A guest post from Sara Salyers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let that sink in. Please.



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.


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.

57 thoughts on “SO HOW COULD IT WORK?

  1. Yes, Sara, this makes total sense. And is extremely uplifting.

    Aligning such an assembly with the extraordinary work of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation committee, established by Nelson Mandela and guided by Desmond Tutu would allow us to hear evidence on the civic actions that have been perpetrated to rob Scotland of dignity, respect and self-sufficiency. If we heard evidence under the stipulation that we only want to acknowledge the truth, and that no-one will be prosecuted, then we can also gather evidence for what would be required for a fair, modern constitution, probably based on John Rawls’s “Justice as Fairness”, that is designed to serve a 21st Century sovereign people.

    Doing that work for Scotland peacefully could inspire the development of proper participative democracies fit for a world with serious problems.

    Your work is stupendous.


    Liked by 20 people

      1. So grateful for your work Sara – there is a clear path for a courageous Scotland to walk.
        The problem with this? The FM wants a UN job – more than anything – and this requires the UK PM to approve it. She is dancing to the UKG tune, destroying Scotlands hopes and dreams, to get the tick for her wretched global trans activist role that trumps everything. The last act of this traitor will be to force through a broken referendum that she will ensure is lost. She will agree to union without a choice for 50 years in return for for her unprepared, ill timed referendum as her incompetent and unlawful administration finally hits the headlines. Exit Nicoliar, job done, to the calm waters of the UN … any SNP MSPs not catching her coat tails to the UN might like to consider where this will leave then.

        Liked by 14 people

      2. Thanks Sara… Looking to what was achieved in Africa when it came to overthrowing Apartheid, and the debates it sparked…

        The book by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, “No Future without Forgiveness”, really puts into perspective how much went into doing truth and reconciliation properly. It’s hard to think of him sitting on the committee for years – listening to everything. The listebed to awful things … But they had a purpose… And though it cost them, they made a new way forward… Based on Ubuntu… I am because you are …

        Woke Soyinka’s book, “The Burden of Memory, The Muse of Forgiveness” keeps a clear-sighted view of the case for reparations too.

        I am more with Tutu… But, Soyinka is compelling…

        Scotland is Presbyterian enough to do a Truth and Reconciliation committee carefully and humanely. And it may be our safest way forward.

        Liked by 9 people

    1. I normally respect and enjoy your comments to the various posts Tom but in this instance I am vehemently opposed to including a prosecutional guarantee exclusion for traitors and collaborators who have inflicted great harm on families , children , OAP’s and the disabled DELIBERATELY whilst languishing in luxury and carefree subsidised meals at our expense

      Why should these (I hesitate to call them people) avoid any penalty or prosecution for deliberately subverting , misinforming or sabotaging our right to proper democratic decisions being made by informed educated people , all so that they can reap the rewards of their treachery and treason against their mother country

      Why should they enjoy the perks of their lies and corruption , the riches they have accrued from their despicable actions , the properties they have acquired at home and abroad , the grandiose lifestyle they have enjoyed whilst our citizens are FORCED to suffer the indignity of attending foodbanks and begging for food , with the additional request that any food given not having to be cooked because the person cannot afford the gas or electricity charges to cook the items in a ENERGY RICH country , whilst our FM literally gives away our energy to corporations who are IMPOSING unaffordable charges on our people

      So I am sorry Tom I will not agree to excluding prosecutions , if anything I will INSIST on them

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Hi twathater, and thanks for that nice message… I like to read your comments too. And I know forgiveness/punishment is a tricky issue, because many people have benefitted from taking advantage for a long time. Making them face the consequences is exactly the thinking of a lot of people. And it is more than reasonable. Wole Soyinka expressed very similar opinions in distinction to the approach taken by Desmond Tutu, on the much harder issue of dealing with colonial beneficiaries in Africa. At any meeting of the estates here, the observations you make would need to be considered. And in a communal setting the convention would need to decide what would be the best way forward.

        A big worry about trying to find out everything of who needs to be investigated for what they did, would be that people who know unsalutary truths would go underground, and we might never get to the bottom of everything that happened: the Labour Party is easily as culpable as the Tories and the Lib Dems… and the Civil Service has played a very powerful role in modern Scotland (making up and pursuing unlawful and unprofessional practice willy-nilly), and, well it goes on and on. We could be years chasing those things up rather than building a new constitution.

        We could expect a meeting of the estates to decide the best approach. I really don’t know what people would want on reflection, but I am really glad to see you put that case so well. It needs to be discussed, and then we need to decide what to do, in order to change, shape our constitution and keep our parliament under control.


        Liked by 2 people

      2. A proviso if we wipe the slate clean. None of them get to stand and/or serve again, and we might forgive, but we don’t forget.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. Thank you for your response Tom , and I do understand that anger can be a destructive force and also that we may never get closure on things of the past , but when I bring to mind the damage and destruction these people have inflicted on innocent citizens I am outraged . I am 71 years of age and have had a blessed life I have worked hard for everything I have but I have also experienced poverty , that poverty was at the hands of a socialist LIEbour government who took corruption to a new level , a level which the current snp crop are eager to bypass

        I personally cannot forgive the deliberate LIES and misinformation excreted by these self serving criminals or the promises airily thrown about to people who invested their TRUST and finances in those promises for a better future , EVEN NOW those LYING PROMISES come so easy to scum whose only intention is to PROLONG THE GRAVY TRAIN and they have the audacity to call themselves the honourable whatever

        In our constitution I would insist that ALL government officials and employees swear allegiance to Scotland with a further condition that dishonesty in office is IMMEDIATE termination

        Liked by 2 people

      4. A response to imacg who wrote ” A proviso if we wipe the slate clean. None of them get to stand and/or serve again, and we might forgive, but we don’t forget.”

        Do you think that would be a deterrent imacg , to walk away with their riches they have stolen and their nice homes here and abroad that Scots taxpayers have paid for whilst our bairns and old people go hungry or cold that they have presided over

        I watch police programmes where people get caught without car insurance (sorry humza) and they get fined a couple of hundred pounds if that and many are repeat offenders , for them to take out car insurance legitimately it may cost them £1000 how many times do they have to get caught where it becomes uneconomical ,
        I pay something like £300 for insurance because it is legislation to have it
        would you say that it is a deterrent being fined £250 when you SHOULD be paying £1000 or would you say I AM A MUG

        Liked by 1 person

      5. After some thought, I agree. Let history not only show a ‘record of fame’ but also include a ‘catalogue of shame’ Iceland’s reaction to the banking crisis, by jailing bankers was the correct thing to do IMO. Stamp on corruption, greed etc. from the start.

        Liked by 1 person

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

    I like this.

    It appears to describe an opinion poll with a sample of folk representating the different strata that comprise our population and society. If the “opinion poll” finds “the accused” (in this case the Westminster British Government and Parliament) of acting against the wishes of the people as in being guilty on ANY ONE of “the charges” (or questions) then they are found “guilty”.


    My only additional comment would be that the “findings” of the “jury” are supported by a plebiscite that endorses and ratifies the decision of the Convention – is a survey of the full population in order to obtain the will of the people also envisaged as (the final) part of the process of breaking free?

    Liked by 12 people

    1. It would have to do that. The findings would have to be published. The fact that the legitimacy of Westminster in Scotland was ‘forfeit’ and the options for a new government and Treaty ( we would need some kind of treaty with the rest of the U.K.) presented to the people.
      I’d argue strenuously that the existing constitution, which is beautiful and puts the common good at the heart of the purpose and obligation of all government, should be the basis and starting point of the kind of constitution you describe. And I’d add that inspiration for the ‘tribunal’ itself could not be better than that which tombkane suggest, the principle of the S. African truth and reconciliation committee

      Liked by 14 people

  3. There’s one slight problem. The principles and practices were enacted previously in Scotland because a significant percentage of the population had the means to oppose any disruption. How would you prevent the British state from doing this?

    Liked by 7 people

    1. No guarantees when it comes to the British establishment but: 1. Groundswell. Perception in politics is everything as the propaganda campaigns against Salmond, Murray and Alba clearly show. On those cases the truth contradicted the narrative but narrative won! In our case the truth is on our side but we will have to find ways to control the narrative. Blackbird just gave us an enormous advantage but we can’t afford to lose that or have it redirected. 2. International recognition of a constitution that meets every requirement for that recognition 3. Testing in the Court of Session of specific CoR provisions for example the right to protest. The latter two are in the hands of a far greater strategist who is far better connected than anyone in the Salvo group. The first, the groundswell is what we’re working on! But you are right. We are up against a ruthless and powerful establishment and all we can do is play as cleverly as we can and try to anticipate meet the dirty tricks as they come up.

      Liked by 14 people

  4. The more you read the more you realise that we need to get the message out to the wider public that a referendum is NOT the only way to secure independence, and that there are other better more effective ways to independence.

    The last referendum ran the union close. But it was given by David Cameron because his assessment was that it was something that could not be won. And when the clamour for independence breached 50%, and some say public opinion was nearer 60%, every step was pulled out to undermine the vote.

    This time round, if whenever that is, the establishment has deeper developed strategies. The establishment has planned well and any referendum given will be a trap. It cannot be anything else. But a referendum is NOT the constitutional route, and it is a real facet of colonial interference that the public is being led to believe that referendum is the only way.

    Sara Salyers proposition very much promulgates how independence could be taken and not by a dead end rigged establishment referendum. This is the message that needs to be widened as we move to get the wheels back on our movement.

    Liked by 21 people

  5. Blackford states from HoC that parliamentary sovereignty does not apply in Scotland. Fine. He also made certain not only to do nothing afterwards, ie, he quietly remains a Westminster player, but that his speech was littered with route-to-independence trip-wires:

    “.. those rights were enshrined in the Claim of Right that was so instrumental in delivering our devolved parliament” – Blackford conveniently marries CoR with devolution, and falsely implies the the referendum for a devolved parliament was ‘gained’ as a result of our CoR; it wasn’t. Devolution came about predominantly as a result of pressure from outwith the UK, to improve Scotland’s democracy. Devolution has absolutely nothing to do with our CoR, as Blackford is subtly setting-out (read ‘selling-out’) for Scots.

    Blackford continues:
    “..and is the case today as we seek to exercise our rights in an independence referendum” – this sets-out, very clearly, in England’s parliament, that the SNP will not only continue to pursue S30 but that a ‘referendum’, with its loaded franchise and suspect ballot box, is their preferred route-to-independence – do you trust Scotland’s future with this approach, with this MP? No, of course not.

    ‘Mr Speaker’: “..time and time again the People of Scotland have spoken” (yet here we remain?) “..and they want a choice – the choice to chose our own future”.. the emphasis on ‘choice’ is, once again, Blackford’s betrayal that, no matter that ‘the People of Scotland have spoken’, the SNP will lead us down the referendum-with-conditions route and to certain failure.

    Blackford waffles-on: “..and the longer that Scottish democracy speaks the louder it will get”. Wings over Scotland’s recent survey exposes Blackford’s statement as the polar opposite of his claim. Scotland’s desire for independence is going nowhere under his SNP.

    Let’s not forget, Blackford’s approach to independence has previously been exposed, by Alex Salmond, of being ‘inimical to the interests of the Party’. Anyone trusting in the SNP and their Westminster representatives have been assimilated.

    Brilliant work, Sara. I’m encouraged by your intelligent, sensible route to Scotland’s independence. I foresee a burgeoning ‘jury’ of brilliant, like-minded pro-independence Scots finally delivering what we, the People, care about for our country.

    Liked by 15 people

  6. This is not realistic. The 1689 Claim of Right was not and is not a constitution; it was an instrument by which the then Parliament of Scotland dismissed a monarch. It does not contain or set out any rules or mechanism for the future, although clearly it can be seen as setting a precedent.

    That Parliament – meeting as Convention of the Estates for admin reasons – consisted of unelected nobility and Burgh Commissioners, at best indirectly elected by men with sufficient property. Not exactly an expression of “popular sovereignty”, was it?

    I’d also like to know if anyone has done the maths on this. How many of our current MPs, MSPs and councillors are pro-independence? By my count, not even 50%.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “it was an instrument by which the then Parliament of Scotland dismissed a monarch”

      I think you are confusing Scotland with England. In England the bill of rights was passed by England’s parliament. But this was not the case in Scotland.

      The Claim of Right was not written by the Parliament of Scotland, but by the Convention of the Estates, a parallel and separate entity. Therefore the Claim of Right is a prime example that demonstrates the Parliament of Scotland never had “unlimited” sovereignty. It couldn’t, when it was another entity who was given the power to “dismiss” a monarch.

      The convention of states had representation from bishops, barons and burghs, not just nobiliy.

      The Burghs represented towns/areas that enjoyed some form of self-government. It would be the equivalent of our current town councils I guess. It cannot get to be more “popular sovereignty” than that.

      By the way, the convention of states was preceded by the General Council of Scotland, also sister to the Parliament of Scotland. It raised taxes and issued legislation. Again, further proof that the parliament of Scotland never had “unlimited sovereignty”.

      Liked by 13 people

      1. ” the Convention of the Estates, a parallel and separate entity”

        Oh really?

        “An unusual feature of the meetings of the estates, especially in the sixteenth century, was the convention of estates that could be summoned by the king without the long period of forty days’ notice required for a full parliament and usually only to agree taxations.”

        As I said: the same group of titled / wealthy men, called to meet by a different procedure.

        “Popular sovereignty”? No.

        Try reading the rest of that website.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. That’s a very interesting article to which Sparks has linked. It’s by the Scottish Parliament Project based at St. Andrews University and of particular interest to this discussion is the statement thar “the 1689 convention of the estates being unusual and quickly transformed into a parliament”. If that was indeed the case it rather puts paid to the argument that it was the Convention that drew up the CofR, not a parliament, and it is also made clear that while the Convention had powers, it lacked the ultimate authority of a full parliament.

        The article, indeed the whole site, is well worth a read. It makes it clear that politics in Scotland at that time were dominated by the nobility and landed gentry, and that while the burghs had tried to band together to offset that, after the Restoration the burghs lapsed back into a more passive role in parliament, lobbying for their own sectional interests. Representation in the 1689 Convention Parliament was to a considerable extent illegally “fixed” by protestant revolutionaries, but by the 1700s noble landlords held 70% of the seats in Parliament.


    2. Actually, a statutory document which articulated a “fundamental constitution” a document which was protected under Scots law on pain of high treason and which was ratified as a condition of a Treaty and of the continuation of Union falls under the provisions for international recognition of a national constitution currently recognised for five states including Canada, Israel and the U.K. (can’t bring the other two to mind) None if the UK’s constitutional documents prior to Union come close to being as explicit as the CoR and the difficulty people have in distinguishing between principle and effect and a bit an inherent problem with the material but with our abject ignorance, generally, of what a constitution is and how it is derived.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. Can you remind me where the Claim of Right was ratified as a constitutional docoment? I’m afraid I can’t find anything to that effect. While the Claim of Right was indeed referred to as part of the “Tenor” to Article XXV of the Act of Union, its effects were expressly limited to securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government. No other part of it appears to have been ratified or given any statutory weight and the fact that it is not mentioned in any other capacity suggests that none was meant.


  7. An independent Scottish state with all the political variables that might offer is not on Nato’s tick list. An iScotland could end up being surrounded by hostiles, the most immediately threatening being to its south.
    England’s security hangs on Scottish compliance to its interests. Rather akin to Nato and US geostrategic interests which stir conflict in the pursuit of weakening potential rival powerbases.
    In the global bearpit Scotland needs sharper teeth and claws and that requires political leadership to match.
    Roll over! Never, never never….

    Liked by 7 people

  8. There has never been a more urgent need for this, whether Scotland is independent or not.
    Thanks Sara.
    I guess the selection criteria is the tricky bit, or like a jury, is it chosen at random and perhaps periodically refreshed? Obviously these things would need to be considered. Wasn’t the original estates made up of senior members of the church?

    Liked by 7 people

    1. No. It was made up of those considered representative of the nation: MPs were included, nobles, clergy, elected Burgh representatives (elected to the Convention for effective ‘jury’ and statutory duty) and shire representatives- same as burghs. Considerably more democratic than anything we have today when it comes to public oversight and redress!

      Liked by 8 people

      1. Why was this Convention not called when the Scottish Parliament, by a small majority, agreed the Treay of Union with Engkand in 1707?
        The history of the time suggests it was widely disapproved of by people across Scotland. As bribery and intimidaion were alleged to have brought about that parliament’s agreement, surely the decision could have been overturned by the Convention as it could have been shown to be illegal as well as against the wishes of the people of Scotland.
        Perhaps, as suggested above, many of those who might have formed the Convention were also in the Parliament and so complicit.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Barayner asked: “Why was this Convention not called when the Scottish Parliament, by a small majority, agreed the Treay of Union with Engkand in 1707?

        The answer is that Parliament had greater authority than the Convention. The two were not equal. That’s why the Convention of 1689 had to be transformed into a Parliament as it could not otherwise have done what it did.


      3. “elected Burgh representatives (elected to the Convention for effective ‘jury’ and statutory duty) and shire representatives”

        Elected only by men with property.


        “Popular soverignty”?



  9. Thank you for your hard work, Sarah. This is really encouraging.

    I wonder how that convention can be restarted. Do you have any ideas in mind? Could an apolitical entity like “Now Scotland” or the SSRG be an starting point to recruit members?

    I cannot stop thinking in the ERG and how, at lightning speed, it took control of the conservative party, UK parliament and UK government and policy. We need something like that. It seems that all the members of the ERG were parliamentarians though, which would not be suitable for us because there is no way the Sturgeon’s SNP amoebas will ever join and risk to lose their sinecures.

    I think there is an urgent need in Scotland for a popular scrutinising entity that is parallel and independent to “parliament”. This is not only to effect an analysis of how many times and in which ways our equal partner has violated the treaty of union. We need that entity also because at present, and speaking from a practical point of view, since Sturgeon got to power we really don’t have a functional parliament that represents us anymore and that has any interest in stopping the political entity called Scottish government going rogue. Never this became more obvious than with the Fabiani’s Farce,

    What we appear to have is a one party state where our parliament has been taken over by a collection of individuals whose only mission seems to be preserving the union against the will of the people of Scotland by waffling their time away while they pay a blind eye to a rogue government who seems determined to overrule us and hand Westminster control of our assets.

    This “parliament” conveniently turns a blind eye while the rogue government fritters our taxpayers’ funds away in projects set to fail, political conspiracies and overinflated salaries for incompetent and corrupt civil servants. This “parliament” also conveniently helps the rogue government to force on us toxic policies against our will. The way that parliament quango unilaterally removed our right to demonstrate near parliament is an example on how this entity that calls itself parliament has everything but the Scottish people’s interest in mind and from being a democratic structure has now become another state control tool subordinated to a rogue government rather than the other way round.

    Because we don’t have a functional parliament anymore, what calls itself “Scottish government” has been allowed to become a completely rogue entity who has centralised the police force to politicise it and use it as an arm of the state. Then we have the COPfS which, by having its sticky tentacle on the Government cabinet represents a convenient back door wide open for the undemocratic interference of MI5 ex operatives and a crown that should remain out of politics and minding its own business.

    Under this deconstructed scenario, the COPFS has also become a convenient shredder to suppress evidence that should have seen quite a few of those rogue civil servants and ministers in the rogue entity calling itself “Scottish government” prosecuted.

    We cannot rely on the press to scrutinise anything because it has been bought by the rogue entity that calls itself “government” therefore it is no longer “independent” (if it ever was)

    As we are now, there is absolutely nothing scrutinising Sturgeon’s rogue government or the laughable entity that calls itself “Scottish parliament” , that keeps reminding the police what its function is and that stops the prosecution service and judicial system overstepping their boundaries.

    And if we cannot keep our own government and parliament in check, how on earth can we expect to use our government and parliament to keep in check those other rogue entities under the control of England who calls themselves “UK parliament and government”?

    We cannot.

    Sturgeon’s Scotland seems to have all the signs of a rouge state. Clearly, somebody who has disembowelled Scotland’s democratic and scrutiny structures in such a small length of time can never be trusted to uphold democracy and even less popular sovereignty. But neither can be trusted any of the MSPs sitting in Holyrood or MPs sitting in Westminster because they have let her get away with this level of abuse of power for 8 years and it is getting progressively worse.

    Therefore, we urgently need a popular and apolitical entity/convention that watches like a hawk treaties, shouts every time Scotland’s rights under the treaty and its constitution have been violated but also keeps rogue governments, rogue FMs, rogue parliaments, rogue copfs, rogue police force and rogue judges in check.

    Liked by 14 people

  10. Well summarised, (as usual), Mia. Any route that doesn’t restore the constitution leaves us in precisely the same critical dilemma we face now – government by elites and foreign and corporate interests where the people have to call ‘democracy the right to beg for justice and decency and vote in hope of a glimmer of light while those we vote for follow their own, literally deadly, agendas. Without accountability you inevitably get dictatorship – and corruption.
    I’ve thought long and hard about the one missing piece of the strategy, who would recall the Convention of the Estates. From what I can make out, the standing of the Presbyterian Church as the official religion of Scotland makes it the one body with an unarguable right to do so. That might require a powerful diplomatic and ‘charm offensive and it would certainly require a national demand from the public. We’re working on the latter!

    All inspirational suggestions welcome!

    Liked by 9 people

    1. ” …….government by elites and foreign and corporate interests where the people have to call ‘democracy the right to beg for justice and decency and vote in hope of a glimmer of light while those we vote for follow their own, literally deadly, agendas. ” . This is exactly where we’re heading , if we haven’t already arrived ?

      Creatures like Sturgeon and those she aspires to emulate in self-aggrandising hollow * Progressive * Newspeak ie the sanctimonious scion of Herr Schwab and the Davos demigods – will happily plough-under what remains of the much abused concept/principal of Democracy , turning it into manure to enrich themselves and fellow elite ticket holders . Hence their contempt for Nationalism as a unifying energy to achieve liberation from colonial oppression .

      It’s all about Trans-Nationalism ( pun intended ) baby . Witness the moves to give bodies like WHO even more power – to supersede local/national decision-making , imposing * penalties * on any country unwilling to comply .

      Sturgeon/NSNP are the perfect expression of willing compliance . The ONLY fighting spirit they are capable of is fighting to keep their positions of authority / power / privilege . To cling to those they are capable of anything

      Liked by 7 people

      1. yep, “there’s nothing we can do” has been a govt mantra over the past 40 years, starting with thatcher’s “the govt doesn’t have any money of it’s own” – utter billtosh. The SNP growth commission is a prime example of this – continuing to give away our monetary sovereignty to London, and latterly the pissing away of our renewable assets.

        I’d be interested to see which politicians would support the idea of the return of the convention of estates. It might be quite telling who is prepared to reject the idea of enhanced democracy! Now that Ian Blackford has mentioned COR in Parliament there must be an awareness of what power the estates held. I think a founding convention including members of the church (not restricted to one flavour), trades union representatives, charity leaders, political representatives, and perhaps willing members of the legal profession could be the way to go. I don’t think the church in it’s own right has anywhere near the societal influence that it used to have.

        Liked by 6 people

    2. Would it be useful to look back at the Scottish Constitutional Convention and how it was composed? It seemed to have comprised representatives from political parties, the trade union movement , the law and churches. I would suggest also needed would be people from local government, the arts and universities, particularly historians and people involved in local regeneration whether through arts or land buy outs.
      The problem would be selection (or deselection!) as it is not certain that a majority of people from these bodies would support the idea of bringing Westminster to account in its treatment of Scotland. One would hope that any fair-minded people, presented with the evidence, would agree that Westminster has treated Scotland badly over the years, particularly recently, and has breached conditions of the Union repeatedly, but this is not a given.
      However, were the proceedings of such a body to be published throughout the discussions (again not a given because of the state of the press in the UK), with luck people would start to realise the unfair way we are treated and would be more likely to support the idea of leaving the union.
      Does anyone know anything about the Consitutional Commission and who is in that, apart from John Drummond?

      Liked by 2 people

    3. “the standing of the Presbyterian Church as the official religion of Scotland makes it the one body with an unarguable right to do so. ”

      Are you seriously proposing to single out one Christian sect to be given unique constitutional authority in our modern multifaith, multiethnic country?

      I’m sure no-one will object to that at all.


  11. It seems that we’re in the same position with our constitution as we are with our right to self determination. We have the rights and the will, but no practical means to exercise them as yet, and it doesn’t look as if either of our parliaments and governments will be of any use in rectifying that situation.

    We know where we want to go and a reasonable idea of how to get there, the battery is charged, and the fuel tank is full, but the ignition key is missing!

    Liked by 10 people

      1. I don’t doubt it! And when we do, I’m looking forward to Westminster declaring our road tax has expired and the vehicle failed its MOT due to extreme age and lack of servicing, while we are charging down the motorway to our chosen destination with a rag-tag of English constitutional lawyers frantically chasing us through our dust, waving sheafs of papers! 😀

        Liked by 8 people

  12. Salyers57:

    As a scot in exile, in my minds eye I see a dawn and the light announcing the sunrise, and its in the north, not the east! Thank you, Sara for your work, and please continue.

    Liked by 11 people

  13. Great stuff but so many questions about how to make it happen. Who initiates, drives, owns and controls it. Surely has to be more than one church, and should it be totally secular. Who chooses membership, could this be by post code, other demographics, by desire to join, and who vets and approves. Who funds this and how do we ensure transparency and no corporate interest or lobbying. Crowdfunded by we the people perhaps, but needs managed by some appointed group. How do we get the incumbent government of much vested interest to accept this and work alongside. There are no showstoppers in there, only external forces pitted against us. If we can get this rolling it should be unstoppable, although it will be attacked from all sides and infiltration and division attempted as it grows in strength. Maybe it just needs started and with appropriate safeguards takes on a life of its own and then no one can ignore it, not the state, the Media or the SNP government

    Liked by 7 people

    1. You and Scott (no reply button!) have described the make up of the Convention almost exactly, based on the modern version of the representation implied in the Convention of the Estates. No exceptional representation from any one of the bodies representing a ‘constituency’ in Scotland so ‘Church’ must mean representation from the religions as they are today. And the Humanist constituency!

      The ‘trigger’ for recall is different. It could be realised simply by overwhelming public demand. But that will take legal challenges and more.

      It could also be triggered by the Church of Scotland whose constitutional position is equivalent to that of the Privy Council! (Oh the wonderful gifts our hidden constitutional arrangement contain!)
      Trigger is nothing to do with representation. The Privy Council triggered the 1689 Convention for example but was not part of the hearings and deliberations.
      The Church of Scotland managed a significant part of negotiating the continuance of the Claim of Right in the Treaty negotiations from 1703. When it became obvious that the ‘crown sovereignty’ faction, (first established by that scumbag James VI and his infatuation with the Tudor subscription to the divine right of kings), was going to try to rewrite Claim of Right to remove popular sovereignty, the GA got parliament to make it an act of high treason to argue for let alone attempt to alter or subvert the CoR in any way. Note that this had less to do with the threat of the episcopal church and much more to do with the constitutional rights of the people standing above the power of monarch and govt. So both constitutionally and in historic terms, if the CoS could be persuaded to do it this would be a perfect trigger. (The monarch defers to their authority in Scotland in the coronation oath!) And I like the fact that this is yet another purely Scottish constitutional instrument that has been ignored and forgotten by the powers that be.

      So neither the non-parliamentary Convention/tribunal nor the triggering authority depends on permission or agreement from Holyrood or Westminster.
      Can we make this happen? I see no other choice if we are to save our people and our nation from what is undoubtedly the worst tyranny we have faced since Edward I.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. You haven’t actually answered imacq’s questions, and in particular some that I have long been trying to get answers to, i.e. “Who chooses membership, could this be by post code, other demographics, by desire to join, and who vets and approves. Who funds this and how do we ensure transparency and no corporate interest or lobbying” Certainly the bit that I’m most concerned about is how delegates to the convention are chosen.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. Sadly we are still talking and not doing. No Country every gained Independence by talking about it! In fact one of the key tactics London employs is to talk, and talk, and talk…..and maintain the status quo.

    Perhaps when the end of 2023 arrives without even a Referendum people will wake up?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Much talk about independence from a party and leader whose ambition lies in other directions. It serves to keep the faithful from having «appropriate» thoughts.
      Saving the planet etc outweights the saving of Scotland from possible extinction.
      For globalist actors the size of the stage obviously matters.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. Daveytee sorry no reply button but: I explained the automatic mandate of ejected officials as per Kenny McAskills proposal, which is in keeping with the original make up of the Convention. TUC representation is thus included as would be heads of large publicly subscribed organisations liked as in religions. The addition of members of the public is probably best achieved by having people put their names forward and drawing lots based on areas and population percentages. No one then gets to say who attends and who does not. Business is not a community it’s an enterprise and gets no representation. Elected officials have responsibility for economic interests.
    Funding has a number of possible avenues.
    Right now the task is to get the message out!

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Strangely or not so strangely , as is normal , as soon as someone comes up with some positivity and ideas on progress then inevitably there comes the negativity brigade , I would say that everyone has an opinion and a right to express that opinion but if you look back at the posts where anything positive is put forward or discussed the same old posters are the ones who take great pleasure in introducing negativity , they of course will defend their comments by pointing out that they are ONLY pointing out flaws but again if you look back at their comments you will note they have nothing positive to contribute only NEGATIVITY , so I will ask you Sara to continue being positive you bring hope to a bleak Scotland

      Liked by 1 person

  16. I have both an SNP MP and MSP – I have no idea what they do, nor their views on gaining independence.There is no communication to the public.

    Leading up to the Holyrood election I received two pamphlets from my now SNP MSP. The first pamphlet contained an extensive declaration of her commitment to independence, the second pamphlet was pretty well identical except that the paragraph committing to independence was missing!

    And so yes, the missing link is the need for an oversee/supervisory body from the public enabled to call to question politicians on their performance whilst in office.

    In our town we’ve had the most utterly stupid cycle path installed. Were we consulted/ informed by say an e-mail or letter? No.Doubtless if challenged the excuse would be – a notification in the local press.Local chat is counting how few cyclists use the path.So this oversee/supervisory concept is needed at local council level too.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. Sara what I would like to see is citizens who have taken up Mike Fenwick”s ” DECLARATION OF A SOVEREIGN SCOT” take sturgeon and holyrood to OUR supreme Court to FINANCE a challenge to their failure to utilise the CoR in advancing our claim to independence
    With respect and much adoration for what Martin Keating attempted to do and the thousands including myself who contributed to the fundraiser , I and others felt he was challenging the wrong thing , which gave the corrupt government and the judiciary an opportunity to throw it out which they did
    Martin BRAVELY attempted to take on the establishment but was hog tied from the beginning by having to crowdfund and source the finances to even begin his and our challenge , whilst the corrupt government had no such obstacles and was happy to burn through taxpayers cash by participating , withdrawing and again participating which increased the financial obligation considerably
    WHY should a government (especially this corrupt one ) have the ability to implement regressive and reviled policies against the wishes of the electorate , and when that electorate decides to legally challenge the reviled policies in court not only have they to pay their own legal expenses but they are also paying for the corrupt governments defence of their reviled policies
    My thoughts are that if the DECLARATION OF A SOVEREIGN SCOTS CoR 100 were to put together a voluntary donation of £100 each that figure could be used initially to legally challenge the SG to legally finance a CoR challenge and a TOU breech to the UN
    I’m sorry if I haven’t explained it properly but I am sure our elected representatives who favour independence could possibly initiate or explore the challenge to force sturgeon to finance any legal action

    Liked by 2 people

    1. There are a number of reasons s why Mines route falls short. What we are proposing is similar and based on the same constitutional principle but we can show how to tick every box en route. It will still be a massive challenge m!

      Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: