STONE OF DESTINY OR CLUDGIE STONE?

THIS IS A BIG OPPORTUNITY.

WE HAVE ALL BEEN FACING A MEDIA BLACKOUT ON THE CLAIM OF RIGHT. Yesterday the BBC and Channel 4 cut out the reference to it in King Charles 111 speech as he, under the Claim of Right conditions, was forced to make guarantee of some of its conditions.

This intentional censorship betrayed their fear of the document and their absolute intention it’s contents must be kept secret from the Scottish population.It must have been seen as a clever move. I think it was stupid, very stupid. It’s what happens when the focus is limited to the one event and takes no account of what is required further down the road.

By censoring any mention they flagged up their fear of the content. For those of us promoting the COR as a key part of our drive to full Independence witnessing that fear only signalled that our tactics should be geared to blowing that censorship apart in the worldwide media.

So how do we do that? Well for starters we have the video of what was said and we also have the video evidence of what was broadcast. A good start but probably not enough to get the scale of coverage I would be hoping for.

We need to improve the story. How do we do that?

We explain the content of the Claim of Right makes clear the people of Scotland are sovereign, not the Westminster Parliament in London. We point out London plans to remove the Stone, again from Scotland because they need it for the coronation of the new King. We argue using the Claim of Right they can’t  legally do that without the full approval of the people of Scotland.

We tell them the story of the Stone of Destiny and how it has been used to “legitimise” the coronation of the monarchy for centuries.

We state that the STONE OF DESTINY should not be removed from Scotland without the express permission of the sovereign people of Scotland who still view the Stone as “stolen goods”  

England has never apologised for the theft and indeed had the cheek to accuse four Scottish students when they entered and removed the stone to return the Stone of Destiny to Scotland back in the 1950’s.

There will be huge international interest in this. It gives us the ideal opportunity to highlight the content of the Claim of Right and highlights why Unionists are scared stiff of that content.

We should insist on a poll to be carried out by a polling organisation, BASED outside the UK and under UN SUPERVISION to establish the view of the people of Scotland.

Of course the ultimate joke of all this is that we Scots all know the stone is not the real of Stone of Destiny. It remains hidden in Scotland. The stone England desperately needs is an imposter.

I asked my friend Sara Salyers what she thought. This is her reply

“You mean the obvious cistern lid from the original flood prevention in the floor of the old Scone Abbey, of course.”

Its a bit of Perth sandstone as Edward I knew well. (Slaughtered the monks at Scone so no one else knew & he could pretend he’d got the real thing, a huge blow to Scottish morale.) 

The stone was supposedly black (probably basalt) rock. Scots Magazine Dec 1984.  This one as well as being geologically local to Perth,  has no brass handles or carvings. None of the details seen in 12th-century seals of the Scottish kings & illustrated in contemporary coinage.

I’d prefer to highlight the humiliating truth. They’ve been making a symbol of our oppression out of a bit of old masonry and, like the ‘voluntary union’, and so many other pretensions the sham is over. (Here’s another – English Bill of Rights was never passed by a parliament but an improperly summoned convention with the same legal status as, say, the Sewell Convention. They keep that quiet!) I wish we could send it back with a voice that was heard internationally saying:

“It’s a cludgie stone. Always was. Enjoy. Signed, Scotland” 😁

Warmest 

Sara

So there you have it. I think we should do both. Some of us should insist on polling support from Scotland before it is removed while others should follow Sara’s suggestion and rubbish it’s existence as evidence of Edward 1’s need to cover his failure!

While virtually impossible to get it published in the MSM in the UK I suspect considerable interest, particularly in the USA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND would exist and the Scottish diaspora would enjoy both versions. So readers of my blog in all countries outside the UK share this article with your local media and tell them to contact me. I will be happy to give them a lot more info about both the Claim of Right and the Stone of Destiny. This is an opportunity for you to help our fight. Thank you!

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland

 BEAT THE CENSORS

The purpose of this blog is to advance Scottish Independence. That requires honesty and fair reporting of events and opinions. Some pro SNP Indy sites have difficulty with that and seek to ban any blogger who dares to criticise  the Party or its leader. As Yours for Scotland will not bend our principles and allow this attack on free speech to be successful we rely on our readership sharing and promoting our articles on a regular basis. This invalidates the attempts at censorship and ensures the truth gets out there. I thank you most sincerely for this important support.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

Are available from the Home and Blog pages of this website. This ensures you are advised of every new article published on Yours for Scotland. Join the thousands already subscribed and be the first to get the news every day. You will be most welcome.

SALVO

This site has never sought donations, indeed we have a £3 limit alongside a message further explaining that donations are not required. That has now changed as the costs of running this blog for 2022 have already been raised in donation, therefore  for the remainder of this year  all donations made to this site will be forwarded to Salvo to help them educate Scots on the 1689 Claim of Right. This is vital work and we must all do what we can to support it.

YESTIVAL

It is time to fight back! Attend YESTIVAL in Freedom Square in Glasgow on the 18th September 12-5pm. Let’s get the show back on the ground!

JOIN THE SCOTTISH  LIBERATION MOVEMENT

Sign up at Liberation.Scot. Check spam folder if verification message does not arrive within a couple of minutes.

79 thoughts on “STONE OF DESTINY OR CLUDGIE STONE?

  1. we have them on the run they are banging into walls in a panic more so since Bahrlie boy mentioned the Claim Of Right and how as Kinbg he would respect and uphold the Claim Of Right if we choose to use it,which we will!

    Liked by 15 people

    1. If Charles III meant what he said then we need to engage with him – Sturgeon won’t – she must have choked when she heard this. SALVO and the SSRG could make good use of this I think – maybe even share the Kings ideas on how the Convention of the Estates can be reconvened. Lets not cut off our nose to spite our face.

      I think we overlook that anyone of decency and principle cannot be happy at the lack of a functioning democracy in Scotland.

      Like

  2. Did the monks of Scone Abbey have to lift THAT thing every time they needed to use the cludgie ? Put’s “put the toilet seat down” arguments into perspective

    Liked by 13 people

  3. Well said Iain, the problem with the Stone of Destiny (even though it’s a fake) is that it will be used as a propaganda tool by the media to show Scottish subservience to the world. We can come up to Scotland and take what we want, we can take your oil, gas, etc and there’s not much you can do about it.

    As for the Claim of Right getting enough media coverage has always been our problem, Scotland doesn’t control any media outlets, even the supposedly STV channel is ran by ITV that’s why there’s no Scottish content broadcast on it. Broadcasting will never be devolved it’s far too powerful a propaganda tool for London to devolve it to Scots.

    Social media is fantastic, we have this as an outlet, and we must do what we can to push the cause.

    Liked by 18 people

  4. The Claim of Right was actually mentioned on Radio Four, Westminster Hour, last night.
    As to the Stone of Destiny, it is unlikely to be the real thing.
    It’s a bit of rock.
    True, it is a bit of rock with some old history, given its use for all those centuries at Westminster Abbey , and in a sense, thus a symbol of English aggression against Scotland, but as it is not the real Stone of Scone, used by Scotland’s Kings in ancient times, I really wouldn’t pay too much attention to it.
    It is of minor importance, in my view, as far as Independence goes.

    Liked by 5 people

      1. If ye don’t hae a wee laugh you will greet. Come on surely ye hae to find a wee bit humour in the situation. Today I thought about the Glasgow’s Glasgow exhibition fae years ago and there was a huge section on toilets. One could argue that the media and their fake news is going doon the crapper. 😁

        Liked by 6 people

  5. We do have (The Rag) i know it doesn’t support other Pro-Indy parties but it doesn’t support Sturgeonites and the New SNP when it suite them.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I doubt if you’d go wrong by sending “Stone of Destiny or Cludgie Stone?” to Ireland a.s.a.p. e.g. The Independent or The Irish Times.

    Liked by 8 people

      1. Twas tongue in cheek actually Iain. Irish reunification will come afore Scottish Independence at this rate. The orange/ brit stranglehold in the north is weakening but could easily be stirred up again by of course the brits and english government. I would suggest that’s part of their plan but they know they need to tread very carefully. USA are on the side of the Irish not the Scots since we house their very teeth of hell.

        Liked by 12 people

  7. Just as with the Stone, making William Windsor Prince of Wales is also a symbol of subjugation. Perhaps a joint campaign might help.

    Liked by 11 people

      1. Sheen’s tour-de-force speech was highlighted on Iain Lawson’s Twitter feed below, but not sure it got mentioned on the blog. Here’s the link in case not —

        Annual Raymond Williams Memorial Lecture 2017 | Michael Sheen

        Liked by 6 people

      2. Yes I did. Thank you for your philosophy contribution. Something I’m going to follow up. Wasted and wastrels that we are.

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Great article Iain and a brilliant idea to get the story out there to the diaspora. I don’t live in NZ anymore but I’m sure that it would generate interest there. I’ll send it off to the New Zealand Herald, and perhaps Kiwilassie, who comes onto your blog frequently could do the same-the more the merrier. There’s more Scots in the South Island so I’ll try The Otago Daily Times as well.

    Liked by 15 people

  9. I watch a lot of alternative news but I wonder actually how many are alternative because maist will not mention Scotland and what is happening here unless they are fae here.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. “WE HAVE ALL BEEN FACING A MEDIA BLACKOUT ON THE CLAIM OF RIGHT. ”

    Er, are you sure about that?

    The oath about maintaining the Church of Scotland is from about 31:30 in.

    Doesn’t look at all “forced” to me, it’s been a standard part of the procedure since, well, 1689.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. He prefaces his oathtaking by saying «I understand that I am required by law upon my accession to….»
      That is more than suggestive of reservations on his part about the implications of the oath.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Any moment now Sturgeon will issue a grovelling apology that the wrong kind of Scots hid the Stone. She will argue however that the Cludgie Stone now identifies as the Stone of Destiny and should be treated as such by all. A SRA (Stone Recognition Act) will be rushed through Holyrood and a certificate issued.

    Liked by 16 people

  12. One of the episodes of the famously unexpected 2012(?) BBC ALBA series DÌOMHAIR (JEE-u-vir = SECRET/ CONFIDENTIAL) has a good sequence about the uplifting of the Stone from Westminster Abbey by four Scottish students on Christmas Day 1950. One of the young scoundrels/ heroes, Kay Matheson (who died in 2013, age 84) is interviewed.

    The whole video is of course a must watch (the more so as online copies of episodes do tend to disappear), but the Stone of Destiny sequence starts about 12 mins 38 secs from start —

    Liked by 8 people

  13. So the recognition and obligation to uphold the COR has been sworn by all these past kings and queens of the UK, and we never knew anything about it? First rate Scottish education, eh?

    A pincer strategy – publicise widely the COR, as you clearly describe,.And billboard/leaflet exposure of the capitalist farce that is the energy crisis, that is in summary that we, the Scottish public, with excess production of hydrocarbons and power, will be subjected to compensating the energy supply companies for their loss of profit due to the price cap, and the hire purchase energy scheme to be imposed upon us by the UK gov’t.

    VAT – value added tax to the energy bills we are presented with – of the energy Scotland produces and is essentially taken from us. By what means do the energy companies add value to the energy they purchase?
    Well I suppose the gov’t economic mandarins determine the level of disposal income is needed for the average family, and then devises ways to tax family surplus surplus.

    Well done Sara Salyers.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. “So the recognition and obligation to uphold the COR has been sworn by all these past kings and queens of the UK, and we never knew anything about it? First rate Scottish education, eh?”

      This is the first time an Accession Council has been televised.

      And a new monarch swearing an oath to uphold the Protestant Succession and Presbyterian Church of Scotland isn’t all that interesting, is it?

      Like

      1. “And a new monarch swearing an oath to uphold the Protestant Succession and Presbyterian Church of Scotland isn’t all that interesting, is it?”

        It has already been explained that religion and secular authority were tightly interwoven in those times. So when King Charles III swore to uphold the Claim of Right as was REQUIRED of him, he effectively verified the continuing force of Scotland’s secular constitution as briefly summarised in the CoR, and thus also verified the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. Pretending this was solely an obscure religious ceremony is a deeply dishonest interpretation.

        The new King of the UK swore to uphold and defend the constitution of Scotland and the sovereignty of its people and did so live on national television, not only for Scotland and the UK to see, but for the whole world to see. I think that is extremely interesting, and I suspect that things are about to get more interesting yet when its significance is understood!

        Liked by 10 people

      2. Only a Protestant could say «a new monarch swearing an oath to uphold the Protestant Succession and Presbyterian Church of Scotland isn’t all that interesting, is it?».
        If Charles were to convert to Catholicism he would be required to abdicate by law of both lands.
        More than intersting I consider.

        Like

  14. Of course it’s not the real Stone but Edward I’s idea of the subjugation and domination of Scots and Scotland has been symbolised by that stone for 726 years and I can’t be bothered to count how many kings and queens have used it in their coronations. However, being described as the “Cludgie Stone” is quite apt because they have been crapping on Scots and Scotland for over 7 centuries.

    Liked by 8 people

  15. Great idea to spread the message far and wide…… or oversees as King Charles is won’t to say.

    Now is exactly the time to piggy back on the world wide deluge of Brittanic propaganda.

    Liked by 7 people

  16. I’m afraid this focus on the COR is mistaken. The sectarian emphasis regarding the protection and indeed supremacy of the Church of Scotland is not welcome and no matter how ‘dated ‘ it is, it will resonate with many sections of Scottish society wrongly. It can and will be used to separate Scots who are not Presbyterian from R.C.s and other religions and none. Paradoxically, the BBC did us a favour by editing it out. If Sarah Salyers and the Salvo grouping or anybody else thinks that a large percentage of the non- Presbyterian population will not be put off, particularly in the West of Scotland, then they are very naive.

    The C.O.S. has betrayed Scots many times. With the ‘Sermon on the Mound’ the Church permitted the ghastly criminal Thatcher a platform and their constant continuing fawning over royalty confirms them as collaborators. We have a direct route to Independence, one which all faiths and none can adhere to: since the advent of Universal suffrage, it is vote Independence supporting MPs into and out of Westminster. Something that the cursed SNP resolutely refuse to do.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I agree Lochside. For many decades the Labour Party has used the religious divide in the west of Scotland to put Catholics off voting for independence. I have personal experience of this when I used to go round the doors campaigning. The Unionists are ruthless in using everything that they can to help their cause.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. I’m going to put my hands up to the fact that I have not watched all of Chicks inauguration, but many thanks to hpl1706 for putting the full video up.

    Since the devil is in the detail, I’ve transcribed the part from 31 mins in, which appear to relate to Scotland the most. As follows:

    Concerning the Security of the Church of Scotland

    I understand that the Law Requires that I should, as my accession to the Crown, take and subscribe the oath relating to the security of the Church of Scotland.

    (My comment: isn’t that an interesting introduction? It could have been, wording similar to, ‘it is the lawful duty of the King/Queen to take and subscribe the oath relating to the security of the Ch of Scot, and I undertake that oath now.’

    The intro, ‘I understand the law Requires me to do such and such…. introduces an element of, ‘I don’t want to, but the law is making me do it against my better wishes.)

    His speech continues () (are my comments)

    I am ready to do so at this first opportunity: (get it out of the way and hidden before anyone notices it).

    I, Charles III, by grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in my other Realms and Territories, King, defender of the faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland (meaningful look made to someone in the room), in prosecution of the Claim of Right

    and particularly by an Act entitled, ‘An Act for the Securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government

    and by the Acts passed in the parliaments of both Kingdoms, for the Union of the 2 Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland, so help me God.

    So, if I may, I’d like to go through this with a fine tooth comb, and put it out there for comment and educated answers.

    Defender of the Faith? This is in there as a title, not a hobby. That it is in there at all, means it has to be, and that this title must grant him powers and responsibilities. Can anyone shed some light on this.

    maintain and preserve the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland (meaningful look made to someone in the room – it’s just my opinion, but my reading of his body language in that ‘look’ was that someone is getting a roasting later, for not updating the laws, to get him off the hook on this one), in prosecution of the Claim of Right

    …. in prosecution of the Claim of Right…. now this is interesting. In prosecution means ‘lawful proceedings… it does not acknowledge lawful outcomes.

    My take on this is they are saying, that the protection of the Church of Scotland has it’s roots in the actions taken ‘in prosecution of the Claim of Right’, but falls short of acknowledging the Claim of Right legislation in full. A partial win if you like.

    His speech continues….and particularly by an Act entitled, ‘An Act for the Securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government

    So, REALLY singling out that it is the Church and only the Church he is undertaking to Secure. And it raises the question, what constitutes the Presbyterian Church Government? Is it a description of the old Scottish Government – whereby all members were also part of the Church, or is it an internal Church body, completely different to the Government?

    Continues: and by the Acts passed in the parliaments of both Kingdoms, (this part has been slipped in, and is possibly the most important part, as it opens it up to the full Claim of Right legislation -and others – and away from the singular focus on the Kirk).

    for the Union of the 2 Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland, so help me God.

    ….’together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland…’
    so, this needs unravelling. Together with the Government? Is that the Government in general, or the Church Government? Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges? of the Church of Scotland…. and what would these be? And, are they specific to religious practice, or do they have wider, civic, implications.

    All in all, I think this aspect of the the wee spaniels speech is a very slippy thing.

    I have more questions than answers.

    One thing I do not doubt, the legislation that joins the Crowns and the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, at least the Scottish aspects, must be a very powerful indeed….for if they could have got rid of them or left them out, they most assuredly would have, instead we have some very slippy legal language and misdirection on display.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. I’m guessing the stuff about Presbyterian Government, etc, was as much about the politicians, as well as the Kirk, of the time.
      It wasn’t so long before, that the Church of Scotland abolished having bishops, and I think one of the ideas was to be different from the Anglican church, who had kept bishops. I think, however, James VI wanted to keep bishops, and that was always a bit of a problem for some in Church of Scotland.
      And I think they saw it is as being a bit too Catholic looking. Even tho at the time, Anglican bishops were pretty close to what we see in the Moderators of the Church of Scotland, as far as religious practices, and ceremonial stuff went.
      Tho, they did certainly live grandly at same time. It was mainly in the 19th Century, Anglican bishops started to go big on Catholic style vestments as we see them use today.

      One thing I do note about the Claim of Right, is that Westminster has ignored it totally for much of the time.
      We see that in how they so casually abolished the ancient counties, and then the Regions and Districts that followed them.
      What suited Scotland came nowhere, to what suited a crazed, out of control Secretary of State for Scotland in 1996!
      But the tories lost every single MP the following year, in 1997.
      Alas, the Michael Forsyth councils remain, to this day.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. ‘One thing I do note about the Claim of Right, is that Westminster has ignored it totally for much of the time.
        We see that in how they so casually abolished the ancient counties, and then the Regions and Districts that followed them.’

        I’m wondering if this has bearing on Fife. Many a Fifer I’ve heard over the years talk about them changing county borders and they bragging, ‘aye but they cannae to that here, Fife’s a Kingdom’.

        And I could never get any answer to why that would make a difference.

        If that does have bearing, it possibly signifies changing the laws (and boundaries) of legally recognised Kingdoms is a different legal playing field from ordinary government legislation.

        I’m also going to suggest that ignoring and even breaking the terms within international laws/treaties is a very different ball game to taking it upon oneself to re-write the contents of them. The first is something you try and get away with, the second is something the international community will have something to say about if only out of self interest.

        Liked by 5 people

    2. I’m not sure this posted, so trying again:

      I am no expert on law or on all the details, and only an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland. However, I can shed light on a few of your queries.

      Throughout the 1600s there were repeated attempts by Catholic monarchs and Anglican monarchs to impose either the Roman Catholic or Anglican Church on Scotland, in place of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Some of these led to war and martyrdoms. These failed, but the Scottish Parliament, supported by the largely Presbyterian population did not want to risk this happening again.

      They tried to ensure this in several ways. The Act of Settlement ensured any legitimate monarch must be a member of the Protestant Church. In England this is the Anglican, Church of England. In Scotland it is the Presbyterian, Church of Scotland. These two denominations were to constitute the ‘Established Church’.

      In Scotland at least, some other denominations were tolerated such as the Episcopal Church. But in each kingdom the Established Church had extra rights. Eg C of E Bishops in the House of Lords, their clergy officiating at official events, in those days also funding arrangements to pay clergy.

      Thus, whenever CIII crosses the border into Scotland he becomes a member (ordinary member only, not an elder) of the Church of Scotland and when he crosses back, he becomes Head of the Church of England.

      The Act mentioned was ALSO passed prior to the Acts of Union. And THE ACTS OF UNION ARE CONTINGENT UPON IT.

      The Act ensured Presbyterian Church Government:

      Whereas the Catholic Church is governed as follows:
      Pope;
      Cardinals;
      Archbishops;
      Bishops;
      Priests;
      Laity (ie ordinary members), in a hierarchy.

      And the Anglican Church (eg Church of England or Episcopal churches) is governed similarly:
      Head of the Church of England (King or Queen of England);
      Archbishop of Canterbury;
      Archbishops;
      Bishops;
      Priests;
      laity.

      The Presbyterian Church is governed:
      General Assembly (Annual National Conference basically, made up of 50:50 mixture of Ruling Elders and Teaching Elders. Commonly known as ‘elders’ and ‘ministers’);
      Synod (Regional Conference, only called if needed for logistic reasons);
      Presbytery (Regional meeting, usually monthly, made up of a similar 50:50 mixture);
      Kirk Session (one per local congregation, and made up of the Ruling Elders of that congregation and chaired by the Teaching Elder, ie local minister.);
      Congregation (made up of all Communicants, commonly called ‘members’ associated with one small local area/parish/building);
      adherents (people who wish to be associated with the congregation, but not commit to taking vows. A sort of associate membership if you like.)

      These meetings are generally public meetings in the case of the Church of Scotland, as it is the Established Church (ie govt sanctioned one). Anyone can go along and observe. I mind I was sitting two rows behind Alex Salmond, in the public gallery, the one time I went to observe the General Assembly. I’ve also been to Presbytery a couple of times. I also voted in the Congregation a few months back.

      So from this, you’ll see that the Presbyterian Church is organised in a very democratic way, with decisions made collectively, and only two ‘levels’ of seniority: elders and members. You can also see why people felt there was a need to provide protection, from power hungry governments changing this? And you can see what Henry VIII did when creating the Church of England? Basically replaced the Pope with himself and his successors.

      All three systems are referred to as ‘systems of church government’ ie ways of governing the church. (A fourth way is called Congregationalism, where each local congregation is basically independent of all others.)

      Aside from the Church of Scotland’s role as a Christian Church, the combination of a very democratic Presbyterian system of internal government and certain legal rights as the Established church mean that it has the POTENTIAL to be a VERY powerful and subversive body politically. A potential that most people seem to be unaware of.

      In Scotland, Church and State are basically separate. Both recognise each other, and the Church of Scotland was chosen as the Established (basically default) Church, but there are strict rules about not interfering in each other’s decisions. The Church decides about Spiritual things, the Government about Secular ones.

      In England this distinction is less clear, hence the Bishops sitting in the House of Lords.

      You would be right about CIII wanting to change the wording. He wanted to defend ‘faiths’ ie freedom of religion generally rather than ‘the faith’ ie both protecting Christians from discrimination and ensuring Christianity is recognised as truth.

      And the reason that ‘update’, to match the reality of a secular pluralist society on the ground today, IS impossible is precisely this! That such a change is incompatible with the Act of Settlement and therefore with the Act of Union. He CANNOT choose that changed wording, without removing himself from eligibility to be King of Scots.

      (There is a similar, but possibly ‘milder’ problem with being King of England in those circumstances too. Though I suspect the impact there would ‘merely’ be to repeal the Act of Union, ‘lose’ Scotland (Independence!) and get an act of Parliament passed in the subsequent ENGLISH parliament allowing him to make that change.

      I hope this helps.

      PS Church ‘discipline’ is basically like Human Resources: disciplinary processes for staff and members.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. The problem with the notion that there are secular things and «spiritual» things, whatever the latter might mean, is the point where they clash over societal and ethical concerns. Orthodox Catholicism does not recognize such a dichotomy. It is however systemic in Protestant settlements where there are «national churches» who expect some protection and privileges from the state.
        With the exceptions of England and Scotland all other Protestant state churches e.g in Scandinavia have undergone elements of disestablishment.
        A de jure state church is a de facto political church, one whose freedom to dissent has been effectively confined.

        Like

      2. Your exposition of the «democratic» spirit informing the theory of Church of Scotland governance, essentially that of Calvin’s Genevan church, is interesting. However, as the «reformed» Kirk was in control during the run up to the Union, a non democratic decision, it seems to fail in practice.
        Like the Church of England the Kirk is jealouse of its influence, all the more so as convregations dwindle.
        Religion ought never to climb into bed with «the system», it leads to unhealthy intercourse as the history of the Othodox Church in Russia attests, a chimera no less.
        When the Papal states were annexed by the infant Kingdom of Italy that was a very good thing indeed.
        Whether the Kingdom of Italy was, is quite another can of worms.

        Like

    3. Yes there is very slippery language here.

      in prosecution of the Claim of Right – that is all that matters. Even the King lacks the right to amend or cherry pick the Claim of Right. Something that should be brought up with him at the first opportunity …

      Liked by 2 people

    4. Reviewing the video Charles body language indicates more than a measure of irritation with the whole procedure. His preamble and issue with the pen box on the signing table says much.
      This king will be compliant.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.’
    Well what about ‘Three Billboards Outside Edinburgh, Midlothian.’
    Or Thirty Three Billboards, or better still Three Hundred and Thirty Three Billboards Outside and INSIDE Edinburgh, Midlothian? Indeed all over Scotland!
    I’m not sure if it would be allowed, but if there’s no other way of getting all these pro Indy messages out to Joe Public then surely it’s worth a try.
    All I see every day is talk on social media about the Claim of Right etc, etc, by the people who are interested in it. That’s all very well and good but all of the pro Indy messages, including ones exposing the SNP charlatans, should be out into the public domain by whatever means possible.
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there’s no time to waste and ALBA or SALVO should be crowdfunding a huge campaign of exposure and knowledge.
    NOW is the time, let’s do it!
    Btw, I know Edinburgh may or may not be in Midlothian but it sounded good.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. what might help the response – the reason why she died and was waked in Scotland

      “Call me a cynic” I said in reply to CJM as we discussed whether “She was always croaking it up here i reckon, propaganda for national and international audiences as the body is visited by toadies, all depicted as faithful subjects. Bow to authority”

      I said ” but as soon as I heard she had died in Scotland I thought it was planned to reinforce the “unity” of the Disunited Kingdom”.
      https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2020/01/17/and-they-lived-unhappily-ever-after/

      Here’s the proof of what CJM and I suspected – from about 2 mins to 2.30 (wouldn’t inflict more than 30 secs of the DM on anybody!)

      Liked by 1 person

  19. I’m indifferent to the Royal family but I think it is quite shrewd what the royal household is up to and someone who knows their business is afoot. The English press can’t extol it or the imbalance in favour of England would come under question. Why is the Queen lying in state in Scotland but not Wales or Northern Ireland. Why the procession in Scotland of the cortege but not England, Wales or Northern Ireland? And why the Crown of Scotland on her coffin as it lies in wake in Scotland. Will she lie in wake in England?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Purely a shrewd move on the part of Queen Elizabeth (styled II). If she had died in England, Scotland wouldn’t have got a mention. But by staying in Scotland when ill, until she died, she made it practically impossible for the government to centre the entire process following that ONLY in England. Thus perhaps convincing a few undecideds that Scotland is not entirely ignored by the monarchy.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, I would agree on that point.
        Had Elizabeth “First” died in England, Scotland wouldn’t be getting any of this attention.
        Charles would not have been here at all..
        But that the Queen did die in Scotland, they’ve had to make all these fancy arrangements in Edinburgh, as we have seen.

        Liked by 2 people

  20. For me there are two separate issues here, Iain. Regardless of whether the Stone of Destiny is genuine or not, there can be no justification for removing it from Scotland without permission since it is to be used to confer the English crown in an English ceremony. It can be for no other reason than to symbolise Scotland’s implied submission to England. If they were to ask permission then we would have every right to refuse – it is a Scottish possession, not an English one, and should not be removed from Scotland under any circumstances, particularly not for an English ceremony. That is why, like everything else Scotland has, they need to take it without permission because they have no right to it. As far as I am aware, the late queen only touched the honours of Scotland, she was not crowned Queen of Scots. If the new king wants to be crowned King of Scots (and legitimately sit on the Stone of Destiny), then he should come to Scotland to receive the Scottish crown in a Scottish ceremony.

    As regards the Claim of Right, it is occasionally mentioned although downplayed, but it’s really its IMPORT that they are desperate to keep concealed from us.

    And as a footnote, I read Stuart Mctavish’s incredibly interesting link to the coronation of Charles II that he posted on WoS (please see below). Since Charles II was crowned King of Scots many years before he was crowned King of England then this would suggest, at the very least, that the Scottish crown takes precedence over the English crown, and not the other way around, as taking the Stone of Destiny without permission is designed to imply!

    (www.andreazuvich.com/history/charles-iis-scottish-coronation-a-guest-post-by-cryssa-bazos/)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Charles II was crowned in Scotland before England had agreed to returning to being a monarchy.

      However, I’ve said twice this week, that a shrewd London government would hold a DOUBLE coronation: in Scotland first, then in England later.

      This would change nothing constitutionally, but would remove many of these legitimate complaints, allow a big splash in Edinburgh and boost local businesses. Many soft yesses would be bought off with their 15 minutes of fame, as participants.

      While England would barely notice. And there is the Charles II precedent to fall back on.

      However, they are unlikely to be that shrewd.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Saffron Robe wrote: “As far as I am aware, the late queen only touched the honours of Scotland, she was not crowned Queen of Scots.”
      ____________________
      And if she did touch anything, was she wearing gloves?

      Of very useful general relevance see the DÌOMHAIR video posted above (at 4.59pm), from 20 mins 24 secs in, and lasting 5 mins or so.

      Liked by 3 people

    3. As an addendum to my comment above regarding Charles II’s Scottish coronation, I am aware that he was proclaimed King of Great Britain, but I think that was just the nomenclature used in defiance of Oliver Cromwell (and the correct title to use only after he had received both crowns). If it really was the case at the time then there would have been no need for a ceremony later on in England. Besides which there is no such thing as the crown of Great Britain (any more than Great Britain is one nation): two separate crowns sit on one head and they must be bestowed separately. Scotland has no more right to crown the king of England than England has to crown the Scots king. There was indeed a Union of the Crowns, but the two crowns were not melded/merged together. If that was the case then the regnal numbers would have begun anew and there would be only one physical crown.

      Liked by 2 people

    4. “The last time the Honours of Scotland were used for a coronation was to crown Charles II at Scone in 1651.”

      It says the following in the article I linked to, Fearghas:

      “The Honours of Scotland were carried by high ranking nobles: the spurs were carried by the Earl of Eglinton, the Earl of Rothes held the Sword of State, the Earl of Crawford and Lindsay carried the sceptre, and the Marques of Argyle, carried the crown.”

      Liked by 2 people

  21. I would rather they ‘take’ the cludgie stone to London for the performance for the wee spaniel, than have the whole show done here in Scotchland. That really would be an exercise in colonial ownership.

    And I would like the Indy movement to play the English government against the English crown. The royal family have form re self preservation…. if it came to the bit of them getting to remain holding the Scottish Crown in an Indy Scotland, or losing it in a rampant English Nationalist exercise, what will they chose. They will be extremely aware of Scotland’s wealth on an international stage.

    If we can make it uncomfortable for them, and make chosing or losing a realistic option for them, then they might become significantly more diplomatically amenable (at least in public) towards Scottish Indy.

    I suspect the Claim of Right will be central to that. Perhaps the person arrested in Edinburgh today, for protesting against the monarchy, should cite King Charles III as a witness and use the Claim of Right as defense… the right to protest.

    I personally don’t want any form of monarchy, but it’s a decision for all of Scotland to make… if the monarchy were to start (or be made to start) standing up for Sovereignty of the People of Scotland (and I realise there is little hope of that) they would at least be earning their stripes in any future referendum on the topic.

    Once again struck by the ability of Alex Salmond in his dealings with both the queen and Charles. He really is a statesman, always putting Scotland first.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Thinking again on Charlies speech as it pertains to Scotland.

    98% was about religion.

    And yet most would argue, the core duty of the King of Scots is to defend the Sovereignty of the People of Scotland.

    It will take an expert to study it more. But I suspect its extremely informative because of what it does not say, rather than what it had to include.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The following is from Professor Alf Baird’s Foreword to Sara Salyers paper ‘The Treaty Bites Back: A ‘Forgotten’ Constitution, Scotland’s Claim of Right’ —

      “[…] The Claim of Right represents Scotland’s forgotten constitution, intentionally pushed out of sight and out of mind […] The imposed sovereignty of a Westminster Parliament on Scotland’s people does not and never has corresponded with Scotland’s constitutional rights, namely, the rights conferred by the sovereignty of the people. […] This is because, as Sara Salyers explains, the Treaty itself is conditional on Scotland retaining its own distinctive constitution, contained and described in the Claim of Right Act of 1689. This condition means that the Scottish people retain the right to prohibit government actions or legislation which compromise their civil rights and freedoms. This is part of the ‘right’ referred to in the Claim of Right and enshrined in Scots law by the Act ‘salve jure cujuslibet’ of 1663, which allowed any Scot to challenge parliamentary legislation which infringed their civil liberties – and how refreshing is that kind of thinking even today, never mind the seventeenth century.”

      PDF OF SARA SALYERS PAPER —

      Click to access The%20Treaty%20Bites%20Back.pdf

      Liked by 3 people

  23. Still mulling over Charlie’s statement.

    He swore to uphold the presbyterian faith in Scotland, and referred to this being a lawful condition pursued (prosecuted) within the Claim of Right.

    What he did not do, is swear to uphold the Claim of Right.

    The last part of his statement makes unclear reference to laws in both Kingdoms.

    ‘I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland (meaningful look made to someone in the room), in prosecution of the Claim of Right

    and particularly by an Act entitled, ‘An Act for the Securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government

    and by the Acts passed in the parliaments of both Kingdoms, for the Union of the 2 Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland, so help me God.’

    So, to sum up…. the above statement amounts to…. ‘never mind the quality, feel the width.’

    The religous reference in his speech shows signs of having been cherry picked from the Claim of Right as the most toothless bit of legislation, but if your going to play sleight of hand and distraction, introducing ‘faith’ is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

    The only real surprise is he didn’t shout, ‘will no one think of the children’.

    The person who held up a sign in Edinburgh today, that said, ‘Not My King’ was not being offensive, they were being accurate. Mr Windsor’s oath has got bugger all to do with upholding the core aspects of the Claim of Right and everything to do with ‘looking as if’ he has.

    Well, well. Isn’t that interesting.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. I draw your attention to what I consider the main issue regards the Claim of Rights acceptance by the English Parliament of 1707.
    Every Treaty requires the surrender of some aspects of sovereignty from each of the signatories, the English Parliament of 1706 exercised absolute sovereignty, only it didnt, Queen Anne agreed the terms of the Treaty not the Parliament, even so the enforced acceptance of the COR as a condition of ratification ensured that the new union Parliament exercised less power than the 2 parliaments combining to create it. The English Parliaments acceptance of the COR made it impossible for the union Parliament to exercise absolute sovereignty lawfully.

    Like

  25. We certainly need to appeal to the United Nations – and amnesty international for that matter, but much more under the topic of human rights than anything else given events of the last 24 hours.
    Yes events cancelled (including the postponement of yestival) whilst the better together mob campaign like never before. Fascism has truly arrived and it’s removal will come down to the blood and bone of the peaceful protestors, as is always the way.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: