The Remedy for All that’s Wrong

The Remedy for All that’s Wrong

A guest article from Sara Salyers

All That’s Wrong?

At the heart of the political, economic and social disaster unfolding around us is a broken political system. Anglo-Norman feudalism in modern clothing has given us a despotic and unaccountable government, political corruption, cronyism,  incompetence, privilege with impunity for a wealthy, powerful elite, government violation of the rule of law and government betrayal of the public trust. 

Under this despotic system we, the people, have no guarantee whatever of our public rights, interests or needs, even those that are enshrined in law. And we have no mechanism for redress. That is why we can fairly describe this supposed democracy as despotism. We may vote for a different party every five years but this is no more than a different flavour of the same poison. 

There is no genuine public input on policies that massively impact the lives of millions, (covid, austerity, privatisation of the NHS and once publicly owned utilities and many more). Instead, government policies are based on information provided by tiny, self-selecting special interests. This ‘information’ is received by an even tinier number of elected politicians and political appointees. Behind closed doors critically important deals and decisions are based on advocacy or information from minority interests, in the interests of a minority. And all too often, to the detriment of the many. The biggest resource of all, the talents, skills, experience, knowledge and imagination which reside in the population at large, is ignored. Public input that might create real and creative solutions and provide the best possible policies in the public interest, is either never developed, never heard and never considered. 

No truthful and objective public media exists to throw light on these shadowy deals and decisions. Instead we have little more than government or corporate What need is there for an informed public when there is no desire among politicians for accountability, public participation or any other form of public ‘interference? And the kind of journalism that exposes political wrongdoing is punished as a crime. 

We have the highest taxes and most unfair tax system in Europe, a system to serve the already wealthy while killing the poorest and most disadvantaged. Special tax exemptions are made by the government for ‘friends in high places’.  (Special arrangements for those who moved the job market to foreign countries where labour is cheap by virtue of the inhuman working terms and conditions!)

Rampant profiteering, especially in commodities that people require to live: food, energy, housing, is fuelling a level of poverty not seen since the first half of the 20th century.

There is no longer an absolute right to justice when accused or access to justice when wronged.

The resources of the land, resources owned in perpetuity by the people of Scotland, not the monarch or the state, are exploited to benefit the few and to enrich the UK treasury. There is no ‘fair share’ with the owners of the public assets that should fund our Scottish, public security. 

This list is by no means exhaustive. 

How Do We Change All this for Scotland?

  1. Vote for a different and better party?

That’s been working well for us, hasn’t it?

  • Independence?

How do we know with absolute certainty that independence will change all this? What exactly will guarantee to the people of Scotland that none of these things will plague an independent nation? 

Must we simply trust the politicians who will decide the shape of the new Scotland? 

There are as many visions of the new Scotland as there are. Scots dreaming of independence. Whose idea of the new nation will prevail?

Will the public be involved in designing any new constitution? How? Will the elected representatives who consider themselves the depositories of our sovereignty decide? Will they present their ideas or ours to vote on? 

What constitution will prevail? Will we borrow our fundamental principles from nations whose constitutions are far newer than our own? Will anyone even bother with the autochthonous, (original, indigenous), constitution forged over almost a thousand years? 

How, in a colonised Scotland, will we ever break out of the mental chains that trammel us into a foreign, English constitutional mindset or ever restore our own, buried but uniquely Scottish approach to social and political life?

  • Restoration/decolonisation

This means reclaiming the self-determination to which we are constitutionally entitled under Scots law, the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union. Westminster has already recognised that the people of Scotland have the right to whatever kind of political system we might imagine, design and choose. In 2018 it passed the (non-binding) SNP motion referencing the 1989 Claim of Right (which reasserted the 1689 Claim of Right Act):

That this House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.

While it has accepted the principle, its contradiction of the English principle of parliamentary sovereign notwithstanding, Westminster still refuses to allow the sovereign rights of the Scots to be applied in practice. And there is no mechanism by which our Scottish politicians can force the issue, even if they wanted to, nor any by which the people can exercise their authority over the government. 

But where there is a standing consitutional principle it is surely possible to create the mechanism, a task no more complicated than creating a devolved parliament.

How about?

  1. A clear and enforceable constitutional compact between the sovereign people of the nation and the government to whom their power is loaned?  

Imagine what Scotland might be like right now if we had a constitutional compact guaranteeing the common good, equitable taxation, no behind closed doors deals to favour the wealthy, no special legal privileges for the already privileged, no abuse of the law by corrupt politicians, fairness under the law and an equal right to justice for all, the right to protest, no profiteering, protected privacy, freedom of information and more. 

We do. It is summarised in the Claim of Right Act 1689, woven through Scots law. And ignored.

Above all imagine that the people had a direct and enforceable method of redress against any government that violated the rule of law or the terms of the constitutional compact. A means of sacking a lawless, oppressive and corrupt government such as the one in power in Westminster today. 

We did and we can do so again. 

Restoring the force of the Scottish constitutional compact and the provision for enforcement is the ultimate goal of Salvo, the Liberation Movement and its eventual representative body, the Scottish National Congress. 

  • A multicameral system where the legislative body (parliament) exercises the power to govern in co-operation with:
  • a representative public body tasked with protecting and managing the public interest, (common good assets and interests) and
  • a representative, public body acting as an ‘overseer’, tasked with protecting and enforcing the constitutional rights and freedoms of the people

Sound a bit radical? By 1689 alongside the parliament in Scotland,  (albeit in the teeth of a protracted royal invasion of the Scottish constitution), there existed multiple conventions and committees. Most important of these were the Convention of the Estates (Assembly of the Communities) and the Burgh Assembly (composed of representatives of the shires and Burghs). 

Local burghs and shires elected representatives to the Burgh Assembly. This Assembly reported back on parliamentary proposals and then formulated and forwarded their responses to the parliament. The Assembly also drafted legislation for parliament on issues pertaining to the common good. (A bit like a system of citizens’ assemblies but a system with direct input to the legislature.)

The Convention of the Estates also drafted legislation. It prevented unfair taxation, oversaw many international agreements and took over in the absence of a legitimate parliament. In modern terms we can imagine this body as one that upholds the sovereign rights and interests of the people who lend the power of government to their elected representatives. 

If we are indeed a sovereign people, with the “right to decide the form of government best suited to our needs”, then this system, updated and tailored for a modern, progressive and politically independent Scotland is, at the very least, one of the options on which we are entitled to decide. And such a system of government has unique benefits. 

It represents a restoration of our colonised, Scottish identity, a truly Scottish reform of a corrupt and broken system long past its ‘sell by’ date and it is a potentially inspirational model for a world struggling with the same, disastrous effects of unaccountable, top down power and privileged corruption as those we see in Scotland. 

We can have anything we want. That is the meaning of determining ‘the form of government’ best suited to our needs. Any form of government we want, not just the kind of government our politicians are willing to offer us. Why would we want anything less than an authentically Scottish system and an authentic Scottish constitution?

Only Sovereignty Makes it Possible

Sovereignty means nothing less than absolute authority within a nation. 

In any state, sovereignty is assigned to the person, body, or institution that has the ultimate authority over other people in order to establish a law or change any existing law (Wikipedia)

In England, this sovereignty resides with the parliament which is sovereign over the people. In Scotland, it resides with the people who are sovereign over all other authorities.

Whilst this is accepted and acknowledged by an “elite” handful of Scots, it is not widely understood by the vast majority of voters in Scotland… Otherwise Scotland would have recalled its Parliament a long time ago and we would be a self-governing democracy today.

Sovereignty is supreme and unrestricted legitimate authority independent of any outside influence. … In Scotland the people are the supreme constitutional authority over Monarch and Parliament. The single and ultimate source of all parliamentary and governmental power is the people, represented by a qualified and registered electorate. 

The Scottish elected representatives – irrespective of their own views – are therefore bound by the supremacy of the expressed will of the majority of voters in Scotland. That sovereign will takes precedence over any other concept, form or notion of outside authority or influence, including the subordinate authorities Government, Parliament, Judiciary or Head of State.[1]

The British establishment has produced very many and varied arguments to justify the imposition of an English constitution and an English political system on the Scots over the centuries. Scots law, however, (which includes the constitution), is reserved in Scotland under the Treaty of Union while the Claim of Right, which expresses the authority of the people over monarch, government and courts, is guaranteed as a condition of the Union. But the Scottish constitution, as distinct from the English/UK constitution, is neither taught to nor studied by students of law. The people of Scotland, (including their elected representatives), remain largely unaware of its existence, let alone its scope and meaning. 

As a result, the power and freedom available to us as a people and inherent in the legal protections which underpin the very existence of the Union, are simply ignored. Indeed, there is often a marked resistance among politicians to recognise that the act of being elected does not transfer to them the sovereignty of those who elected them!  This political resistance creates an unnecessary road block across an otherwise straightforward and internationally lawful route to Scottish self-determination. 

Sovereignty of the People of Scotland

Let’s examine the implications of a, (supposedly), transferable sovereignty. 

If, when we elect a politician, we transfer our sovereignty, (absolute authority) to that politician, then sovereignty is reduced to the parliamentary level. (Scottish and English politicians embody the sovereignty of their nations alike.) When the vote of the Scottish politicians is defeated by the vote of the English politicians the battle is over, fought and lost. 

But if, (as is actually the case), the Scottish politicians arrive in parliament as ambassadors or delegates, the vote of a foreign power cannot overrule the authority of the people they represent. If the people of Scotland retain sovereignty at all times with an authority that stands above that of all their elected representatives, then the Westminster parliament is subordinate in Scotland and has no authority to act against the will and the interests of the people. It really is that simple. (Editor comment. This is vitally important)

That the UK government has buried, ignored and distorted the truth makes it no less the truth. That there exists in Scotland today no vehicle by which to enforce the authority of the people over “the subordinate authorities Government, Parliament, Judiciary or Head of State”,  does not alter the right of the people to create that vehicle. 

This is where Salvo and the Liberation Movement come in, the first to publicise our true constitutional position and the second to restore the rightful authority of the people:

America required revolution to establish its right to self-determination. Scotland merely requires its elected representatives to recall its adjourned Parliament. Although Scotland’s political parties are politically divided, there is no sound reason why these same parties should not be united by a common purpose. Unified under Scottish constitutional law by (a) common purpose … Scotland’s representatives could achieve a common cause at any time they so choose. 

If such fail, then the people have the right to call upon others to recall the said Parliament. This may require the creation of Scotland’s first National Congress. The purpose of such a Congress would be to restore constitutional law and order to Scotland … to put the will of the people into effect, if necessary without further reference to Westminster[2]

The message of both Salvo and the Liberation Movement is clear. If our politicians cannot or will not rescue our people from the disaster now unfolding, then the people can and will rescue themselves. And we can do so in the certainty of international recognition of both Scots law and international principle.

Canon Kenyon Wright once famously said:

What if that other voice we all know so well responds by saying, ‘We say no, and we are the state’? Well, we say yes – and we are the people.

We can now add, ‘And by the way, we are taking back our power’.

[1] SCOTLAND´S PARLIAMENT THE RIGHT OF RECALL BY THE PEOPLE, For and on behalf of the Scotland-UN Committee, John J.G. McGill

[2] ibid


I am a huge fan of Sara Salyers and the outstanding work that Salvo is undertaking. I am aware of their planned future campaigning ideas and am excited by them. They are innovative and will provide the energy and excitement that has been missing in the Independence fight in recent times. Not only will Unionism be surprised I forecast high level of shocks amongst those elected politicians who should have been much more active in driving Independence forward than they have been. When these plans are revealed support them, get behind them and let’s get the vehicles for Independence going forward again with real drive and imagination. It’s time for Liberation.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland

PS This is not the big story, excellent as it is, I have been promising from Salvo. This is but an opening teaser.


Unfortunately some pro Indy websites are not pro Indy. They are pro SNP sites and ban any content on their sites which dares to question the SNP or the SNP leader. They seek to censor discussion and free expression. Fortunately many of my readers share the articles on Yours for Scotland frequently and because of this the attempted censorship is proving ineffective. This support is very important and I thank everyone who share and protect freedom of speech and choice.


Are available on the Home and Blog pages of this site. This will ensure you will receive notification of all new posts by email and be the first to get key information when it is released.


The progress of Salvo has been the most encouraging development of 2022. It is doing sterling work educating Scots about the Claim of Right and spelling out what it means that the Scottish people are sovereign, not any Parliament. All donations to this site for the remainder of 2022 will be forwarded to Salvo to support them in developing and expanding this valuable work.


Please register at and join the mass membership organisation that will be the signatories to our application to the UN, debate and organise a new Scottish Constitution. The membership of Liberation is also where the first members of Scotland’s National Congress will be balloted for selection.

135 thoughts on “The Remedy for All that’s Wrong

  1. Absolutely inspiring words from Sara. When we do this, we, the people of Scotland, will be a shining light across the world for democracy, equality and social justice.

    Liked by 18 people

  2. The article covered all my fears.
    Under Sturgeon we are at best a Colony under a native administrator and at worst a Vichy French style of Independent Nationhood.
    The common factor is Sturgeon.

    I don’t want to tweak the UK system, I want Power returned to the People of Scotland.

    Liked by 26 people

  3. Insightful and inspiring – YES we need to do things very differently – we are exploited peasants in the current elitist trough and independence under inept, authoritarian Sturgeon would not change that. Lead on Sara – we will follow!

    Liked by 11 people

  4. Whatever may be its idiosyncrasies the Declaration of Arbroath is THE bold statement of Scotland’s nationhood. That it is the work of those of Norman French ancestry is more than significant in the light of anglo norman England’s perception of Scotland as a mere «province» in a proto «British» imperium.
    It should be remembered also that the Saxons began the latter expansionist project.
    British is a naughty word, meaning whatever the user fancies. Occasionally, it might signify the Celtic people. In my view that meaning ought to be restored.

    Liked by 11 people

      1. Along with the news of seven MSPs rebelling against the SNP GRA legislation, this is great news and a sign that things may be moving at last to break the deadlock Scotland has been in for some time with governments in both London and Edinburgh blocking our right to self-determination.
        The sooner we can get this message out to the people of Scotland and either to persuade our elected representatves to press for this or, failing that, establish another representative body to do so. How far along the road are we to establishing a National Congress?

        Liked by 7 people

  5. Brilliant. Thank you and this article shows us that there are people out there who are or could be part of shaping a different Scotland as well as getting the message out to the people that our elect have failed to. The song came into ma mind after reading this.

    Liked by 8 people

  6. Excellent read and fully endorse the comments and purpose, our current crop of elected politicians in the SNP are unfortunately embedded in the corrupt Westminster system and need shaken out of there torpor.

    Liked by 13 people

  7. Well said Sara.

    I think you are absolutely right, and thank God for SALVO, but while I know it’s not essential and Independence is the priority, I would still love to see the sovereign people of Scotland given a formal mechanism / protocol of impeachment to depose this rotten SNP Government. Call it good housekeeping, call it a dress rehearsal for Westminster.

    As you say, the right already exists, of course it does, it’s actually no different in principle from the Claim of Right and Declaration of Arbroath. But had such a thing existed before Devolution; that is, the Claim of Right WITH codified protocols attached, it is hard to see how this mess could ever have arisen. The Scotland Act would never have happened.

    The more I dwell on it, the deeper my mistrust of Holyrood becomes. The Holyrood Assembly has taken the trappings and power of office and let it go to it’s head, but looking a little deeper, it has always shirked it’s constitutional liabilities to the people. It’s done so because it has been able to. It was designed that way; to serve another master who WAS given the codified power of veto and sanction, the very rights which Scotland’s people were denied.

    These politicians just pay lip service to the Claim of Right, because there is no consequence befalls them or their career if they betray the principle. The Claim of Right needs potency; it needs codification, it needs an Enforcer, and a permanent watchdog / Guardian of Scotland’s Constitution.

    Scotland has no protection. None. No Home Defence Service, no soldiery or police force any less compromised than our devolved “Government”, and no Internal Security or Intelligence Agency. We are wide open. Scotland’s enemies already have freedom of movement everywhere, access all areas, the keys to our codes, our safes and our arsenals. Our money is their money. Our lands and assets are in their hands. They own and propagandise our media and communication. They captain our institutions and industries with their gatekeepers. We are compromised top to bottom and infiltrated across our whole spectrum, but still, they cannot untie the Gordian Knot of Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty.

    Poor old Scotland… all it has is the winning card.

    Liked by 18 people

    1. Aye, fantastic stuff, but how do we enact this, how do we wrest back control, without landing in a cell? Sturgeon is on their side, all puffed up on power and not interested whatsoever in Indy. We are Sovereign, so how do we get to a critical mass and make this happen.? I’m all ears, fingers and legs and ready to go, how about everyone else. We need a clear map and someone to lead the way. Fingers crossed and ready for the next installment.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. understandable of course, what can we do to get this out, just share the website I guess. I didn’t have an issue signing up but some folks have it seems.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. People are signing up every day only a small but annoying percentage have a problem. The site is facing illegal attack. We have already taken steps and more are are planned in the very near future.

        Liked by 5 people

      3. Iain, I have not been well and I am just catching up, tried to register at but ‘its no working’!


    2. What WE have to remember is that it has not JUST been the current VICHY version of the nusnp that has and is failing Scotland and Scots but that we have been BETRAYED for decades by traitors from all political parties who have and are currently still lying to us , we should NEVER forget the lapdog’s in the unionist parties who have DELIBERATELY lied to us and kept us hog tied to this festering corrupt union

      It could all have been so different if those self serving collaborators had just told the truth e.g. the McCrone report instead of DELIBERATELY hiding it to PLEASE their masters , remember these people sir Jack and suchlike were ELECTED to SERVE AND PROTECT SCOTS reprehensible scum who caused Scots untold suffering

      Liked by 6 people

  8. ‘Representative public bodies’ need to be elected by the electorate. Major constitutional changes need to be voted on by the electorate. In case there is any confusion about it, that is how a sovereign people excercise their sovereignty. In addition, there is the petetion system, although I don’t know if that applies to the Scottish parliament.

    If anyone thinks there is more to it that that basic synopsis, I’d love to hear it.

    The idea that a modern Scottish State’s constitution would be based on an arcane Protestants vs. Catholics document written by Protestants, designed to overthrow Catholic Jacobite Jimmy2 with Protestant Hugenot Billy3, is absurd. But in case you don’t know, they didn’t have to bother writting it because Billy3 sailed from Holland to Dorset with an army, marched into London unopposed, got Jimmy2 to abdicate, and imposed the Protestant precedent we still have today. After the Scottish prods vs papes civil war, that suited the ascendant Scots aristos/church syndicate just fine (appart from the Stuarts and the oppressed Catholics).

    More relevantly, the latest King has made it clear that he wishes to be the defender of the Faiths, rather than the defender of the Faith. So he might drop the claim of right from future coronation stuff. During his oaths, he obviously took the claim of right as an arcane bigoted joke.

    I would think that a modern Scottish State’s constitution would be based on a parliamentary act of royal sucession, as the basis of the nature of the State, (and the human rights act). I don’t see any noticable republican movement.


    1. Good try but we are well past the stage where unionists try to divide us off using religious differences. As an example your attempt above sits alongside similar attempts trying to make out Salvo are “Tim’s” because the Edinburgh Declaration uses the same words as the Irish .declaration. Brave words about ditching the Claim of Right, that would require ditching the Treaty of Union first and no monarch, in the hundreds of years since 1689 has felt such a move would be sensible if they wanted to keep the Crown in Scotland so I fear your ambition to be an advisor to KC111 is doomed from the start.

      Liked by 19 people

      1. 👏 Well said Iain. They have been naughty and this is the real remedy and like a snake oil salesperson would they will try to dupe the masses to buy theirs instead.

        Liked by 9 people

    2. Jimmy 2 was actually Jimmy 7 in Scotland. And Billy 3 was actually Billy 1 of Scotland. The rest is about as accurate. As Sara and others have stated on many occasions, the religious aspects of the document do not negate the general principles of the Claim.

      Liked by 10 people

      1. William of Orange was William the third of England and the second of Scotland. William «The Lion» being the first. The latter inherited Northumberland and Durham, but failed to secure his claim.

        Liked by 10 people

      2. Also William III was no friend of Scotland as he showeed when he denied the sSots any protection when they were trying to found a colony at darien and actually sided with Spain who opposed that attempt as they claimed that terrirtory was theirs

        Liked by 7 people

  9. There is a translation of the claim of right from the original Latin here:

    Read it.

    As contrast, the US constitution has been amended 27 times. The last one was in the 1970’s. The claim of right has never been ammended. Possibly because it lost significance after the reign of king William III.

    I think it’s principal significance is it’s leaning towards an elective monarchy (which has been ignored/unrequired for the last 300 years).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Mr E, I believe you misunderstand the Claim of Right.

      The Claim of Right of 1689 does not define what the Claim of Right is, it “minutes” an application of it. It cites a litany of failures on the part of James VII, charges against him, which render him unfit to be King of Scotland and thereby claims the right to remove him from the throne. It’s almost like a trial. An accusation was made that the King had abandoned his throne, the King was judged guilty, and the penalty was that he lost his throne. It was an application of the law, NOT the writing of it.

      The Claim of Right is a protocol. It is ephemeral and no two renditions of it need be the same, except the constant principle that the people are sovereign.

      The Claim of Right of 1689 is of it’s time. The Right it is claiming however, the sovereign principle, is perpetual. That right is the sovereignty of the people. 1689 represents a juncture in history when the Right was claimed, the case was made, and the dethroning of a monarch was carried through.

      You might argue with some credibility that the most recent “Claim of Right”, that is, power drawn down from Scottish sovereignty, ergo “the right claimed” upon, occurred only a calendar month ago, 22nd September 2022, when the new King of Scots swore fealty to the Claim of Right which has the power to depose him. You could legitimately interpret that as Scotland the nation, claiming the right to have it’s monarch swear fealty to the people.

      The 2022 “Claim of Right” was not to compel the King to vacate his throne, but to compel the King to swear an oath of fealty. Both occasions constitute an application of sovereign ascendancy where the monarch was obliged to obey.

      The essence of the Claim of Right, the sovereignty of the people, is much older than 1689. It is even older than the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath which makes oblique reference to a pre-existing right to remove a Scottish King from his throne and choose another. Arbroath 1320 was merely a Declaration of the Right, NOT the writing of it.

      It confuses people, because in 14th Century Scotland there was no popular democracy synonymous with what we now call a democratic society, but there was a very clear, mature and unequivocal principle that the sitting Monarch of the day was NOT sovereign, and it is that principle which matured into Scotland’s popular Sovereignty, which in turn matured into Scotland’s democracy which has sovereignty at it’s heart.

      Liked by 15 people

      1. Professor Alexander Broadie is the stalwart proponent of, and go-to authority on, Scottish philosophy, about which he has written many good books. As folk will have no doubt noticed, I have long tried to publicize Prof Broadie’s compelling contention that “Scotland’s greatest philosopher” John Duns Scotus was the (posthumous) influence behind the Declaration of Arbroath (1320) –

        “The Declaration of Arbroath…repeats the message that a king does not rule except by the consent of those who are ruled, for it states that Robert [The Bruce] was made prince and king ‘by the due consent and assent of us all’ […] My conclusion is that while Wallace was fighting for Scottish independence, Scotus was developing precisely the intellectual framework that the Scots within a few years would deploy in the chief documents that defined that independence. I also believe it possible that the documents in question were compiled with Scotus in mind. There remains an intriguing thought, which I have not pursued, that Scotus was actively engaged in the development of Scottish thinking on the matter of Scottish independence through discussions that he might have had with Scots whom he met at the great centres where he worked… Scotus may, after all, have been on the side of practice as well as theory by working to the same end as the Scottish military leaders even although by utterly different means.” (JOHN DUNS SCOTUS AND THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENCE’, being a chapter by Alexander Broadie in ‘The Wallace Book’ (John Donald Short Run Press, 2010)

        Liked by 7 people

      2. In the following 2010 Royal Society of Edinburgh lecture Professor Broadie establishes his case regarding the key role of John Duns Scotus. The YouTube audio needs very slightly “rewound” to the exact beginning:

        ‘The Past as Propaganda in The Declaration of Arbroath’

        Liked by 5 people

  10. This is exciting stuff, some might say it’s radical but this should be the norm not just for Scotland but for all nations, now we can’t impose our constitution on other nations but we can be a beacon of hope for people all around the world living under the same or similar corrupt tyrannical regimes such as we find ourselves living under today, an exemplar of what a fair and just society looks like.

    If we can get the message out there and show people how we’ve been betrayed & cheated all those years the Nicola Sturgeons of this world are finished at least in Scotland.

    We can make this happen because we are the people, we have the power and what we say goes

    Liked by 15 people

  11. All this depends on the assumption that all of the sovereign people of Scotland are demanding independence.
    The assumption is not true, with roughly half of the population preferring the Union.
    If we are to set up representative bodies they must include Unionists to have any credibility. All talk of going to the UN is just pie in the sky. Look at how successful the Palestinians have been, and Israel doesn’t even have a veto.


    1. @ Republicofscotland
      I agree with you up to a point, but what Salvo are offering is something bigger than independence much bigger, but can only come with independence, our ancient constitution is the right of every individual Scot regardless of how many unionists there are, the unionists can make their case if that’s what they believe but they have no right to deny the rights of every other Scot the sovereignty that is rightfully theirs.

      ps I don’t think I worded that too well but I hope it understood

      Liked by 11 people

      1. Graeme.

        The above comment isn’t me, it’s someone with a similar name, I certainly don’t agree with Republicanscotland comment.

        Liked by 5 people

    2. hm but who holds this sovereign right of the Scottish people?
      Second home owners paying English tax rates?
      Retirees caching in houses in the south east?
      Armed forces posted here?

      The franchise is a dud. A majority of Scots born, before we even consider long term residents and the grandparent rule where it is likely a YES too, want independence.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. @ Republicofscotland
        The above comment isn’t me, it’s someone with a similar name, I certainly don’t agree with Republicanscotland comment.

        I apologise, I really need to learn to read stuff more carefully

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Yes, the permanent managerial class fully intends to do a cut ‘n’ paste job for any future constitution. Nae prizes for guessing what the source material will be.
    For some bizarre reasons, the Russian Federation used the US constitution when it formed. This included a maximum two term clause for President.
    You’d think that the maximum two term clause in the US constitution is some “ancient”, incontestable statute. It ain’t.
    The twenty second amendment was introduced in 1947 as some kind of response to F.D.R. being elected four times. There were some nebulous concerns around F.D.R’s “permanent” status (he solved that problem, as indeed we all must).
    F.D.R. was a “good” President (at least in my book), his Republican opponents were by most accounts a collection of ideological odd-balls and wing-nuts.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. when the time comes for Scotland’s Constituent Assembly I see no reason why the delegates should not use the principles of Scotland’s Ancient Constitution as well as as principles copied from other modern Constitutions.
      As least to draw up a basic draft to start off discussions.
      Other people did a lot of work in drawing up their constitutions.
      Why should Scotland not respect and benefit from the best thoughts of those who have gone before us in other countries?
      For example the Italian Constitution states:
      Art. 1
      “Italy is a Democratic Republic, founded on work.
      Sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised
      by the people in the forms and within the limits of the
      Art. 11
      “Italy rejects war as an instrument of aggression against
      the freedom of other peoples and as a means for the
      settlement of international disputes. ”

      Is any Independence-minded Scot really going to object to having those principles enshrined in a Scottish constitution?

      Liked by 6 people

      1. I agree. As you say – why waste some good points other countries have found to be pertinent.

        And Dr Mark McNaught did just that, by writing up a Constitution based on what he considered the best parts of Constitutions of other countries. It was left open so Scots could make suggestions & it was possible to let him know what Scots wanted. It was up on Wiki for a long time but I believe it has now been taken down as SSRG & other groups are working on a new one. But with the information Mark has gotten, in studying these other Constitutions, I’m sure he’ll have lots of good examples of other countries’ choices of wording & articles, to use. As you say – why not use it?

        Liked by 8 people

  13. Whoever is running the and Liberation the website is not letting people sign. One of the guys I told about it said that he has tried numerous times and it’s not letting him. I said that I would let someone know because they read it and agree with it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Unfortunately the site is always being bombarded by unionists IT people – yes that is so & is not ‘tinfoil hat’ stuff. They have recognised what Sara & SALVO are talking about & it frightens them! So SALVO are constantly having to look out for hits to the site & sorting it.

      Also – it seems links to signing are being attacked & don’t get through & those that do – you need to look in the spam folders as the responses have, for some strange reason, been going there. PLEASE, PLEASE persist. If you cannot get thru, Sara has asked that all get in contact with her and she will see about the site people personally getting people signed up.

      PLEASE, PLEASE – keep persisting. Keep trying! This is sooo important.

      Liked by 9 people

    1. So shall I tell him try first and second name together? I want to get back to people with the right method otherwise they might get fed up and give up.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. An absolutely excellent article Sarah. Well informed and well set out. A very good read.

    But if I may cut across a little, can I say that that there is a very good article on Barrhead Boy today about yesterday’s ministerial resignation and the refusal of 9 SNP MSPs to obey the SNP’s Hollyrood whip.

    For me it brings into sharp focus the decline of the SNP under Sturgeon and her clique. Every metric you look at you see the shadow of the death of a once great party. Declining membership, now visible for all to see. A conference where there were only around 700 delegates with NEC members getting elected with votes a low as 26 votes being a very public example of the shadow that the SNP has become.

    It’s a secret I know but my guess is that the SNP membership is now well below 25,000, and of course, as many of us know, members, and active members at that too, have poured into Alba and other campaigning mechanisms such as Salvo. And where the members have departed, the electorate will follow.

    But the decline in the SNP is also being reflected in other ways too. Yesterday’s ministerial resignation and the refusal of nine MSPs to follow the whip is absolute testimony of a party at war. One thing the SNP was famous for was public unity and rock-solid discipline. That is now gone and the resignation yesterday with a concomitant refusal to vote with whip is but just the tip of the iceberg.

    And the money, the money to run the party, where is that coming from. Members money is down, very substantially down. Membership subscriptions, donations, legacies all down or disappeared. Indeed, the misappropriation of £600,000 of hypothecated independence campaigning money and the initial denials that the money had been spent is further testimony of a party in trouble.

    But yesterday’s rebellion brings out into the open the real state that the SNP is in and I think we could be heading for big time party split before the electorate gets a chance to decimate NuSNP.

    Folks increasingly know the SNP and onetime independence party is now a devolutionist party and a party focussed on unpopular and frankly utterly unneeded issues. Change is coming. The SS SNP is going down and a realignment is underway.

    And the mutiny to come will not, I suspect, be too long away.

    Liked by 14 people

      1. Fully aware of the short money Panda Paws. That is what’s keeping the party running. And if the SNP lose MPs or MSPs, or if some of them defect, then the short money goes down.

        And if there is no short money then the establishment is going to have to find another way to fund a NuSNP headed for the rocks electorally and financially.

        Liked by 7 people

    1. NuSNP morphs into NuNewLabour 🙂 It is well past time the diehards stood up and be counted, and when her power wains watch the MSM and backers devour NS whole. I wish these dissenters would walk across to ALBA though, but we shall see what transpires in due course. They might even get booted out first, by she/her who must be obeyed.

      Liked by 10 people

  15. Sara’s opening description of our current abomination of governance is both descriptive and timely. That, generation-upon-generation has accepted the described political abomination as being “normal”, settled and quite legitimate, is the result we see before us. So, how, when attempting to introduce a counter narrative i.e. the Claim of Right, do we deal with a false-consciousness that has, for years, permeated all national, political thinking? Traditionally, it has been the job of political parties to influence and change the minds of voters; to lead, in fact. Has anything changed in that respect? No, not at all! Do we, at this time, have a sufficiently knowledgeable, political party to vote for, one in possession of all the arguments regarding Scotland’s actual position within the union? Of course, we haven’t! In which case, I’ll say what’s on my mind: Salvo, along with the SSRG must become a political party. A huge, huge ask, I know, for all involved. A task that would also require us to fund our political-voice with our hard-cash.and activism; in common with every other party that’s ever made a difference. I can’t believe what I’ve just written here, but the point, be assured, is made in good-faith.

    Liked by 13 people

    1. At the Saturday morning session of the recent Alba Party Conference Neale Hanvey, Alex Salmond, and Kenny MacAskill all ominously lined up after Sara Salyers spoke, asserting in quite an extraordinarily robust manner that it was precisely *because* Alba was a “political” party that it was incompatible with Salvo. Moreover, that Alba already was *already* committed to the Claim of Right. Took me aback a bit. Clarity needed.

      Starts about 29 mins 30 secs in:

      Liked by 6 people

      1. I was thinking that Alba would if people liked what they were offering along with other people should be after salvo and liberation has taken place. Reason I have come to this conclusion is that they said that they are a political party so we don’t need them in Westminster and until we can get the people behind the liberation because the current government in Scotland have failed to do the will of the people so once this is all established so nobody can do this again to the people then I think that is where they are going to be needed based upon reading this today.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Sara spells out exactly what her view is in this article. I think Salvo needs to stay clear of all political parties. It needs to have a single focus, political parties by their nature can’t do that!

        Liked by 16 people

      3. fearghas
        Here is my understanding of the situation.

        The ALBA NEC Independence Strategy passed at Conference on 15 October

        By claiming that Politicians are the custodians of sovereignty, ALBA Party leaders assert their support for the English system of Parliamentary Sovereignty – rather than the almost 1000 year old Scottish system of People’s Sovereignty (Encoded in the Claim of Right and upheld in the Union Treaty and Articles).

        Under Scots Law, Sovereignty is temporarily loaned to politicians on the understanding that they act only for the common wellbeing of The People. Sovereignty resides in perpetuity with The People.

        ALBA Party is therefore on the wrong side of Scots Law. As with SNP, ALBA is increasingly irrelevant as Salvo and the Liberation Movement deliver People led self determination for Scotland.

        I think SALVO and SSRG appears to be the way to go.

        Liked by 12 people

      4. Most politicians who are committed to the ‘Claiim of Right’ see it as a declaration of Scotland’s national sovereignty and interpret popular sovereignty as something that is transferred tot hem at the ballot box. ‘Custodians of the sovereignty of the people’ I think was the phrase I objected to in the main motion. They are wrong for a multitude of reasons but the error is a very costly one for reasons I make clear in the article. The idea of a sovereignty that stops at the ballot box is a contradiction in terms that is both repugnant and unacceptable to Salvo (or any clear thinking Scot). So in my book, you may thunder your support for the Claim of Right but if you deny the right of the people to hold a government directly to account and to sack them, with penalties, for crimes under that Act, if you pretend that the sovereignty of the people can be transferred to a powerful few, then you are simply using the CoR as a political campaign tool and fooling yourself into thinking you support it. On this principle I will never compromise or bend and that was the reason I ignored Alex’s request that no one seek to remit back his motion.

        Liked by 4 people

    2. I can understand your thinking and in many ways, it seems like a good idea. But on turning it into a political party, I think too many people may be frightened off it, as they don’t like to commit to a party and prefer to just back this idea or that one.

      I’m thinking many folks may prefer to support a group who is not affiliated to any one party and will prefer the idea that SALVO is for ALL parties & NONE. Many folks from other parties may feel more comfortable taking part in SALVO meetings, thinking they will not be bombarded, persuaded or just plain propagandised by parties they feel don’t represent them. They may feel more comfortable talking within such a meeting/conference/whatever it may be, and putting forward ideas, discussing points they don’t understand or want clarification, where they won’t feel so threatened as they might, if it’s party-based.

      I think that’s their thinking. But I can see how you think being party could help build the vehicle for getting to the UN. But I think it’s good to be able to share what you’re thinking, however it works out.

      Liked by 9 people

    3. Totally agree with this.
      My personal opinion is that it should be a one election “party.” ( Salvo or Liberation whatever name is chosen)
      People are sick of politicians and their selfish lies and policies that benefit only a few.
      Stand on a manifesto of here’s what we we will do:
      1. Not take seats at Westminster
      2. If more than 32 members of the “party” are elected we will end the union.
      3. Appoint a negotiating team to engage with Westminster to arrange terms before Independence Day.
      4. Use all the very talented people we have to begin the work needed for our new Scotland. E.g currency group, Commonweal, constitution group, SSRG so people have confidence that there is a clear plan.
      5. Having achieved this then have a referendum for the people to approve.
      6. Dissolve the “party” once manifesto aims have been achieved.

      Liked by 3 people

  16. It is possible to be too «literal». You do not require texts to justify that sense of being a nation.
    Scotland possesses all the attibutes of a nation and a nation state, as in a jigsaw puzzle they need the expertise and focus to fit them together.
    The puzzle isn’t so very complicated.

    Liked by 13 people

  17. The SNP, in as much as they are actually still an independence party offers to replace ‘colonialism’ with ‘neo-colonialism’, a management buy-out.

    Liked by 13 people

  18. This is great Sarah, we do have the power, but alas we have an FM who isn’t interested in using it, I also don’t recall any other nation that has dumped its colonial status (Scots are sovereign and Scotland is not a region of England) require a S30 to get shot of Westminster, so why should Scotland.

    No Westminster PM will ever again agree to an indyref, when the right FM is in place in Scotland then we can proceed, sooner would be better though, we didn’t require an indyref to enter this union, so why would we require one to leave it, we should be able to leave this union in the same fashion we entered it. Scots had no say on entering the union.

    Liked by 15 people

  19. Please don’t strike me down for asking this, you folks on here seem to know what you are talking about I’m just trying to understand what has happened to our independence movement, Sara’s article is excellent, but I can’t help thinking if the Claim of Right or The Scottish People are Sovereign and have the power, why was this not mentioned / used in 2014 referendum?

    Liked by 6 people

      1. So is this just a strategem to get round Westminster’s “Now is not the time” “Once in a generation” pronouncements?
        Am I wrong in thinking it has the potential to offer much, much more to the Scots and Scotland?

        Liked by 5 people

  20. I agree with you Iain and Sara in regards to political parties. I was hoping that we could have had a paper copy of the Liberation due to the difficulties that seems to be holding up people from joining but I understand that under the data protection that we can’t due to carrying around people’s private information. When I was working with children under this who required special medical procedures our way around this was the permission from their parents or guardians to carry the information because not having it on our person would have been or could have been a danger to the child.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Any data protection act course we had to take all depends upon the permission of the person. I don’t know if it’s still this the case. So for instance if an agency has your information you are entitled to have yourself removed from it as well as see it if they didn’t get your permission. Emails were supposed to be encrypted etc for added security.


      1. I tend to speak to people around and not everyone is on technology and in fact quite a lot of older people don’t like it. One of my neighbours doesn’t like this all online and prefers going into the bank with his book and such. Another man I spoke to enjoys writing on paper and says that online he doesn’t pick up things the same as he does in person and he doesn’t want to type. He showed me his journal he carries around when he gets an idea etc obviously not the content. I figured that there’s got to be a lot of people the same and as they are not online they are not engaged with what is happening.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. The site has been under attack illegally since it launched. We are taking measures to improve security which I cannot make public but efforts have been continual to interfere. More news in due course.

      Liked by 9 people

    3. For paper copies we also need some sort of unique identifier such as an NI number to ensure anyone who sings more than once onluy counts as one person though also to ensure genuine people not ‘mickey mouse’signatories. Then, prhaps we could have people signing up at various rallies, demos etc.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I agree – having stalls at the various marches, demos etc. is really important! I think SALVO had a stall at the Hope Over Fear Rally for just that purpose. Sara spoke there & I think she was manning it. But I think many rallies are finished for the winter season (I’m sure I read AUOB were finished for this year) though I may be wrong & hope someone will correct me if so. So it does mean that there may not be many opportunities for doing this kind of thing, for the next few winter months. Which is a shame! I hate the idea of the grass growing under our feet, on this. Trying to think what could be done about it though…

        Liked by 3 people

      2. To Katielass belowI think there is something proposed at Holyrood for when the result of the Supreme Court question about whether Holyrood can hold a legal referendum is announced, though all this research makes that exercise redundant. If we are sovereign we have the right in any case.

        Liked by 6 people

  21. @iainlawson

    As an abstract proposition, I would agree that Salvo ought to steer clear of political parties etc. Unfortunately, we need political party’s to lead and to negotiate on our behalf within liberal democracies, where the number of votes cast are the prime legitimising factor regarding all political action. To be honest, I would prefer, in the case of Salvo, if things were otherwise.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. I think that’s where comes in. The number of signatories needs to be equivalent of the membership of the biggest political party in Scotland. It will be indicative of the ‘will of the people’, as it would the membership of the biggest political party. And that’s why its so important to get those signature figures up & over the 100,000 mark. Having said that, I don’t think SNP have anything like that number now, but seems a fair number to take to the UN and would give an indication of how people feel.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Well I don’t mind volunteering because it’s for us all. I took it that upon signing up we also get the word out to others but like I said I am a wee bit need to make sure that what I am asking people to sign to works because obviously I don’t know everyone who I might give the leaflets to and so like the guy yesterday I can get back to him to explain the situation. I understand that there’s problems and why but you know they should just stop because they are just delaying or putting off the fact that it’s happening.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. Okay cheers because we know that it’s so important that’s why I am letting you know because obviously if we are getting the message out we need to ensure we give good customer service. 😸

    Liked by 3 people

  23. Once again, I am buoyed by Sara’s words & thoughts, so well and so clearly laid out. Once again she has given me hope. Yesterday was such a downer for women, SNP having proved to us, the 52% of the population, how worthless we adult human females are. And proved to Scotland how determined Sturgeon is to thumb her nose at the 80% of Scots who have shown in various polls that they DO NOT subscribe to the GRR Bill going ahead. It was hardly an idea in the SNP manifesto, it wasn’t explained, debated or referred to the population as a whole – we were simply told it was going to happen & whatever women’s thoughts, they were not valid. The government we voted in didn’t just let us down, they trampled over us, their boots on our necks, just as WM has continued to do to Scots & Scotgov.

    So to read Sara’s words today has given me a terrific boost! And I’m further psyched up at the thought ‘this is the teaser’! I hope it won’t be long before we get to the main meal! As always, I have understood, accepted the premise of the idea of Scots being sovereign & I’ve understood the need for UN intervention, due to such a abominable government who will never accept they are NOT THE POWER in the contract of govt vs ‘the people’. But always I’m stuck at the point of ‘how to get this sooo important information to the people’. How to get people struggling to survive, to take an interest in how to STAY alive, via Independence?? A media that will u/s this threat of separation & give no aid to spread it, is always going to be the stumbling block. How to get Sara’s words to the masses… the premise is sound!! But – communicating it to people – THAT’s the tricky bit. I think it’s do-able but – definitely tricky! So looking forward to what SALVO’S plans are!

    Liked by 7 people

    1. They want us to feel worthless but you know things have a funny way of backfiring. At least we know who they are and who they are not. Knowledge is power and the fact is that well we will need to add this to the list of wrongs amongst the many.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Somebody done a wee video oan the Scotsman who played poker with the d. Well there was a mirror oan the wall and he could see the cards that his opponent had. Well we are getting to see the hand that they have been dealt by the dealer so the win for us is inevitable.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. VERY true, FS! Knowing who your enemy is, is a certainly helps! We know who to watch… And this was only the first round. But it had some high points – like 9 people refusing to be silent. Hopefully others will take heart and accept they can’t be made to do what they feel isn’t right and maybe they’ll do the same next time and say NO.

        As for your analogy/wee parable below re Scotsman & devil – good choice! 🙂

        Liked by 3 people

  24. I am presuming that people are aware of the Scotland UN committee. The people who actually got Scotland devolution you can find out about them on Im just wondering did they require 100,000 signatures to gain access to the UN. Anyhoo look them up well worth a read.

    Liked by 8 people

      1. There’s always a wee positive message under the title of his songs. He has something to say about 9.


      1. Electronic Scotland has some useful info on The Scottish UN Committee, and of course, Willie MacRae..

        Quite a lot to digest, but there’s a lot of good information….

        Iain’s right, it was the work of the Scottish UN Committee which made Europe and Westminster uncomfortable about the level of Scotland’s representation in London, which led to Devolution which the Labour Party crowed about setting up, but it was the Scottish UN Committee which did a lot of the legwork, and their notion of a Devolved Parliament which was seen as the half way house towards Independence.

        Liked by 8 people

  25. Sara, the opening paragraphs of your article are an outstandingly concise summary of where we are!

    As the sole true owners of sovereignty in Scotland, it is only our will that has the right to prevail in our own country. But that does not mean we never need to compromise, it just means that our agreement must be sought by other entities to reach such compromises; nothing can simply be imposed on us by other entities. Our supposed representatives take note!

    If you are an MP of a Scottish constituency, you are then deemed to be a full-time professional politician. That requires you to be fully conversant with the legal and constitutional basis of your post as a representative of the sovereign Scots of your constituency, as must all of your Scots colleagues in Westminster. You are all there to represent the sovereign Scots in a foreign parliament in a foreign country, and you wield only OUR sovereignty, and you may do so only on OUR behalf. No-one else can do so in that place.

    It means that you are required to understand that England’s sovereignty has no standing of any kind in Scotland, and thus English numbers and their votes also have no standing in Scotland, and so England’s MPs can have no legitimate authority of any kind to overturn any voting decisions by the Scottish MPs on any matter involving Scotland. So do not let them!

    Scotland’s sovereignty confers absolute immunity to England’s sovereignty in Scotland AND in the Scottish seats in the UK Parliament AND to ALL the seats in the Scottish parliament, thus any Bill in Westminster needs Scottish MP approval before any Act can apply in or to Scotland. English MP approval is demonstrably not enough on its own, because none of them own even the smallest atom of Scottish sovereignty. From Scotland’s perspective, it is irrelevant how England’s MPs voted, it matters only how Scots MPs voted for or against a Bill affecting Scotland. No-one else has the right to speak for Scotland, and that excludes all of England’s MPs.

    So, Scots MPs, remember who you really work for, and why! It’s well past time you reminded England’s MPs of that and who they work for. You should be doing this every day!

    The UK parliament exists solely to provide joint governance over two different kingdoms, and that requires joint decision-making by agreement between both sets of the two kingdoms’ representatives. It is nothing less than abusive, unlawful, and unconstitutional that the English representatives constantly make decisions for both kingdoms on the spurious basis of a completely inappropriate voting system.

    That voting system was fine when every MP was of the English Kingdom, but after 1707 when Westminster became a multi-kingdom parliament, it became completely irrelevant. By not amending that voting system to properly accommodate the small Scottish representation, the need for compromise between the two sets of MPs was entirely unnecessary to England’s MPs due to their overwhelming numeric advantage. The lack of any need for compromise therefore made possible the abuse of Scotland by England’s MPs, and indeed abuse is pretty much all we’ve ever had from them since the inception of the Union in 1707.

    We must put the institution of the UK Parliament on trial for its very life. We have that right and that authority, and justice demands nothing less.

    Liked by 13 people

    1. Indeed we must and the power of such justice was seen by the world in S. Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Committee. We have three centuries of grievous hurt to heal from and that healing can only begin with the justice you speak of.

      Liked by 4 people

  26. Great points, We have had English votes for English laws imposed on us , so now we need scottixh votes for scottish laws as well and the Scottish members should bear in mind that we are watching them.

    Liked by 6 people

  27. Totally agree, our entire political and media landscape has been captured by the few. Our economic narrative belongs to a cadre of academics bought and paid for by the right wing neoliberal establishment closely aligned to the city of London. Us lemmings lurch back and forth from one establishment party to another in a tightly controlled two party state. I think it is abundantly clear to most now that the SNP has also been captured by the same people.

    I’m not sure at all how all of this unfolds for the U.K as a whole, but something has to give. I’ve been convinced for a while now that the breaking point will be reached south of the border. I don’t think folk in England will wait to find out if they are sovereign, they’ll likely attempt to exercise their sovereignty anyway.

    As for salvo, perhaps the best way to exercise our sovereignty, is to focus on a specific issue. If there was ever an issue ingrained in everyone’s mind just now it’s the access to affordable energy. So perhaps the best and most popular way to put the issue of sovereignty to the test, would be to attempt to take back control of our energy assets and return them into the hands of the public.

    Liked by 9 people

  28. Listen to Sara’s song of Scotland’s peoples’ sovereignty – the sweetness of it’s melody n compelling rhythmic force undiminished by time n neglect ; we forgot the words , but the tune was always in our heads . Now we have them back , reunited – the melody of ideas n rhythm of actionable intention .

    Now , listen to the harsh , grating , discordant screech of the Sturgeon Parrot-Hawk – so called not because it hunts parrots , rather , because it parrots * hawks * – the ones that would see the planet a poisoned – beyond – repair smouldering wasteland and the * gender * raptors who would destroy everything of value in human relations to sate their insatiable appetite for deviance – and in Corporate terms , profit .

    Is there any doubt which sound resonates deepest in our soul , stirs our spirit and enables us to believe Scotland will not for much longer be a green desert , a colony in all but name , a leaf blown about on whatever foul-smelling prevailing political wind blows up from England : a Nation of free citizens in a country where Equality is not just a rainbow – splashed * profile * / Facebook ” Stand With ” hollow virtue flag – but a radical attempt to ensure NO ONE is left behind , un-cared for , un-valued ?

    If Sovereignty ( of the People ) be the music of Freedom – play on 🙂

    Liked by 8 people

    1. ‘If Sovereignty ( of the People ) be the music of Freedom – play on’ – That metaphor fits better than any I have thought of myself with the way that people often come to speak to me in tears after a talk, saying that I have been speaking to their DNA. It is the *song* (the message) that is stirring souls, not the singer (the messenger). But I have known no privilege in my whole life like that of restoring the words of our own song to my own people.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Oor braw Scots langage, aye an auld sang, comes fae oor verra saul, while thair Englis garred doun oor thrapples gaes in ane lug an oot the ither.

        Liked by 7 people

      2. ” It is the *song* (the message) that is stirring souls, not the singer (the messenger). ” . Indeed , Sara . We’ve never met , but it’s that palpable absence of – for lack of better word ….ego …I perceive in your demeanour , writing and speaking that is so refreshing , allowing us to really hear the message , without getting bogged-down in the * personality * of the messenger .

        That said …..your passionate intelligence shines through every word you say/write . No automaton you !

        Right ! Enough wae the praise n’aw that ; wuv goat work tae dae 🙂

        Liked by 5 people

  29. Educational and inspiring. Can’t help thinking the entire world would be studying the historic Scottish constitutional arrangement if it was restored to modern use, not only to achieve independence but as the basis of the post-indy system of government for the people by the people.

    Liked by 5 people

  30. The most complete article i have ever read on where Scotland was/is and should be.
    Morality played a strong part in this stunning piece but where do you find moral leaders in today`s Scotland? Certainly not within the SNP leadership, indeed the opposite.
    And there is also no doubt that the corrupt MSM collude with government/ business to control the people.
    Sara, as has already been mentioned you seem to have that morality, commitment, insight and intelligence to change Scotland into that fairer decent country we all crave. If only you were the leader of the SNP.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I suspect that many political leaders began their careers with morality, commitment, insight and intelligence all dedicated to the service of our people. But there is something about the deeply corrupt political system, the effect of power and publicity and the necessity of compromising within the horrible feudal power structure that makes the required underpinnings (morality, principle, and above all love), very hard to maintain. It says a great deal for those who *have* managed to maintain these qualities. I am not certain I could. I thank you for your compliment. And I remain convinced that so long as I have no personal or political ambitions, no career to further or position to protect, I can remain an effective messenger, a servant not a master! Better still, I may be able to influence my fellow Scots to realise their own strength, to find their own voices and help to forge a movement of leaders!

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Yes , Sara , it’s a well-worn , drearily predictable path from * Young Political Firebrand * to ” ah well , we can’t do any of the radical things we once advocated ’cause …….X,Y and that damn Z won’t allow us ” tamed seat – warmer , who , once their feet are comfortably ensconced under the table , decide ” heaven can wait ” and whatever spark they once had is extinguished

        They set-off on their political trajectory vowing to ” change the system from within ” only to discover the System has changed them . Though these days it appears there are very few who enter Politics with any genuine desire to improve the lives of the people they’re ( supposed to ) represent . It’s just another * smart * career choice .

        If we ever needed a prime example of the above , the nauseating sight of SNP MPs walking out on K.MacAskill’s speech – not before signalling their deference to their superior entity ( boak ! ) – provided it

        Liked by 4 people

  31. That was the essence of Robert Michels’ thesis , that political parties may begin with strong democratic values but then the iron law of oligarchy sets in as they becomes more bureaucratic and “professional”.
    ” historical evolution mocks all prophylactic measures for the prevention of oligarchy ” , or something like that , wrote Michels. , before he spoilt the message by becoming an economist and signing up to Fascism. Couldn’t the Claim of Right be an effective prophylactic to prevent the rot of rule by oligarchs and prove Michels wrong ?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. That has to be the hope. It was certainly a conscious articulation and endorsement of the practical sovereignty of the people over the machinery of power at the time.

      Liked by 3 people

  32. Sara it is only you and the other members of SALVO and the SSRG that are providing light in an otherwise dismal future since you and the others have dedicated your time energy and commitment to educate and enlighten our people to the power we actually have , if only we had politicians who had a spark of decency or integrity
    INSTEAD we had and still have a coterie of plastic spineless amoral creatures who have no familiarity with the truth
    I have never been a member of any political party because they DO NOT represent the people , they represent the party and the parties vested interests , in saying that I have and will continue to vote for ALBA as I believe independence is at the front of their ambitions
    BUT I believe YOUR speech at the ALBA conference was the right one , sovereignty lies with the people and only the people , that is why a convention of the estates is SO IMPORTANT , the people rule politicians , the people rule parliament , the people rule the justice system , and the people will decide what inclusions there will be in our constitution , we have been betrayed by the lies of politicians of all parties for centuries it is now our turn to TAKE BACK CONTROL

    Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: