Ewan Kennedy on that ruling.

Posted byiainlawson27Posted inUncategorizedTags:, , ,

Ewan is becoming a regular on my blog. He is a solicitor by profession and lives in Argyll. I have more articles coming from other lawyers coming soon. Like buses they all turn up at the same time.

Comments on the Supreme Court

I can’t say I’m surprised at the ruling. The only good thing I can say about it is that at thirty five pages it’s extremely short, given that at the start Lord Reed warned us all that the justices had about 8000 pages of material to study and would need between six and eight months to read them all. 

At the hearing a great deal of argument was presented by the UK to the effect that the case was premature, failing which it didn’t come within the rules, failing which the judges should decide to use their discretion and refuse to decide the issue anyway. Presenting those arguments no doubt enabled the oleaginous Sir James Eadie KC to boost his fee income, but it was never likely to succeed. It always seemed most unlikely that this most senior group of judges, having read, at least, the preliminary material and got themselves geared up and gowned up would have denied themselves the chance to rule on the most pressing constitutional issue of the day, especially when, being “Supreme”, they couldn’t be overruled.

That means that we can disregard the first two thirds of the ruling as of interest perhaps only to a constitutional historian and get to the guts of the case.

First, let’s look at the argument presented by the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain KC, who appeared in person, unlike her UK counterpart. I will not join with others who have accused her of being a Unionist, or generally offered abuse. She may even be the first person in her position for some time who correctly understands the duty to be impartial. 

The Lord Advocate correctly realised that the case was before a national, not an international forum and a ruling would only be given within national law. The issue was, of course, whether holding a referendum would “relate to” the basic reserved matters of the Union and the UK Parliament. She presented a rather dry, technical analysis of case law to suggest that the expression should be given a narrow meaning, based on the idea that any referendum would be advisory only, despite being of great significance politically.

In the event, stated briefly, the justices have decided to adopt the same meaning of “relate to” that most of us would understand in normal speech. How often we hear judges being criticised for giving words special meanings to secure a desired outcome; here they didn’t have to bother.

Secondly, we come to the document that had to speak for itself, the submission from the SNP. In essence this made the case for the right of self determination of the Scottish nation under international law and in particular the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514.

It was entirely predictable that the justices would rule this out of hand, on the basis that the argument is one that should be made in an international forum, but in addition Lord Reed sees fit to cite the following paragraph from the Canadian Supreme Court case:

“In summary, the international law right to selfdetermination only generates, at best, a right to external selfdetermination in situations of former colonies; where a people is oppressed, as for example under foreign military occupation; or where a definable group is denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development. In all three situations, the people in question are entitled to a right to external self-determination because they have been denied the ability to exert internally their right to self-determination. Such exceptional circumstances are manifestly inapplicable to Quebec under existing conditions.”

Reed goes on to declare that Scotland does not qualify under any of the three situations described, including the one I’ve highlighted. This can only be read as an unevidenced, spiteful kick in the face of anyone who has been living in Scotland in the last forty years or so, since we last had a UK Parliament elected by anything resembling a majority. From living under a system of more or less consensus politics Scots have had to thole Thatcherism followed by alternative neo-liberal regimes that a majority of us have never voted for. I won’t lengthen this essay with a list of what we’ve lost as our national and community assets have been stripped out and flogged off; we all know the story.

As anyone who’s read my previous efforts will know, I’ve been arguing for an international solution for some time. I’ve been criticised by some who argue that we Scots should take the colonial route and regret that I remain unpersuaded of that, when a much clearer course is staring us in the face. It’s been recognised time and again that we Scots, unlike Quebec, are a nation and as such entitled to decide our future. Does the highlighted paragraph above not define us, precisely?

As I’ve been writing this today I’ve been seeing comments and statements streaming out about where we go from here, so I’ll stop for today by saying that the immediate reaction from the SNP is staggeringly disappointing. One would have thought that some consideration would already have been given as to how a de facto referendum via a general election might work; instead we’re to be offered yet another conference. 

MY COMMENT

Indeed the SNP Party emblem must be changed to a carrot as a matter of urgency.

I am, as always

YOURS FOR SCOTLAND


BEAT THE CENSORS

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.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

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.

SALVO

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.

LIBERATION.SCOT

Please register at Liberation.scot 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.

79 thoughts on “Ewan Kennedy on that ruling.”

  1. If not a colony, then we are certainly in a forced, abusive marriage.

    As for the plebiscite election? That’s easily derailed by the unionist parties boycotting the election. So the SNP have some serious thinking to do. If it’s business as usual then we need to find better lawyers and instigate divorce proceedings as quickly as possible.

    Liked by 21 people

    1. I am astonished that Sturgeon did not make the point that Scotland is a country – and registered as such with the UN. Comparing Scotland to Quebec is an egregious insult. The ruling is based on spite, entitlement and willful ignorance.

      Liked by 19 people

      1. Don’t you think that the point of NOT referring to Scotland as a COUNTRY may have been deliberate on the part of the Scottish Government with the intent to gain the ruling as delivered by the UKSC?

        Dorothy Bain KC did not appear to acquit herself admirably during these proceedings.

        Liked by 9 people

      2. Comparing Scotland to Quebec is not egregious, it’s sound judicial decision-making. Both Scotland and Quebec are nations with their own legislatures and legal systems. Neither are sovereign at international law. Both are part of larger states which they voluntarily joined at some point in history. The legislatures of Scotland and Quebec have both held referenda to separate from the larger state of which they are a part. Those larger states are both parliamentary democracies which are sovereign at international law. Courts in Commonwealth jurisdictions regularly consider applicable case-law from other Commonwealth jurisdictions.

        Like

      3. Erik
        the Treaty of Union is an international treaty – where is the treaty for Quebec?
        Scotland is registered as a country with the UN – Quebec was recognised as a nation by its own House of Commons in Ottawa – hardly comparable.

        You say:
        Both are part of larger states which they voluntarily joined at some point in history.
        Please point to this event: as far as I know Québec was one of the founding members of the Dominion of Canada as Canada moved on from colonial status.

        Also, even by your playbook, Canada did not deny Quebec a second referendum.

        I am beyond angry.

        Liked by 7 people

      4. Erik Penz

        The SC is erroneous in comparing Scotland’s status with that of Quebec. Canada is a federation composed of ten provinces and three territories. The UK is not a federation, it is an alliance agreement created by two kingdoms via international treaty, either of which may end it.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. A better analogy would have been one involving indigenous first nations and their continuing struggle with treaty rights.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. I was puzzled by the Judge’s reference to Quebec. As far as I know Quebec is a province in Canada. I don’t know of any treaty linking them to the rest of Canada. Canadian French is the language of Quebec. There is an Independence movement in Quebec and they had a referendum which the Independence movement lost. Apart from that, I just cannot see any resemblence between the situation in Quebec and the situation in Scotland.
    Scotland signed a treaty with England, retained its own Law, Education and Church. It has a Scottish Parliament, however constrained it is. It has had a majority of Independence supporting representatives in Scotland and in Westminster for the past number of Scottish and General Elections. It has a separate identity internationally. It has an international sporting presence. Scotland is recognised as a country by other nations.
    I really want to know what the justification was for comparing Scotland to Quebec in the Judgement.
    I went to the rally in Glasgow last night. The lack of a sound system was a big drawback as I found it impossible to hear the speakers. It was a reasonable sized crowd but passers-by who might have been drawn in were not because no one could be heard.
    I wonder if anyone who was intending to go to the rallies were put off attending by watching Nicola Sturgeon responding to the Judgement on TV? I wondered at her smiles and laughing comments. I didn’t feel in any great humerous mood. There was nothing in her comments that comforted or inspired me. Even less when it transpired that the intention is to hold some sort of consultation in the New Year as to the way forward. The SNP have known what the likely outcomes of this process were. Why were plans not drawn up to cover the three likely outcomes, ready to spring into action and rally the troops? Why wait until the New Year and limit the consultation to the SNP?
    Finally, Nicola Sturgeon is reported to have tried to rally support from the wider Independence movement by urging them to get ready for action. I’ve heard that one several times before.
    So it really is still up to the wider Independence movement to keep working despite Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP rather than because of them.

    Liked by 25 people

    1. ” I wondered at her smiles and laughing comments. I didn’t feel in any great humerous mood. ” . Indeed . Maybe because this is exactly the outcome she wanted – and knew in advance was coming ?

      Strike that ” maybe ” . She definitely wanted and expected this situation

      Liked by 18 people

    2. I believe the reference to the Quebec judgement was because SNP had raised it in their written submission and it was a decision of the Supreme Court (House of Lords in those days)

      Liked by 4 people

    3. This entire exercise is a political gambit to give her house jocks another 5 years of Westminster troughing. That is all it ever was – and so this court case had to fail. She would have **** herself if it had succeeded.

      Liked by 16 people

    4. The justification for comparing Scotland to Quebec are the broad similarities. Quebec and Scotland are both nations with their own unicameral legislatures (in Quebec it is called the National Assembly). Both nations have their own education and legal systems, the latter of which is (in whole or in part) a civil-law legal systems. Neither Scotland nor Quebec are sovereign at international law. Both nations are part of larger states which they chose to join at some point in their history. Those larger states are both bicameral parliamentary democracies which share the same monarch and are sovereign at international law. Both Quebec and Scotland have held referenda which have failed on independence from those larger states. In respect of those larger states, constitutionally speaking Canada and the UK are similar in principle. The courts of Commonwealth jurisdictions such as the UKSC regularly consider applicable case-law from the courts of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, such as the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). There are, of course, historical and constitutional differences between Quebec and Scotland; this is the task of courts: to interpret what laws are binding, what case-law is persuasive, and what arguments don’t wash.

      Like

      1. Scotland is country , it was a sovereign state long before Canada was even discovered, Scotland became a country in 843 AD England on the other hand didn’t become a country until 927 AD
        Scotland didn’t join England until 1707 through its own will , and was brutally invaded by the English , who never could conquer Scotland ,therefore it has the power to request a divorce from it’s supposed equal partner , not to mention the £3 trillion debt Westminster has created through there bankrupt government and inability to manage finances !!!
        Quebec didn’t become a province until 1763 it was only known as Canada before this
        Quebec is a province in Canada , my relatives live in Canada even they know this 🧐

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Hi Erik, sorry about being so long responding to your point and thank you for clarifying the position. I’m happy to be corrected and accept that the basic legal requirements are present in both cases.

        Like

  3. Today I question the point of the Scottish parliament. If I’m voting for a party to delivery what’s in their manifesto and the party, I’m voting for can’t delivery that manifesto, because it can be overruled by Westminster then the democracy held by an English citizen has more rights than I’ll ever have.

    In my mind Scotland after yesterday’s result is even more a colony than the day before.

    Liked by 21 people

    1. The point of the Scottish Parliament (Scottish Executive when it was established) is that its remit is solely Devolved matters and as we all know devolved power is power retained by … guess who? Westminster who set up the Scotland Act (we should probably blame Labour for that, Donald Dewar, Tony Blair, the latter reinforced it by settling up the UK Supreme Court)

      Liked by 15 people

      2. Where does the Supreme court sit physically? Is its jurisdiction compatible with the Treaties of Union? It’s a basic legal point so I presume its jurisdiction is compatible with the Treaties or this would have been disputed.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. My understanding is that it effectively took over what were previously House of Lords status as final court of appeal for civil cases in UK and also which was the final court of appeal related to the Territories of the Empire, Dominions etc, latterly the Commonwealth, hence why Quebec case was referred to as ‘persuasive’ in their ruling.

        Like

  4. ” Sometime in the New Year ” can be added to all the other ” afters ” eg after Brexit is fait accompli ( despite * my * utterly pointless , grandstanding attempts to overturn the democratic decision of a majority of English voters ) …..terms of Brexit are known , Covid * eliminated ( remember ” zero Covid ” ? lol ) , consequences known and so on and on and on . Anything / everything is deployed , not in the furtherance of our objective – Christ ! ye kiddin ‘ ? – no , the exact opposite , postponement , procrastination , pandering . Always * later * .

    It becomes harder every day to think this continuous holding back is anything other that designed to frustrate – in every sense – the realisation of Independence . A Holding Operation , deliberate political inertia , whilst overtly and covertly the Britglish State goes about it’s work of effectively taking-over the running of Scotland ( eg ” empowering ” Local Councils ) enacting the none-too-subtle handcuffing of the Internal Market added to which is the ever-increasing Non -Scot demographic influx . nb Scottish Census results also due * sometime *

    Whether deliberate or not ( impossible to know for sure , either way ) every day Sturgeon wastes fannying about is a day that takes us further away from Independence , a day that adds another degree of upward inclination to the already precipitous hill of our Aspiration .

    The proposed Plebiscite UKGE is the latest mirage on the Nu SNP horizon to occupy to next few years , and , like all mirages , it will get more nebulous the closer we – appear – to get to it , eventually evaporating completely : which it will , either by obfuscation by Sturgeon/NSNP or simple dismissal by the UK State .

    No one should be in any doubt – I know few HERE are – all this sound and ( what passes for ) fury emanating from * the usual suspects * signifies precisely F.A . It’s merely semaphore signals for Vote SNP at the next G.E .

    Well , NAW ! As long as the present regime are in power they can ram it . Their blackmail won’t work , on me anyway .

    Liked by 16 people

  5. Regardless of your views on the ruling we need to address the escape plan details instead of the prison design.

    We are all angry and that presents an opportunity to unite behind a solution. Sadly that opportunity lasted less than 2 hours when Sturgeon stepped in to state that the SNP will decide when and how we react. The rest of us are to be instructed on the way forward.

    As firmly as the Supreme Court confirmed that the People of Scotland have no say. Sturgeon did exactly the same thing and a YES organised crowd cheered.

    “We, the People……” aspiration, was crushed by Sturgeon just as effectively as by the SC ruling.

    The YES movement of 2012/14 cannot be re-created by a One Party Convention. My views are very simple and I appreciate that I am only ONE vote. I will not vote for politicians whom I disagree with. I also do not respond well to blackmail such as, “If you want Independence you will have to vote SNP….”

    Sturgeon has grabbed the steering wheel and will not let go. In my view a GE proxy vote will end the Independence campaign forever because even in the highly unlikely event of achieving over 50% of the vote using Party Politics it is obvious Westminster will say “No, we don’t accept that”

    The SNP Politicians have given clear evidence by their behaviour that they will obey their Supreme Leader and She controls the NEC.

    Next year a campaign will be announced in which we will have no say and it’s Primary function will be to secure Murrell Enterprises remains dominant in Scotland.

    Sadly we have other opportunities for Independence but they will never see the light of day if a General Election is selected as the Battle Field.

    I will not vote for the current SNP under the current leadership under any circumstance. I don’t think I’m alone and regardless of the number it will be costly. The Labour Indy supporters will be recorded for the Union. The 16 and 17 year old will not be asked. The members of SSP, ISP, Alba and many LibDems and a few Tory votes will also be lost. Because

    ….the SNP is now more important than Scottish Independence.

    Liked by 18 people

    1. I should have added that if the Sturgeon proxy GE vote is proposed and Alba do not stand I will be ripping up my Alba membership. I still cringe at voting SNP on their message last time.

      Liked by 8 people

    2. Regrettably, I find myself having to agree with what you say here. With the current plan from the SNP we are heading for a disaster the like of which it may be difficult to recover from.

      The SNP is at the point with regard to the primacy of Independence in its thinking, indeed may be past it already, where the Labour Party was/is with its adherence to its founding principles. The national cause, like workers cooperativeness, a mere electoral carrot to be dangled in front of the masses as a means of harvesting votes from those desperate for any straw to clutch onto (mixing metaphors).

      Liked by 12 people

    3. “….the SNP is now more important than Scottish Independence” aye in their eyes they are.

      Whit thae forget is, thair is a dampt sicht mair o’ us than them, an’ they need tae get telt that in nae uncertain terms!! Dissolve the union NOW!

      Liked by 6 people

  6. No we this is an interesting article and angle (I’m not convinced by SALVO etc.), but I’d be interested to know from a lawyers perspective what legitimate mechanism can be exploited to action an international court.

    I also agree that the SNP seemed bewildered by yesterdays judgement and are now totally adrift. I don’t see Mr Sunak losing much sleep at the thought of (yet another) SNP Special Conference.

    My fear, however, is that being so lost so determined not to appear so the SNP is once again shooting from the hip and it’s leading us down a path that gives even more ammunition to the unionist cause.

    We’ve had ‘once in a generation’, and that’s come back to bite us. We’ve had ‘lawful and internationally recognised’, and now, after yesterday, that’s hampering what we can do next. Now we have an announced de facto whatever-it-is at a general election (that doesn’t even meet the self-imposed international criteria the SNP demands) that could kill Indy dead for s generation at least.

    The SNP need to stop spouting political verbiage designed to get it out of political fixes and start thinking first. We are being hamstrung by press lines and are now at the stage where one political party is basically abusing the cause for its own ends.

    The de facto route can’t work. It’s highly unlikely in such s confused circumstance we will get 50% +1 of the vote. Splitting the vote (especially in the current climate) could well lead to a dip in SNP/Alba representation at WM – which both the press at the establishment will portray as a drop in support for Indy, whatever the underlying numbers. Worse, if it fails, which I think it can only do, despite being against it throughout any campaign, the Unionists will then embrace it saying “we’ll, you’ve had you’re second IndyRef now” – condemning the cause to the fires.

    It is simply a panicked reaction from a party that had painted itself into a corner; as the article shows, the non colony judgement alone is a direct result of SNP intervention and nothing else.

    The next move mustn’t be another ‘mandate’ campaign simply designed to allow one party to harvest votes, it has to be what’s best for the cause.

    Liked by 14 people

    1. “we’ll, you’ve had you’re second IndyRef now” – condemning the cause to the fires.

      Sturgeons last obligation before the UK PM permits her to take up her post with the UN. How the SNP can be led by someone with such an obvious conflict of interests beggars belief.

      Liked by 11 people

      1. I tend to agree with you that NS is now somewhat yesterdays news politically speaking: especially after yesterdays news. She has served to what she believes is the best of her ability, I’m sure, but it’s time to stop this situation deteriorating any further and a new FM with a fresh outlook needs to get a grip of the situation.

        As to where she goes next?

        To be honest I neither know nor care, other than to mourn that what started with promise ended in absolute disaster, of course, but I do wish her the best wherever that is.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. If Sturgeon possessed a backbone – or perhaps patriotism – she would have asked how a court that does not know the difference beweeen the country of Scotland and the province of Quebec can be supreme over Scots justice. The SC has shown itself to be a political puppet.

    Liked by 13 people

    1. Sturgeon keeps taking cases to the SC and keeps getting overuled, this is another reason we need to be Independence.

      The SNP and its Unionist leader where always going to lose no matter what.

      Liked by 7 people

    2. The term country is not useful as it indicates neither nationhood nor sovereignty. For example, where I live — Bermuda — is considered a country, yet it is British Overseas Territory with no international sovereignty of its own. There are nations, there are states, and there are sub-states. These can overlap but they can also be distinct. France is a nation-state, and it has no sub-states. The UK is a state made up of four nations, of which Scotland and Wales are nations and sub-states yet England is a nation but not a sub-state. Canada is a state made up of ten provinces which are sub-states, of which the inhabitants of the Province of Quebec are considered to be a nation. BTW, the president of the UKSC studied Scots law at the University of Edinburgh and was a highly respect judge in the Scottish courts before being elevated to the Supreme Court.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The first time I heard an Englishman refer to Scotland as a ‘sub-state’, which was almost half a century ago, was the day I became a Scottish nationalist.

        BTW, colonialism is always a co-operative venture with native elites.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Don’t know about your Englishman, but I’m not using the term ‘sub-state’ pejoratively or negatively. Some people might say sub-national instead of sub-state, but that’s confusing as it assumes the larger state is a nation-state. Anyway, to put it another way, Scotland is a nation but it is not a sovereign nation-state as a matter of international law. The same applies to Quebec. Many Scots and Quebecois wish for their nation to have that sovereignty, and what the supreme courts of the UK and Canada have held is that the Scottish Parliament and Quebec’s National Assembly cannot rely on the doctrine of self-determination to justify acting ultra vires given that the UK and Canada are parliamentary democracies which govern for their citizens without discrimination.

        Like

      3. You appear to be unaware that the Scots are a sovereign people, a matter upon which the treaty and hence Westminster parliament is and remains conditional. https://salvo.scot/scottish-constitution/

        Moreover, unlike Canada the UK is clearly not a federation, it is an alliance agreement created by two kingdoms via international treaty, either of which may lawfully end it.

        In studying the Quebec case the most interesting aspect for me is that the French language has full authority there and is taught in schools, as is English. In Scotland the Scots language has no authority and is not taught in schools, only English is taught and has authority. The fact that the elite in Quebec are mostly Francophone whilst the elite in Scotland are Anglophone reflects just one illustration of institutionalised oppression prevailing in Scotland and its consequence. At least French speakers in Quebec are not deprived of learning or retaining the authority to their language, and hence perhaps are less affected by the forces of cultural assimilation than Scots speakers.

        Liked by 3 people

  8. Sturgeon and HER (As she seems to believe) political party are behaving as TRAITORS to Scotland’s Population… They are fortunate that our population IS a peaceful one. However, whatever their voters will do in the immediate future, the general mood and reactions of Scotland’s population will be crucially important to Scotland’s political situation and its very existence as a Nation.

    Liked by 9 people

  10. If I may, a diversion to alter the somewhat sombre mood. For Weegies current and lapsed.

    Q. Is it more difficult to perch a traffic cone on top of Donald Dewar’s statue than that of the Duke of Wellington?
    A. No – not if you topple it first.

    Liked by 10 people

  11. Lord Reed is eminently qualified to pass judgment on “contract law”. I’ll not use the term “constitutional law” as that (UK) “constitution” exists as 1001 disparate precedents and legal findings.
    What Lord Robert John Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir, product of George Watson’s College, Edinburgh is not entitled to do is declare that the Scots are not “oppressed” and living under “colonial” conditions.
    Reed is the embodiment of the 4%, the entitled, self perpetuating, permanent, managerial caste.
    WTF would Reed know about “oppression” (except of course administering it)?

    If the Scotland Act 1998 doesn’t allow Holyrood to initiate a referendum and the Scotland Act 1998 is subservient to the Act of Union, then our modern, universal electoral franchise is held hostage by the votes of 110 (bribed) landowners in 1707.

    That seems to me to be a compelling case to bring before the UN, Special Committee on Decolonisation.

    Liked by 19 people

  12. What are the legal requirements for a Constitutional Convention to be recognised under interntational law?

    By its very necessity, I’m guessing it is seldom created by the ruling party of the country involved.

    Can we do this, and utilise internet and zoom to enable a wider membership than in previous examples in days gone by.

    Incidentally, there were a lot of SNPers out last night in Perth at our wee rally. None of them are casting dispersions on Nikla. All of their focus was on the Supreme Court judgement and Westminster.

    The movement needs to become bigger than Nikla and bigger than the SNP. She needs to become an irrelevance.

    Liked by 13 people

    1. She is an irrelevance to me, and the others who have kept below the parapet are also irrelevances.

      Any comment I make is, of course, invalid.

      Liked by 5 people

  13. Of course, The Supremes overstepped the mark by making the reference to international law as this was not within their remit to do so (despite the SNP submission making the argument) … or, as someone once said, it’s ‘out-with their competence’.

    I agree with Euan, however, that they have done us a favour by stating that self-determination applies where “a definable group is denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development.” That is Scotland’s predicament precisely!

    I also agree with him that the response from Nicola Sturgeon/SNP has been “staggeringly disappointing” even if somewhat unsurprising.

    When Nicola Sturgeon went to a London Court for judgement she did so in HER name. She placed HER sovereignty in its hands. Not mine.

    We need to make Nicola Sturgeon own this failure and debacle.

    She is clearly content with her status us Colonial Governess … our very own 21st century Toom Tabard.

    Liked by 17 people

  14. Anticipating yesterday’s ruling I thought I might get angry and depressed. Instead I feel strangely elated, or rather relieved. We can forget any idea of holding another referendum with Westminster’s involvement as happened in 2014. Sturgeon’s strange reaction to the judges decision must surely make people wonder about her. In her glee her acting skills deserted her.

    As Ewan states above, an international solution will now have to be found. No more prevarication, no more false promises. We do have friends abroad. Other nations know to their cost the treachery of English governments down through the ages. If this is handled properly it can be an opportunity not a defeat. But first we have to get rid of Sturgeon and her cronies.

    Liked by 14 people

  16. Excuse me : as often happens , in my haste to express my thoughts/feelings , I forgot/forget to commend the article itself , and the writer of the article . I do so now

    Liked by 11 people

  17. There is a developing doctrine in the law of treaties with a focus on duress and threat of coercion during the formation of unions of nations as a possible basis for unilaterally dissolving a partnership . It’s not a fully fledged doctrine , but nevertheless it gives hope that international law might provide an escape route from this unhappy marriage of nations.

    Liked by 14 people

    1. Culloden and brutal oppression sealed this “union”. Perhaps the reason that Scottish history is not taught in Scottish schools?

      *Interesting to note how keen some parties are to build wee housing estates all over Culloden moor – we are being erased.

      Liked by 11 people

  18. I see on The Herald Keith Brown giving the game away when asked if Sturgeon would lead the SNP into the next election:
    Mr Brown replied : “Eh, we’re talking about the Westminster election? I think yes.
    “I think even beyond that, quite possibly the next Holyrood election, I certainly hope so.

    So no intention of using an SNP majority to declare independence – or perhaps cynical acknowledgement it is a pretendy plan that isn’t intended to work.

    Liked by 11 people

  19. Ewan Kennedy writes above, “It’s been recognised time and again that we Scots, unlike Quebec, are a nation”. While I agree wholeheartedly in respect of Scotland, Mr Kennedy’s statement is not accurate in respect of Quebec. In 2006, the House of Commons in Ottawa passed a motion recognising the Quebecois as a nation within Canada; this motion was passed 296 MPs in favour and 16 MPs against, and was supported by all political parties represented in Canada’s Parliament.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Scotland is recognised as a country by the UN. I think that your comment does not diminish Scotlands clear status as a country and our status as a nation – the House of Commons in Ottawa has my best wishes but it is not the same animal.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. You are correct that my comments do not diminish Scotland’s status as a nation. The point is that both Quebec and Scotland are recognised as nations, yet neither are sovereign nations at international law.

        Liked by 1 person

  20. Our colonial masters law is not international law and as a consequence is only there to keep the indigenous Scots enslaved in there coercive Union. Fight the next election as a plebiscite election AUOB for National liberation.
    We dont want the dud SNP or their comprised leader anywhere near this to frankly sabotage our freedom. If it was not for Sturgeon we would have been free in 2015.
    Dissolve the Union.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Interesting Alastair – so all the true indy parties could stand under the AUOB flag and cover all constituencies between them – very interesting.

      Liked by 7 people

  21. There is a bolus in the Scottish body politic which I suspect may only be shifted by a dose of Irish médecine. After all it eventually worked for them.
    An observation undeniable in the context of the case of popular apathy.
    What is so different about Scotland?

    Liked by 2 people

  22. I call for SALVO to bring forward this Convention of the Estates to mobilise a defence of Scotland’s Claim of Right from Westminster’s colonial insurrections.

    First, impeach First Minister Sturgeon. Her position is untenable after paying such scant regard for the Claim of Right’s integrity and Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty. If the King of England can be compelled to swear fealty to the Claim of Right, then a First Minister who cannot bring herself to do likewise needs impeached and flung out of office. Scotland requires no Gauleiter to legislate on Westminster’s behalf.

    If that Office she’s flung out of responds only to Westminster’s command, not Scotland’s, then both First Minister and Vichy “Parliament” need impeached, to remind them that in Scotland, it is the Community of the Realm who is Sovereign, NOT Westminster, nor any sub-forum codified by Westminster.

    Must we really ask the English “Sovereign” to bear witness and explain to Scots why he swore fealty to Scotland’s Claim of Right? Can it really be true that the first witness in Scotland’s defence is the current King of England? Dear god, Sturgeon’s turned me into a royalist.

    Get yourselves a pair of those 3d movie goggles folks, the kind that polarises the light, lends depth to what you see and let’s you measure Scotland’s political landscape in shades of red sovereignty and white sovereignty, because only red sovereignty is extant in Scotland.

    If Westminster can crow that it owns the heart of Scotland’s Parliament, then let us present them with it’s severed head; an impeached First Minister and a discredited institution of no more use to Scotland or indeed Westminster than Alistair Union Jack’s Colonial Head Office. Let their Trojan Horse be exposed, undone, and escorted out of Scotland in disgrace.

    If we DON’T impeach this narcissistic disgrace Sturgeon, then be prepared for Scotland’s journey to Independence to be plagued and divided by her presence and feckless interference until the bitter end. Eight years of stagnation and betrayal is already too much. End this dark chapter, and take our Independence in the process.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Breeks I asked this previously on WOS I think , can anyone tell me (Ewan Kennedy please) if it would be possible for Kenny MacAskill and Neal Hanvey to approach our courts with the intention of impeaching sturgeon as they are parliamentarians, MP’S elected by citizens so they have standing , if it would be possible I am sure many in the REAL indy movement would be happy to contribute to a crowdfunder
      TBQH the stinking nonce party members will not do anything or say anything against their sainted one so they will just keep on electing her believing her lies
      As you are probably aware I am totally supportive of SALVO and Liberation.Scot but as you are also aware this is extremely urgent , I would love to see a commoners convention of the estates impeach everyone of these traitorous charlatans but one step at a time

      Liked by 6 people

      2. Various. You can take out a free subscription to this blog available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. You can join Salvo.Scot and Liberation.Scot. I will also share on Twitter and Facebook but you are at the mercy of their systems whether you see it or not.

        Liked by 2 people

  23. Ewan thank you very much for your explanation in layman’s terms of how the decision makers probably reached their decision

    From reading your dissection, it appears ms sturgeon has a habit of NOT following legal advice , this was highlighted previously in her extremely dubious and expensive (too us the taxpayer) desperation to destroy Alex Salmond’s reputation and integrity

    It appears to have resurfaced again by her forcing ????? her newly appointed LA to continue presenting a case to the supreme court which she was not convinced could be won , not only that it also appears that the newly appointed LA not only believed it could not be won at a domestic level she was also convinced she was presenting it to the wrong court ,
    I also thank you for highlighting that the LA was probably being honest and upholding her integrity when she attempted to present the case despite her misgivings on the outcome

    When experts in a profession such as yourself explain what can be hidden behind a curtain it brings a whole new light on a situation

    I emailed my MP and MSP last night and demanded as a sovereign Scot that Nicola Sturgeon resign immediately as she has FAILED Scotland and Scots , not only in reference to independence but also in relation to protecting and serving Scotland through governance
    Many many people have publicly encouraged Nicola Sturgeon to take our case to the ICJ and ECJ the real INTERNATIONAL courts dealing with international law and international treaties, all to no avail

    BUT instead Ms Sturgeon in an attempt to ratify the competence of the SP to arrange a referendum on independence approaches the very court that protects and serves the UNITED KINGDOM and ALL WM governments , and do you believe, Ms Sturgeon is really SURPRISED at the outcome

    Many people deny such a thing as conspiracy theories I am NOT one of them , when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck , it is deliberate sabotage

    Liked by 8 people

  24. We could break out of our prison, that’s portrayed as a union as soon as next year, if Sturgeon and Harvie cared about Scotland, however they don’t care about Scotland, and I doubt they’ll do the right thing.

    Courtesy of Wing Over Scotland.

    “Sturgeon reiterated in general terms (while refusing to be drawn on any specifics) that the new plan was to conduct a plebiscitary general election, but offered no explanation for why we had to wait two years for it.

    It is wholly within her power to stand down as First Minister, have the SNP and Greens block the election of a replacement and thereby force a new Holyrood election which could serve as the plebiscite, and would have the considerable benefit of including two demographics (EU citizens and 16/17-year-olds) who statistically favour independence and would be able to vote in a Scottish election but not a UK one.”

    Liked by 10 people

  25. Angus B MacNeil mentioned that many MPs he’s spoken to are in favour of a holyrood plebiscite. They all need to take action.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Every sane Scot can see that logic…..but She won’t. The SNP is not Democratic, it is a Private Company and the CEO makes Brian Cox in “Succession” look like a hippy..

      Liked by 7 people

    1. Not at all, I enjoy the exchange of ideas and questions. The UKSC perhaps should have explained the comparison rather than simply adopting the Supreme Court of Canada’s reasoning and applying it to Scotland and the UK. Some nationalists are clearly upset by the comparison, but I think that may be because it was assumed rather than explained in yesterday’s judgment.

      Like

      1. A federation of provinces is not in any regard comparable with an international treaty-based union alliance between two kingdoms, Erik. Judges may well be able to refer to case law and giving opinion on that basis, but that does not make them expert on such matters, as should seem obvious in this instance.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Alf, in this line of reasoning the comparison is not between a federation of provinces and a union of kingdoms, but rather that Quebec is also considered a nation within Canada yet its National Assembly cannot act ultra vires in respect of secession by relying on the doctrine of self-determination (which is the doctrine the SNP relied on in support of its argument that the Scottish Parliament could hold another independence referendum unilaterally although it lacks the constitutional power to do so).

        Liked by 1 person

  28. “A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud”. Orwell

    ‘The 2009 inception of a pretend layer of lawful ‘authority’ across this island – aka the illegitimate Anglo-Imperial invention known as the UK ‘Supreme Court’ and its raison d’etre – was always to ‘legally’ extinguish Scotland and Wales within post-Brexit ‘Global Britain’. And as such, if we regard this self-proclaimed, fraudulent US-style ‘Supreme Court’ as the UK’s ‘gun’ held to Scotland’s head, then their ‘Internal Market Act’ (2021) is its Orwellian ‘lipstick-on-a-pig’ legislation which contains the loaded ‘legal’, ‘moral’ and ‘economic’ bullets which are about to be fired into Wales and Scotland’s skulls, upon a *joint* Westminster & White House instigated UK National Emergency trigger via Ukraine, or via any nuclear armed enemy or geo-strategic chain reaction, designed to get NATO into a war which will forcibly bind the *dis-United* Kingdom together by US/UK military force’.

    ‘A Very British Nationalist Government of ‘Unity’: A US Backed UK Police State By The Back Door’ (2022) https://wp.me/p94Aj4-3nu

    Johnny McNeill
    #GaslightingGilligan (© 2017) 
    Twitter: @GasGilligan (free download)

    Liked by 4 people

  29. a very enjoyable and erudite comment from Ewan.

    the Supreme court did not determine the pre 1998 law . the Scotland Act is about Devolution, not about Independence or a route to it.

    the pre 1998 law has not been abolished. as Mrs Thatcher asserted , the Scots can have Independence if a majority of SNP mps are elected to Westminster.

    That’s the law! How you implement Independence would require Scottish MPs to walk out of Westminster and form a provisional government .

    Simultaneously the devolved SG would continue under the Scotland Act. To ensure that if the U.K. government tried to halt state pensions and benefits the SG should use existing powers to raise AGFRR to funds all public expenditure spent by the SG and allocated to Scottish residents

    Liked by 6 people

  31. G Man…. Yes Southside had a Zoom Seminar last night with Professor Aileen McHarg , constitutional law expert at Durham Uni as guest . She was not convinced by Salvo either . Her overall conclusion seemed to be that there is no legal route (bypassing the Section 30 hurdle ) to Independence . Nor is there much prospect of running the “Scotland is a colony” argument in Intenational in law forum, according to the law don although that’s not her area of expertise.

    Like

    1. Prof McHarg also once opined that: “As a matter of law, a referendum is not a required part of the process of becoming independent” (McCorkindale and McHarg 2020).

      As Albert Memmi said: “the role of the colonizer is to make any prospect of independence seem impossible”.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. She is not based in Scotland I think but Scotland feels a lot more like a colony this week that it did last. If the people feel they are being colonised and being oppressed. They are. I feel that do you?

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.