Take a few minutes to watch this. The Welsh warn Scotland what ENGLAND are up to!

Crucial warning from our Welsh friends. This really matters! My thanks to Sara Salyers for sharing this.


MIA COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE

Oh, I am so angry.

This speech, if I am not mistaken, took place before the Withdrawal bill was passed in December 2019. What I find unconceivable (and disgusting, quite frankly) is that if Mr Carwyn Jones, being a labour man (unionist by default), was wide awake and not caught off guard when recognising this, he was able to actually see how this would clash with Scotland’s constitutional convention and how this would cut right across the Treaty of Union, and had the balls to shout it, so should have done Sturgeon, and the brigade of amoebas that call themselves SNP MPs and MSPs.

So why didn’t they cause a constitutional mayhem about this and stop the Brexit process on its tracks right there and then?

Because they did not want to. Stopping brexit was never their intention and, by the look of it, they don’t give a rat’s arse about Scotland’s constitution and Scotland’s rights through the treaty of union.

While Mr Carwyn Jones denounced this assault, publicly, what did Sturgeon and the SNP amoebas do? Nothing. Not a thing, so the bill passed with no problems. One hell of a fighter we have on the side of Scotland, huh? I wish we could swap Mr Carwyn Jones for the hopeless Sturgeon.

In my view they had in their hands two opportunities not mutually exclusive to stop brexit and to end the union:

1. To terminate the treaty of union on the basis of the direct constitutional assault of England MPs on Scotland and their encroachment in our constitution
2. To immediately invoke Article 46 of the Vienna Convention to stop the Withdrawal bill and treaty of the EU with the UK regarding brexit

Yet, the SNP amoebas did none. And in doing nothing and letting it pass, they might have activated clause b of Article 45 of the Vienna convention (Loss of a right to invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty), which says:

“A State may no longer invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or
suspending the operation of a treaty under articles 46 to 50 or articles 60 and 62 if, after becoming aware
of the facts:
(a) it shall have expressly agreed that the treaty is valid or remains in force or continues in operation,
as the case may be; or
(b) it must by reason of its conduct be considered as having acquiesced in the validity of the treaty or in its maintenance in force or in operation, as the case may be”

Mr Carwyn Jones said that he left this for the Scots to fight. I wish we had him as FM instead of the compliant debutant passing for Scotland’s FM we are currently discredited with. Did those who were elected to represent us and acting under Sturgeon’s command even attempt to seriously fight this other than giving it a bit of lip service?

The cowards didn’t even bat an eyelid. They should refused to take the Westminster seats while this bill was debated and voted, to signal that such parliament had no legitimacy to pass that bill on behalf of Scotland. Instead, they glued their backsides to the seats even more, took part in the vote and let that withdrawal bill pass “on our behalf”, imposing on us, “on our behalf” “Westminster’s parliamentary sovereignty” without remorse.

And are we supposed to thank “the leader” and her SNP amoebas for this astonishing betrayal? I think not.

The timeline of things is always fascinating, isn’t it? This bill was introduced on the 19 December 2019. That is just ONE week after the GE2019 where Scotland sent the last absolute majorities of SNP MPs and where Sturgeon pontificated about a vote for the SNP being a vote for Scotland to have a choice. A hell of a choice this woman is going to give Scotland when she has let England MPs encroach in each and every one of our rights, our assets and our constitution, huh?

And this bill was, of course, conveniently passed right before Sturgeon’s infamous capitulation speech just over a month later, where she promptly obliged to the new imposition of Westminster’s sovereignty. How accommodating. It is a shame that when some Spad or spin doctor wrote the speech for her it did not occur to them that she was expected to deliver he speech on behalf of Scotland and not just on Sturgeon and the Spad’s/spin doctor’s behalf. Scotland never agreed to let England MPs encroach on our constitution. So what right did she have to let it happen?

But there is something else, If I am not mistaken, and I am happy to be corrected, Mr Keatings sought his advice from counsel before to start the Section 30 case BEFORE this withdrawal bill had been introduced. How much did this bill determine the ruling of the case against Mr Keatings?

Undermining our constitution without our consent is just one of the many “favours” this useless “leader” has done for us. And the withdrawal bill is just one of many opportunities to legitimately terminate this union that this political fraud has let pass us by. She is, without a shadow of a doubt, the best weapon unionists could ever dream of to forever stop Scotland’s independence.


BEAT THE CENSORS

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

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

Are available easily by clicking on the links in the Home and Blog sections of this website. by doing so you will be joining thousands of other readers who enjoy being notified by email when new articles are published. You will be most welcome.

48 thoughts on “Take a few minutes to watch this. The Welsh warn Scotland what ENGLAND are up to!

  1. Carwyn Jones confirming the English MO: everything and anything by-stealth.

    ‘LCM’, as mentioned by Jones:

    ‘A legislative consent motion is the means by which a devolved legislature indicates that it is content for the UK Parliament to pass a law on a devolved matter.

    Sometimes referred to as Sewel motions, they arise out of the convention that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate on a devolved matter without the consent of the relevant devolved legislature.’

    It should concern Scots little – again confirmed by Jones – except that from recent history it sounds very much like an LCM is something our Scot gov are more than willing to comply with. My question therefore; should sturgeon and co comply with and permit these breaches, can we expect they’ll be rescinded, rightly, at a later date as having no bearing whatsoever under Declaration of Arbroath?

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Having posed my question, I’m now thinking that what’s passed or conceded today will be academic, irrelevant, in independence, unless those concessions directly affect, or make extremely difficult, the obtaining of independence. Yes, that would be their (the devolutionists) intention.

      Liked by 4 people

  2. Sewel motions or Legislative Consent Motions have been shown to be worthless for Scotland’s parliament – not even worth the paper on which they are written because it is a given that Westminster won’t interfere in anything that is not important or not of a disadvantageous nature to the British State via the vehicle of Westminster. The British State is the English State, to all intents and purposes, and, like Westminster, is British in name only. Despite being dissolved in 1707, the English parliament continues under a different guise, and the English parliament and monarch throughout their history have done everything in their power to subjugate and incorporate and subsume the other nations that share this island with them, into a Greater England – much like Hitler’s Third Reich tried to do the same to every other country that shared the European continent with them. England’s ‘Lebensraum’ (living space for the chosen people) has always meant, and will always mean, subjugation and subsumption and suborning.

    It is not anti English to say so: it is the truth, stark and brutal, but the truth, nonetheless. Scotland, Wales and Ireland have been in a existential struggle with England for well over a millennia. Anyone who would argue against that truism needs to go for a self-awareness check-up. It is simply another form of colonialism, and just because Scotland’s landed elite and business-oriented burgesses favoured the Union, collaborating in the disposal of our birthright, does not mean that the rest of Scotland agreed. They most decidedly did not. Nor, incidentally, did the common people of England who could see few benefits – until, that is, the Treaty itself was deliberately suborned in favour of England, and all its constitutional tools rendered impotent, or so they all thought. This needs to be fought and Joanna Cherry is the only MP down there who has the knowledge and understanding of the legal ramifications. Why oh why, Joanna, don’t you leave that desert called the party of independence and find a more fitting and welcoming home? If you go, the whole collaborationist edifice will fall and we will have some chance. We have none as things stand. Just a collection of rattling skeletons with missing spines.

    Incidentally, does anyone doubt that the Unionist/British/English parties up here – Labour, LibDems, Tories – don’t provide information to Whitehall or Thames Embankment whenever any new Scottish initiative for independence arises? Or, perhaps they are pipped at the post by our own collaborators? Who could tell the difference anymore?

    Liked by 18 people

    1. I second your plea to Joanna. Time is of the essence and JC is not of any use sitting in the back benches of that sleaze den. We need someone of Joannas intelligence and stature to stand up to the unionists. Sturgeon is our Benedict Arnold and I hope that her future mirrors Arnold, which was dying in obscurity in England. Because when her traitorous deeds see the light of day she had better not be this side of the border.

      Liked by 12 people

  3. Oh, I am so angry.

    This speech, if I am not mistaken, took place before the Withdrawal bill was passed in December 2019. What I find unconceivable (and disgusting, quite frankly) is that if Mr Carwyn Jones, being a labour man (unionist by default), was wide awake and not caught off guard when recognising this, he was able to actually see how this would clash with Scotland’s constitutional convention and how this would cut right across the Treaty of Union, and had the balls to shout it, so should have done Sturgeon, and the brigade of amoebas that call themselves SNP MPs and MSPs.

    So why didn’t they cause a constitutional mayhem about this and stop the Brexit process on its tracks right there and then?

    Because they did not want to. Stopping brexit was never their intention and, by the look of it, they don’t give a rat’s arse about Scotland’s constitution and Scotland’s rights through the treaty of union.

    While Mr Carwyn Jones denounced this assault, publicly, what did Sturgeon and the SNP amoebas do? Nothing. Not a thing, so the bill passed with no problems. One hell of a fighter we have on the side of Scotland, huh? I wish we could swap Mr Carwyn Jones for the hopeless Sturgeon.

    In my view they had in their hands two opportunities not mutually exclusive to stop brexit and to end the union:

    1. To terminate the treaty of union on the basis of the direct constitutional assault of England MPs on Scotland and their encroachment in our constitution
    2. To immediately invoke Article 46 of the Vienna Convention to stop the Withdrawal bill and treaty of the EU with the UK regarding brexit

    Yet, the SNP amoebas did none. And in doing nothing and letting it pass, they might have activated clause b of Article 45 of the Vienna convention (Loss of a right to invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty), which says:

    “A State may no longer invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or
    suspending the operation of a treaty under articles 46 to 50 or articles 60 and 62 if, after becoming aware
    of the facts:
    (a) it shall have expressly agreed that the treaty is valid or remains in force or continues in operation,
    as the case may be; or
    (b) it must by reason of its conduct be considered as having acquiesced in the validity of the treaty or in its maintenance in force or in operation, as the case may be”

    Mr Carwyn Jones said that he left this for the Scots to fight. I wish we had him as FM instead of the compliant debutant passing for Scotland’s FM we are currently discredited with. Did those who were elected to represent us and acting under Sturgeon’s command even attempt to seriously fight this other than giving it a bit of lip service?

    The cowards didn’t even bat an eyelid. They should refused to take the Westminster seats while this bill was debated and voted, to signal that such parliament had no legitimacy to pass that bill on behalf of Scotland. Instead, they glued their backsides to the seats even more, took part in the vote and let that withdrawal bill pass “on our behalf”, imposing on us, “on our behalf” “Westminster’s parliamentary sovereignty” without remorse.

    And are we supposed to thank “the leader” and her SNP amoebas for this astonishing betrayal? I think not.

    The timeline of things is always fascinating, isn’t it? This bill was introduced on the 19 December 2019. That is just ONE week after the GE2019 where Scotland sent the last absolute majorities of SNP MPs and where Sturgeon pontificated about a vote for the SNP being a vote for Scotland to have a choice. A hell of a choice this woman is going to give Scotland when she has let England MPs encroach in each and every one of our rights, our assets and our constitution, huh?

    And this bill was, of course, conveniently passed right before Sturgeon’s infamous capitulation speech just over a month later, where she promptly obliged to the new imposition of Westminster’s sovereignty. How accommodating. It is a shame that when some Spad or spin doctor wrote the speech for her it did not occur to them that she was expected to deliver he speech on behalf of Scotland and not just on Sturgeon and the Spad’s/spin doctor’s behalf. Scotland never agreed to let England MPs encroach on our constitution. So what right did she have to let it happen?

    But there is something else, If I am not mistaken, and I am happy to be corrected, Mr Keatings sought his advice from counsel before to start the Section 30 case BEFORE this withdrawal bill had been introduced. How much did this bill determine the ruling of the case against Mr Keatings?

    Undermining our constitution without our consent is just one of the many “favours” this useless “leader” has done for us. And the withdrawall bill is just one of many opportunities to legitimately terminate this union that this political fraud has let pass us by. She is, without a shadow of a doubt, the best weapon unionists could ever dream of to forever stop Scotland’s independence.

    Liked by 13 people

    1. I believe it was brought up at the time, Mia, but, as per, little came of it. What is to be done when the party of independence, which was elected to look after Scotland’s best interests, and its membership, are in thrall to a S30 Order which does nothing more than consolidate England-as-the-UK’s parliamentary sovereignty? I think that they just do not understand the finer points of constitutional matters, or are not willing to listen to those who do. We all know that powers are being drained from Holyrood and that the Sewel Convention has been subverted to Westminster’s cause, but, without the willingness of the SNP to stand up against it, and with the membership’s participation in deluded belief in a S30 Order or any kind of pre independence referendum, there is no united front to actually challenge. The MPs just sit on their hands or bellow from their benches and sit down again, having achieved nothing. If you are jeered and laughed at, you walk and you do not return. That will put the smirk on the other side of their fat coupons. So long as they know we are not serious, nothing will change.

      I am not anti English, by the way, just anti Westminster and anti the British State. The English, as a people, have some very fine qualities and they not answerable for the ruthless con merchants that populate Westminster except insofar as they elected them. They are used and abused as we are. It is the Unionist parties up here which perpetuate this subservience and the SNP which refuses to do anything concrete about changing matters. They were elected to do their best for Scotland, but it is becoming ever more obvious that they do their best only for that section of society that is pro Union. That is the only way to look at it when so many of their people are in dire straits and when it must be obvious to a blind man that independence is the only way forward, even if it does hurt and even if it takes a few years to work for us all.

      Liked by 10 people

  4. The break up of the UK doesn’t effect Scotland in a detrimental way, although the unionist would have everyone who’s stupid enough to belive them that is does, but it will have a detrimental in effect to England, Wales and Northern Ireland because of Scotland’s assets in oil, gas and wind etc. Clause 38 has been on the go for a few years now so why isnt the SNP screaming about it and why are they still puting off a ref especially if the people are sovereign, we have express clearly that we want a further vote on the constitutional question for the last 8yrs and nothing has been done. In fact the SNP have got more rooted in the idea that Devo-Max is better than Independence. What nationalist in any country would seek to under mine any Pro-Indy party who seeks the same goals. The restoration of ones country should be at the top of the SNP’s priorities, but no, to stop it they have even acusing an innocent man and continue, the false claims even after a court of law has found the man innocent of any wrong doing, and who should know better than a lawyer (NS). When AUOB was marching in Glasgow against Boris Johnson,I tweeted them continuely, stating marching to get rid of Boris Johnston was a pointless execise and what they should be doing was marching on Bute house to demand these mandates where acted upon, my efforts feel on death ears. Of course England is going to trying every single thing at its disposole to try and keep the Scotlandshire and I’m afraid Sturgeon and her party will make every effort to allow them to succeed. Why didn’t the Scottish Goverment get right behind Martin Keating case, but they did the exact opposite, they went out of there way and destroyed it. The FM is star struck to the point that the power her governement has they can’t cope with, so how could we possible hope that they could do anything than capitulate to anything the English Parliament does when Independence sin’t in there interest.

    I have tried for over 5yrs to try and get the SNP members to see the light and pointed where NS is more for the union than she is for separation, I lost the will to live.

    Yes clause 38 is a worry but I concider NS is our biggest worry for our goal to Independence.

    Liked by 14 people

  5. When a horse bolts what do you do? Attempt a stop by standing in its path, an action which may entail being fatally trampled or attempt restraint by empathy with the possible reason for the animal’s flight, calm the beast and lead it in the less troublesome direction.
    It seems that is what has happened to Scottish independence. The SNP is full of empathy for the cause but the cause is now so tame it may be led in any direction the trainer may choose.
    Consequently, nothing now to frighten horses, riders or punters.
    And from tame to lame but a short ride.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. I think that, for many within its ranks, that empathy is false, Ottomanboi. Too many have much to lose with independence, not least the trans lobby which has captured every facet of Scottish public and private life – at the taxpayer’s expense, too. Others are foot-draggers for various reasons, not least self-interest. The cause has simply been subverted by callous, self-seeking people who are still managing to fool the many.

      Liked by 11 people

  6. If ever there was a week for a political coup within her own party, surely it is this week, when Nicola S, by her own recommendations, as to isolate at home for a week. I dont expect it to happen but the absence of such an act would suggest her own MSPs are happy with the train service cuts, the ferry contracts, the hospital waiting lists, the state of the roads, the energy field self offs, and the subtle move to allow nuclear weapons to remain in Scotland despite years of opposition to this by the party and voters of the SNP.

    Liked by 13 people

    1. Sturgeon couldn’t let Jacinda Ardern make all the headlines last week by catching Covid. Now it’s her turn. (Just joking)

      Liked by 7 people

  7. Excellent, incisive and damning speech from someone who has taken the time and effort to understand what the Brexiteers in WM are up to, and how their antique and deceptive use of ‘sovereignty’ is highly misleading and subverts both devolution and the concept of sovereignty in Scotland, which rests with the people (or did).

    The fact that the SNP ignored this issue, failed to understand it, and missed yet another golden opportunity to demonstrate to Scots why constitutional issues really matter, is sadly typical.
    Oh they love grandstanding and occupying their little corner of the moral high ground, but when it comes to fighting for the Scots people and their existing constitution they remain silent and feeble.

    I very much doubt Sturgeon has the intellectual capacity or interest in fundamental matters like this, or the opportunities they afford to educate the Scots on why their ancient rights are being removed. Here is a blatant power grab, undermining the basic treaties that the UK is based on, and they have nothing to say.

    It is hard to overestimate the contempt I have developed for this sham of an administration of a government and party that is the SNP. Ineffective, incompetent, surly, uncommunicative and unwilling to stand up for Scotland. That isn’t a political party, it is a culture of entitlement to undeserved rewards and positions of authority. The lame meekness of their entire existence shames Scotland, and appears to be based on denial of just about everything they once stood for. What a charade.

    Liked by 14 people

    1. Had someone with a crystal ball told me fifty years ago that the SNP would end up a toothless and spineless shadow of its former self, I wouldn’t have believed them. Had someone told me twenty years ago that we would still not have independence today, I wouldn’t have believed that either. In early 2015, when I saw the droves of former far left Labourites join the SNP, I knew than that we were b******d because they always destroy whatever they colonise, having bled it dry first and opening up the husk to Tory policies. Always. The party itself has been subverted by these people, the wokerati, who should have been watched closely and expelled for reasons of incompatibility with independence, the core policy of the SNP. There was no reason for this clique to be entering the SNP unless it was for nefarious reasons. Even their supposed own party, Labour doesn’t want them, and who can blame it for that? They almost destroyed it totally, too – in England, that is. They are an infection that overcame first the SNP government, then all the Scottish institutions, aided and abetted by the Greens, whose rabid woke leaders will betray any chance of independence at the first hurdle. They, too, are great pretenders who have little real interest in independence, seeing the SNP coalition as a step to introducing ‘green’ policies, that will bankrupt Scotland and the Scots. We need to go green, certainly, but at a pace and at a cost that reflects our own carbon footprint. It is one of the greatest injustices ever: that two completely undeserving, colonising and infiltrating groups will have their policies implemented while independence-seeking Scots are left to blow in the wind. We should all be angry, like Mia. Not just angry, but enraged – with steam coming out of our ears, cartoon-style.

      Liked by 15 people

  8. Carwyn Jones is on top of his brief, and his intricate grasp of detail actually reminds me of a Scottish politician named Alex Salmond.

    Oh that Scotland’s current SNP were as lucid and coherent about Scottish Sovereignty as Carwyn Jones, and forearmed with a similar grasp of Scotland’s Constitutional backstop.

    But hold on a minute. Aren’t they? Ian Blackford repeatedly demonstrates a passable degree of awareness about Scotland’s Constitutional muscle. Didn’t he earn his “Blowhard Blackford” label by reciting it over, and over, and over again?

    Joanna Cherry must surely appreciate that her own victory, compelling a UK Prime Minister to un-prorogue the Westminster Parliament, was delivered by Scottish sovereign principle. Cherry’s adjudication was based upon the Scottish doctrine of popular sovereignty, whereby a Parliament could not remove itself from scrutiny by the people it answered to, thus scrutiny could not be ducked through spurious prorogation of the House. That doctrine, Parliament being answerable to the people, (to bastardise the eloquent description of Lord Cooper in 1953), is a distinctly Scottish legal doctrine with no foundation in either English or UK law.

    But it is a legal doctrine in Scots Law. It is the living embodiment of Scotland’s popular Sovereignty, and a principle which we should remind ourselves, both outstripped the jurisdiction of the UK Supreme Court, and held the UK Prime Minister bound by Scottish Constitutional principle. Seems an awfully “sovereign” principle that holds a kicking and screaming UK Prime Minister accountable doesn’t it?

    Thirdly, I believe one of the most coherent and lucid summaries of Scotland’s Constitutional position was beautifully expressed by Christine Graham back in 2014. I’d give you a YouTube link, but it might trip a filter. Google “Christine Graham Sovereignty” and you’re there. 6:10 minutes of poetry.

    We KNOW the Constitutional truth. The SNP too KNOWS the Constitutional truth. So why, in the name of all things holy, are we treading water these long and barren years, and allowing ourselves and our Nation to be duped by Unionist disinformation, and hemmed in on all sides by domestic UK dogma and pedestrian sophistry?

    It is a false narrative which demands Scotland’s subservience to Westminster’s faux rendition of Parliamentary Sovereignty. They are playing games with us and exploiting doubts and uncertainties which have long been widely sown amongst us, but which are without foundation.

    If the Constitution is robust and sound, (which it is), and the knowledge of it isn’t faulty, (which it isn’t), then by god, surely the feckless do-nothing Leadership prolonging Scotland’s torment, must carry the can and GO!

    Liked by 17 people

    1. Exactly. This is what I have been pointing out for years and why I hold no prisoners. The buck stops with the Scottish government who are actively violating Scots sovereign authority and capitulating on all matters to the English government. Add the above links from Carwyn Jones and Christine Grahame with England’s new Act of Union Bill (2017-2019) which has been renamed the Act of Union Bill 2018, the IM Act, EVEL, EU exit and the violation of Scots national and territorial security with the invasion of Syria despite a vote against it and you have a series of very serious constitutional violations by the Scottish government.The English government while deplorable are merely acting as they always have as opportunists who play the long game and are by and large irrelevant as Scotland’s fight for the suspension and/or dissolution of the treaty needs to be brought to the Scottish governments door instead of allowing them to pass the buck onto the English government and its establishment.

      Voting against something such as an invasion, trident renewal or even to stay in the EU (while I am opposed to the EU, I do recognise that each council region voted in favour) means absolutely nothing if the Scottish government simply roll over and permit a foreign entity to do as it pleases regardless even if that entity is a treaty partner. The Scottish government are imbued with Scots sovereignty. They can end the treaty with immediate effect if they had the political will to do so but therein lies the problem. They don’t. None of Scotland’s representatives do. They pay lip service while undermining Scotland’s sovereign authority.

      Liked by 11 people

  9. “I very much doubt Sturgeon has the intellectual capacity or interest in fundamental matters like this.”

    I think your doubt is well-founded, maceasy.

    Carwyn Jones is what a smart, committed defender of his country’s rights sounds like.

    Sturgeon is what an intellectually challenged time-server sounds like.

    Liked by 12 people

  10. Are the recent re-announcement of Carwyn’s views back in 2019 and the fact the FM is taking a week off (for COVID) in any way connected? Give her time to get over it – the announcement that is!

    Liked by 5 people

  11. I’m sure I’ve seen this posted on social media, or perhaps wings, in the past. No, not one indy MP, MSP picked up on it at the time. Pretty disgraceful. I do think, however, that the SNP are only interested in a velvet divorce (if any) which is probably why they are capitulating to the right and the financial establishment and showing their neoliberal characteristics. Anything outside a s30 is therefore simply not entertained.

    Liked by 6 people

  12. What should we expect of a colonial administration other than to protect the interest of the colonial power.

    It did appear odd that any Scottish nationalist MP should seek to prioritise confirming the sovereign authority of the Westminster parliament over any UK Government decision, rather than seek to ratify (and/or assert) the sovereignty of the Scottish people as having ultimate authority (in Scotland) above both these entities, especially when this relates to major constitutional changes affecting Scotland.

    Liked by 13 people

  13. If the Scottish Government don’t think that the People of Scotland are Sovereign….why should London?

    “If the ANC does to you what the apartheid government did to you, then you must do to the ANC what you did to the apartheid government.”
    – July 1993. Nelson Mandela – Speaking to South Africa’s trade union congress

    If the SNP do to you what Labour did to you……..

    Liked by 13 people

  14. This is what I have been pointing out for years and why I hold no prisoners. The buck stops with the Scottish government who are actively violating Scots sovereign authority and capitulating on all matters to the English government. Add the above links from Carwyn Jones and Christine Grahame with England’s new Act of Union Bill (2017-2019) which has been renamed the Act of Union Bill 2018, the IM Act, EVEL, EU exit and the violation of Scots national and territorial security with the invasion of Syria despite a vote against it and you have a series of very serious constitutional violations by the Scottish government.The English government while deplorable are merely acting as they always have as opportunists who play the long game and are by and large irrelevant as Scotland’s fight for the suspension and/or dissolution of the treaty needs to be brought to the Scottish governments door instead of allowing them to pass the buck onto the English government and its establishment.

    Additionally, voting against something such as an invasion, trident renewal or even to stay in the EU (while I am opposed to the EU, I do recognise that each council region voted in favour) means absolutely nothing if the Scottish government simply roll over and permit a foreign entity to do as it pleases regardless, even if that entity is a treaty partner. The Scottish government are imbued with Scots sovereignty. They can end the treaty with immediate effect if they had the political will to do so but therein lies the problem. They don’t. None of Scotland’s representatives do. They pay lip service while undermining Scotland’s sovereign authority.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. The attempt to destroy and jail Alex Salmond was a decapitation strategy. In 2014 Salmond ran the establishment closer than I think we realise and for that he could not be allowed to return.

    This is a war. A Cold War maybe, but a war nevertheless as real as any other war. England will not give up its colony without a fight. And that is why we see today the coordinated onslaught in every sphere against independence.

    Sturgeon as we now know, and for whatever reason or reasons, is a blocker to independence. As part of our campaign, part of our fight, she and her ilk must be removed. There are routes to independence, constitutional and political, and we must use them.

    The Carwyn Jones address on the attack on sovereignty should be a wake up call.to us all. This is a battle we can win!

    Liked by 15 people

  16. Just a note of caution + a note of importance – both emanate from the proceedings brought by Joanna Cherry and the Courts rulling that prorogation was unlawful – I use these extracts:

    1) “The court should for these reasons allow the reclaiming motion and grant a declarator that the advice to prorogue Parliament on a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October, and hence any prorogation which followed thereon, is unlawful and thus null and of no effect.”

    Q: What were “these reasons”? It takes a full reading of the judgement to determine – thus be cautious!

    2) “This is not because of the terms of the Claim of Right 1689 or of any speciality of Scots constitutional law, it follows from the application of the common law”

    That extract illustrates the need for caution – but – it also illustrates something of importance – that the Claim of Right and the speciality of Scots constitutional law are recognised by the Courts and thus will play their continuing part, as indeed they should and must.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. I cannot find the reference to the point I made earlier about Scots Law, and the defining principle being that a Parliament could not prorogue itself to remove itself from scrutiny from the people the Parliament served. That means the people are the superiors of the Parliament, not it’s subjects.

      Thus the Westminster Parliament was not sovereign, the people were, and that is a distinctly Scottish Constitutional doctrine, with no origin in English law. The UK Supreme Court was sidelined. It couldn’t touch the case because the essence of the case lay beyond it’s jurisdiction. -But not the jurisdiction of Scotland’s Court of Session because it was rooted in Scots Law.

      I didn’t make any of this up, it was genuine online commentary I read within a day or so, maybe even a few hours of the adjudication. But then it disappeared and I couldn’t find it again. At the time I relished the debate that was sure to follow, but that commentary disappeared, and was quickly replaced with a load of waffle, the only significance of which was that it was much less Constitutionally damaging to UK integrity than the unpalatable reality of a Scottish Court laying down the law to a UK PM.

      The UK Establishment really didn’t like it’s Prime Minister being compelled to obey a Scottish Constitutional doctrine, because if memory serves Johnson could have faced criminal charges of Contempt if he didn’t obey, but of course, the usual sources very quickly produced an alternative narrative, much less explicit, and moved quickly to diffuse the significance of what had occurred.

      To me, it seemed Joanna Cherry’s case had scored a benchmark ruling that the will of Westminster was subordinate to the Constitutional Sovereignty of the people, and those people could only be the Scottish people, and finally, that Scottish Sovereignty was freshly and unequivocally affirmed as still being extant in law.

      Again, to me, it seemed the Cherry case was infinitely more profound in it’s significance that the famous 1953 Lord Cooper , but presumably because the whole adjudication favoured Scotland, the significance was very quickly buried.

      At the time I was overjoyed with Joanna Cherry’s success, but from then until now, I have never understood why NOTHING was ever done to exploit or build upon this landmark ruling… Even, it must be said, by Joanna Cherry herself.

      If my recollection of all this is wrong, if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick, then I will be happy to engage with the discussion which better explains why Johnson’s prorogation of Westminster actually broke the law.

      I would be equally overjoyed for someone else to corroborate the existence of commentary I describe, and joy of joys, provide me with a source.

      Liked by 3 people

  17. This sets out very clearly the appalling betrayal by the Holyrood government of what they were elected to do, in other words their stated aim to achieve Independence for Scotland and in the meantime be ‘Stronger for Scotland’. That slogan, on which they have won several mandates, turns out to be worthless.

    They have been undermining the whole constitutional case for Scotland to sever the 1707 Union and return to being an independent country by covering this up with false assurances. Therefore they must be called to acount in the name of the sovereign people of Scotland and we must make enormous efforts to get this out to the people. It is shocking that it takes a Welshman to spell this out, yet the SNP continue to conceal and ignore its importance.
    I cannot imagine this is an accident.
    I am beyond angry at this treachery but it is not too late if, we, the people, rise up to protest as we are sovereign through our ancient constitution, not our elected represenatives who are failing us.
    When do we start protesting at Holyrood or Bute House?

    Liked by 7 people

    1. It is the administration that sits in Holyrood as the Executive only had a name change. The actual Scottish government sits in the parliament of GB as per the terms of the treaty. This in fact makes it worse as BOTH the administration (MSPs) and the Scottish government (MPs) from whom they are devolved are guilty of gross sovereign and constitutional violations.

      Folk need to be banging down their doors every single day whether figuratively online (if unable to do so in person) or in person. Only by holding them fully to account does Scotland stand a chance of making them take affirmative action by exercising Scots sovereign authority.

      Liked by 5 people

    1. He changed his mind on Scottish Independence because of the changed circumstances. In November 2013 (your BBC link) he thought it better for the Union as a whole for Scotland to remain. In the youtube link, he was pointing out that the Withdrawal Act was a direct attack on Scotland’s constitution and a breach of the Treaty of Union, and as such that Scotland shouldn’t tolerate it. Only in that sense he could be seen as arguing for Scottish independence.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. In 2013 the remit to all Labour was to back the union so unsurprising that he made the speech he did during the referendum. Since then he has seen the attacks on not only Scotland, which he probably ignored up until that point, but also on Wales and the treaty itself hence making the speech in the senedd a few years later.

      Liked by 2 people

  18. I quote, Alf Baird, above: “What should we expect of a colonial administration other than to protect the interest of the colonial power.” This is not so much a question from Alf, but rather a simple statement of fact. That said, I’m nonetheless impressed with the high level of constitutional debate here on YfS, much of it both passionately argued and highly informative. The hard-question is, though, who else is listening out there? Is it not the case: most people that we know in our daily lives have little to no interest or engagement with matters of a legal or constitutional complexion? What, in my experience, they would most certainly be interested in knowing and likely to engage with is knowledge of the fact that for generations Scotland has been colonized and remains as the most productive milch-cow ever in England’s long and exploitative imperial history. That Scotland’s relative underdevelopment today rests-at-the-door of a handful of 17th century, skint Scottish worthies and their institutional apologists thereafter, all with an eye to their own prosperity and survival is patently ludicrous and cannot be allowed to stand in this the 21st century. This, the historical absurdity that it clearly is, can and must be presented to the people in the plainest possible language and must become the raison d’etre of any National party worthy of the name if we are ever to free ourselves from the smothersome grasp of a dead empire.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. If more Scots read the authentic, unbowdlerised, britishized history of their country few would consider the relationship with England as other than «problematic» at best.
      Viscerally, the two peoples were never made to share the union marriage bed. The relationship has been culturally abusive.
      That is enough for divorce, whether amical or no.

      Liked by 6 people

    2. You and others are right about Scots being subject to colonialism Erich, and that is an easily understood message for any oppressed people to comprehend – often being the ‘lightbulb moment’ – as to the still obscure reasons behind their continued wretchedness, exploitation and national under-development, all of which I have tried to summarise in a recent article here: https://wp.towson.edu/iajournal/the-socio-political-determinants-of-scottish-independence/

      I have also suggested that that published paper might make a useful complement to any wee blue book, as it explains the fundamentals of what independence means and why it is essential, as opposed to the WBB which describes what we might (or might not) do with our independence should we ever reach that goal.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. Good to see your ideas from Doun Hauden and the series published on Yours for Scotland appearing on a forum which will get wider ecognition.
        One thing I take from reading this is that we Scots are not to blame. Too often we accept the situation we are in is our fault whether from outsiders who reiterate the ideas that it is because we are stupid that we are poor and so deserve to be ruled by the English who are much better at it, and the insiders who are in denial as their prosperity and livlihood often depends on their acceptance.
        Over at least seven centuries we have had to fight for our very existence against a bigger, richer and more powerful neighbour determined to acquire our resources to satisfy its ambition and greed, and we succeeded through four of them, though it was a bloody struggle at times.
        We were then betrayed by a cabal of nobles who had lost money over the Darien Scheme, plus a general desire to preserve the Protestant Succession which was important at the time, and by those who wished to profit from the opportunities offered by the chance to trade with English colonies. For some time this worked and many people benefited from the Union, but meanwhile the insidious process that you describe had begun, though ithe attacks on our culture had had started earlier after Culloden and included the derision with which even Lowland Scots who went to London experienced on the grounds of their speech, dress, habits etc.
        Breaches of the Treat of Union started early but were not challenged. The Scottish aristocracy had mostly colluded in this from the start, but the middle classes were not far behind in apeing those whom they regarded as their betters. The play The Flouers o Edinburgh by Robert McLelland , set in the 18th Century, demonstrates this clearly. Boswell accepted the dominant culture as superior and his cringing comments on Scotland in his accounts of his journeys with Dr Johnson are an embarassment to read,
        Scotland has been up against a powerful and cunning state, its skills honed over centuries of taking over other countries from part of France to the time when when half the globe was mapped in Imperial pink, and including by the early 19th century the Celtic perifery of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. In all of these the English language was imposed, Anglophone administrators appointed and resources systematically plundered. and people displaced. The fact that this has been insidious (violence within the British Isles, with notable exceptions, has not been the rule) has made it all the more difficult to realise what has been happening as it was a gradual process. However, the rise of Nationalism, first in Ireland, which lead to the division of that island, then in Scotland and Wales has lead particularly since 2014, to a determination to squash any further attempts by Scotland to break free, unfortunatey now aided by the people we elected to achieve that aim, who have been bought, subverted or otherwise persuaded to side with our oppressors.
        It is not surprising that so many do not accept that this has happened or are, because of their own interests, completelyagainst the idea of Scotland leaving the Union.
        Changing these deep-rooted opinions witll not be easy but I still have hope that it can be done, if enough Scots can be persuaded that such a change is vital for the preservation of our country and culture. Only we can do this and the need is urgent.

        Liked by 3 people

    1. If you look at the remit of the queen’s commissioners it was, as said, to protect and strengthen the most ancient kingdom of Scotland not to incorporate it into a Greater England. The treaty came on the back of an economic war with England and its allies where Scotland was sanctioned and trade was prohibited. The treaty of 1707 was an international trade agreement between the two countries, Scotland and England. If you compare the origins of the EU parliament and its trade agreement to that of GB you will notice that the EU original parliament had even more authority than that of GB. In addition, the comparison between England’s new Act of Union 2018 Bill which is a political union, though attempts to give England a veto over Scotland and asserts English parliamentary sovereignty, stands in stark contrast to the treaty of 1707. Therefore when referring to constitutional matters it needs specified which constitution is being regarded as there is no constitution of GB, parliamentary sovereignty nor legal system. You cannot, for example, study GB law but you can study English and Scots. The true nature of the treaty should be properly addressed as Scotland will need to create another with England in the event of Scotland reasserting its full statehood.

      Liked by 5 people

  19. From a Wiki on Egyptian politics.
    «Easily the greatest factor contributing to popular disillusionment with the Wafd was the party’s failure to boycott the Farouk government after it acceded to the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936. The policies followed by the party during the Anglo-Egyptian crisis of the mid-1930s alienated many Egyptian nationalists – heretofore the single most reliable support bloc for the Wafd – and severed the party between its small but powerful accommodationist minority and its large but voiceless resistant majority. The failure of the Wafd to more aggressively oppose the continuation of the British presence “left Egyptian politics devoid of a popularly legitimized leader or party.»
    Ms Sturgeon is without doubt ACCOMMODATIONIST, she displays little «aggression» in pursuit of the cause.

    Liked by 6 people

  20. If I may digress a little I see that the Polish Prime Minister Matteusz morawiecki is getting himself into a bit of a tid about Norway.

    Seems that with soaring oil and gas prices our Mr Moraweicki is unhappy that Norway, a country of five million is this year going to make around €100 billion profit out of it selling gas and oil.

    Well good luck on Norway, that’s about €20,000 profit for every man, woman and child and it’s not difficult to see how Norway has a huge oil fund for its citizens. Quite a contrast with proud a pig poor Scotland who once builtvships and lots of other things and who still has its oil wealth, similar to Norway siphoned off.

    And poor and proud is indeed the word for the Scots as absolute beggars in their own land. And it’s not just oil,and gas. Proud Scotland doesn’t even build the jackets for the huge wind farms being built around a Scotland to suck even more money from Jocko. Like the famous painting of the old Highlander on his ass forlornly being cleared from the land to make way for sheep, the allegory could not be more accurate.

    Ah well, good on the Norwegians. And good on the British Exchequer for raking in the income too. Maybe Poland will take the oil and gas off Norway, just like Westminster has done here. But somehow I doubt it.

    Liked by 4 people

  21. What does it take for Scots to wake up and smell the coffee, do we have to starve or freeze to death. The Zombie Union is dragging us into the abyss with facist dead cadaver of little England. Dissolve the Union.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: