended for this union to be anything other than a union of equals.

        This is from 28 June 1705:

        “[Resolve concerning the limitations of government, treaty with England and other acts]
        Resolved that this parliament will proceed to make such limitations and conditions of government for the rectifications of our constitutione as may secure the religion, liberty and independency of this natione, and that they will name commissioners to treat with England for regulating our commerce and other concerns with that natione previous to all other business, except ane act for tuo months supplie first of all to be granted for the present subsistence of her majesties forces.”

        “as may secure the religion, liberty and independency of this natione”. There you go Even before the commissioners were selected and the articles were written.that is the first thing the parliament of Scotland was determined to do. So far, I have not found any record that points to the opposite.

        DT: “One thing that struck me recently is that some clauses in the Treaty of Union permitted the continuation of Scottish institutions such as the burgh and legal systems”
        Mia: *permitted??? I think you find it was a demand from the parliament of Scotland as indicated in the ratification of the articles of the treaty of union on the 16 January 1707: “Article 21: That the rights and privileges of the royal burghs in Scotland, as they now are, do remain entire after the union, and notwithstanding thereof”
        DT: Sorry, but yes, permitted. Scotland had to ask England to agree to this measure and so it was recorded in the Treaty, as was protection for the legal system and the Kirk……. However, most clauses stated that Union was to be obtained by Scotland adopting the existing English form: customs and excise duties, weights and measures and coinage. There are no clauses permitting the continuation of English institutions. Why not?”
        ==Mia-b. No, sorry. Not “permitted” England had no power to “permit” or “forbid” Scotland anything and neither had the monarch. That was a demand by the parliament of Scotland to ensure the independence of the nation. Let me remind you that the monarch had no power enacting those articles of union unless they were ratified first by the parliament of Scotland, which they did but AFTER they modified them to their satisfaction to ensure the independence of Scotland’s crown and kingdom and the maintainance of the constitution.

        Mia: *Because they had no particular interest in preserving them?
        DT: No. Because they didn’t have to. It was taken as read that existing English right, privileges, etc., would continue. Unlike Scotland, England didn’t have to ask for them. The fact that Scotland did is yet another demonstration of the fact that Scotland was not an equal partner – in fact, the more I think about it, I’m not at sure that the term “partner” applies at all.
        ==Mia-b Sorry, but that is just your personal interpretation. I have provided the records that demonstrate the frame of mind of Scoland’s MPs at the time and how they, at all times, were determined to preserve the independence of Scotland’s church, sovereignty, crown and kingdom. Where is your evidence that England “did not have to” preserve their local government or actually, that they had any?

        DT: …….effectively Scotland was being absorbed into England and therefore anything Scotland can still do differently has to be clearly set out whileas anything England does differently to Scotland is just taken for granted”
        Mia: No. Scotland was never absorbed into England.
        DT: I said “effectively” absorbed into England. The various examples you provide in an attempt to show that that was not the case were little more than window dressing. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Scotland was absorbed into Great Britain, but as you yourself have stated in the past, Great Britain was really nothing more than England.
        ==Mia-b Still no. Scotland was never absorbed into England, neither in theory nor in practice. Scotland was not absorbed into “Great Britain” either because Great Britain would have never existed without the Kingdom of Scotland. The correct terminology here is Scotland FORMED Great Britain with England.

        DT: But an equal partner? You can say all you like that Scotland is an equal partner, but it still doesn’t make it true”
        Mia: Yes, that is right. An equal partner. You can say all you like that Scotland is not an equal partner, but it still does not make it true. In the articles ratified by the Parliament of Scotland there are plenty of examples that show this was meant to be a union of equals. Let me give you a few:
        DT: And here you went on to provide a number of examples meant to show that it was a union of equals. I’m not going to bother going through them all because none – that’s right, none of them actually do or indeed even come near to it..
        ==Mia-b-I have show you the evidence that this was always intended to be and always have been a union of equals. Dismiss them all what they want but do not pretend that your argument has more validity than mine when you are presenting zero evidence to back it up.

        Finally, you said: have the impression that your narrative might have one objective and one objective only: to float the idea Scotland was always “a region” of the Kingdom of England therefore England should have the automatic right to become the continuator state of the UK and inherit all the goodies Scotland helped paid for …..
        Actually, that had never crossed my mind.
        ==Mia-b Yeah, right. And blue pigs fly without wings.

        DT “But it is an example as to why it is so desirable that the terms of independence should be negotiated with the UK”

        == MIa b- Not with “the UK”, Daveytee19. You mean with the Kingdom of England. The “UK” was never Scotland’s partner in any treaty. The Kingdom of England was. The “UK” is just a product of the union of Scotland with England. Sorry, but you have shown your colours there. You are showing that either you do not understand at all what the union is and what the treaty signifies, or you are determined to give the “UK” entity more permanence and relevance than in reality has. Let me repeat this again, The UK is a product of an international union between the Kingdoms of Scotalnd and England, therefore should that union cease to exist and the UK entity will cease to exist. This means that the UK union is not the superlative entity, but a depending one which relies on the constant upholding of the treaty of union by both, Scotland and England

        DT “something that might be well-nigh impossible if Scotland was to unilaterally declare independence”
        ==Mia-b Not “unilaterally declaring independence”. What you mean is unilaterally repealing the treaty of union, which Scotland is legitimately entitled to do.

        DT”In international law I think the situation is fairly clear; either the matter can be settled amicably, with both debt and assets being divided by agreement, or alternatively the newly independent state can walk away with no liability for any of the national debt, but not with any of the assets either save for those on its own territory”
        ==Mia-b Actually, yet again, you are demoting Scotland to the state of a region of the Kingdom of England, rather than a constitutive partner in an international bipartite union. What you mention above would apply to an entity like Catalonia, which has no treaty of union, but not to Scotland who is an equal partner in an bipartite international treaty and has more than enough grounds to declare such treaty null and void after successive breaches of fundamental conditions for that treaty to remain valid.

        DT I’m a bit annoyed with myself because I hadn’t intended to continue this conversation, but look what I’ve done. Go on, Mia, don’t you enjoy having someone who actually debates with you rather than just agrees with everything you say?
        ==Mia-b I most certainly do. I just wish that when you dismiss something you actually provided the evidence to back it up. Frankly I finding myself providing all the evidence and reading none, that makes the conversation a bit boring and repetitive.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. In support of my point
        “I am sure you are fully aware that the union was artificially maintained from day one and still is today.” above, I would like to include the protestation of Mr William Cochrane, delivered in the parliament of Scotland on January 1707 during the debate on resolutions concerning election of members to go to the first parliament of Great Britain. This man attempted to uphold the right of the people of Scotland to have a fair election and therefore I believe, 315 years later, he has earned his right to be vindicated:

        “[Protest from Mr William Cochrane]

        I, Mr William Cochran of Kilmaronock, doe protest in my own name, and in name of all those that shall adhere to this my protestation, that the electing of members to represent this part of the United Kingdome in the parliament of Great Brittain out of this present parliament, by the members of this house, is contrary to and inconsistent with the birthright and priviledges of the barrons and burrows of Scotland, that it is contrary to the principles of comon law and diverse acts of parliament, and directly opposite and contradictory to the express words and meaning of two severall paragraphs of the twenty-two article of the treaty of union betwixt Scotland and England, so lately ratified in this house. And I desire this my protestation may be insert in the minuts and recorded in the books of parliament, upon which I take instruments”

        It should be noted that the Duke of Hamilton issued a very similar protest:

        “I, James, duke of Hamilton etc., doe hereby protest for my self, and in name of all those who shall adhere to this my protestation, against the electing by this present parliament the sixteen peers and fourty-five barrons and burrows who are to represent Scotland in the first parliament of Great Brittain as inconsistent with the whole tenor of the twenty-second article of the treaty of union and contrary to the express words thereof, whereby it is provided that, after the tyme and place of the meeting of the said parliament is appointed by her majesties’ proclamation, which tyme shall not be less than fyfty dayes after the proclamation, a writt shall be immediatly issued under the great seall of Great Brittain [and] directed to the privy council of Scotland, for summonding the sixteen peers and for electing fourty-five members by whom Scotland is to be represented in the parliament of Great Brittain, and further, as utterly subversive of the right of election competent to the barrons and burrows of this kingdome. And desires this my protestation may be insert in the minuts and records of parliament, and thereupon takes instruments”

        Again, the selection of the 46 Mps and 16 peers to be sent to the parliament of Great Britain was not put to normal election because they were concerned the union that had just been born would not survive its first term. But this was not only a concern in Scotland. It was obviously also a concern in England, where there was no election at all, but rather all the MPs that were already in Parliament and the peers, among which there was a majority in support of the union simply continued into the first parliament of Great Britain. So the fact that the parliament of England did not change and that the newly selected MPs/peers from Scotland simply were added in was not due to Scotland being “absorbed” it was done to give the union a chance because if a real election either in Scotland or England had taken place, the union would not have survived its first parliament.

        This is taken from the records of the parliament of Scotland 20 January 1707:

        “Thereafter it was moved that, conform to the minuts of the fifteenth of January instant, the parliament proceed to consider the manner of electing the representatives for Scotland to the parliament of Great Brittain, wherupon a resolve was given in and read in these termes.

        Resolved that the sixteen peers and fourty-five commissioners for shyres and burghs, who are to be the members to the first parliament of Great Brittain for and on the part of Scotland, be chosen out of this present parliament, and that the members so chosen be the members of the first parliament of Great Brittain if her majestie shall declare, on or before the first of May next, that it is expedient that the lords and commons of the present parliament of England be the members of the first parliament of Great Britain for and on the part of England”

        It says; “it was expedient that the lords and commons of the present parliament of England be the members of the first parliament of Great Britain for and on the part of England”.

        Clearly neither the monarch nor the commissioners from Scotland and England in favour of the union had a hope in hell this union would have survived its first parliament if an actual election had taken place either Scotland or England.

        Ever since, how many lords on the part of Scotland sitting in Westminster actually support Scotland’s independence? I think this gives us a hint as to how this union has survived this long. That a real election not took place and instead MPs and peers supporting the union were chosen to represent Scotland in the first Great Britain parliament also suggests that the active suppression of Scotland’s will started in Scotland at the very time this union started and has been a permanent feature ever since, necessary for this union to survive.

        Liked by 3 people

      11. OK Mia, I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the debate. Perhaps sadly I’m going to halt it here, basically because I just don’t have the time at present to continue it. I also think that we have really reached to point where we are going round in circles. each of us repeating our arguments without there being the remotest possibility that either is going to change the other’s mind.

        But I am a bit disappointed that when I said that the question of the continuator state had never crossed my mind, you repled “Yeah, right. And blue pigs fly without wings”. Throughout this conversation I’ve done my best to be truthful and not to tell any porkies. When I said that the question of the continuator state hadn’t crossed my mind it was the truth – it hadn’t until you mentioned it. Certainly I was aware of the legal provisions regarding the continuator state, but they formed no part whatever in my thinking in this conversation and I can’t say I’ve any great view about it one way or the other – would it be better to assume a share of the old national assets but also take on a share of the national debt, much of which had been of no benefit to us, or would it be better to walk away with nothing but the assets on our own territory (which include internationally recognised maritime assets) but have no responsibility for any of the debt? As a lot of the existing assets would be of little use to us I’m inclined to the latter view.

        No doubt we’ll have further discussions!

        Like

  9. Brilliantly put, Mia. This is exactly what I have been trying to get across for years. With regard to number 3, the English government commissioned a paper asking what form of independence Scotland would take and stated that with Scotland already being independent WITHIN GB the option they would want is devo max. If I recall correctly it was Michael Moore who made that statement in the document.

    It appears to me that SNP are deliberately hobbling Scotland for the benefit of the English establishment and if push came to shove they would, as the English government stated, opt for Scotland going down the devo route though devo light not max and claiming independence within GB with the English government having a veto over Scotland.

    I spoke to an SNP Councillor the other day who stated SNP would put legislation forward by END OF THE DECADE. That’s another 8 years so 15 YEARS of carrot dangling just to ask a question, not even to implement the reassertion of Scotland’s full statehood, and presupposes that they would still be in office. The excuse for not ending the treaty before then was blamed on Covid and the Ukraine conflict! As I stated then, if Scotland’s current government are incapable of governing a fully reasserted Scottish state at a time of crisis then it’s probably best if they are not in office.

    Scotland does not need to wait for elections or referendums to assert its statehood. It can do so right at this very moment as the Scottish government are imbued with Scots sovereignty. The Vienna Convention is recognised and accepted internationally and can be used along with the fundamental right of Scotland to end the treaty unilaterally. Given there are those within the party who know this, why are they accepting the most ineffective and unnecessary route? Why do they refuse to assert Scotland’s sovereign authority if not to dissolve the treaty, to at the very least suspend it? Again, a right they have and yet will not exercise.

    I made this comment the other day and add it here as it highlights what you have said and the lack of action on the easiest and best way forward.

    “Below is an extract of the statement given by English government’s Conor Burns as England’s NI secretary of state for NI.
    Northern Ireland minister Conor Burns claimed on Wednesday evening that the UK Government would have to take unilateral action over the protocol if it could not resolve issues with the EU.
    Speaking to LBC’s Tonight With Andrew Marr programme, he said: “If the EU are saying to us that, and they’re not, I don’t think, yet at the position of saying there’s nothing more to talk about, then we will have to take actions to prioritise stability in Northern Ireland, powersharing in Northern Ireland, to protect the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, and that will mean intervention unilaterally, yes.”

    “Now if you replace the actors and correct the terminology and apply it to Scotland:

    “Scottish government minister, Blackford, stated on Wednesday evening that the Scottish Government would have to take unilateral action over the treaty of union if it could not resolve issues with the English (UK) Government.
    Speaking to LBC’s Tonight With Andrew Marr programme, he said: “If the English government are saying to us that there’s nothing more to talk about, then we will have to take actions to prioritise stability in Scotland to protect the institutions of Scotland and that will mean intervention unilaterally, yes.”

    “The article goes on to state that they, the English government, have the right to do so as it is sound in law due to English economic reasons.

    “Why then are Scot gov not making the same statement about dissolving the treaty of union?”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Why then are Scot gov not making the same statement about dissolving the treaty of union?”

      For a start, because they wouldn’t take the people with them. Some of us still have some idea about democracy. There are other reasons, but that first one is the most important. When a majority of our MPs stand on a manifesto commitment to withdraw from Westminster and dissolve the Treaty of Union and are elected, you may then have a point. Personally, I doubt very much if many of them would be elected on such a manifesto commitment.

      Like

      1. If you believe in electing a government as part of your display of democracy and you vote then the people have imbued the government which is elected with their sovereign authority. The claim that it is therefore undemocratic is false.

        Manifesto pledges are secondary and can be ignored. The primary obligations of a government take precedence. Those are to protect the Scottish state and its people from all forms of harm which include economic and terrestrial harm even from treaty partners. It is this that the English government is citing for unilaterally terminating the NI protocol.

        Like

      2. Gosh, I never thought of that one. You know you won’t be elected if you tell the electors what you’re going to do, so you don’t tell them and just give them a pack of lies instead. Then once you’re elected you do what you’re pretty sure very few of your electors would have wanted you to do but they all forgive you and fall into line and everyone lives happlly ever after. Genius!

        Liked by 1 person

    2. “Why then are Scot gov not making the same statement about dissolving the treaty of union?”

      In my personal opinion because Nicola Sturgeon never worked for Scotland and never wanted independence in the first place. She was just pretending to, biding her time to stop independence

      In my view, the eight months’ period between 18 September 2014 and 8 May 2015 was politically speaking one of the most dangerous threats to the union survival the dark state faced in the last 315 years.

      There was huge discontent in Scotland with the official result of the 2014 referendum and with the betrayal of the vow, which was well evident by then. It was dangerous because by that time it was already in the public domain that the people of Scotland was going to vote for the SNP in masse to castigate the colonial parties for the betrayal, and independence was the expectation among many, from sending a majority of SNP MPs.

      At that point in time, yes voters still saw the SNP as the healthy, democratic, reliable pro independence party that Mr Salmond had led and whose main aim was to restore Scotland’s statehood. Sending over 50 SNP MPs in such context, and worse, led by a man who was deadly serious about independence and who was bitter after being robbed of the opportunity of a yes win because of the disgusting interference of the British state, would no doubt signify the end of a terminally ill union and worse, an end to the tories rich donors’ brexit wet dream

      The support for the EU by Scotland was very obvious around the time of the referendum. It was also obvious that if Scotland had become independent at that point, it would rush back to the EU. England would have never been able to leave the EU and drop its standards unless it risked a hard border with Scotland and the loss of its market.

      Surrounded by hard borders to Scotland, France and Ireland, England would become totally isolated and with Scotland’s natural assets out of the equation, a smaller landmass and a astronomical debt without its cash cow helping paying for its vanity projects and its debt, its currency would tank, exacerbating even more the problem.

      Realistically, England could have only exited the EU as part of the UK, connected by an umbilical cord to Scotland’s assets and revenues and, of course, standing on the shoulders of Scotland to avoid sinking. That Scotland drowns in the process of keeping England afloat is just a collateral because seemingly, England’s economy and wellbeing is all what matters to every politician in Westminster and Holyrood.

      But more importantly, England’s ruling elite needed to ensure a hard border with Scotland would never happen. The only possible way this could have been done, without risking being exposed to the transparency laws of tax havens, was by abusing its position as an equal partner to keep Scotland permanently out of the EU against the expressed will of Scotland’s sovereign people by unilaterally rewriting its internal laws.

      In other words, Scotland had to be stopped from ending the union. And evidently, the best way to do it was by first disabling its political vehicle for independence and, in the longer term, rendering it worthless. Disenfranchised and divided yes voters would take years to reorganise themselves with another political vehicle. By then, the damage would have been done: Scotland’s assets would have been given away, its laws and policies changed to depart as far away from the EU as possible and brexit would have become the status quo.

      1. What is the fastest route to disable a political party? By taking over the leadership and masking its constitution with a phony manifesto.

      We saw a change in leadership of the SNP at the precise moment in time when the SNP was going to see its largest representation in Westminster since the SNP was born. Sturgeon also, for first time, in the advent of a landslide win for the SNP in GE2015, took the wheels off the SNP by claiming a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence. Instead, she included in the manifesto the phony request for “Full Financial Responsibility”, whatever the hell that meant.

      What Sturgeon’s offered us was a vote for a hybrid version between Dugdale’s confederation crap and Gordon Brown’s infamous Devo Max to the Max rebranded as “full fiscal responsiblity” and repackaged as an SNP policy that has a strong stench tat labour’s brainchild.

      2. How do you render a politcal party worthless? By installing a trojan horse inside its democratic structures that will cause them to implode, and by removing control from the hands of the membership.

      Isn’t that precisely what we saw since Sturgeon took over?

      3. How do you destroy the yes movement? By provoking its division.

      Again, Isn’t this precisely the objective of Sturgeon’s continuous denying us of a campaign and by forcing on us toxic, unbelievably unpopular, divisive policies?

      Remember how many times we were told by Gordon Brown and Cameron and others that “we could not have another referendum”? Well, guess what? A political fraud in control of the party to which we have given countless mandates for a referendum, has been denying us that referendum for 6 years. The problem is that with the excuse of the referendum, she has been also denying us access to any other route to end the union for 7 years.

      Remember how fast Sturgeon run away from a plebiscite election in 2021? We should run bets on how fast she runs from a plebiscite election in 2024 and then watch Robertson or the replacement puppet successor beat the record and run even faster in 2026. May be her trip to the USA is not to deliver a speech in some think tank or another, but rather to Nasa to test some bigger jets to put under her feet and run away from any plebiscite election in the horizon faster.

      I have tried, but the only way I can make any sense of what Sturgeon has been doing for the last 8 years and the way she has wasted every opportunity and turned a blind eye to every assault on Scotland’s rights and assets is if she is just another part of the British state whose fundamental mission was always to manage the threat posed by the yes movement by first neutering the SNP, then eliminating any route for any potential leader to get control of the SNP, then permanently stalling the yes movement to stop it growing and then finally by causing it to implode in buried in internal divisions. I am convinced this political fraud is simply waiting for the best time and opportunity to help the British state foist on us some form of enhanced devolution as an innocuous alternative to independence.

      I am convinced we have been fooled big time and that the 2014 referendum (just like the 2016 EU one) was always going to be just window dressing. A “benevolent” exercise just to demonstrate how accommodating to Scotland and “democratic” this undemocratic by design union was. Of course, everything that happened since 19 September 2014 has demonstrated that this union is not and never will be democratic.

      When you look at the whole thing retrospectively, you actually wonder how on earth could yes have ever won. We had a dodgy franchise, as it was demonstrated by the gloating of the MSM rubbing on our faces that we had been robbed of a yes win by external settlers. Then, during the indyref campaign we had entities with HQ outwith Scotland pumping cash on the better together campaign, effectively giving a channel for foreign interests to trash our democratic campaign. Then we had Uk civil servants abandoning their code of practice, principles and ethics and got their hands up to their elbows in politics “to save the union”. We also had an squadron of old hasbeens and useful idiots of the British state announcing the apocalypse if Scotland ended the union. We had the “national” broadcaster and the entire MSM pumping propaganda and fearmongering 24/7. We had foreign politicians and individuals in other roles, undemocratically and arrogantly sticking their uninvited noses in our business. We had elements of the british state abusing power, sticking their hands in the process and gerrymandering it, like the case of Davidson knowing about the result of the postal votes even before the official counting had actually started, or releasing the vow in the middle of purdah. We had leaders of England parties, individuals that did not live in Scotland and could not possibly participate in the referendum, also direclty inviting themselves to interfere.

      Very revealingly, on the week yes surpassed No, Leanne Wood asked Cameron, the then FM, what safeguards were in place and what plans were in place if a yes vote would win. Cameron said that none. In other words, he knew yes would never win.

      The beast that was really simmering behind doors was brexit, so the independence referendum had to be taken out of the way quickly to ensure England’s elite could have their corrosive brexit.

      When you put the dates of all the events related to brexit and the indy referendum on a timeline, you start to see odd things and that there appeared to be a very unhealthy collusion between the timing of both referendums. For example, an element in this timeline was the convenient trashing of FFA for Scotland in Westminser by England MPs , despite this being what Sturgeon had asked for and having a huge democratic mandate for. But then of course, if FFA has been approved at that point, England Mps would not have been able to easily steal our devolved powers with the advent of brexit.

      We also had the Westminster vote by which England Mps violated the Claim of Right and every principle of democracy when they gave themselves a veto over Scotland’s vote in the EU referendum. This was of course to ensure brexit would win, because at that time should Scotland had a veto, as it should, brexit would have never won.

      Then of course we had the unilateral triggering of A50 that directly violated Scotland’s constitutional rights and that should have invalidated A50. But Sturgeon and her worthless SNP chose to turn a blind eye.

      More recently we had the passing of the Withdrawal bill, that directly assaulted Scotland’s sovereignty and that unlawfully included the English convention of parliamentary sovereignty in UK law when the ancient English parliament could have never conferred parliamentary sovereignty to Scotland’s MPs and the ancient parliament of Scotland could not have possibly conferred to Scotland’s MPs sitting in Westminster, what it did not have. Again, Sturgeon turned a blind eye as did the amoebas that call themselves SNP in Westminster.

      Things like these signal something fishy with indyref14, GE2015 and the EU ref. There is an overpowering stench of false democracy and window dressing.

      A functional majority of SNP MPs in 2015 when the population of Scotland was most heated after the dodgy official 2014 result and with assault after assault on Scotland in preparation for the EU ref and after it, if led by a real pro independence leader like Mr Salmond, would have ended the union before the transition period had ended, frustrating brexit for England.

      This to me explain why civil service, Sturgeon’s gov, the higher echelons of Sturgeon’s infected SNP, and the other tools of the british state, went after Mr Salmond, and in doing so, exposing their vindictiveness, their utter incompetence, lack of principles and corruption, undemocratic character. They did this by making up as they went along an unlawful procedure that was never designed to whitstand the pressure of a court of law.

      But this also explains why Sturgeon couldn’t remove the wheels of the SNP fast enough as soon as she became the leader and why Mr Salmond had to be ejected from the SNP. For as long as he remained in it, he could influence that majority of MPs.

      I would be less surprised today if somebody tells me Sturgeon will be the next labour or libdem leader than if somebody tells me this individual has not been working covertly for the British state and against the independence movement since at least she took over the SNP leadership on 14 Nov 2014 and probably earlier.

      For as long as Sturgeon and the next British state tool Robertson are in control of the party, the option of repealing the treaty of union will never be offered to us. If we want it we will have to pursue it through a route that completely bypasses an SNP that has been destroyed from within by political frauds.

      I have serious doubts, and have had them for quite some time now, that Mr Salmond left the leadership of the party voluntarily and that he was not “encouraged” some how. The contrast in leadership from his efficient hand to the floppy and unprincipled one of Sturgeon could not be more dramatic. Watching how Ms Cherry was removed out of the way to catapult Robertson to the Edinburgh seat was sickening and suspicious. Looking retrospectively and deeply, Mr Salmond never failed to win the referendum. The result was clearly robbed. He would have won if the referendum had it been a fair exercise in democracy and if all the many dirty backdoors used by the British state’s arms to undemocratically and unlawfully stick their hand and interfere to stop a yes vote, had been properly closed.

      Politically speaking, we have had since 14 Nov 2014 a completely useless pretender attempting to hide Mr Salmond’s shoes away because she cannot possibly fill them. In fact, the longer she remains in power, the larger those shoes become and the smaller her political figure as a trustworthy leader becomes. Despite her best efforts to suffocate the yes campaign, to divide it and to revert its momentum, the only thing this political fraud has successfully managed to achieve is to stall its progression and completely taint the credibility of everything she touches, from the government she claims to lead, to parliament, the civil service, the COPFS, the Justice System and the party.

      The urgency of what looks very much like a dodgy collusion between the British state, Sturgeon’s gov and the higher echelons of the SNP to push Mr Salmond away from politics, ended up morphing into a scorched earth strategy that has exposed cabinet ministers, party executive, COPFS, the civil service, parliamentary committees, judges, press and the police as the unholy opaque, undemocratic and repressive rogue state tool and information suppression machine.

      The complaints procedure and everything related to the civil and criminal cases and then the embarrassing saga of the alphabets, will forever demonstrate that Mr Salmond was seen as a huge existential threat to the union. Sturgeon by contrast is clearly trusted as innocuous and with enough lack of loyalty to make her compliant.

      In January 2013 yes support was around 23% (from the guardian, article by Severin Carrell of 23 January 2013). Against all odds, Mr Salmond’s leadership put that support over 50% around a week before the referendum. Despite Sturgeon’s attempts to suffocate the yes movement, after 8 years of watching a constitutional hazard like Sturgeon bulldozing the party, women’s rights, every democratic structure and justice service Scotland, the level of support for independence remains still stubbornly around 47%.How such achievement by Mr Salmond could ever be seen as anything other than an almighty and embarrassing failure by the British state apparatus and its FM puppet to uphold the union narrative is beyond me.

      The last 8 years have been an exercise in managing the yes movement to stop it growing further, to disenfranchise it and to isolate it from any real political vehicle that could be used by this movement to effect the end of the union leaving England without its brexit. This is all what Sturgeon appears to have been doing and will probably continue to do for as long as she remains in power. After many years, when all our assets had been given away, our people has been exploited and our country is left close to barren, riddled with England’s decaying nuclear waste, then we will be spitted out, but as a seceding state, mind, not as an equal partner who has dissolved the treaty. The latter cannot be allowed because England has to retain all the goodies Scotland has been contributing to and helped create.

      It was always about England and nothing but England. 8 years for now will be almost impossible for Scotland to return to the EU, so England will have removed the existential threat of hard borders all around, but at the expense of Scotland’s wealth, demographics, autonomy, democratic rights and sovereignty.

      The entry of Scotland in this union was by force to help England pay its debt and to be used as cannon fodder in England’s wars. In 1707 Scotland was denied a fair election that could risk sending to Westminster anti-union MPs that would terminate the union. I guess at that time the word “nationalist” was not in use. 315 years later and absolutely nothing has changed. Now, we may be able to send Nationalists to Westminster, but only after England’s dark state has placed a puppet in control of our nationalist party to render those nationalist MPs useless and nationalists only in name.

      Clearly, the existence and permanence of this union relies on the continuous repression of democracy.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Indeed, an illusion of democracy that fails when it is inspected. My view on Sturgeon is much like your own. When you look at regime changes around the world this would match what has happened in Scotland but without changing the party mainly because there was no other that could credibly take its place.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. With regard to DavyTee’s assertion that Scotland is not an equal partner:

    “All Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void”.

    This applies to the terms of trade and bringing them into alignment between both signatory countries.

    The treaty articles states that all rights prior to and after the signing are to remain in effect with regard private right and public utility. The constitutions of both countries are upheld in full which is why the English Henry VIII laws were invoked by the English Government which styles itself “UK”. Scotland’s sovereignty and independence were merely reiterated in the 1689 Claim of Right. but are formally enshrined in its ancient laws and customs which are held in perpetuity and form the foundation of the Scottish constitution. Scotland’s government deferring governance to the English government is not the same as not having sovereignty or the English government having dominion over Scotland. It is a political choice to defer governance. Not a legal one. Likewise, conventions do not have legal authority. They can be disregarded which is why the English government are currently trying to write conventions into English law and all that the parliament of GB has is convention, English parliamentary conventions which should be roundly rejected by the Scottish government. Nowhere in the treaty is there a government of Great Britain despite there being a parliament. If there had been it would be stated specifically as this is a legal document and specifics matter. What you have is the express condition that both governments would sit in the parliament of GB as equals.

    The false narrative is that Scotland with fewer MPs meant it was not equal. What this fails to take into account is that Scotland was not governed by parliament but primarily by kirks and various charters unlike in England when the treaty was drawn up by the queen’s commissioners and ratified by parliament. Nor does it take into account the fundamental right of Sovereign nation states. It is this fundamental right that is exercised by treaty partners which lawyers and indeed former PMs of England cite when they state that no sovereign state can be held in a treaty against its will and used in the Vienna Convention and UN Charter. To claim the signatories to a treaty are not equal is to fail to understand what sovereignty is. Sovereignty is SUPREME authority. It cannot be superceded. It can be shared but never superceded or given away. It is an inalienable, fundamental, right.

    The article “The Union and the Law Revisited” in the Scots Law Journal is worth a read, as are the references.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. DT: “All laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void”
      G: This applies to terms of trade and bringing them into alignment between both signatory countries”
      DT: No it doesn’t. It’s Clause XXV which save for the subsequent Tenor stands by itself and makes no mention of trade.

      G: “The treaty articles states that all rights prior to and after the signing are to remain in effect with regard private right and public utility.”
      DT: You have quoted only part. The full text reads: ‘That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Customs, and such Excises, to which Scotland is, by virtue of this Treaty, to be liable, be the same in Scotland, from and after the Union, as in England; and that all other laws in use, within the Kingdom of Scotland, do, after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in the same Force as before, (except such as are contrary to, or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by the Parliament of Great-Britain, with this Difference betwixt the Laws concerning public Right, Polity, and Civil Government, and those which concern private Right; that the Laws which concern
      public Right, Polity, and Civil Government, may be made the same throughout the whole
      united Kingdom; but that no Alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right, except
      for evident Utility of the Subjects within Scotland”. So no alteration to “private right”, but all other laws that are not inconsistent with the terms of the Treaty to remain as they are but being always liable to change by the new GB parliament.

      G: “The constitutions of both countries are upheld in full”
      DT: Really? Where does the Treaty or Act say that? The Scots may have hoped that that might be the case, but it’s not in the Treaty.

      G: “Scotland’s government deferring governance to the English government is not the same as not having sovereignty or the English government having dominion over Scotland. It is a political choice to defer governance.”
      DT: For goodness sake. Look at the Articles of Treaty and their terms. Look at the respective prosperity of the two countries in 1706. Look at everything that has happened since. Genuinely sovereign countries do not defer government to another country and continue to do so for 300+ years.

      G: “Nowhere in the treaty is there a government of Great Britain despite there being a parliament. If there had been it would be stated specifically as this is a legal document and specifics matter. “
      DT: Really? How about this: “That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain” and ‘That the united Kingdom of Great-Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of Great-Britain.“ The purpose of Parliament, of course, is to govern.

      G: “….no sovereign state can be held in a treaty against its will……To claim the signatories to a treaty are not equal is to fail to understand what sovereignty is. Sovereignty is SUPREME authority.
      D: I agree that no sovereign state should be held in a treaty against its will, but unfortunately Scotland has up until now been a willing part of the United Kingdom. When it was given the chance of independence it turned it down. And yes, sovereignty is indeed supreme authority and Scotland had that when it entered into the Treaty of Union. Unfortunately, whatever people might suggest, it hasn’t had it since. That doesn’t mean to say that it can’t regain it.

      G: What you have is the express condition that both governments would sit in the parliament of GB as equals
      D: Express condition? Where does it say that? All I can find is that England will have 400+ MPs and Scotland will have 46 plus 16 peers. Nothing very equal about that, or for that matter in all the other provisions that require English practice to replace Scots.

      G: The false narrative is that Scotland with fewer MPs meant it was not equal. What this fails to take into account is that Scotland was not governed by parliament but primarily by kirks and various charters
      D: I’m sorry but that’s nonsense. Scotland has a proud record of parliamentary government going back to at least 1235 and subsequently parliament played an important part in governing the country over the next 472 years..

      Like

      1. 1) Yes it does. What was ratified by parliament was a trade agreement. The terms of which are set out in the treaty. The only laws that were to be altered were those that needed to be brought into alignment across the state. There is provision within the treaty to alter future legislation pertaining to trade and its associated taxes. However, while the treaty does say it may be changed by the parliament of GB it does not say by the English government. The treaty repeatedly states both Scottish and English Governments when referring to their respective countries not government of GB. Allowing for the conditions pertaining to trade and associated taxes, the treaty upholds all rights prior to and after the signing. There is no abolition of any treaty, declaration, covenant nor convention within the 1707 Treaty as it did not and does not have the authority to do so. In Scotland the monarch has limited sovereign authority as the people are sovereign and the two sets of commissioners acted on her behalf in her separate capacities. As much as you may wish the fundamental rights of Scotland were non existent that is simply not the case.

        2) See above

        3) That’s right, the constitution is not specifically cited in the 1707 Treaty because it was an international trade Agreement. What is omitted from a treaty is as important as what is included within it. There is NO constitution of GB because as cited above it was a trade agreement and the monarch did not and does not have the authority to abolish the Scottish constitution. The fact that the English constitution is still used to this day when drawing up English legislation is evidence that even the English government and its establishment do not consider their constitution to have been replaced by a new constitution of GB. Especially when one is not provided for in the terms of the treaty.

        4) I have looked at the terms and nowhere does it grant dominion to the English government nor abolish Scots sovereignty. Again, the monarch did not and does not have that authority in Scotland. And Scotland’s independence and sovereignty are enshrined in the Scottish constitution in perpetuity. It is why Michael Moore (if I recall correctly) stated Scotland IS independent WITHIN GB when discussing what form of independence Scotland would take if it voted yes, As for prosperity in 1706. Interesting you should cite that given Scotland took n England’s debts and not the other way around. England is and always has been, since before the 1707 treaty, bankrupt due to its constant warring. Additionally, the deference only came into play after the Scottish government sought England’s help to end the civil wars that were raging in Scotland. It was not an immediate deference, as stated above Scotland was governed primarily by the kirks and various charters. While Scotland had a parliament it was used more to settle disputes that could not be settled locally. The function of parliament in Scotland was different to that of England. After the banning of all things Scottish in a bid to quell further unrest the Scottish government deferred to the English government. It is testimony to the fundamental breach of treaty that Scots have been raised with a false narrative claiming the English government under its newly adopted political name of “UK” has sole authority. Again, this narrative is shown to be false in the continued separation of the crown in both countries not a merging of the crowns into one and the legal requirement to have Scotland sign off on legislation for it to have legal effect in Scotland. So what you have are Scots with a wounded psyche being elected into office where they then adopt English parliamentary conventions, conventions which neither have legal weight and can thus be ignored nor should exist in the new parliament of GB. Given the Scottish government was not returned until fairly recently as Scots foolishly voted for English political parties to govern them, it is hardly surprising they would fail to assert Scotland’s authority when they have not had to take responsibility nor accountability since the current English system came into effect within the parliament of GB.

        5) Yes, specifics matter. What the article specifies is the creation of a binary parliament not the creation of a new government. If a new singular government were created it would say the governments of the kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England would merge into one and be stiled the government of GB. Furthermore, it would state government of GB throughout the treaty. Nowhere in the treaty is there such a government. The purpose therefore of the binary parliament was to house both governments as equals. It is also why the Scottish government were roundly mocked when they left for a few hours only to go straight back in. If Scottish government were to relinquish their seats in the parliament of GB it would constitute a breach of the treaty.

        6) .Scotland may not have exercised its sovereignty on day to day matters but that does not equate to not having it. Scotland is a sovereign nation state in an international agreement. Its sovereignty cannot be superceded even with a treaty as it is a fundamental, inalienable and inherent right. This is why the sovereign right of states who are signatories to treaties are written into international law.

        7) Again, the number of MPs and Peers represents the governments of each country at that moment in time. England governed was by parliament hence the larger number. It did not bestow upon England dominion based on MP, population nor vote numbers. The equal status is due to both signatories being sovereign nation states and enjoying all the rights that come with it. This is expressed throughout the treaty.

        And while we are covering the treaty, the Treaty of Union begins with the creation of the binary parliament of Great Britain in which both countries governments are to sit as equal partners with equal authority.

        there is NO state:

        Government of Great Britain (named UK or otherwise)

        Institutions bar a shared treasury with equal representation.

        Military.

        Border.

        Religion.

        Constitution

        Legal System.

        Parliamentary sovereignty nor clause transferring English parliamentary sovereignty onto the parliament of Great Britain.

        Party political system.

        Majority Rule nor clause granting dominion based on majority of MPs or population.

        Capital.

        However, there is a termination clause which includes violation to:

        The territory of either country

        Their legal systems

        Combining of their religions

        Failure to uphold their rights in full as held and exercised prior to and after the signing.

        Held within the treaty:

        Both countries are legally equal partners with equal authority to the state

        Both countries retain all their rights prior to and after the signing. – In Scotland’s case these included sovereignty and independence as they are held in perpetuity as part of its ancient laws and customs and are enshrined in the Scots constitution as well as in various international declarations, treaties and covenants.

        What can’t the treaty do:

        Abolish other international treaties and declarations entered into prior to the treaty of union by either country.

        Abolish the constitutions of either country.

        Impose dominion.

        Impose laws of either country on the other.

        Create laws that change the nature of the treaty (Breaches to the treaty).

        Here it must be noted that a convention is not law and while the English government and its establishment may claim to have repealed Articles to the treaty it does not follow that they ever had the right to do so.

        “Obvious mistakes in legislating is not a good reason to follow the practice”. – Professor Regius Emeritus of law, David Walker

        In short, everything that would have made it a political union was specifically omitted from the Agreements leaving only an agreement of trade between the two countries (Wales having been brought in under England as a Principally at the time) with conditions that would bring both countries trade laws into alignment with one another and provision to adapt the terms of the treaty with regards to trade at a later date in order to maintain economic cohesion.

        Like

      2. Ian Lawson, thank you. Worth looking at also is the remit of the queen’s commissioners which was to preserve and strengthen the ancient kingdom of Scotland.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. “What was ratified by parliament was a trade agreement…..”

        I have to confess that when I first read Gayle’s post I wondered if it was a spoof, conjured up by Mia and others for a laugh at my expense. It would have been funny. But actually, I don’t think it is a spoof. Instead, from the very first statement that I have quoted it verges on the delusional. If Gayle wants to believe these things, I suppose that’s up to her. But I’m not going to waste my time answering delusions. I really can’t be bothered.

        Like

  11. ‘Nothing short of all-out war led by the US & UK will stop the inevitable disintegration of the so-called ‘United’ Kingdom; leading to the unceremonious end of the British Monarchy; the fall of the Anglosphere ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence-sharing apparatus which will result in a blunted NATO and with it; an independent Scotland’s red-line removal of the UK/US nuclear weapons from our most populated City of Glasgow. Regardless of pretext Tory militarisation is inevitable.’ #TickTockTroops

    ‘Devo-Max: Ireland 1922 to Scotland 2022 – Live. Die. Repeat.’ (2022) https://wp.me/p94Aj4-30z

    Johnny McNeill
    #GaslightingGilligan (© 2017) 
    Twitter: @GasGilligan (free download)

    Like

  12. Mia you are a star! The idea that we would ever be allowed by Westminster/the British establishment to negotiate withdrawal from the Union would be hilarious if it was not such a dangerous illusion. And exactly what Westminster would have us believe in the teeth of the facts. Hmmm
    Two things:
    1. It is entirely possible to take the govt to court and especially so in Scotland which came within an inch of putting the king on trial for Glencoe, (however our ignorance of Scottish political history may have ‘filled in the blanks’ with narratives we refuse to surrender). Scotland also had and still has on the statute books, the means of striking down any parliamentary act by the express will of the people. (Salvo by the Court of Session as well as the Act of Salvo by parliament.) Is this something parliament would ever do, or need to do, strike down its own legislation through an appeal to the Court of Session? So who could possibly use that avenue? Answer: the people via the highest authority in the land, the Convention of the Estates which comprised elected representatives (MPs), clergy, lairds and – through a national election – representatives from the Burghs and shires of Scotland. Representing the sovereignty of the people over *all* other courts.
    2 The tribunal form of the CoE iterated the crimes that delegitimise a government. In theory this Convention, which evolved entirely separately from parliament, was never abolished and remains protected under the Claim of Right. Which leaves open the simple action of convening it to consider the constitutional crimes set out by the CoR and declaring the power of the violating govt forfeit in Scotland. It’s a matter of criminal charges and a verdict not a referendum. And it is eminently doable.

    Mia, I believe that in 1703 an act was passed by the Scottish Parliament making it high treason to so much as suggest alteration to the Claim of Right!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: