What follows is an extract of an exchange from this website’s comment column between Mia and a Davey Tee 19 who is also a regular on this site.

“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 independence 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 appointed. 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.


I am sure others will have thought about some of the comments and doubts Davey Tee has raised. I thought it worthwhile to publish them and Mia’s answers. When you read them it seems obvious that if our MP’s were using these different tactics the Union would be facing much more serious problems than comforting themselves over Nicola’s view that Westminster must grant a Section 30 before anything can be done. Where is the legal advice that we as taxpayers paid for.? If that legal advice agreed with Nicola it would have been published the day after it was received. The fact it remains hidden from public view and the Scottish Government are continuing to resist instruction to make it public tells me it must be politically embarrassing. We know, as in the ferry contract documentation and the Salmond Enquiry, what can happen these days when potentially embarrassing documents are requested. The situation today is very different.

It is only since 2015 that Scotland has elected a majority of Mp’s who claim to want Scotland’s Independence. Before that the majority that were elected were Unionists intent on preserving the Union. They would never use the Claim of Right. The ” mystery” is why our MP’s have not recognised what a huge difference that majority of Scots MP’s makes, and the staggering failure to use it in Scotland’s benefit to deliver that Independence.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland.


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 attempted censorship.


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.


  1. Mia is the one with the positive approach. This is what we need much more of in Scotland. If you think you can’t do something you will probably be right.

    I expected Ukraine to be overrun in days. The Ukrainians didn’t. Whatever happened to our people who once stated… “As long as but a 100 of us……”

    “A positive attitude gives you power over your circumstances instead of your circumstances having power over you.” – Unknown source quote

    Liked by 13 people

  2. More comments confirming how there are routes to independence and routes utterly disregarded by our so called national party.

    But of course nothing can be expected from them whilst they sit compliantly settled in at Westminster taking their pay and perks. House Jocks responsible for nothing, delivering nothing.

    But it could, and it should be so different. These people have in the power to pursue independence and deliver it. Like the Hollyrood talk shop that it has become, these MPs have a mandate. But they don’t use it.But they could use it. The Union is there to be broken and replaced by an entente between two countries. The Union is not a marriage where only one partner can say what happens and decree that the other partner stays.

    The Treaty and the tools are all in place to break this one sided union and a dead end rigged referendum is not one of them. This is the message we must widen and deepen. When we do that we will win. Independence is there to be taken.

    Liked by 13 people

  3. “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.”

    And that majority of MP’s is rightly Scotland’s democratic veto over any and all Westminster parliament decisions and laws, a veto still unused. As Iain rightly says: “It is only since 2015 that Scotland has elected a majority of Mp’s who claim to want Scotland’s Independence.” It is these elected Scotland majorities of ‘nationalist’ MPs who have failed the people, by failing to assert Scottish sovereignty over any and all Westminster decisions the Scots do not consent to, including our enforced EU exit.

    Liked by 16 people

    1. I do not think they have understood their constitutional position, at least not in recent years. For so long we had a bunch of Westminster cyphers representing us, English history instead of Scottish history, English landlords and feudal systems and academics who reviewed our laws and histories through an English prism and came to draw a grotesque caricature of a primitive and bloodthirsty nation governed by tyrannical elites. The thing about gaslighting is that it works. It is inherent in colonisation and its effects in every colonised people in the world is a national psychic wound that produces alcoholism, drug abuse, depression and the condition known as ‘learned helplessness’. This condition is reversible but the reverse won’t start with those in power, who have a stake in the oppressor’s system. It will start, as you yourself have said, with the people.

      Liked by 12 people

      1. Totally agree with this. (Thanks Mia, too) Scotland has been subjected to colonial gaslighting for so long that they no longer had any belief in themselves, it was so noticeable. In every aspect of life the excellence of what was accepted as unexceptional was spoken of as though its value was unrecognisable. That has changed now, people speak out about their successes and their expertise, the cringe is changing into confidence, and as usual it seems that those whose place it is to pursue governance as our elected representatives are the last to see the change. We could begin to campaign our MPs to insist that they actually do represent our interests, and we let them know what our interests are which may not coincide with party-line. . We email them, nag them to understand their responsibility which is not to present our comments on the ruling party’s behaviour, tactics et al, or to try to civilise them with our reasoned arguments and good manners. Westminster does not respond to courtesy except to seize upon it as a sign of weakness. It is a bully boys club now, and bullies gaslight all the time, it’s how they win, it is so effective. We have to get our mps to understand that if they represent independence (sadly, mine doesn’t) they must get together and work on it. What in hell happened to Mhairie Black for example? Her work in the early years was fab. What put her fire out? Changing her focus? and that is Sturgeon’s gaslighting skill.

        Liked by 9 people

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

    Agreed, and they will, because they are. They used that sovereignty to depose a king, and it can depose the UK Parliament.

    “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 important ones were. As for equal partners, see below.

    “The sovereignty and independence of the Scots crown and monarchy was not reserved”

    Because there was none to reserve, sovereignty in Scotland has always been owned by its people, not its monarch. As for the crown, there is only one head wearing both crowns, and you can’t reserve a single cerebral hemisphere for the Scottish one. You can reserve our sovereign constitution over its uses, though, and we did.

    “Scotland has never been an equal partner and never could be”
    “If Scotland had genuinely been an equal partner it would have had the same number of MPs as England”

    The equality in question is not of size. In the matter of two countries negotiating a treaty for common governance, the equality is that of national authority. The national authority of Scotland over Scotland is 100% , just as in England. The national authority of Scotland over England is 0%, as is England’s over Scotland.

    “English MPs have always been able to out vote Scotland”

    Only because of an accident of a larger population, resulting in a larger representation, coupled with a dishonestlly unsuitable voting system. England’s MPs represent only the English partner, and any majority of those MPs only overrules other English MPs, mandating an English decision by the English partner alone. The same goes for Scotland’s MPs. If both these decisons align, then the matter under consideration is carried. If they do not align, the matter is not carried. Ultimately, there are only two votes, one English, and one Scottish.

    That Westminster as an institution constantly ignored, and still does, that ultimate truth is nothing less than a disgraceful abuse of the dual nature of the overall representation, by continuing the use of a simple majority vote that was designed for a single set of MPs representing a single nation, when the new reality after 1707 was of two sets of MPs representing two nations. Any vote in the Commons is ultimately a vote between two nations, not one.

    “Scotland has always accepted that”

    Hardly, but its MPs did, and should not have! Just because they did in the past doesn’t require them to continue to accept it now. They really do know better, and should be screaming in rage about majoritarian bullying, but for some reason they don’t. I can accept that they wanted the Union to work, since it’s supposed to be a union of partnership between two sets of representatives, but accepting the numerical bullying from the larger partner is not worth that kind of partnership continuing.

    “But not being an equal partner in fact surely strengthens Scotland’s right to independence”

    That implies you accept that the current arrangement doesn’t work for Scotland, and should be changed to one that does. Independence is one such option, another would be qualified majority voting in Westminster. In my view that last is no longer enough, only independence will do!

    “Westminster will always be able to tell us what to do because we are not an equal partner”

    We’ve already had this conversation. The basic issue has always been that Scotland IS an equal partner, but the other equal partner has always treated us as the junior one, and we should never have put up with that. When we step in wielding our re-discovered constitution, there will be a serious reckoning.

    Liked by 17 people

  5. To compare different peoples’ behaviours from any different point in time is almost an ineffable situation for the average person… Few people can readily make statements about historical arrangements, and ‘experts’ might be too busy to engage in debates such as what we might see here? Many of us – if not most – would likeScotland regaining its independence soon, instead of later! Perhaps certain politicians forget that they were elected to serve Sotland’s people instead of seeming almost indifferent to our nation’s best interests?

    “Saorsa” is Scottish Gaelic for ‘freedom, liberty and/or redemption’ and that’s true in all languages!

    Liked by 10 people

    1. And there’s the challenge. Scotland has suffered a deliberate excision of its political history, of the context, spirit and intent behind the pre-condition of the continuance of the Claim of Right in Scotland, and the rights and instruments legally available to us. This has been compounded by the arguments of imperialists, notably Dicey, being given constitutional status by Westminster and used to quash any challenge of Westminster sovereignty in Scotland. To the point that most Scottish lawyers will tell you that parliamentary sovereignty is a UK constitutional reality. in the same breath as they acknowledge the continued force of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, translated into this doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and providing the parliamentary privilege which is also in force in Westminster, they dismiss the relevance of a 320yr old Scottish Act which is not merely the only UK document with a codified condition (however basic), not only far above and beyond anything in the English corpus in terms of democratic principle but on whose continued standing and force in Scotland the Union itself depends.

      My own persistent difficulty in unearthing the real character and connect of the Claim of Right, a difficulty which has made this process both long, frustrating and also a journey of extraordinary and wonder-making discovery, is likely to be that of most other people. Without the familiarity of a longstanding political and constitutional framework, without familiarity with practices and assumptions on which the framework is based, you are looking at a completely alien set of arrangements. It’s a bit like trying to decode the life of a city from a map instead of from the experience of living there. Gradually, you begin to find ‘snapshots’ and clues as to the origins and functions of certain buildings and spaces, the way the planners were thinking and how the various sections interacted as related elements in the whole and things you have stayed at for years suddenly leap into three dimensional perspective.

      At this point, however, it should be possible to ‘translate’ the map into a more modern ‘topography’ so that others can see it clearly in that context. I hope and, it seems to me, that process is already beginning.

      The most important part of of this, for me, is not the fact that it provides a route to independence but that it provides: a reinstatement of the kind of democracy which we desperately need, a reinstatement of the principles of reciprocal rights and obligations whereby the people retain the safeguard of being able to withdraw power when it is abused and when those rights and obligations are violated and the restoration of what it means to be Scottish, (where all those values – first among equals for monarchy, common good and common rights of all equally, freedom of speech and protest and more, come from), all this AS a route to self-determination and independence from the feudal model of an English power structure embodied in Westminster.

      Liked by 11 people

      1. Trying to understand all of the real intents behind a such wide range of historical decisions on the scale needed for a Treaty and associated documents that set up common governance of two very different countries from a joint parliament, with all the vast and nit-picking detail that entails, is highly dependent on knowing the correct contexts, as it is context that pulls meaning out of a morass of data.

        With a modern perspective, looking back at a distant time, the contexts of that time can be really obscure, especially when many of the records of the time have just been lost. At the same time, even with the records we do have, explanatory texts and notes weren’t attached because the people involved were naturally conversant with their day to day contexts without needing to remind themselves of it, simply from being immersed in it.

        But we haven’t been; our contexts are now so vastly different in so many ways, and getting our heads in the right frames of reference isn’t at all easy.

        All that is my long-winded way of saying thank you, Sara, for all of the hard work you have done on our behalf, for the dogged perseverence to get at the truths of a crucial time in our history, and one that has such import for our future. It’s not just the digging, it is the detective work and the explication of results that are kindling new hope for many of us that might have begun to despair. Of course I can only speak for myself, but I’m far more cheerful now than I have been since Nicola’s hope-puncturing speech the day Brexit kicked in for real at the end of January 2020, and I rather suspect I’m not alone in that regard.

        Thank You.

        Liked by 3 people

    2. ‘Freedom’ in Scots langage is ‘scouth’ or ‘scowth’, whilst liberty in Scots is ‘leeberty’.

      An a Scots fowk wha fecht fer thair leeberty an thair scowth are o coorse ‘doun-hauden’ (oppressed) in aw weys an mair!

      Oppression (political, economic, cultural, linguistic etc) is a key rationale for independence of any people.

      An thay daeless SNP MP’s dae naethin aboot oor fowk bein doun-hauden nor oor kintra blad an wrackit, oor cultur an langage roustin awa, an oor verra saul wi hit.

      Liked by 14 people

  6. The Treaty of Union is very much the child of Westminster. The long standing legal precedent is that ambiguity in the contract favours the one that did not draft it – that, surely, must be Scotland. Failure to accept this would require recognition that Scotland is an equal partner in this treaty and again we win.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Technically, it is Westminster that is the child; the Parliament of Great Britiain, later renamed the Parliament of the United Kingdom, is the child of the Treaty and Acts of Union which created it. The Treaty itself was drafted by two sets of commissioners appointed by Queen Anne for the purpose, and the resulting Treaty was amended and ratified by the Scottish Parliament and then also ratified by the English Parliament. The Parliament of England ceased to exist in May 1707 and the brand new Parliament of Great Britain came into existence. That parliament had nothing to do with the Treaty.

      The use of ‘Westminster’ as the name of any parliament in that place causes confusion, and isn’t helped by the UKP’s proud assertion of unbroken continuity with the old Parliament of England, a continuity that doesn’t bear examination. Westminster as a building existed long before 1707, but the institution of the UK parliament didn’t.

      Liked by 8 people

    2. Also, since both parliaments were able to make amendments to the Treaty, and needn’t have ratified it if they weren’t satisfied with it, then both would be responsible for any unresolved ambiguities. Having said that they didn’y have to ratify it, the Scottish Parliament was entirely cognisant of the presence of a build up of English troops on the border, an English fleet lying of the Firth of Forth, plus other well-founded fears of a coming war, so there was certainly some pressure involved during their deliberations.

      Liked by 9 people

    3. Westminster did not draft the Treaties, Marion; essentially the monarch appointed Commissioners to draft the Treaties for each country, albeit it was actual jurists (lawyers) who did the work. It is quite plain that Scotland’s Commissioners and jurists expected England to play dirty – it had always done so in the past – so they wrote in numerous provisos and legal expedients (legal in international law, that is) to try and thwart English attempts to hi-jack the Treaty for itself and its own ends. England’s MPs actually went much further than that, even: they deliberately misinterpreted the Treaties as a takeover of Scotland, a subsumption, but, in no way, does the Treaty reflect that. Shortly after the Treaty was signed, the English MPs insisted that court cases of last appeal in Scotland should be taken out of the hands of the Court of Session and handed over to the HoL with a token Scottish judge or two sitting. The Supreme Court, which took over the legal functions of the HoL, was opposed by many Scots, and the change was the perfect opportunity to give the Scots back their court of last appeal, but it still looks over Scottish civil cases of last appeal and gives a judgement which is remitted back to the Court of Session (Inner House) in Edinburgh, giving the pretence of a Scottish final judgement. No way could the Scots be allowed a say over serious constitutional and international matters on their own.

      The illegality with which England has treated Scotland since 1707 is reprehensible, and although I’d e willing to bet that there are those in England who know this perfectly well, the majority of the clueless in the Commons, and even the Lords, believe that the whole thing was a takeover. When Professors Walker and Campbell challenged Professors Crawford and Boyle (commissioned by David Cameron) on their Report into the status of each country in the EU if Scotland had voted YES is almost a complete refutation of everything that has happened since 1707. I am positive that David Cameron was aware of the challenge, and, after the NO vote, which he did all in his power to bring about, he quietly dropped the Crawford and Boyle Report. I am also certain that he would have tried to use it had we voted YES, but he could see already that it and every other constitutional flummery brought by Westminster were in dire danger of being challenged successfully.

      His First in Politics and Economics made him one of the few really clever and more moderate Tory politicians in Westminster, which, tripped up by Brexit, which he never supported, actually led to his downfall and being regarded as a bit of a fool. He wasn’t. Even as he tried to con the Scots, he knew full well that he was conning them and was never completely comfortable with that, albeit willing to do it, anyway. Rather like Callaghan and the 40% Rule, which he, Callaghan never actually supported and knew would bring nemesis down on the Labour Party in Scotland, eventually.

      Liked by 8 people

  7. That’s a good point except for one thing – which does not invalidate your argument in the least. Neither the English nor the Scottish Parliament drafted the Treaty of Union. It was drafted and negotiated by Commissioners for the Crown, 31 each from Scotland and England. Their negotiations with the various bodies, especially in Scotland and most especially with the representatives of the Church of Scotland would make a hell of a movie! (Last minute offers and concessions by midnight riders come into it!) The biggest and the most fractious item was the status of the Claim of Right after Union. Even then, everyone understood that the constitutional principles of the two nations were incompatible and the ratification of the 1706 Act really was a cobbled together compromise that the Scots did not trust and the English (mostly) did not like.

    This is important because under the Dicey ‘principle’, the Acts of ratification/Acts of Union ‘replaced’ the Treaty they ratified, becoming the governing instruments of the Union (!!!) while the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and continuation the English Parliament (yes, they really call that the constitutional arrangement) means that Westminster has sole jurisdiction over the terms of the Treaty, the Articles of Union and has the power (under parliamentary sovereignty) to alter these at will.

    The utter absurdity of this argument is not apparent to the English High Court, most of the judiciary across the UK or the law students who are taught it as holy, legal writ. Yet.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. But what is incontrovertible is that any pre-condition for the Treaty, the Acts of Union and the Union IS outwith the power of Westminster to alter. Enter the Claim of Right.

      Liked by 12 people

      1. I can understand that The Claim of Right was “a formal assertion of the principle of lawful limited monarchy (a principle already in existence in Scotland) and of the fundamental rights of due process and judicial protection against arbitrary executive action.” What I don’t understand is why the “continued standing and force in Scotland” of the Union idepends on it. Other than on what may have been a last minute addition to the Act to satisfy the Kirk and which was lilmited entirely to the protection of the presbyterian system, the. Claim of Right is neither mentioned nor referred to. And while there is plenty in the Claim that is admirable, particularly in those times, to protect the rights of the individual (as long as they are protestant) there doesn’t seem to be anything of such constitutional significance as to affect, or potentially affect, the Union. As things stand my own view is that it is utterly irrelevant so maybe you could enlighten me?


    2. Sara: spot on, except that, in law, everywhere, a domestic Act cannot supersede an international legal document. The Acts of Union did nothing else but translate the Treaties into domestic law. The two Treaties are the very foundations of the UK and cannot be superseded without a collapse of the UK. Dicey has long been held to be constitutionally wrong, but he’s English so… Lord Cooper’s obiter is of far greater import for Scotland’s case. Yes, indeed, most English people do believe that they subsumed us. It’s a pile of utter tosh, of course, which any international unravelling of the Treaties would show. I suspect that it is why this route has never been followed with any serious intent: it might actually lead to independence! Domestic law cannot resile the Treaty either, only recommend that it be resiled – unless, of course, both parties accept its demise in which case, it will be no more than a formality at international level. Scottish lawyers in the HoL have been trying for years to renegotiate the Treaty as an Act. Aye right! Lords Jim Wallace and Ming Campbell (two collaborationist Scots, note) are two of the miscreants who know perfectly well that they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes and lead us into allowing Westminster and the Lords to decide our future. The international nature of the two Treaties make ours a blinder – which is why they want it taken out. By the way, the Good Friday Agreement and the NI Protocol are also treaties and, if Boris Johnson believes here will be no repercussions of the walks away from them, he will discover that to not be the case. In the case of NI, however, Westminster couldn’t actually give a cuss whether it joins the south. We are in a very different position, hosting the nuclear arsenal and having the lion’s share of resources.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Interesting. The fall out of walking away from the GFA treaty seems an ideal time to raise walking away from the Treaty of Union: an opportunity at the very least to raise international awareness that the UK is founded on a treaty, not English military defeat of the Scots. Our ancestors fought with the determination and fierceness seen today in the Ukraine to secure a treaty, not defeat: we should honour their achievements.

        Liked by 7 people

      2. “The international nature of the two Treaties make ours a blinder”

        First, there was only one Treaty (or to be historically accurate, one set of Articles.

        Two, the only documents ever to get signed / Royal Assent were the two Acts of Union. It would have been rather difficult for Queen Anne to sign a Treaty with herself, wouldn’t it?

        Three, the moment both Acts were in force, the “international” element disappeared as of course Article One says:

        “That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain ”

        Four, before you start argung that the maintenance of the Scots legal system and Church of Scotland amounts to a continuing existence of the Scottish state, the Act has answers for that too.

        Consider article IX:

        ” to be raised in that Part of the united Kingdom, now called England, on Land and other Things usually charged in Acts of Parliament there, for granting an Aid to the Crown by a Land Tax; that Part of the united Kingdom, now called
        Scotland, ”

        article XIV:

        “any Malt to be made and consumed in that Part of the united Kingdom now called Scotland,”

        article XXIV:

        “the Crown, Scepter, 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;”

        …so I think it’s pretty clear that by passing the Act Scotland became a “Part”.

        There is no signed Treaty to repudiate and no legal personality to do the repudiating. The only way to do it is a majority vote of the UK Parliament.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. @Sparks “There is no signed Treaty to repudiate and no legal personality to do the repudiating. The only way to do it is a majority vote of the UK Parliament.”

        There is a signed treaty, it was signed by two sets of commissioners, and the ratification by the Acts of Union represented the signing by the two parliaments. The UKP has no authority over the Treaty, it is subsidiary to it as a creation of it. The legal personality of the people of Scotland as represented by, say, a Convention of the Sovereign people of Scotland could repudiate the Treaty, as representing the ultimate sovereign entity of Scotland. Which is not the UK Parliament, in case you were wondering.

        By the way, if you’re going to claim that subsidiary to doesn’t mean subordination to, you might like to tell the Holyrood Parliament that; they’d be most interested!

        Liked by 5 people

    1. Already done in ‘The Treaty Bites Back’ I’d asking refer you to Sir David Edward’s article, (QC justice if the Supreme Court), ‘Scotland’s Magna Carta’ where he observed that were it not for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty which he accepts the Claim of Rights represents a charter for the enforcement of civil rights, of which he illustrates several that would be legally accepted today, which would give Westminster a serious problem. He was writing recently but before the recovery of the 1706 Act coupled with the rather sudden reinsertion of the preamble to the English Act of ratification, put the binding pre-condition of Union into the public domain. Effectively upholding Cooper’s famous orbiter.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Nope.

        Reviewed your paper. Not interested in your or third-party opinions about “context” and “what people really meant”.

        I note that in your Claim of Rights Appendix you said

        “‘The said communities (of Scotland) assembled in a full and free representation of this nation do … as their ancestors in like cases have usually done for the vindicating and asserting of their rights and liberties…’”

        What are you actually quoting? None of that is in the Claim of Rights, so I don’t know why it’s there.

        Once again, can you give me some actual text from the document which supports your claims?

        Liked by 1 person

    2. @ Sparks

      Okay, this is just as a taste, otherwise I could be writing for days and bore everybody to tears.

      I include the sections extracted from the Claim of Right in inverted commas. What is not in inverted commas are my comments.

      This following bit is already in the introduction and helps really nicely to put in context the parallelism of the situations in 1689 that moved the convention of estates to declare the Claim of Right and the present situation. We are currently in Scotland under what looks like an dictator in training in control of our Scotland’s government and parliament. This is happening under a monarch who either has became far too old to know what she is doing, or she has developed a dangerous and completely unacceptable tendency to rush her stamping whenever absolute rule rears its head and escapes her Westminster parliament, her Westminster’s government and of course Sturgeon’s government and Holyrood parliament.

      “King James the seventh, by the advice of wicked and evil Counsellors Invaded the fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom and altered it from a legal limited monarchy to an arbitrary despotic power”

      Look at Scotland’s situation today under the watch of the present dictator in training in control of our government and parliament and the present monarch. This monarch has at all practical effects transformed the compound of England MPs in Westminster into an arbitrary despotic power that is forcing absolute rule over Scotland against Scotland’s will and totally against Scotland’s interests. The only beneficiary is the Kingdom of England. The dictator in training in Scotland has simply allowed England MPs absolute rule to be imposed on us when it was in her hand to stop it but chose not to.

      This monarch put the interests of the Kingdom of England above those of the Kingdom of Scotland, no doubt advised by wicked and evil counsellors. She did this by adding the royal stamp to each wicked bill, each wicked piece of legislation and wicked policy that emanated from the parliament of Westminster, done in her name, after they were voted in by a majority of England MPs but against a minority of Scotland’s ones.

      Recent wicked examples of what this monarch has put her name and stamp to, include: the trashing of FFA in 2015; the veto over Scotland’s vote in the EU referendum that England MPs self-awarded themselves to ensure brexit would win; consenting on the triggering of A50 after a vote where the majority of Scotland’s MPs votes against, therefore breaching one of the the fundamental conditions of the A50 itself; the unilateral modification of Scotland’s Act by England MPs without Scotland’s consent to effect a power grab and the theft of our assets; the re-writing of laws and then applying this retrospectively to trash our continuity bill AFTER it had been passed in our parliament in Scotland and in contravention to the Sewel Convention; the Withdrawal bill in direct contravention of Scotland’s popular sovereignty and against the Claim of Right; consenting in continuous breaches of the treaty of union; rewriting Scotland’s internal policy without Scotland’s consent, etc, etc, etc, etc.

      The attempts at despotic power by Sturgeon are not insignificant. Examples are the Hate bill, which the monarch also rushed to stamp, her attempting to remove the juries or indeed her dismissal of our democratic parliamentary majorities and our mandates. Another nice examples of despotic power were the way a member of her cabinet trashed the Keatings case to prevent the people of Scotland finding out about their rights.

      I have no doubt that Sturgeon, the same as the monarch, have been advised by “wicked and evil counsellors, which we now in modern times tend to call special advisers, civil servants, crown agents, lord advocates, government quangos or spin doctors”.

      The Claim of Right says “And in public proclamation, asserted one absolute power, to cast annul and disable all the laws… and violation of the laws and liberties of the Kingdom”

      In our present current situation:

      All those wicked laws, re-writing of laws, wicked policies and wicked bills mentioned above, swiftly stamped by the monarch as if they were on a conveyor belt such was their number, were made public, rubbed on our faces and forced down our throats against Scotland will and without its consent.

      In addition, England MPs , exercising their self-awarded absolute power in the name of her majesty, cast annul entire sections of the Scotland Act and domestic laws passed in our parliament in Scotland to control our market and assets. They also disabled our European Citizens’ rights and liberties without our consent.

      Let’s not forget that either that parliamentary committee in Scotland that regurgitated Westminster policy of not allowing demonstrations by the public around parliament. This goes totally against the traditions of this country and has an uncomfortable whiff at attempting to impose absolute rule.

      Let’s not forget that in the crown’s name, the COPFS fdenied Mr Salmond the opportunity to defend himself in the parliamentary committee by forceful and unlawful suppression of information of high interest to the public, and by openly bullying him into silence with the threat of prosecution. Isn’t the ability to defend oneself fully from an accusation a fundamental liberty? Isn’t deliberately hiding evidence akin to perverting the cause of justice?

      What about the deliberate leaking of information about Mr Salmond to a newspaper by the wicked counsellors of the government of this country? Wasn’t it a direct violation of the law as well?

      What about lying under oath in a parliamentary committee or in a criminal court to falsely accuse an innocent person? Isn’t that perjury and isn’t it against the law?

      Hasn’t the breach of the ministerial code always been grounds for a government minister to tender their resignation, no matter how high their office? So why after clear breaches of the ministerial code the individuals responsible were allowed to continue in their posts because the information was deliberately suppressed either by members of government of commissioners from the crown in the form of COPFS? Isn’t this a direct violation of usual procedure, blatant abuse of power and a clear attempt to allow this government to exercise absolute rule and escape the laws and principles that applied to everybody else?

      Where the Claim of Right says ” by disarming protestants while at the same time he employed papists in the places of greatest trust, civil and military etc”, simply change the duality protestants vs papists by the duality native Scots versus people with allegiance to somewhere else other than Scotland. You will see a beautiful parallelism there that hints at our partner attempting to make unlawful control of our country. An example of this parallelism might actually be the way Ms Cherry was “thrusted out” to make space for Robertson; or how all those good pro indy and pro women people were “thrusted out” from the NEC and SNP to make space for the gender woowoo trojan horse, or how real supporters of independence are being thrusted out from the party day after day by amateur dictator Sturgeon and her wicked and evil counsellors, to make space for vacuous charlatans, careerists, devolutionists and those who tow the USA and UK line instead of acting for the benefit of Scotland.

      As today, in Scotland, what is the ratio of native Scots and people with allegiance to Scotland vs those with allegiance to somewhere else, in the places of greatest trust in Scotland, like civil service, Army, control of main assets, Judicial Service, Police, Universities, Press, Inland revenue, home office or indeed the COPFS? Close to 50% of the voters in Scotland support independence. What is the ratio between independence supporters and unionists in positions of power in Scotland? What about in the HoL, what is the proportion of unionists among Scotland’s peers and among those UK lords, baronesses that claim to represent Scotland?

      The Claim of Right says “by imposing oathes contrary to law”

      Right, isn’t bullying women into silence, undermining them because of their sex, discriminating them against males or castigating them for their beliefs contrary to the law of equality, freedom of speech and thought and protected sex characteristic?

      So, unless this is an attempt to impose on us absolute rule, why are we being forced to embrace some pronouns crap when our names are clearly female names and our bodies are evidently female ones? Why some women have been unlawfully forced out of their jobs by disgusting bullies because of these women’s firm beliefs? and why are we being discriminated against males by taking away from us the words that have always define us?

      This monarch had the power to stop that abuse by refusing to allow her name and stamp to be added to what was at all effects a violation of Scotland’s rights as an equal partner under the treaty, the hate bill and many more. By helping with her signature and consent to the forcing of England MP’s and Sturgeon’s masters absolute rule over Scotland, in my view she was effecting a direct violation of the Claim of Right that brings certain parallelism with some of the accusations put at the feet of James VII and that led to the Claim of Right being written.

      From the records of Scotland’s old parliament, it was blatantly obvious that the people there did have a backbone , differently to what passes for MSP or MP nowadays. I wonder if the Scots in 1689 would have already reconvened the Convention of States and formally ejected from power all offenders, including the wicked and evil counsellors, monarch and rogue political fraud, if they were facing abuse like the one we are facing today, if they were watching how abuse of power has become the norm, if they were watching how violation of the Claim of Right is praised rather than condemned, and they were watching how absolute rule is encouraged by placing union loyalists in control of the main offices, by deep corruption of the justice and prosecution service, by suppression of information of public interest and of course by quick royal stamping and a rogue government led by a political fraud,

      This must be one of the very, very few times when I wish we were in 1689 and instead of having to rely on a pretend parliament, a collection of amoebas incapable of bringing a rogue political fraud to heel and incapable of confronting a lazy monarch by asserting Scotland’s rights and constitution, we had access to a proper convention of states like Scotland had in 1689.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You have drawn some vague parallels between stuff in the past and stuff now. I note a lot of the things you object to are due to the present Scottish Government and not “Westminster” or “the Union”.

        Where’s the text that says you get to do what you want to do?

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Sparks

    I am afraid that our vehement historians are trying to build a constitutional mountain on top of the molehill of the CoR. As anyone can see who reads it, it is all about the establishment and defence of the Protestant religion in Scotland. I cannot see a word relating to the people being sovereign. In point of fact there was no popular sovereignty (in the form of popular democracy) anywhere in the UK at least until 1867 and that only partially, and only for men. I can see exactly why the Kirk wanted the CoR guaranteed as a fundamental clause in the Treaty. They wanted a Whig settlement and the continuance of the Protestant religion as being by law appointed. It is reasonable and natural to read CoR as harmonising with the Treaty. In this sense, Westminster has fully respected the CoR.

    It is amazing that we are still trying to argue that Scotland and England are “equal partners” when the Treaty stipulates that there will be a single sovereign Union Parliament and Scotland would send minority contingents to both Commons and Lords. Fletcher of Saltoun knew exactly what impact this provision would have and he raged against it. Maybe he needn’t have bothered?

    Somehow the CoR is relevant to Brexit? In 2016 voters in “that Part of the UK called Scotland” voted for the proposition that THE UK should remain in the EU, but they were outvoted by the rest of the UK. This was a purely UK question, propounded by the Union Parliament, to be answered by a UK electorate. How Scotland voted was irrelevant. Scotland was not asked whether it wished to stay in the EU as an independent country, firstly because it was not an independent country, and even if it had been it was never a member of the EU, and therefore couldn’t’ decide whether to “remain” or not.

    I wonder how much respect the EU would give the CoR? Right now it is trying to deny Poland covid support because the Poles have had the temerity to hold that Polish Law is superior to EU Law. Ah but the wonderful wise benevolent EU, it can do no wrong.

    Some people never learn.


    Liked by 1 person

    1. The securing of the Protestant ascendancy over any Catholic claimants seems to be the core matter. It is possible to extract a concept of sovereignty, of a kind, but for whom? The Union structure was Protestant in purpose, something the Orange lodges know well.
      The Arbroath declaration has more to say about Scotland’s autonomy and nationhood, especially with regard to English ambition, but that brings a bishop of Rome into the forum.
      The Union was a scam. Exposing the scam, the deceit and one sided nature of the thing should be the route out.
      The counter to Scottish interests nature of the ststus quo and its verifiable socio-cultural effects is something that cannot be overstated.
      Nationalists need to turn up the volume. Being discreet does not cut it.


      1. Compare the Claim of Right with the English Bill of Rights. Recognise the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty there, or parliamentary privilege? The reading requires that you separate effect from legal foundation. The Bill of Rights created a new legal foundation. The CoR asserted an existing one. It’s effects, deposing a crown and securing Scotland from Catholic influence were founded on legal principles articulated numerous times in numerous practices and statutes. These principles it calls central to a “fundamental constitution” which is violated by the monarch’s/governments claim to the authority to alter it repeal civil rights. More binding than the English constitution because it clearly asserts the existence and force of the constitution in Scotland where the English version has to be teased out of very opaque documents indeed. And because the English Constitution is subject to parliament where the Scottish constitution is not.
        If the constitutional provisions of England apply today then so do those articulated as such in the Claim of Right and guaranteed as a condition of the Union. And in case I have not pointed it out, this ‘religious’ Act was used as tge constitutional declaration it was known and intended to be in 1699 when William attempted to restrict the right to petition in Scotland. The subject was the freedom of the Company of Scotland to trade not a matter of the Kirk.The Scottish Privy Council refused to sign, the parliament reminded him of his oath to uphold the Ckaim of Right and 21,000 people duly went ahead and presented their petition! Religious document? Not so much as it was a constitutional charter. Principle outlives effect.

        Liked by 3 people

    2. “I am afraid that our vehement historians are trying to build a constitutional mountain on top of the molehill of the CoR”

      Like the Himalayas colonialists, England MPs and England judges have been frantically trying to build over the grain on the sand, aka English only convention of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty?

      Or perhaps you are referring to the fabulous sky scraper built on foundations of air that colonialists have created out of the bogus idea that Scotland was “absorbed” by the Kingdom of England in 1707.

      And well, what about the cosmic size fantasy that Scotland was very poor and was “rescued” by England in 1707? That fantasy quickly vanishes the minute you read in the records of the old Scottish parliament like I did that, actually, the English currency had less value than the Scottish one therefore people in Scotland had to be compensated for their losses when embracing the new currency. That was an eye opener, let me tell you, particularly when today, colonialists have the audacity of trying to scare us by telling us that our currency is going to tank if we exit the union. Isn’t the irony just hilarious?

      Liked by 4 people

      1. “the bogus idea that Scotland was “absorbed” by the Kingdom of England in 1707.”

        Well it is a bogus idea, de jure at least:

        “I. ‘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”


      2. Yes, united into one kingdom – i.e under one monarch in one state – not one nation. The two crowns remain separate to this day. There is no UK Crown and the Union of Crowns is a constitutional misnomer. The UK of GB comprises both nations of Scotland and England, one state. The ‘forever’ part cannot be upheld because it would be considered far too onerous in law today to force a people to remain as part of a state from which they wish to secede or, in Scotland’s case, simply want to separate from.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. “actually, the English currency had less value than the Scottish one therefore people in Scotland had to be compensated for their losses when embracing the new currency. ”

        Could you give me some more on this please?

        The GBP is worth more than a Swiss Franc but the the Swiss are richer than us, on average. Likewise the Omani Rial is worth multiple GBP but the Omanis are poorer.

        I also recall something from Stevenson’s “Kidnapped” (I think) where the Pound Scots is only worth one or two English shillings.

        If you’ve got sourcing for this, would like to see it Like Keynes I change my opinions if the facts do.


      4. The Scots pound was introduce by David I and initaily was valued at par with the English pound. From the 14th century onwards the two diverged and by 1560 one english pound was worth five Scots. By 1707 the situation had deteriorated to the extent that prior to the Union the exchange rate for Scots pounds to sterling was fixed at 12 to 1, or to put it another way the Scots pound was worth one shilling and eight pence in England. Mia’s claim that the English currency had less value than the Scots is therefore incorrect.


      5. “Well it is a bogus idea, de jure at least”

        Bogus indeed, both de jure and de facto

        A sponge absorbs water, it is not “united” with it. It absorbs the water because the water enters the sponge, it is trapped inside it. Scotland never entered the Kingdom of England or was never trapped inside the Kingdom of England. Its boundaries did not change.

        After it has absorbed the water, the sponge remains the same, a sponge.
        After the Kingdoms of Scotland and England were UNITED, a new entity (state) was formed. This new entity had a new parliament, a new name, a new seal and a new flag. What it did not have was a new crown, because the two original crowns prevailed.

        You can squeeze the sponge and release the water, but the sponge remains being the same sponge with all its bits intact.

        However, if you “squeeze” Great Britain to release the Kingdom of Scotland, the entity changes completely. It is no longer “Great Britain”. It becomes the Kingdom of England, which will not be able to continue using the same flag and will change its seal. If Scotland is “squeezed out” by repealing the treaty of union and Scotland does not agree to it being the continuator state, the Kingdom of England is exposed to no longer being able to use Great Britain’s NATO or UN seats either. It will have to apply for its own like Scotland if it wants them.

        If Scotland had been absorbed by the Kingdom of England, it would not be “united” to it. It would have been annexed, like Wales was annexed.

        If Scotland had been absorbed by the Kingdom of England, the resulting state would have been the Kingdom of England and not a de novo entity called “Great Britain”, with a new flag and a new seal. As far as I know, neither England’s flag nor its seal changed when they annexed Wales.

        If Scotland had been absorbed by the Kingdom of England, Scotland would have never been able to have its own notes. Wales does not have its own notes. How many countries in the world do you know that have two different types of notes simultaneously? The only similar case that springs to mind is the EUro zone. Each country has its own mint. They all may be euros, but the notes are different. depending in which country they were printed. But the countries in the EU have not been absorbed one into another. or annexed like Wales was They have been united, just like the Kingdoms of Scotland and England were.

        Liked by 3 people

      6. From the Records of the Parliament of Scotland

        [Proclamation concerning the coin issued and remitted to committee; article of union approved]
        31 December 1706

        “And the article as amended being again read over, after reasoning thereon, a memorial was given in in relation to the losses by the coin, and remitted to the committee to whom the sixth and eighth articles were remitted”

        “Moved that a proclamation be issued forth lowering the value of the current coin of this kingdom to the true standard, and remitted to the above committee to be proceeded on by them prior to all other business”

        [Report of the committee concerning the coin]
        11 February 1707

        “It is the opinion of the committee that for changing the coinage of the current money in this kingdom, the commissioners of the equivalent should be ordained, how soon so ever the sums for the equivalent shall be lodged in their hands, to receive in all sums of money consisting of money that has passed the mint of this kingdom, and all foreign species (except English money) current within this kingdom, and shall immediately cause pay out of the equivalent in English money at 5s the crown the equal sum in total to what was paid in of the aforesaid money presently current in Scotland, to the person who paid in the said Scots money, and that immediately without delay, loss or defalcation.

        It is also the opinion of the said committee that for making up the loss to private persons that they may sustain by the English money as it is now current within this kingdom when the same shall be reduced to the standard of England at 5s per crown, that particular magistrates be appointed at the places following, namely: Edinburgh, Perth, Aberdeen, Stirling, Linlithgow, Glasgow, Ayr, Haddington, Dysart, Anstruther Easter, Dumfries, Inverness, Jedburgh, Wigtown, Elgin and Tain,..”

        Liked by 2 people

      7. Mia, what you’ve just written was an idea by the Scots parliament before union. Do you actually know what it means? Basically they were worried about the effect that standardisation into English currency would leave Scots a bit troubled in that the pound in their pocket was now only worth one and eightpence. The people who were most worried about this, of course, were the (previously) wealthy people who had virtually bankrupted themselves by investing in the Darien scheme.

        In fact, compensation was paid, not because the English currency was of less value – clearly it wasn’t if a Scots pound was only worth one and eightpence English – but to try to ameliorate the effect that conversion would have on the Scots, especially the nobler Scots. And the matter of compensation is dealt with in Article 15 of the Treaty which basically provided big chunks of cash to bail out the Scots lairds and merchants who’d bankrupted themselves by investing in Darien (or, more accurately, The African and Indian Company of Scotland). There is no doubt that it was bribery on a grand scale – In return for their support in passing the Act of Union, England would pay off the massive private and public debts resulting from this catastrophe. .

        The sum involved, termed “The Equivalent” – wasn’t small – it was £398,085 sterling, equivalent to about £70 million today. Now obviously they couldn’t say it was a bribe, so ostensibly it was to compensate Scotland for taking on a share of England’s national debt. To some extent the Treaty gave the game away as it was very specific about the uses of this slush fund. Firstly, it would compensate for any losses when the currency union kicked in and people changed their pounds Scots into pounds Sterling – that’s the compensation to which Mia is probably referring. (“And as for the uses to which the said sum of £398,085 10s … are to be applied It is agreed That in the first place out of the aforesaid sum what consideration shall be found necessary to be had for any Losses which private persons may sustain by reducing the Coin of Scotland to the Standard and Value of the Coin of England may be made good.)

        Secondly, it would buy up all the bankrupt stock of The African and Indian Company of Scotland. (“In the next place That the Capital Stock or fund of the African and Indian Company of Scotland advanced together with the interest for the said Capital Stock after the rate of 5% per annum from the respective times of the payment thereof shall be payed; Upon payment of which Capital Stock and Interest It is agreed The said Company be dissolved and cease And also that from the time of passing the Act of Parliament in England for raising the said sum of £398,085 10s the said Company shall neither Trade nor Grant Licence to Trade.”). Wow. As one commentator rather cynically put it, “In return for throwing in their lot with the burgeoning English (now British) Empire, the Scottish toffocracy turned a turkey into a nice little 5% p.a. earner after all, and were once more able to put claret on the table and silk and taffeta on their wives and daughters.” And there were more Equivalents to be paid for the next seven years!

        Mia, I do think you have to come to terms with what was an undoubted fact, that Scotland was much poorer country than England and following the failure of the Darien scheme was virtually bankrupt. I know you go on about England’s national debt, but it was a fact then as now that the wealthier a country is the more debt it can afford – less wealthy countries cannot afford to service a national debt. Scotland was broke – that’s why it was so easy to bribe those in charge of it.


      8. @Daveytee19

        It was not just “an idea”. They actually agreed to do it and put it into law.

        This quote is from 16 January 1707 and it is legislation, it is from the ACT of ratifying and approving the treaty of union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England (my capitals)

        “And as for the uses to which the said sum of £398,085 10s to be granted as aforesaid, and all other monies which are to be answered or allowed to Scotland, as said is, are to be applied, IT IS AGREED THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE, OUT OFTHE FORESAID SUM, WHAT CONSIDERATION SHALL BE FOUND NECESSARY TO BE HAD FOR ANY LOSSES WHICH PRIVATE PERSONS MAY SUSTAIN BY REDUCING THE COIN OF SCOTLAND TO THE STANDARD AND VALUE OF THE COIN OF ENGLAND MAY BE MADE GOOD;in the next place that the capital stock or fund of the African and Indian Company of Scotland, advanced together with the interest for the said capital stock after the rate of five per cent per annum from the respective times of the payment thereof, shall be paid, upon payment of which capital stock and interest it is agreed the said company be dissolved and cease, and also, that from the time of passing the act of parliament in England for raising the said sum of £398,085 10s, the said company shall neither trade nor grant licence to trade, providing that if the said stock and interest shall not be paid in twelve months after the commencement of the union that then the said company may from thence forward trade or give licence to trade until the said whole capital stock and interest shall be paid”

        As you can see, there are two very different things here:

        1. On one side we are talking about the loses “private persons” were facing because of the reduction of the coin of Scotland to the standard and value of England.
        2. On the other hand they were talking about acquiring and dissolving the African and Indian Company of Scotland.

        I repeat that this was not something they were just “discussing” in passing. This section is from the actual Act of ratification itself. It was therefore already legislation.

        They definitely talk about reduction of the standard and value of the coin in Scotland. And they definitely talk about what looks like buying off the African and Indian Company of Scotland before dissolving it. You can see that they say that they expect to buy the company off with a part of that money coming from England (the equivalent) , but AFTER the union, not before.

        It seems quite clear that after the company was to receive the money they expected it to dissolve, to finish trading. But what is fascinating here, is that they clearly state that if England does not pay the money within 12 months after the union started, then the company could continue operating!. This is a bit iffy to say the list, because if the company could continue operating then it suggests that the company was not in ruins at all or in such bad shape as we have been led to believe. If it was so bad, the parliament would not have been waiting for England’s money to finish off the company. Actually, the company would have folded itself. I am beginning to wonder if this company was somewhat contentious for England itself and, actually, if the termination of this company was some condition England’s commissioners had imposed, perhaps because it could become a direct competitor of England’s own trade enterprises?

        This idea is supported by the debate regarding article XV, before the act was printed, that took place on the 30 December 1706. At that point, they actually even floated the idea of compulsory dissolution of the company, which is bizarre. The compulsory dissolution did not take off though:

        “And thereupon there was two states of a vote offered, the first in these terms, approve of the fifteenth article of union as altered and amended, yes or no, and the second in these terms, whether or not this house will dissolve the Indian and African Company without the consent of the proprietors and hearing the company’s lawyers upon the rights and privileges of the said company, yes or no. And, after some reasoning which shall be the state of the vote, first or second, it was agreed before voting that the members’ votes be marked and that the list of their names as they vote be printed and recorded.
        Then the vote was put first or second, and it carried first”

        This attempt to dissolve the company by force is even more bizarre when you read this quote from the debate on the 10 March 1707:

        “Procedure: debate on committee report over quota of equivalent due to the African Company
        Report brought in from the committee to whom it was remitted the 5th instant to reconsider the account due to the Indian and African Company, was read, whereby (deducting the interest formerly allowed by the company) the total of the sums due to the company of stock, interest and debts, at 1 May next, will only extend to £232,884 5s 8d sterling”

        As you can see, the company sustained heavy losses, but it did not appear to be in the red. It was due interest and payables. If the company had a cash flow problem, and they wanted it to dissolve, they could just leave it to run its course. But they bought it off, suggesting the company was healthy enough to continue operating.

        The total value of the company on 1707 was £232,884.5s8d sterling, which was a bit over half the capital raised in Scotland alone when the English investors withdrew after the directors of the company were threatened with impeachment instigated by the English “East India Company”. This is an extract from the Records of the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and The Indies:

        “On 26 June 1695 the Scottish Parliament passed an act establishing The Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies. Its capital was to be £600,000 sterling, half to be subscribed in London and half in Scotland. English investors soon raised their share, but the powerful directors of the East India Company, fearing that their monopoly would be broken and their business ruined, used their influence to turn King William and the English Parliament against the venture. Indeed, the King did not need much persuading; he was anxious to be on good terms with Spain, and was conscious that the proposed Scottish colony would be located on Spanish-claimed land. The directors of the Company of Scotland were threatened with impeachment and English investors quickly withdrew their money.
        The Scots, enraged by the duplicity of the King and English Parliament and carried along on a tide of national pride, resolved to raise all the capital alone. By August 1696 the revised target of £400,000 sterling had been subscribed in Scotland. This was an enormous sum, amounting to about half the country’s available capital. The company’s directors began to lay plans for the colony and in the meantime effectively used the subscribed capital, of which £34,000 was held in coin, to operate as a bank by making loans and issuing notes. These initiatives were not a success and, indeed, much of the subscribed capital was embezzled and never recovered.”

        If you say that the £398,085 was not an insignificant figure then Scotland could not been that poor when by itself and in just one year, it managed to raise the capital for value of £400,000 sterling to invest in the company. When you look at these figures, the idea that Scotland was very poor simply does not fit. The idea does not fit either when you read in general sources that Scotland in 1707 did not have national debt, that is why the money was used for other things. At that time, England had a debt of £18 million so the “equivalent” seems suspiciously generous.

        It is also suspicious that the motivation to dissolve this company was right at the point they were discussing article XV for the union with England. Surely if the company was such a huge flop, a ruin for the country, this would have been done much sooner. Why dissolving it right before going into union with England when this would have been the perfect opportunity to make it a success with the cooperation of England?

        It would be most interesting to actually see the original draft the commissioners from England and Scotland wrote before they actually presented it to parliament and before parliament had made its own amends of the text. I have not had the opportunity to read those, but I have a strong suspicion that the dissolution of this company, for which Scotland managed to raise the capital itself proving they did not need England at all and could compete directly with the English East Indies company, might have not been just Scotland’s own initiative.

        This information from the British Museum seems to give a hint as to why this company had to be dissolved:

        “The Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies was created by an Act of the Scottish Parliament in June 1695, which granted the Company exclusive privilege of trade between Scotland and America, and perpetual monopoly of trade with Asia and Africa. The Company was dissolved in May 1707.”

        Exclusive privilege of trade between Scotland and America and perpetual monopoly of trade with Asia and Africa. You can see straight away why this would not sit well with an expansionist England, particularly when it had a trading company of its own with a monopoly of trade. You can see why the company had to be dissolved or set to dissolved by Scotland’s parliament before Scotland’s parliament adjourned on 25 March 1707. You can also start to see why, pretty much since Queen Anne got to the throne, she was already plotting to get the union between Scotland and England. Looking at the records of parliament, things for the union started already to move on from 1702. This African and the Indies company started only in 1695 and by 1696 Scotland had raised all the capital by itself.

        Coming back to the coin, they definitely agreed to pay compensation to people who had English money in Scotland to cover their losses for reducing the coin of Scotland to the standard of the value of the coin of England. And it appeared to be English money in particular.

        This is from the 6 January 1707 – Procedure: committee report read

        “A report brought in from the committee to whom the consideration of the coin was remitted, was read.

        ‘It is the opinion of the committee that it is necessary that the government reduce the current coin of this nation to the standard of that of England, whereby trade may be put on an equal footing, and that in case the union take effect the loss that may happen to the then proprietors of the silver coin be made up out of the equivalent, and that there be presently a proclamation emitted to certify the lieges that, notwithstanding of all the rumours that have lately been anent the coin, that in the meantime the same is to pass at the rates it now does within this kingdom’ ”

        As you can see, this is definitely a recommendation from the committee, but nonetheless, it definitely talks about the coin itself. They are clearly talking about the importance in reducing the exchange rate in Scotland to facilitate trade after the union. Here they are talking about “the silver coin”, presumably this means sterling, I guess what they call in other debates “English money”, but I do not know much about coins so it may be another type of coin. It is clear from this, and other entries, that at that time, this “English money” or “silver coin”, had a higher exchange rate in Scotland than in England and somewhat, being English money it would be disproportionally affected by the new exchange rate. They do not talk about compensating other coins in circulation, only this one. Another thing that seems clear is that there were more than one type of coin in circulation at the time. The following quote is from 5 February 1707 – Proclamation concerning the coin:

        “Anne, by the grace of God, queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, to our lyon king at arms, and his brethren heralds, pursuivants, macers and messengers at arms, our sheriffs in that part, conjunctly and severally, specially constituted, greetings. Forasmuch as through ignorance or with design to make private gain and advantage sundry of our lieges have not only refused to receive in payment of debts or bargains at the usual rate the money which have passed the irons of our mint house, BUT ALSO SEVERAL OTHER SPECIES OF COIN APPOINTED TO BE CURRENT AT THE RATES AND VALUE SPECIFIED IN THE SEVERAL ACTS OF PARLIAMENT AND PROCLAMATIONS OF PRIVY COUNCIL MADE THEREUPON, thereby both putting in difficulty the meaner sort of people and putting a stop to payment of debts, and obstructing the inland trade and necessary commerce amongst our lieges…”

        The main subject of the proclamation is related to people expecting more than the accepted exchange rate when being paid for debts, but the bit I highlighted in capitals clearly shows that there were several species of coin circulating at the time and each one of them had an accepted exchange rate. This, to me, is a healthy sign that Scotland was very active trading with different countries who had different currencies.

        But what is puzzling is that at the time, some people were paid in Scots while others were paid in Sterling. Why the difference? for instance, the Scottish commissioners dealing with the treaty were paid in Scots, while the army and others were paid in sterling.

        This is the report from the committee on 13 March 1707 regarding the coin, it is also confirmed that the coin they expected to make loses was the “English money” or “silver coin”:

        “Procedure: debate over report on coinage; remit to privy council
        Report of the committee anent the coin, again read and, upon reading of the second paragraph of the said report, that for making up of the losses which private persons may sustain by the English money as its now current in this kingdom, particular persons be appointed before whom all persons are by proclamation to be required to compear and tell down what English money they have.
        It was moved that the filling up of the persons and places where the money is to be laid† down be remitted to the privy council.
        And, after some discourse thereon, the vote was put, remit to the privy council to name the persons, places and time, or determine in parliament, and it carried remit.
        Agreed that the loss by the silver coin is only to be made up.
        And, after several other additions and amendments, the report of the committee as amended was approved, nobody dissenting.
        And it was remitted to the privy council to emit a proclamation thereupon, in such terms and with such orders, and appointing the execution thereof, after such method and manner as they shall think fit, conforming to a particular remit and order of parliament thereupon”

        It is very strange that it is precisely the English money, which is the one you would expect to keep its value across the union, the only one which appears to be affected. I must admit that I do not understand this. But there it is, in black and white. Inexplicably, the exchange rate in England for its own English money was lower than in Scotland and the English money in Scotland was be devaluated to a lower standard when entering the union. It cannot be just a matter of the exchange into the local currency being higher in Scotland because the Scottish local currency was worth less than that of England. Because if that was the case, the only thing the owner would have to do is to reap the benefit of the higher exchange rates in Scotland before the union, exchange all their silver coins into Scots or whatever other currency in circulation was available in Scotland at the time, and then exchange them back again into English money at the correct rate at the time of the union. There has to be another reason why this English money was valued differently both sides of the border.

        But here it is again, also on 13 March 1707 in this order by parliament to change the coin:

        “Order and remit of parliament anent the changing of the coin
        Her majesty’s high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having considered the report of the committee anent the coin, they do approve thereof in the terms following and order and appoint that for changing the coinage of the current money in this kingdom, the commissioners of the equivalent shall be ordained, as soon as the sums for the equivalent shall be lodged in their hands, to receive all sums of money consisting of money that have passed the mint of this kingdom, and all foreign species at the rates the same are now current within this kingdom, EXCEPT ENGLISH MONEY, and shall immediately cause pay out of the equivalent of English money at 5s per crown the equal sum in reckoning to what was paid in of the foresaid money presently current in Scotland to the person who paid in the said Scots money, and that immediately without loss, delay or defalcation. AND FOR MAKING UP THE LOSS WHICH PRIVATE PERSONS MAY SUSTAIN BY THE ENGLISH MONEY AS NOW CURRENT IN THIS KINGDOM, WHEN THE SAME SHALL BE REDUCED TO THE STANDARD OF ENGLAND AT 5s PER CROWN , order and appoint that the lords of her majesty’s privy council do name and appoint particular persons, at such parts and places of the kingdom as they shall think fit, before whom all persons are by proclamation to be required to compear upon one and the same day, and there count out, in the presence of the said persons one or more to be named by the said proclamation, what English money they have, which, being so enumerated, the persons so to be named to seal the same and detain it in his presence until 6 o’clock at night that day, and immediately to deliver back the same to the owner, with a declaration signed by him, before two witnesses, bearing the sum exhibited and enumerated, together with the sum paid out by the party to the teller, pertaining to 20d upon each £100 sterling… and that the said certificates to be granted by the said respective persons to be named by the privy council shall be a sufficient title for recovering the loss arising from the sums therein contained with what they paid out to the teller out of the equivalent, and the commissioners of the equivalent are to be expressly ordained to pay out the same to the bearer of the certificates without delay, loss or defalcation…And that the loss to be made up be only for the silver coinage but not the loss upon guineas. ..”

        I don’t know if overall the £398,085 10s was a bribe or not. It seems a bribe when you see that England’s national debt was only 18 million. But what will determine if it was a bribe or not is who made the stipulation of including that money and what it would be used for. Let’s remember that the monarch, with a huge vested interest in this union to go ahead since at least 1702, had her commissioners stuck inside Scotland’s parliament pushing the vote towards the union.

        I am not convinced on the least that the “compensation” to individuals with silver coins/English money was just a nice gesture to ameliorate the effect the conversion would have had on the Scottish people, because as you could read above, it was specifically the English money the one that was perceived as the most affected. This is ridiculous. People with local currency of less value would be the most affected. But people with Scots coins or other foreign coins other than English money did not receive the same privileged treatment. Also, apparently, this privilege did not extend to guineas, only to the silver coin.

        You say:

        “I do think you have to come to terms with what was an undoubted fact, that Scotland was much poorer country than England”

        I cannot with the evidence presented so far and neither can I believe that, as you say, Scotland was broke:

        1. Scotland had no national debt, while England had already at that point a national debt of 18 million.
        2. Scotland used some of the money to invest in manufacturing, not paying debts.
        3. Scotland’s parliament accountants were very cautious and meticulous. They had all their books, they knew all about trade and did an study of England’s taxes and calculated how much Scotland would have to pay in the next few years. They noticed that some of England’s taxes lasted only for some years, and that is why they stipulated in the articles that for certain number of years Scotland would not pay these or those taxes. Compare that with the absolute mess we have today when Whitehall is not even capable to tell us how much Scotland pays in corporation taxes from companies whose HQ are in England but operate in Scotland.
        4. Scotland managed by itself, in just one year, to raise £400,000 sterling (not scots!) in capital to finance the African trade company. If the country was so poor it would have been impossible for them to raise that amount of money, even less sterling.
        5. England was prepared to give almost £400,000 sterling, which was well above the share Scotland would have to pay of England’s national debt at the time. You do not do that unless you have a huge vested interest in getting your paws on Scotland
        6. You like it or not, parliament talked about depreciating the coin in Scotland to enter the union and facilitate trade. I am assuming they are referring to Sterling. Again, if Scotland rated sterling higher than England, it cannot possibly be because Scotland was poorer.
        5. The African Trade company was not in the red. It had plenty of capital and, judging by article 15, the pressing matter was not cover the loses as much as it was dissolving this company that, inconveniently for England, had been granted a monopoly of trade in perpetuity by the Parliament of Scotland.

        “the wealthier a country is the more debt it can afford”
        Sure, particularly when, like England, you conveniently shove a share of your debt to Scotland, Wales and NI, charge them for your vanity projects and cock ups, help yourself to their assets and keep your hand in their purse at all times!

        Liked by 1 person

      9. It was not just “an idea”. They actually agreed to do it and put it into law.
        I know. That’s what I said – Clause XV of the Act. Why you’re taking so much time to say the same thing but pretend it isn’t I really don’t know.

        But for the rest you are talking some rubbish. You really are. The Darien company was finished. The settlers had gone. There was no money. It could have been a success had it been properly managed, and had the settlers actually thought of planting some crops, but it wasn’t and those relatively few settlers who survived uppped sticks and went off to, ironically, New England. A relief expedition that was sent out found the place deserted. You’re the first person I know who has suggested that it was still viable. It wasn’t. That’s why the bribe was so attractive – it was the only way that investors were going to get their money back which they achieved by England buying up all the shares at face value notwithstanding the fact they were actually worthless and subsequently dissolving the company.

        Incidentally, the bribe was paid before the Union was completed.

        You said: “Coming back to the coin, they definitely agreed to pay compensation to people who had English money in Scotland to cover their losses for reducing the coin of Scotland to the standard of the value of the coin of England.”
        Look, you just don’t get it. In 1707 £1 sterling was worth £12 Scots £1 Scots was worth 1/8d old money English. English currency was worth a lot more than Scottish currency. The value of Scottish currency would therefore be reduced, made less, when English currency was introduced. People in Scotland would suddenly find that the pound in their pocket was now suddenly worth only 1/8d. Everyone knew that wasn’t going to down well so steps were taken via the Equivalent to try to to put Scots in a better position money-wise than would otherwise have been the case.

        You continue to assert that Scotland was not poor. It was, that’s just a fact. It was well-nigh bankrupt.

        Trade? Yes, Scotland was a trading nation, but for years it had suffered from having a trade deficit. That was a problem that Parliament spent quite a long time trying to correct but with only limited success.

        You say: “ England was prepared to give almost £400,000 sterling, which was well above the share Scotland would have to pay of England’s national debt at the time. You do not do that unless you have a huge vested interest in getting your paws on Scotland.
        Is it? You’re always saying that Scotland and England were equal partners in which case Scotland’s share would have been £9 million! In fact the sum paid by way of the equivalent amounted to 2.2% of England’s national debt. Do remember. Scotland wasn’t going to have to pay the debt – it was only taking on some liability for it in the event of Great Britain defaulting on repayments. It didn’t.

        I do agree that the English government was anxious to get its paws on Scotland, which is why it was content to pay the bribe. The people of England weren’t so keen.

        Mia, you come across as someone who, once they have an idea in their head, just won’t relinquish it regardless of the facts presented to you. In this instance you’re wrong, plain wrong, and you don’t seem to have any understanding of the financial aspects of Scotland, the Darien company, or the proposed union.
        I’m not going to discuss it any more at it would be just a complete waste of my time. As far as this thread goes, I am, as they say, outta here.


    1. If Scotland and England are Parts of the UK, which is a State, then it follows that neither one is a State anymore.

      Which means they can’t have an extant inter-state “treaty” between them.

      Which means neither one has the legal personality to revoke such a non-existent “treaty”.

      The only way to revoke the Acts of Union is via majority vote of the UK Parliament.



      1. Sorry, that is simply nonsense. They were separate, independent states when they acceded to the Treaties, so the Treaties stand. If they don’t, there can be no UK because those Treaties are the very constitutional basis for the UK. If the Treaty has been breached, and it has, then the UK cannot stand.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. The Acts of Union translated the Treaties into domestic law, as has been stated umpteen times. Domestic law cannot supersede international law, and Treaties are founded upon international law. No matter how many times you try to twist the facts, they remain facts, Sparks. The Acts of Union are subservient to the Treaties. There were two Treaties as there were two Acts, one for Scotland and one for England. They did not ratify the Treaties, they translated them into domestic law, and by so doing, afforded them domestic legal status, which is the authority that the British parliament – Westminster – exercises to this day. EU law was imported into Scots Law in the same way, EU law being the superior law, emanating from the Treaty of Rome. Treaties stand, irrespective of domestic law. Think about it. A state cannot retrospectively create itself from domestic law – the domestic law not having existed without the Treaty first being negotiated. The Treaty (superior law) confers the necessary authority (sovereignty) for rule and the Act translates that into domestic (inferior) law, but, in Scotland’s case, and very likely in England’s case, too, not all of their sovereignty required to be passed to the British parliament because it required only half of each country’s sovereignty to create the new whole, and, if the whole falls, that sovereignty may be reclaimed. You are putting the cart before the horse.

        Liked by 3 people

  9. Back in 2014, I had two articles bookmarked which appeared in the Law Society’s Journal which struck me as acutely relevant to Scotland’s Constitutional position.

    Sadly, the first article, which I thought most relevant, is no longer found by the link, but only takes you to a search engine, and I don’t have enough information or recollection to find the article. In brief summary, the article explained in great detail why the Treaty of Union did not extinguish Scotland’s Constitutional Rights and status, and further affirmed that the Treaty could be resiled. I know, I know, it’s all academic without the link… It used to work.


    There it is, but sadly it doesn’t work. Unionist Sabotage, clearly…. lol

    The second article wasn’t anywhere as relevant, but still engaging enough that I bookmarked it also.


    The gist as I understand it, (not a lawyer), is that just because Westminster breaks the rules and gets away with it, doesn’t mean the practice is valid in law. The Treaty of Union is much more complicated than Westminster pretends. In other words, no matter how often they’ve been violated, Scotland still has Constitutional Rights. It just doesn’t defend them very well.

    Just to comment specifically on the conversation, I would only add that Scotland and England clearly weren’t “equals” in every regard. But for the purposes of the Treaty they were “Constitutional” Equals, in the sense that neither Nation outranked the other.

    The irreconcilable Constitutional ramifications of the Union were never resolved, but deliberately left unresolved and actually swept under the carpet. Three hundred years late, but the awkward question I like to ask is how the Treaty of Union managed to “join” the popular Sovereignty of Scotland’s people with the one and only citizen within the realm of Scotland who was explicitly and literally deemed to be NOT Sovereign by the Declaration of Arbroath… the Monarch.

    From day 1, the Treaty was purportedly doing things which couldn’t be done. It should never have been sound in the first place.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Breeks: “… The gist as I understand it, (not a lawyer), is that just because Westminster breaks the rules and gets away with it, doesn’t mean the practice is valid in law… ”


      Liked by 2 people

  10. @ Sparks “the moment both Acts were in force, the “international” element disappeared” Not as far as the Treaty is concerned, and as a matter of fact even the United Kingdom is not a single country, it is a single state in the form of a kingdom, but it is a joint Kingdom with two crowns and two constitutions, two sets of legal systems, two national religions and two populaces with differing sovereignties, and both kingdoms now share the same new parliament, with two sets of MPs, one set from each kingdom, representing the two partners who created the joint kingdom.

    The ‘internationality of the UK’ runs through it like Edinburgh rock.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I forgot to mention that there is also a clear border separating Scotland from England, delineating the edges of the different legal systems, the different tax regimes, different cultures, different speech patterns and even different languages, different political outlooks, different popular foods, different health systems, different police forces, and it even has its own Parliament under a vastly superior election system. What more do you want?

      Liked by 3 people

    2. “Not as far as the Treaty is concerned”

      As I just showed you, there is no “Treaty”.

      It only existed as a draft, it was never signed by anyone, and as soon as the Acts were signed it disappeared.


      1. Sorry, Sparks, but that is patent nonsense. How many times do you need to hear it: domestic law cannot supersede international law. You believe what you want to believe, but please stop trying to deliberately muddy the waters. A treaty can’t simply disappear because the UK would then disappear. I don’t know if you are Scottish, but, if not, and are actually English, it is wishful thinking, albeit it could come back to bite you because, no Treaty of Union, no Union. The Treaties were commissioned by the joint monarch, Queen Anne, under whose authority it was created. She talks of her kingdom of Scotland and her kingdom of England. I suggest you read her speeches made to parliament. She understood very well that two separate nations were coming together to create a new state and her words convey her understanding (conveyed to us) that neither was the superior of the other. The Treaties cannot be read in isolation. You must take all the workings before the Treaties, and all the speeches together with the Treaties and the subsequent Acts to understand what occurred. The mistake that was made was in using the old English parliament buildings for the new parliament because that allowed England to carry on as if nothing had changed when it very evidently had. The Scots should have demanded when we had devolved status that England also had devolved status and moved out to Winchester, the old capital, perhaps, that England had to record all its projects separately from the UK capital projects, that it should have been fiscally responsible via an allocated budget, for its own spending as Scotland is, and that accounts of all taxes raised in England, rather than in rUK be made public.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. @Lorncal

        If you believe that these multiple “Treaties” exist, then please tell me where the signed copies are held.

        You can’t, because there is no such thing.

        The only documents ever signed were the two Acts of Union. Domestic law, not international.


      3. Wrong. It was signed by Queen Anne as monarch of both countries. It was ratified by two parliaments as the title of the Scottish Act and the preamble of both make perfectly clear and it created a new entity, the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The contractual terms of any treaty prohibit one signatory from unilaterally revising the contract so the pretended continuation of the English parliament is irrelevant. Then, either neither signatory remains since a new state was created *or* the two nations that created the new state both remain. In any of these events Westminster has no authority to alter the terms of the Treaty.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Equal partners:

    OK, we’ve gone through the figures I agree the expenditures and our share of the costs? – of defence, of government departments, the civil service, of maintaining Westminster? And we have had the calculations audited. i’m satisfied, i’ll send you the funds from the Scottish treasury.

    Wouldn’t it be nice? An equal say, control of your taxes raised.

    You need power to operate your businesses, to heat your homes? Sure we have a power surplus, Our terms are…

    Wouldn’t it be nice to control, and profit from our renewable energy.

    A bit simplistic? Complex problems mostly can be broken down to fundamentals.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Excellent point, if I may say, benmadigan. The difference in population size was very much smaller in 1707. It could, and probably should, be argued that, by constraining Scotland within the bounds of the UK run by England for England’s benefit, our mass emigration has been caused by the lack of decision-making on our own behalf, lack of opportunities with HQs and many businesses relocating south of the border, real opportunities for trade on our own behalf crushed and narrowed to just a few outlets, and so on. The other side of that particular coin is that we are seen as a nice place to settle down in for retired people, in the main, with all that that entails for rising housing costs, the strain on NHS and other public services within a set budget set by Westminster. If we moan about a low population, it simply encourages colonisation. What we need are the opportunities for our own young people to flourish within the Scottish context, and that means jobs and businesses and housing and infrastructure across the board. All countries that are dominated by a big neighbour are crushed in aspiration. I know it is pretty pointless, but I often try to imagine what Scotland would be like had we always been independent, and I rather think we would be very different, far more ambitious and flourishing, with our languages vibrant and our sense of Scottishness intact and our culture a living entity, instead of being diluted by Anglophone diktats and seeping Americanism.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. lorncal: I don’t have data on Scotland’s vs England’s population way back in 1707, i can offer the following figures as Scotland’s population as a % of the UK;-

    1911 – 13.9%
    1971 – 11.2%
    1991 – 10.3%
    2008 – 8.3%

    And why? Well you go where the fish are, and London in particular, is the big fish pond, thanks to N Sea oil. Anyone of an age to remember London in the seventies? Terraced brick houses? Z cars? Also the disproportionate Scots’ casualties in WW1 and WW2

    Still not having satisfied their lust for wealth the Establishment is constructing HSR2 to enable the northern English suckers to sit on a train down to London for the day’s work, Arrive home by say 8pm, exhausted.The kids are in bed – you see them at weekends, in the fancy 4 bedroomed houses.Why isn’t HSr2 extending to Scotland? well it is just too far for daily travel to London for suckers..

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ve watched Jenny Eels at Random Scottish History on her Youtube videos, and she read out a letter which stated
      at the time of union Scotland’s population was 2million people, and england’s was just 4million. We had half the
      numbers of people they did, yet were ‘granted’ far less than half the MPs england was given. IIRC we got something
      like 25. She’s well worth watching for facts and figures of how shafted we got.


      1. Yes, I think that would be about right, about half the number, and, while we were not the richest country by a country mile, neither were we as backward and poor as so many appear to believe. We paid off England’s massive National Debt! It has all been a gigantic con and an exercise in illegality from day one. It is trying to convince people of that, that is the problem.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. It actually wasn’t right – the true population figure was 1 milion in Scotland, 5.2 million in England. And we didn’t pay off England’s “massive national debt” – rather, we received ££398,085 from England, ostensibly to offset any future liability for England’s national debt, but in fact, as I mentioned earlier, to compensate Scots for the fact that their currency had lost much of itrs value and that many were facing bankruptcy through the failure of the Darien misdaventure. Thanks to the English money investors, largely drawn from the upper echelons of Scottish Society, got their money back plus 5% interest. It was of course really little more than a massive bribe, particularly as although it was a specific term of the Union Act it was paid up front, before the Act was passed.


  14. It is not possible to excise the anti-Catholic tenor of these documents. They are of interest to historians but essentially of their time.
    The signal result of the Union was a slow erosion of the characteristics of nationhood and their replacement with fantasy, steady anglicization and a fake «Scottish» sentiment. This is a wide spectrum cultural matter. The non cultural nature of modern Scottish nationalism and its preoccupation with constitutional, legalistic and economic devices, mere shifting sands, not the granite of the former, is its basic weakness. It is why so many remain unconvinced by this dull politicians and lawyerd game. It lacks the vital spark.
    When the people become energized, enthused, enthralled by the thing itself, Scottishness in all its socio-cultural manifestations, the scales ought to fall. But of course, one must first define that Scottishness, I wonder if the Rangers fans in Seville could offer some clues?
    Romantic? No, culture has been the engine of all nationalist movements in history. Why the Scots think they may dispense with it is a total mystery. This exceptionalism is counterproductive. The anglo-globalist Zeitgeist is no friend of Scotland either.
    If Scots hold their citizens to be sovereign they do not require documentation to prove it anymore than they need to offer justification of nationhood.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. You need to read the Bill of Rights from which comes parliamentary privilege and parliamentary sovereignty. Anti Catholic much? So why are these principles the only things that still stand? Because legal principle and immediate effect are completely different things. Btw the Clsim of Right was used to block William of Orange in 1699 from attempting to restrict the right to protest in Scotland. Because his attempt was unlawful under the constitution as set out in the Claim of Right. The drafters understood it, the Scottish parliament understood it, the negotiators of the Treaty understood it, Daniel Defoe understood it and wrote about it, perhaps you should try to understand it too.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. The path is the subject of very interesting discussion here: but path there must be. The most fundamental of all truths is that the expressed will of a nation must be respected by democracy or enforced through rebellion.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Do you Sparks.? For starters there were two treaties – each commissioned separately by the monarch acting her her dual role as monarch of Scotland and monarch of England. It was Queen Anne who instigated the Treaties of Union, not the parliaments. The Acts translated the international treaties into both Scots and English law, and the parliaments ratified the Acts, not the Treaties. The Acts are domestic law and cannot supersede the Treaties which exist outwith the Acts. The fact that you don’t even know that there are two treaties says much about your understanding of the constitutional niceties.

      DaveyTee: I am trying to find the population differentials that I unearthed some time ago, but we were more than a fifth of the English population. Iain is right: Darien was a private enterprise and not a state one, by Scotland. Individuals became almost bankrupt, but the state never did. The state remained solvent. The Equivalence was owed, however you spin it because it was the William of Orange, husband of Queen Mary, sister of Queen Anne, and joint monarch before her, who instigated the embargo on trading with Darien – with the Netherlands, England and Spain all participating in the destruction of the Scottish colony. If you think about it, the Panama Isthmus was a very clever idea because of the later Panama Canal! It wasn’t England’s idea, of course, so it had to be thwarted. Anything that might actually enrich Scotland was thwarted, as now, even though, on a personal note, I am anti colonisation. England deliberately told its American colonies not to trade with Darien, effectively starving it. That is what happened. It is in the records. Many died. Oh, and we did pay off the English debt which brought many Scots on to the streets when they rioted against the imposition of taxes and the closure of the Franco-Scottish claret trade in favour of English beer.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. It will be a disappointment to many, and contrary to what I’ve heard, but I fear there’s a wee fly in the ointment about Scotland and England being Constitutional Equals, because I don’t think one Constitutional Equal would be able to terminate the Union “debt free”.

    A “seceding” state would be debt free, yes, with the Continuer State carrying the whole burden, but succession is not on the cards because the UK is not, and never has been, Scotland’s mother country, and the UK will actually cease to exist. It is a Union of Constitutional equals, so Scottish Independence will not be an act of secession. I very much doubt a departing “Constitutional Equal” would walk away debt free. On the up side however, an Indy Scotland honouring it’s share of UK debt would be entitled to a pro rata share of common UK assets. Is that a nett + or a – ? No idea. (I might also be quite wrong in this presumption, but I don’t think I am).

    Another consideration however is that debt is not necessarily the worst thing to happen to a Independent Scotland. Remember the McCrone Report describing Scotland having surplus wealth “to an embarrassing degree”, and thus having a very hard currency? Scotland will be wealthy country, and shouldering a lump of debt might help Scotland’s International reputation and credit, and could be a very useful tool or “shock absorber” to prevent a runaway hard currency that would otherwise cripple Scottish Exports.

    It’s a seductive notion to be “debt free”, but let’s go canny and do our homework. It’s not necessarily the smartest option.


    1. I suspect the primary problem might be actually getting an accurate and full accounting of the flows of money across the border going back at least some decades, in order to determine what Scotland really owes, or is owed, given the many scams that the Whitehall and Westminster establishments have perpetrated over the decades, especially over our oil as a particularly egregious example. HM Treasury may be extremely reluctant to open the books, and I would certainly want a properly independent auditor to vet anything HMT produces.

      I’d nominate Professor Richard Murphy for that job, if he could be persuaded to take it on.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: