A guest comment from Breeks, a regular contributor to this site. People perhaps should reflect on the content of this article before the “Supreme Court” fiasco comes to a head.

To those disappointed in ALBA’s share of the vote, don’t lose perspective. The disappointment is NOTHING besides the disappointment which the SNP has become.

You’ve also got to remember another thing; in my old argument about Scottish Red Sovereignty and Westminster White Sovereignty, the entire charade currently being played out before our eyes is evidence of White Sovereignty running riot and ruling the show.

We have a “white” FM who has turned her back on the Claim of Right and holds the 1998 Scotland Act (a Westminster Act) as superior to Scottish Sovereignty. We have a “white” Holyrood institution which recognises the colonial Scotland Act as it’s gospel. We have undue respect being shown towards a Section 30 Agreement which dares to subjugate the will and voice of the Nation’s sovereign people. We have a Court of Session and Faculty of Advocates who have already forfeited a massive degree of Constitutional integrity by recognising the very existence of UK Supreme Court, and a Lord Advocate representing Scotland’s interests who herself doesn’t believe in them herself.

The “game” is rigged. We are playing in the sandbox of White Westminster Parliamentary sovereignty where ALL the moving pieces are white, and we have abandoned the obdurate truth that Westminster is NOT sovereign over Scotland. We are playing the game where all the rules of the game have been written by Westminster, and those going along with it have already capitulated on the principle. This application to the Supreme Court is pure theatre; “….the show’s the thing wherein they’ll catch the focus of the electorate”. … And what a show it is.

Scotland’s Sovereignty is not white, but red; the pigment picked to represent the blood inside the veins of the ordinary Scottish people. Sovereignty inside the Realm of Scotland belongs to the Community of the Realm; the people. It is red, not white.

Scotland’s Constitution recognises that Red Sovereignty. The Claim of Right recognises Red Sovereignty. SALVO has both feet planted in Scotland’s Red Sovereignty. King Charles III has just sworn fealty to Scotland’s Red Sovereignty. So where the hell has Holyrood “positioned” itself? Fkd if I know.

ALBA needs to remember which colour it fights for, and NOT be duped by the false charade of a devolved assembly who’s heart and soul is white and which recognises London as the source of it’s power. That is no “Parliament” of Scotland. This white system will always work to defeat and overthrow the red sovereignty of Scotland. That’s why it exists!

Holyrood is a paradox. It’s the crossover point where an institution and venue codified and paid for by Westminster, meets an assembly of parliamentarians elected to office by the sovereign people. The institution may be white (arguably), the Scotland Act is White, (although even it pays lip service to the Claim of Right), but Scotland lies outside it’s jurisdiction, the MSP’s which sit inside that institution are red, – or properly should be. They are the delegates of sovereign Scottish communities. They are GOVERNED by the Claim of Right, but currently there’s not a single one of them acts like it. They all line their pockets, and sup their porridge with the white spoon they’ve been given.

Wednesday is a FARCE. Judgement day? November Fools day more like. It matters not a whit what the White Supreme Court says about a White Holyrood staffed with white charlatan MSP’s who have all forsaken the red Constitutional Sovereignty of Scotland; and damn them all to Hell for it. 

Westminster is already celebrating it’s victory on Wednesday, because all the dumb f”*!s in Scotland have swallowed the colonial encroachment of Westminster Parliamentary Sovereignty hook line and sinker, and now dutifully obey the rules which Westminster tells them to follow. Rebels? There were none to be counted. NOT ONE.

Here’s your motto for a white Holyrood, courtesy of Samuel Adams;

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen..”

Here’s your motto for a red Convention of the Estates, courtesy of the Declaration of Arbroath;

“Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule.”

Enough of this Holyrood / Supreme Court Pantomime. It’s high time Scotland took the Constitutional initiative


Well said Breeks I say that a lot about this man. He writes with fervour and strength yet reasoned and effective. None of us yet know the outcome of the farce at the Supreme Court. Like Breeks I don’t think it matters a whit, to accept England’s Supreme Court has any authority over Scotland is a betrayal of the Claim of Right and it’s clear message that the people of Scotland shall remain sovereign for all time. That it is an SNP Government that is responsible just makes the shame all the greater.

I am, as always



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.


    1. God loves a trier and you certainly are this. What’s wrong with Scotland’s supreme court? Is ours second rate Graeme less than the UK one in England, kind of like the way that most of us are treated in all ways.

      Liked by 14 people

      1. that’s not an answer. much as we might not like it the U.K. supreme court was created by the U.K. Parliament. If you refuse to accept it for what it is then what other U.K. laws do you choose to ignore not accept?

        it’s not the sign of a democrat to pick and choose what parts of the rule of law he or she accepts.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Graeme, the vast , no wait, the overwhelming majority of MPs are English. The court was created by an English controlled parliament. It’s an English created Court.

        Liked by 17 people

      3. Graeme McCormick said;
        “That’s not an answer. much as we might not like it the U.K. supreme court was created by the U.K. Parliament. If you refuse to accept it for what it is then what other U.K. laws do you choose to ignore not accept?”

        I do not accept it for what it is, because its existence breaks key terms of the Treaty of Union.

        If the Parliament which created it did not have the legitimate authority to do so, then the Supreme Court cannot have legitimacy itself. And if that Supreme Court upholds the ‘unlimited sovereignty’ of the UK Parliament against the permanently guaranteed constitution and sovereignty of Scotland then it is demonstrably unfit for purpose.

        “It’s not the sign of a democrat to pick and choose what parts of the rule of law he or she accepts.”

        It is not the sign of a democrat to be subject to a Parliament that cannot be held to account by him and his fellow democrats.

        It is not the sign of a democrat that she is denied the right to protest injustices and fight oppression.

        It is not the sign of a democrat that his rights can be set aside with impunity.

        It is not the sign of a democrat that her peoples’ clear vote can be ignored in favour of the vote of a people in a different country.

        It is not the sign of a democrat that his representatives in a Parliament have no authority to protect his rights because of a voting system which ignores its legal obligation to respect the sovereignty of his people.

        It is not the sign of a legitimate parliament that it routinely ignores Treaty obligations, international law, domestic law, and the constitutions of the nations and peoples it is supposed to serve.

        It is not the sign of a legitimate parliament that it adopts a pseudo-legal con trick to grant itself authorities it has no right to.

        It is not the sign of a legitimate parliament that it retrospectively amends its own legislation to invalidate a court ruling against it.

        It is not the sign of a legitimate parliament that it delays another parliament’s legitimate Bill by falsely claiming it ultra vires, just to give itself time to change its own legislation to explicitly remove that Bill’s legitimacy.

        It is not the sign of a legitimate parliament that it uses an off-the-cuff observation as if it was a legal obligation, in order to block another parliament from progressing a legitimate democratic mandate.

        It is not the sign of a legitimate parliament that it refuses to recognise that joint governance of two kingdoms requires joint agreement of their representatives.

        It is not the sign of a legitimate parliament that it adopts increasingly stern measures to restrict the right to free speech and to shut down legitimate protest.

        It is no part of a citizen’s obligation in a democracy to blindly accept that all laws are automatically legitimate, particularly when a law is clearly abusive of rights and/or based on obvious falsehoods. Bad laws exist, and refusal to accept and obey them is a legitimate means of protest. ‘Legality’ is not a synonym of ‘right’.

        Liked by 6 people

      4. if you are deny the legitimacy of the U.K. parliament then you deny every law it has passed and those of the devolved parliaments it created.

        i’d hazard a guess that there are quite a few Acts which have benefitted you as well as some which you don’t like. As a true democrat have you rejected the benefits bestowed on you by the Westminster and Holyrood Acts?


      5. Graeme said; “If you are deny the legitimacy of the U.K. parliament then you deny every law it has passed and those of the devolved parliaments it created.”

        Are you seriously suggesting that every piece of legislation by the UK Parliament since its inception was fully legitimate and conformant with the UKP’s democratic, domestic law, constitutional law, and international law, and treaty obligations?

        Liked by 4 people

      6. if it wasn’t then it was open to parties to challenge it. it has happened in the past!

        Most international courts have little or no power to sanction but domestic courts can.


      7. Graeme said;
        “If it wasn’t then it was open to parties to challenge it. It has happened in the past!”

        I agree, and some challenges were successful and thus the illegitimacy of the UK Parliament has now been established, so given your own earlier statement; “If you deny the legitimacy of the U.K. parliament then you deny every law it has passed and those of the devolved parliaments it created.”,
        then you should be denying EVERY law it has passed AND those of the devolved parliaments it created. Do you? Does anybody? Of course not, and neither do I, because that would be silly, just like your assertion.

        It also doesn’t mean that unsuccessful challenges confirmed the legitimacy of parliament, because that often came down to the court accepting the ‘unlimited sovereignty’ of the UK Parliament, an assertion that cannot be legitimately confirmed without breaching the Treaty and ending the Union. As long as the UKP relies on that assertion and all the abuse it enables, that parliament is illegitimate, whether it is challenged or not.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. if that argument is followed then all parliaments are illegitimate as none is infallible and to my knowledge some of their decisions and laws have been challenged


      9. Graeme said:

        “If that argument is followed then all parliaments are illegitimate as none is infallible and to my knowledge some of their decisions and laws have been challenged”

        That statement will be true for all parliaments where the illegitimacy hasn’t been corrected, and especially so for a parliament like the UK’s which has doubled down on that illegitimacy and institutionalised it.

        Some illegitimacies can be fatal to a parliament, or at least to a government, since in most countries the parliament needs to be retained because there must always be a seat of governance. In those cases a significant reform would be necessary if a change of government was deemed insufficient to rectify the problem. A declaration of independence may be one such reform for some.

        The UK Parliament is one such construct, created by a Treaty to jointly govern two Kingdoms under a set of rules. A major breach of those rules, such as the institutional denial of the permanence of Scotland’s constitution and sovereignty for example, must result in the termination of the Treaty and the institution of the UK Parliament. As you are aware being a frequenter of this excellent blog a case is being built to do just that.

        With any luck, the Supreme Court will provide some solid evidence for that case today.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. i’d be interested in the stats which show reforms of states legislatures to address breeches of their laws.

        As we know constitutions can and do hinder and prevent independence movements and other progressive change.

        in Scotland we just need to get the people on side who are willing to vote with their feet . to achieve that the SG has to acts as if we are already independent and take control of our public funding. she who holds the funds can control the debate


    2. Not recognising imposed bodies worked for Ghandi. Not dancing to the Masters tune worked for the Irish. Shall we take back America for their failure to heed the Kings command?
      Read your own words you are saying that because the Empire has dictated it, we must not challenge it.
      What a good little serf you are. Can we keep the vote please….even Women…oh thank you masser.

      Get off you knees man.

      Liked by 19 people

      1. Scotland’s reality as established by state power. If Scotland’s present and its future is dependent on the approval of its lawyers, then the reality for large sections of our people will continue to be little better than slavery.

        Liked by 12 people

    3. You prefer the people to be ruled Graeme, presumably because you think we have ‘betters’. Whether they appear at Holyrood or Westminster. This is clear.

      Liked by 10 people

      1. Not at all. I actualy believe in direct democracy and have been long a critic of both Holyrood and Westminster “democracy’. But you can’t deny the fact that the Supreme Court is legally established under the current legislation system . We can’t pick and choose what laws we accept and reject. If we do we reject the Rule of Law.


      2. The people never asked for it. The Government in Scotland never asked for it. Scotland’s elected reps didn’t ask for it, and the people and representatives of the people of Wales did not ask for it. NI was the same and England’s people or elected politicians weren’t asking for it. There was no vote in any parliament for it but ‘it is the law’. Giving the Law Lords space to work outside of the house of Lords and the creation of a Supreme court seemed to be a bit of a stretch.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. Graeme, the ideological aggression which tends to dehumanize and then deceive the colonized eventually corresponds to concrete situations which lead to the same result. Because a colonized people are deceived already on all fronts (e.g. a supposed ‘Union’, Treaty, UKSC, Holyrood, Scotland Act, Crown, notions of ‘democracy’ etc), we duly endorse the myth and adapt to it, but we are then acted upon by it. And in this regard:

        “That myth is supported by a very solid organisation which is comprised of a government and a judicial system fed and renewed only by the colonizer’s historic, economic and cultural needs. How could the colonized escape the low wages, the agony of his culture, the law which rules him from birth until death. The severity of the laws attest to the difficulty of conditioning the colonized to feel inadequate. Thinking it over, they may feel guilty for not revolting more often; after all, they are responsible for their own freedom” (Albert Memmi).

        Liked by 14 people

      4. i don’t believe anyone is better than anyone else. But you seem to be cavalier with the Rule of Law. we can argue about laws we don’t like but if you trot out this idea that to respect the Rule of Law is something against the interests of an independent Scotland i think you’ll be in a very small minority. can you name a highly successful democratic country that plays fast and loose with the Rule of Law?

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Most if not all former colonies now independent states had to address their colonial justice system and replace it with something more civilized and in keeping with the values of the liberated people, rather than permit it to continue to protect the interest of their oppressor. Ireland would seem a good example but there are clearly many more.

        Here we might remember that, during the colonial period the culturally assimilated native elites: “push a colonial mentality to excess, display proud disdain for the colonized and continually show off their borrowed rank, which often belies a vulgar brutality and avidity. Still too impressed with their privileges, they savour them and defend them with fear and harshness; and when colonization is imperilled, they provide it with its most dynamic defenders, its shock troops, and sometimes its instigators. The representatives of the authorities, cadres, policemen, etc., recruited from among the colonized… place themselves in the colonizer’s service to protect his interests exclusively, they end up by adopting his ideology, even with regard to their own values and their own lives” (Albert Memmi).

        Logically, the closer a people get to independence, the more that ‘colonization is imperilled’.

        Liked by 10 people

      1. Like the sunflowers in this video we are meant to turn towards each other and help each other grow as well as a representation of no nukes. The cherry blossoms are the only cherry picking that you should concern yourself with because without the right people to govern our country we can’t blossom. Eight years have gone by I asked you questions that you failed to respond to adequately just as this government have we the people put our trust in.

        Liked by 4 people

    4. “We can’t pick and choose what laws we accept and reject. If we do we reject the Rule of Law.”

      An important, and to regain Scotland’s independence, a significant “truth” is revealed in your comment, Graeme!

      This is an excerpt from my post elsewhere on Iain’s blog … ” the “Declaration of a Sovereign Scot” initiative has from its outset well over a year ago advocated the use of “international law”, and for perhaps the simplest of all reasons – it fulfils two essential criteria – it is already “legal” and already “internationally recognised”!” Why repeat it – to exemplify the truth in your comment – it is important!

      Currently, it is the UK Governmentwho cannot “pick and choose what laws to accept and reject” – but their dilemma arises in an international context not a domestic one.

      Without providing a list – perhaps the easiest example is the ECHR, and why flights to Rwanda are not taking off – a decision of a court outwith the UK.

      Liked by 10 people

  1. @ Graeme, re, ‘If you refuse to accept it for what it is then what other U.K. laws do you choose to ignore not accept?

    it’s not the sign of a democrat to pick and choose what parts of the rule of law he or she accepts.’

    The Articles of the Treaty of Union have been breached, cherry picked by the English Parliament at Wesminster (the only true thing Boris ever said), time and time again.

    At what point do you stand up for what was written in that contract with regards defending your own country. That would be a lawful thing to do, and a democratic one.

    Liked by 22 people

  2. Perhaps the much vaunted independence of the Scottish legal system was eroded “voluntarily” in the run-up to IndyRef I.
    Oor senior Judges were happy to (seemingly) protect the independence of the legal system they curated as long as their privileged status remained unchallenged.
    The sight of tens of thousands of uncouth peasants on the streets caused our senior judiciary to reevaluate their position.
    This would be entirely natural. Forty five percent of our senior Judges are drawn from the four percent of the population that are privately educated. Ergo, they entrenched their position as colonial administrators.

    Liked by 18 people

  3. what do you expect when over 3/4 of the electorate can’t get off their lazy arses to vote, don’t give me the guff of voter apathy caused by the government, if it was in Oz they would be fined.
    when the government is not doing its job do something besides moan.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. “Wednesday is a FARCE. Judgement day? November Fools day more like. It matters not a whit what the White Supreme Court says about a White Holyrood staffed with white charlatan MSP’s who have all forsaken the red Constitutional Sovereignty of Scotland; and damn them all to Hell for it. ” I shouted Hell Yeah to that one, well said!

    Liked by 15 people

  5. Scotland – A Jigsaw. What picture do you see emerging from the pieces in front of you? What will the picture be after 9.45 on Wednesday?

    One piece in the jigsaw is the Scotland Act (My personal opinion on that – see (*) below!). A second piece in Scotland’s Jigsaw – perhaps even more important right now – is the Scottish Government’s Ministerial Code. Ever read the Ministerial Code? This is an extract: “A Bill must also be accompanied by a statement, which will have been cleared with the Law Officers, that the Bill is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.”

    That in essence is one of the reasons why the “Keating”‘s case foundered. No Bill! Are we today in identical territory? No Bill! Deja vu?

    (*) In 2021, the Supreme Court reminded us of what is perhaps the most crucial piece in Scotland’s Jigsaw, they said ” “Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act preserves the unqualified power of the UK Parliament to make laws for Scotland.”

    That is part of the Scotland Act 1998 – it built and maintains Scotland’s prison! How might we escape?

    Everything I have just posted arises under “domestic law”, which is why the “Declaration of a Sovereign Scot” initiative has from its outset well over a year ago advocated the use of “international law”, and for perhaps the simplest of all reasons – it fulfils two essential criteria – it is already “legal” and already “internationally recognised”!

    Liked by 16 people

  6. O/T
    Craig Murray’s appeal to the European Court of Human Rights has been dismissed by one single judge who gave his decision in a single sentence. There was no reason given for the decision.
    I am stunned.
    I apologise if this is old news to anyone.

    Liked by 14 people

    1. It appears the judge didn’t even make his decision; one commenter said that the only cases that require only a single judge are those deemed invalid for consideration, so his appointment was only to rubber-stamp the rejection. If we are never to know what arguments were used to refute those in the appeal, then we cannot tell if any of them were relevant, valid and justified. That’s a very shoddy outcome. At the very least Craig’s legal team should be getting some meaningful specific feedback as to why it failed, as other cases may fail on the same unknown grounds at that one.

      For a non-judgement that has now set some very disturbing precedents that is nothing less than a disgrace.

      Liked by 13 people

  7. If we are moving on,  in Oct 2023, the decision to pull out all but say,  ‘6 keepers’, from Westminster needs to be done to get energy and commitment back up here on the streets..!!  If this doesn’t happen then my fear is that there is a slippery slope from which we’ll not recover no matter the brave and bold words as we lurch forward through a desperately critical 9 months…??!!! Cheers, thanks for inputs. Denis. 

    Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Good man Denis. You have mair faith in this referendum being anything other than a stalling exercise than I do and therefor more faith in our political reps. I’ll give you that.

      Liked by 4 people

  8. At the top of the White Sovereignty in Scotland is Sturgeon, she is the main stumbling block to getting things moving in our direction, whilst she’s FM our Red Sovereignty will remain suppressed.

    The UKSC is a 2009 construct implemented by the then PM Gordon Brown mainly in an attempt to bypass the House of Lords, Brown added a few House Jock judges to the UKSC to give a wider appeal North of the border.

    Anyway, the coming verdict by the UKSC in my opinion will be one where they will not make a ruling on the competency of Holyrood to hold an indyref, for if they rule no, it might cause unrest in Scotland, if they rule yes, it then leaves the door open to further indyrefs, and Westminster doesn’t want that. so, a no ruling will be in my opinion the verdict of the day.

    This will be the ruling and the UKSC judges will say that they’ve come to this ruling because the SNP government hasn’t introduced/passed the bill in the chamber, unbelievably, I read yesterday that the SNP government won’t introduce the bill at Holyrood until the UKSC has made the ruling, Catch 22 if you ask me.

    What we need to remember here is that Sturgeon has said that if the UKSC allows the indyref, that it won’t be a real indyref it will be a MOCK INDYREF and will have absolutely no bearing on the union, in other words nothing will come of it, it will just be used to gauge public opinion.

    My position on any more indyref’s is that I don’t want another indyref they are open to abuse by the union and its foot soldiers, so no indyrefs for me.

    Scotland is a country treated as a colony in this onesided union England has grown used to fleecing Scotland of its assets and will do everything in it powers to thwart our exit, it just cannot afford to lose Scottish revenue and all that brings with it.

    I have to stress that STURGEON is holding back Red Sovereignty, she’s the unions greatest asset, remove her and the Red Sovereignty dominoes will begin to fall into place.

    Liked by 18 people

    1. Everyone should send Sturgeon and her MSPs/MP a Christmas card that reads:
      “You love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom. Depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

      Great article Breeks.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. When comparing domestic law with international law, it should be done with absolutely respectful reverence and gratitude; but, many of us are biased when thinking about our own country. Most of Scotland’s population knows less about Scotland’s ancient history than certain other Scots do. However, this is an issue that might change in future years;
    my generation was barely informed enough about our nation – for various reasons, and perhaps that’s just part of a large parcel of possible improvements.

    This week, we are getting mixed messages through the main News Media; and many of us, like myself, prefer to follow more dependable online sites – in a way that the Baloney Broadcasting Corporation cannot compete with. Furthermore, apart from simply broadcasting, participants may interact and this helps in a manner that TV viewers cannot possibly experience. Eventually, after Scotland regains its independent place in this world, Scotland’s population will be richer in much more than financial terms.

    After over 315 years, Scotland will regain its place within the world’s independent nations; having to meet and deal with challenging climatic challenges and who knows what else might emerge as well. These situations are major problems and although a freshly independent country will still be a small one, its international abilities can and will be incredibly powerful. Scotland’s population may find this difficult to appreciate, but we only need to cast votes to allow this to happen.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. “…my generation was barely informed enough about our nation – for various reasons, and perhaps that’s just part of a large parcel of possible improvements.”.

      Nobody’s generation has been informed. I was taught more about Vikings than Scots, and never once taught about the Picts, or Joan of Arc having an honour guard of Scottish Archers. I was also told to speak “properly”. The knowledge has been buried for the most part, and mostly survives today as fragments, but even so, what a colourful history we have..

      I’ve known Scotland was sovereign for a long time, except I didn’t “know” it at all; it was a thing I was told and chose to believe it because I wanted it to be true.

      It’s through speaking to people, hearing a wee thing here or another thing there, that gradually these fragments start coming together.

      For a long time, it tripped me up how Scotland’s people could be sovereign in the 14th Century when it simply wasn’t possible to canvas anything remotely approaching “public opinion”, nevermind democracy. Sovereign maybe, but the people weren’t exactly living like kings. It worried me, because if Scotland’s sovereignty was unworkable and undeliverable, then it couldn’t be competent in law.

      The principle didn’t begin as a popular sovereignty of the people. It began as a simpler binary principle that the Monarch was NOT sovereign, which of course leaves the reciprocal question to be answered; if the Monarch isn’t sovereign, then who is?

      I think the revelations from SALVO were absolute game changers. Instead of holding onto one thread from “Auld Scotland”, that the people are sovereign, there was suddenly so much more. Salvo jure cujuslibet at the end of business, the Conventions of the Estates, the spirit of the Common Good, Scots Law was as answerable to the people as Scotland’s Lords and Royalty… In every we differ from Auld Scotland, the difference, at least for the most part, can only be down to one thing… The Union.

      Suddenly you’re not just grasping onto the solitary thread of popular sovereignty. You’re learning how Auld Scotland structured it’s society, it’s attitudes to travel and trade, international alliance, education…

      Scotland, pre Union, was set on a whole different trajectory than England. Dare I say it, the path of enlightenment… quite literally as it turns out, and we’ve never been living our own destiny since that dark day in 1707. We’ve never pursued our dreams to their conclusion.

      We Scots have unfinished business, and only Independence will allow that business to be concluded and Scotland’s destiny to be fulfilled. It’s really that simple. There is really no such thing as British.

      Liked by 14 people

      1. “Nobody’s generation has been informed. I was taught more about Vikings than Scots, and never once taught about the Picts, or Joan of Arc having an honour guard of Scottish Archers.”
        MARCHE DES SOLDATS DE ROBERT BRUCE remains part of the French military repertoire. It is associated with Joan of Arc and the Siege of Orléans where the Scots fought alongside the French. Video attribution — Pèlerinage des Troupes de marine à Bazeilles – 2013. Concert de la fanfare – bagad de la 9° BIMA.

        Liked by 5 people

      2. Women got to vote in 1923. 99 years ago. That involved things like burning churches. Your enchanchment with ancient aristocrat history from the Scottish witch-burning period and serfdom is odd.


  10. The Rule of Law in Northern Ireland used to be one where the protestant unionist population could.get multiple votes whilst the Catholic nationalist population only got one vote.

    Some called it gerrymandering affront to democracy whilst others called it the Rule of Law.

    And of course their was, a rule of law in apartheid South Africa.

    So we’re alight then?

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Aye Willie, thon Rule o Laa aye hauds doun oor Scots langage an aw, Scots disnae hiv ony authority in oor ain laund. The Rule o Laa aye pertects an promuives anely Englis tho, an hysts up thaim wha spik hit guid lyke. Tho Englis is nivver oor langage, hit aye gaes in ane lug an oot the ither an disnae titch the saul. Scots langage is whit gies us oor identity, an withoot hit we widnae be Scots, we wad be something ither. Houiver, Scots sairly needs to be taught in the schuils an makkit a richt tae lairn.

      A fowk’s langage is a human richt after aw – exceptit in a colony!

      Liked by 10 people

      1. I worked in Germany briefly. I spoke in colloquial Scots and was told by a German woman who spoke English perfectly to speak properly. She said I disrespected her by talking in a language she didn’t understand. I have thought about that for years. What would be the point in focusing on learning a language which only a handful of people in the world use? Like Gaelic, it’s fine locally, but to communicate around the world English is handier.


      2. Alf can obviously answer well enough for himself, but in case he is busy I will chip in one or two observations. Every language is a specific window on the world, a unique articulation of existence, an alternative consciousness, an irreplaceable searchlight into the universe, an additional escape route of the mind. Escape from what? Read Orwell’s 1984. Having but one world language (we can see it happening already) facilitates global media control (and therefore consciousness control) by a few billionaires with an agenda.

        Width is not necessarily depth. Languages are not interchangeable, except at a basic utilitarian level, a robotic level. Each language is custodian of a different journey of humanity through time and space. The monoglot English speaker abroad is in danger of perpetuating the partisan reductionist imperialism which made English the top barking-dog in the first place. A condescending complacency can set in. Anglo-monoglots can’t step into the mindset of the foreign national, yet seem to expect the other person to have put in possibly years of graft to speak to them (masta/ sahib), maybe making themselves vulnerable to being intellectually pigeon-holed on the basis of their English fluency regardless of their perhaps highly sophisticated level of competence in their own language.

        And then there is the matter of Scottish stewardship. Stewardship? Yeah, stewardship. Stewardship of the wealth of verbal transmission bequeathed to us by our Scottish forebears over millennia. And it is not just raw (again robotic) data we are referring to, but the pitch and rhythm and timbre and music of those who came before us in this place and their journey to get here. They who named the rocks and the rivers and trees and birds, who laughed and cried and sang and fought and philosophised and agonised through this medium, with this resonance, this referential modulation of noise, through this existential portal. Will it all now die with us? Will we then be closer to knowing who we are?

        The German woman to whom you spoke was obviously not speaking her native language to you. That would seem to be a useful enough model. Cultivate an international language (preferably other than the one already spoken by default) but ALSO cultivate a native language – that will make what goes on in our head even more interesting, and also make us even more interesting for a foreigner to meet.

        François Mitterand once said: “Un peuple qui perd ses mots n’est plus entendu de personne” (“A people which loses its words is no longer understood by anyone.” The writer Philipe de Saint Robert added: “Et par malheur ne s’entend plus lui-même” (“And unfortunately no longer understands itself”). Lucien Bouchard, one-time Canadian ambassador to France remarked: “Pour nous, Canadiens, la Francophonie n’est pas seulement une façon de vivre – c’est une façon de survivre” (“For us, French-Canadians, being Francophone is not just a way of life/ vivre — it is a way of surviving/ survivre”).

        The following is a link to a rather long essay (a book review) I did years ago for CENCRASTUS magazine. It mainly focusses on the relation of language and consciousness. Not essential reading, but it may just be of interest to somebody:


        Liked by 3 people

    2. The claim of right says that Catholics shouldn’t get a say in anything, especially the claim of right. Apologists say that Sara Slayers isn’t an Orange Order Ultra (she just acidentally looks like one), and the whole thing should be taken as a piece of student-debating-society magical-realism, and we can all make it up as we see fit because it was Disney in 1650 and it’s Disney in 2022. For real likes. The campaign to amend the claim of right, as far as I can make out, is headed not by Slayers but by king Charlie3 which is seriously telling on the Sara Slayer side.


      1. In ancient documents it is the intent that is considered. Clearly we are no longer burning Catholics – well, I’m certainly not and I haven’t noticed anyone with a large match and a rosary detector …

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Mike Russell made a comment a while back. Words to effect regarding the London govt “you don’t understand what they are capable of”. Well I think most of us here probably have a fair idea, yet articulating it would likely have us labelled as zoomers or conspiracy theorists.
    My belief is that this charade with the S.C does just about enough to satisfy the majority of SNP supporters that they’re doing something, but not quite enough to awaken the big beast that is the British state. A ‘Yes’ from the S.C is probably the FM’s worst nightmare.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. The Supreme Court:

      I agree with Scott Egner that “A ‘Yes’ from the S.C. is probably the FM’s worst nightmare.” It would create absolute panic at the heart of the NewSNP! They are all about power and control in their very comfy seats in Holyrood, Westminster and SNP HQ.

      Liked by 10 people

      1. A Supreme Court Yes ruling is the best result for the Union. The Division in Scotland due to GRA and a corrupt SNP guarantees them victory….and I suspect that has been the plan since “Agent Sturgeon” was woken and I use that word deliberately.
        When you have people who accept the Dress Act of 1746.(banning tartan, bagpipes etc)
        Who accept the Right of Westminster to pass various Acts at Westminster between 1773 and 1835 that robbed India of 45 Trillion Pounds were legal and just…simply because Westminster claims it their Right.
        That America could be taxed without representation.

        How many times did the Army or Navy ( or a Private Army) of London land or invade other places and by the simple act of raising a flag decree that that Land was now the Kings and HIS Laws applied. Sadly we have a Scot writing on here oblivious to the long history of London’s corruption and aggression squealing that we must obey a Supreme Court, not recognised by Scots in the 1707 Act, but by the simple invention of a Machiavellian Westminster.

        Liked by 6 people

      2. Yes Clootie, even if the UKSC give the ok to a referendum, the irregular local government franchise, continued inflow of ‘No’ voters, and the usual actors ‘managing’ the process will do the rest.

        Its just as well then, that: “As a matter of law, a referendum is not a required part of the process of becoming independent” (McCorkindale and McHarg 2020) and we have other more sensible options to free our nation: Which we will need to consider irrespective of any UKSC opinion.

        Liked by 6 people

      3. If we are not willing to accept a no from them then surely we are not accepting a yes either? The point is that they shouldn’t get to decide our fate.

        Liked by 4 people

      4. To my mind, if the SC rules against an advisory referendum on any matter then they rule against freedom of speech and the internationally recognised right of a nation right to express its will. The GFA did not give Ireland the “right” to a referendum every 7 years – it agreed they would not hold a referendum every year as they were entitled to do.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. in any democracy when a party loses and election or a referendum it accepts the verdict because that is the law however imperfect it is, but doesn’t accept that it’s policies and aims are wrong. it just prepares for the next opportunity to gain the support of a majority of its people then used the mandate in a legal way.


      1. that’s like saying if Tony Blair’s dad had used a condom there would have been no Iraq war


    1. I could elaborate from plentiful postcolonial theory and its procedures on the illusion and myth of democracy in a colonial environment, Graeme, however, this previous insightful summation by Alan McHarg should more than suffice in our case:

      “Anger and worry in equal measure. Democracy within a colonial setting/franchise is not democracy nor constitutional but continued colonial rule masked by the illusion of freedom of choice/democracy. It is as fair as a game of poker playing against the house with their rules and stacked deck. The “house” always wins. Unless we find a political party or an alternative willing to change the rules nothing will change and Scotland will soon find itself “hogtied” subsumed and consumed. Remember, it is not Westminster that is denying independence as it is not theirs to grant. It is the First Minister of Scotland by denying all routes, including a referendum, to the people of Scotland. The dissolution of the Act of Union is within her power and that of the Scottish Parliament. She knows that wasting time will kill Scotland as a nation and she is playing a blinder. It has always been the “House Jock” that has killed off the aspirations of this nation. Described as the “Most dangerous woman in Britain” I agree. But not a danger to the UK State, but to an independent Scotland. She has sold the cause and half the cause haven’t even noticed. She will continue to run down the clock, killing Scot’s, with her British Covid strategy using it to deny democracy and open criticism. My fear in 2014 when I saw the stats, knowing that “Native Scot’s” voted for independence, was that all Westminster needed to do was flood Scotland with “NO” voters to deny Scotland’s constitutional right again. It was always just a matter of time. Seven years and no nearer independence that is a strategy not an accident. Meanwhile we are being subsumed and our resources consumed (not to the benefit of Scot’s), democracy and a written constitution is still an illusion. Nothing has changed but the date and the introduction of draconian laws to deny democracy. Time is fast running out. Democracy, that illusion, is finite as is patience. Anger and worry in equal measure.”

      Liked by 4 people

  13. The SC have said a resounding NO to Holyrood.
    They cannot say NO to the Scottish people – red sovereignty.
    The vehicle for the expression of the wishes of the Scottish people is SALVO. Thank god for SALVO. We will create an independent modern and democratic country – not the authoritarian nightmare that Sturgeon wants and is currently imposing on us. Independence is not Holyroods business – it’s official. It is ours.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: