SCOTS LAW IS NOT ENGLISH LAW

Posted byiainlawson27Posted inUncategorizedTags:, , ,

THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT STATEMENT FROM SARA SALYERS OF SALVO.SCOT AND LIBERATION.SCOT. This is what Scots, all Scots must do from now on.It is not six months old yet but as each day passes the message becomes more powerful.


Here’s the text:

We know that Scots’ law is not English law. What we have not known is that Scottish constitutional law is not English constitutional law. What we have not… and what we should have been, and our politicians should have been, challenging, for a long time now, is that we have a provision that retains our constitution in Scotland, and that constitution, makes certain things Westminster does, or has done, unlawful. They’re not lawful in Scotland.

We’ve not been standing up for Scottish law, and we need to stop talking about, well, a referendum would be lawful or wouldn’t be lawful. The question is, what is the Scottish law? What does the Scottish constitution say? What is lawful in Scotland?

You cannot impose a foreign constitution on a joint partner in a Union that is created by treaty. We are not a nation state. They have behaved like a nation state, and that nation is England. This is not – and this is a sovereign state – but it is a combined state. It is made of two separate nations and they have separate laws. That principle was accepted. The continuation of the Scottish constitution was accepted, and therefore, our government, our politicians, or rather our MPs, have needed for a very long time to stop repeating English lies. To stop repeating, ‘Oh well, we were incorporated.’ No, we were not. Walker and Campbell have both blown that out of the water. Everybody’s kind of carried on.

It’s not an incorporating union, it’s an international treaty into which two sovereign nations entered. There were conditions made, both constitutions were meant to continue, and therefore we have Scottish constitutional law, and we need to stop behaving, and talking, and deferring to English constitutional law, as if that were Scottish as well. It is not.

And as a matter of fact, if that makes its way to the International Court of Justice, if it makes its way via the OHCHR, to be heard, 

‘Does Scotland have the right to have the provisions of this treaty upheld?’

‘Does Scotland have a constitution?’

‘Is it clear?’

‘Is it written?’

‘Is it codified?’

At least, ye know, to this degree. The answer is, there’s no court that could find otherwise. We know that. So we need to be shouting that, as Alex Salmond said, we need to be shouting this loud and clear. And it will, unfortunately, take a massive civic movement, and it will take judicial test cases, and so on, and it will take international diplomacy.

But every single person watching this needs to know this foreign government, this foreign oppressor, will do whatever it takes to keep hold of Scotland. It will not just let us go. And it has already twisted the law, it has already lied, and hidden, and misrepresented Scotland’s political, constitutional, legal history, and status, in order to do that.

And now that it’s done it, we’re going to talk about what’s lawful, under Westminster’s constitutional provisions, which are not ours? No, we need to be talking about challenging them.

Lord Cooper:

“The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.

“Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament,  I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done.”

MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953) SC 396 – Court of Session (on appeal) 

MY COMMENTS

Nobody spells it out more effectively than Sara. She uses language we can all understand and as it is explained it grows in strength as we all realise what she is saying is true. She is challenging Scottish politicians to toughen their message, of course she is, but she is also challenging all the Scottish people to do likewise. You can learn about how by joining Liberation.Scot because that is going to be the vehicle that will take us to real success.

PLEASE LIKE AND SHARE EVERYWHERE.

I am, as always

YOURS FOR SCOTLAND.

54 thoughts on “SCOTS LAW IS NOT ENGLISH LAW”

  1. I love listening to Sara, she has such fire in her belly, albeit delivered in that gentle accent! I do feel this is an route we need to explore FULLY and have joined Salvo and Liberation. Westminster has treated the Treaty as an annexation. They’ve treated it exactly the same way they treated Wales, a conquered nation, an annexed territory.

    We’ll not get out of this infernal union by asking nicely. Westminster doesn’t do nice. Others have said oh the international community have done nothing for Chagos or Palestine. True but let’s use our advantages. Year and years of emigration mean that the Scottish diaspora is huge, why are we not enlisting their help? As the UK acts more and more as a rogue state annoying the EU inter alia, we should exploit that. We have to gain independence for ourselves, no-one else will give it to us but that doesn’t mean not calling in every favour we can get.

    Liked by 20 people

    1. You can switch off the auto generated YouTube subtitles, they are rarely useful. The subtitles we’ve added are fairly accurate. If you find a mistake in those, do let me know.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. As someone with quite severe hearing loss, I find your subtitles fine, though i regret the many times when they are not available as then I find it hard to understand anything.
        I tried the streamed ALbaAconference yesterday and there were none and often the speakers’ faces were not shown clearly, eg sideways on and not well lit, that made it very difficult for lip-reading!
        I like the transscript too as it is quicker to read than to listen, and the mistakes dont bother me,

        Liked by 5 people

  3. I fear the SNP are living in cloud cuckoo land. At my recent branch meeting tjey were all saying we are closer to independence than ever. When I pointef out Westminstrr would just continue to ignotr us I was made out to be negative. My MSP said the party intended to have a plebicite election and if 16&17 year olds or the foreigners couldn’t vote it didn’t matter as they are only 2% of the electorate. Further we have BLACKFORD &STURGEON Minutes after the ENGLISH court decidion saying we will respect it.
    The SNP are beaten before they start. The cause under Sturgeon’s control has mot moved forward 1 inch from the point at which the first mimistrr resigned in 2014

    Liked by 10 people

    1. The SNP living in cloud cockoo land. Of that they are.

      My ex branch four years ago had around a thousand members. How many now is another question but branch meetings with attendances of six or seven attendees might give a clue.

      Dead on its feet and a reflection of the party nationally.

      But of course the elected ones, content with their short money and their comfortable cosey salaries think they no longer need members. After all the British state keeps them going.

      Ah well there’s a shock coming for the cosy toes

      But, back to Sarah, she is certainly getting the constitutional message out.

      Liked by 11 people

  4. Good morning Scotland. Posting this not for any King or Queen but in relation to us all being sovereign. This was one show that at least made our Mary a wee bit fun.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I wish there were more Sara Salyers about. How come our lawyers trained in Scottish law, are so inept, or so corrupt, and so lacking in backbone? They have let Scotland and its people down, badly, especially those who fluffed up their feathers, sitting comfortably as MPs and MSPs in Westminster and Holyrood respectively.

    Liked by 9 people

  6. I think the aim is for 100,000 Scots to sign up to Liberation.scot (I did so some months ago)to prove that a substantial number of Scots are challenging England’s sovereignity. But how is the validity of these ‘sign ups’ confirmed if/when we go to the International Court or UN.
    Genuine (irrelevant?) question I believe in the movement

    Liked by 7 people

  7. What became historically, Scottish officialdom, the interpretive, authoritative centre with its lordly powers, influence, baubles and entitlement, without whom we, the gullible, law abiding ‘lesser’ souls could never have been mislead and misinformed down through the generations to the extent that we have been, have played the central role in the building, brick-by-brick, of our collective, national false-consciousness. And they’re still with us, adding ever more bricks! Scotland’s collective attention, if we are ever to become all that we can be as a people and a country, must also become critically focused on the likes of you and your antediluvian, outrageously privileged caste, lady, Lord Advocate.

    Liked by 8 people

  8. Thank You Sara, if it wasn’t for your wonderful and exhausting efforts (thanks to your team as well) we’d still be in the dark about all of this, with very little hope on the horizon.

    Liked by 11 people

  11. More excellence from Sara Salyers for which I express my gratitude and admiration.

    When it’s out, it’s out. We have to close the door on this closet union.

    Liked by 8 people

  12. There is really so much wrong with Sara’s statements and theories. One day I’ll write a proper response. But just for starters Sara says “The continuation of the Scottish constitution was accepted, ” Where and how was it accepted? Apart from the fact that no guarantee was ever given or even mentioned in the Treaty or Act, it would be inconceivable and totally unworkable for a new state to be burdened with two different and disparate constitutions. The problem from Sara’s point of view is that if she’s wrong about the constitution, then Salvo’s whole case is rather blown out of the water.

    Like

    1. Davey, you are being thoroughly dishonest here; it was accepted by the fact of ratification of the Treaty by two separate parliaments, including the associated Acts of each Parliament that called for the permanent preservation of the rights stated in them. In England’s case they were purely religious, but Scotland’s associated Act also included the 1689 Claim of Right which is both religious and secular, even if it didn’t use the word ‘constitution’, as England’s clearly didn’t either (not even any mention of Magna Carta or their 1689 Bill of Rights). So are you also going to insist that the Magna Carta rights no longer apply, and that the transfer of sovereignty from the English monarch to the English parliament no longer has any standing?

      Are you going to claim again that England’s constitution was explicitly preserved in its entirety somehow, but Scotland’s was obviously deleted from its statute books, thus England’s constitution applies over Scotland by default because something had to fill the vacuum?

      How do you explain the preservation of the Crown of Scotland and all of the rights, powers and privileges it confers on its wearer? They would be meaningless without the backing of the Scottish constitution that defined, limited, policed and defended that Crown’s authority, and without the legal and justice systems that are the enforcement arms of that constitution. The same goes for England’s Crown.

      Are you seriously going to pretend that both Crowns of the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England have no legal or constitutional underpinning anymore? I’d like to be a fly on the wall when you point out to King Charles 3rd that his royal regality has been sitting in a landfill for 315 years! I suspect he’d chuck something rather worse than a drippy pen at you!

      Liked by 8 people

      1. Xaracen, I would have hoped that you would not have considered it dishonest to hold a contrary opinion.
        In support of the contention that Scotland’s constitution remained intact after the union, you say: “the associated Acts of each Parliament that called for the permanent preservation of the rights stated in them.” I don’t really quibble with that – the rights specifically referred to were the rights of lawyers and the preservation of Scots law, the rights of the Kirk and the Protestant religion, and the rights of the royal burghs. However, there is no mention whatever of the Scots Constitution. I know that Salvoites try to get round this by saying that as the Claim of Right is mentioned (albeit once only) in the tenor, which was a sort of addendum dealing specifically with religion, then that too is preserved in its constitutional entirety. I think you once encapsulated that argument by suggesting that that politics and the Church were so interwoven that the reference in the Tenor of the Act to the Claim of Right must have included the entire constitution, not just the religious aspects. I take the view that there is nothing to support that rather unlikely theory. In 1689 Scotland was a secular state. That’s not to say the Church didn’t wield power – of course it did – but the Church and the State were nevertheless separate and, in fact, quite frequently came into conflict with each other. The tenor was inserted because the Kirk, acting entirely out of self interest, insisted on it as its price for supporting the union rather than opposing it. To say that because a document specifically referred to the rights of the church in a secular state meant that it should be read as referring to the national constitution of the entire state cannot be supported.
        In my view, the purpose of the Tenor was stated quite clearly: ““the tenor of the aforesaid act for securing the Protestant religion and Presbyterian church government within the Kingdom of Scotland, is as follows:……” and it was in that context and that context only that the Claim of Right secured its single mention. I suggest people read the Tenor, see what they think. If the continuation of the Scots constitution was considered so important, why was it not mentioned as such? The law was considered important, so it was specifically reserved. The protestant religion and the Kirk were considered important, so they too were specifically preserved, The rights of the royal burghs were considered important, so their rights too were reserved. But the Constitution? Nary a mention. It couldn’t have been – the new state could not have contemplated existence with two separate and possibly disparate constitutions.
        In fact, I’m not claiming that anyone’s constitution was preserved – the sovereign states of both England and Scotland were extinguished by the incorporating Act that established the Union. So over the years the new state began to form its own constitution, and because England was much bigger, and because it had so many more MPs than Scotland, it was inevitable that any new constitution would be based largely on that of England. And because the Scots MPs enjoyed the soft life in London and the green benches of Westminster, and because they realised that the old Scottish constitution, just like the old Scottish parliament, was ane auld sang, they didn’t object, other maybe than a few mutterings (plus ça change, one might say). And thus a new constitution grew up, initially based largely on the English one because in politics size does matter and in any event most people were quite content that it should be like that. And the new parliament was sovereign, just like in practice both old parliaments had been (Yes, I know what the theory is, but in practice the old Scots parliament was sovereign, although that was frequently only in as much as the monarch allowed it to be.
        The Crowns are a complete red herring. The two kingdoms were united in 1603, the two countries 104 years later. Today the monarch is styled “Charles the third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”. No mention of Scotland, no mention of England. The honours of Scotland are very pretty and of historical as well as monetary value, but no more than that. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, technically ruled by the the monarch through the UK parliament, but as we all know the powers of the monarch are very limited – indeed, it has been suggested that these powers are no more than the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. If parliament was to decide that we no longer required a monarch and would become a republic, that’s what would happen. So much for any special powers and privileges.

        Like

      2. I do not consider it dishonest to hold a contrary opinion at all. I consider it dishonest when I think the opinion is improperly supported. And as you’ve said on previous occasions, if questions are challenging to answer, that is a spur to sharpening one’s own thinking, and I consider that a good thing. Even if it’s hard!

        As for the rest you are simply repeating old arguments that have already been dismantled, or at least contested; you haven’t added anything new, and I’m not sure I have anything new yet, though I’m planning to narrow the focus.

        I just scrubbed a lot of text refuting various statements you made because for now, all I’m really looking for are the answers to the questions below;

        1. Do you consider that the people of Scotland were sovereign in their own country and kingdom prior to 1707? If not, why not?

        2. Do you consider that the people of Scotland have any functional sovereignty in their own country now? If not, why not?

        I think that issue of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland is the important one, because everything else hangs on it.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. Xaracen, assuming that by “the people” you mean the people at large rather than a select few, the answers to your questions are:
        1. Scotland was sovereign but the people? In theory perhaps, in practice no. In those days the common people had virtually no power.
        2. I’ve no idea what you mean by “functional” sovereignty. Sovereign means having supreme or ultimate power. Clearly the Scottish people do not have that. To pretend they do is, and dare I say it always has been, an illusion.
        These are of course pragmatic anwers based on what actually happens and happened rather than any theory or theories which were in fact never practised and may have been little more than a sop to the masses.

        The only way for Scotland to regain its sovereignty is through independence.

        Like

      1. If you’re serious about it I will, but I rather fear it would be trespassing on your hospitality. My comments are one thing, but a whole post?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yes as long as you realise whatever you write will be open to reply from Salvo and Liberation so I would check your facts but if you are confident you can field a good argument then I will give your article a run. This blog is for genuine debate I often publish pieces I am not in agreement with. Indeed freedom of speech and genuine debate is its main purpose.

        Liked by 5 people

    4. Do not talk Rubbish. Scots Law was specifically protected and respected in the act of Union Treaty. King Charles asserted his support for the Scots Claim of Right. (which the BBC chose to edit out). Are the UNIONISTS now going to go against their KING and keep denying out right to be free ?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Do you know what Charles actually said in his accession oath? He promised that he would inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the True Protestant Religion as established by the laws of Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly an Act intituled an ‘Act for Securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government’ and by the Acts passed in both Kingdoms for the Union of the two Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland”: That’s it. The only reference to the Claim of Right is in its religious context, nothing more. If as you suggest Charles asserted his support for the Claim of Right in a constiotutional context II would have ewxpected him to say something like: “I promiose to uphold the Scottish Constitution and the Claim of Right”. He didn’t.

        It’s rather curious, and a bit of an anchronism, that he had to swear this oath at all because, of course, he doesn’t have the power to enforce any of it.

        Like

      2. Davey this is entirely Sara’s point. The English know the Monarch must support and promise to uphold the Claim of Right. The English dare not mention it in full so reduce it in presentation to the outdated religious lines. They ignore the rest, that is Sara’s point. You should not be devaluing Sara but questioning where the rest of the COR is not being given the same public wording. Think about it?, Nobody pays much attention to what Charles 111 said. It could safely be ignored, right? Why has that not happened? Put simply he can’t ignore it because without making the pledge his claim to the Scottish crown falls….as does the Union.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. So he is suppotting Religious Bigotry. I did not, nor will I, pay any heed to this nonsense. Time for Scotland to leave this Colony.
        You can stroll on!!

        Like

      4. Indeed, jistjr. The monarchy is an increasing anachronism that has no place in an independent Scotland. But do remember that he was only doing what the Scots insisted he do and if he didn’t he’d no doubt be accused of breaching the Act of Union.

        Like

      5. Iain, the reason that the monarch swears the accession oath is because it’s laid down in the Act of Union (the tenor) that he must: “That after the decease of Her present Majesty (whom God long preserve), the sovereign succeeding to her in the royal government of the Kingdom of Great Britain shall in all time coming at his or her accession to the Crown, swear and subscribe that they shall inviolably maintain and preserve the aforesaid settlement of the true Protestant religion with the government, worship, discipline, right, and privileges of this church, as above established by the laws of this kingdom in prosecution of the claim of right”. And that, I think, is basically what he said. There is no requirement on the monarch to support and uphold the Claim of Right, and the English haven’t reduced it because Charles said it exactly as required. There was no “rest” that should have been disclosed and no requirement anywhere that the CoR should be given public wording.

        Incidentally, at his coronation Charles will have to swear a similar oath for the Church of England: “at his or her coronation shall in the presence of all persons who shall be attending, assisting or otherwise then and there present, take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the said settlement of the Church of England and the doctrine, worship, discipline and government thereof within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, the dominion of Wales and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed and the territories thereunto belonging”.

        Another conspracy theory too far, I fear.

        Like

  13. We have Polish neighbours, the best ones yet!, I’ve convinced them to sign the Liberation, they were unaware that it was allowed, I explained that as they were resident here and were intending to stay, children being educated here they had as much right as I had to try to have an independent country that suited their way of life. Look on the bright side they would all have dual nationality, Scots/ Polish what more could they ask for. Now being spread around their family& friends,

    Liked by 9 people

      1. This is a reply to daveytee19 who along with another Man Cowan appear to have removed the right to reply.

        Charles 111 specifically cited the Claim of Right as the reason for swearing the oath.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. Thank you for all you do Sara. It is very much appreciated. If only our Scottish politicians were half as motivated.

    Liked by 6 people

  15. Thank you Sara for your energy and your commitment. Not forgetting your intellect in finding all this out…Bravo.

    Liked by 8 people

  16. Off topic but here goes anyway. Fuel poverty is hitting us all. I have a saw, trees, old fencing and a wood burning stove so will not freeze. I also have access to venison and mutton so will not starve though the diet may get a bit dull after a few months. What the hell is a family in a block of flats in a city supposed to do to keep warm and fed? The fact that this is a reality for an increasing number of families is a disgrace. I also live in a small rural island community so if things take a turn for the worse a friend or neighbour is likely to notice and help. What happens to a family in a scheme in a city that could easily fall through the cracks? The only way in my view to sort this out on a national scale is to leave the UK and look after our own. I do not give a flying whatever if this happens by the Salvo, Alba or SNP route but it needs doing now and if you are engaged in sniping ,mischief making and getting in the way of us getting out of the UK you are a disgrace in my opinion. Rant over message ends.

    Liked by 6 people

    2. David, I think you can forget the SNP route to independence. Stuart Campbell over at “wings” gives his reasons why the SNP have no interest in leaving the Union.

      They are now talking about waiting until the situation in the UK improves before holding a referendum. Obviously it would be much more difficult to win one then, which is exactly why they want to wait.

      You just have to look at the likes of Ian Blackford waddling about to see how the SNP have been seduced down there. Sending our MPs to Westminster was a mistake. Westminster, the great seductress.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Sadly as an ex SNP member I have to agree with you and wings that the SNP is as much use as a chocolate fire guard in its current form so that leaves Alba, ISP and Salvo to get the job done. Some on here and in other places are quick to shout that Salvo are wrong deluded and bound to fail which begs the question why are they bothering if the Salvo approach is doomed. Surely they would be better off turning their towering intellect to more weighty matters rather than waste time sneering about a wee operation that has no chance of success. The fact that Salvo gets this sort of reaction makes me think they could be onto something which is why I signed up and looking at the steering group for Liberation there are some very clever people on it. If nothing else Salvo has given a few us a bit of hope and wound up all the right people which is a good thing. The return of Wings to the fray has also given me a bit of a lift and Pete Wishart the vapours so all in all things are looking up.

        Liked by 4 people

  19. The might of London that no one can overcome….
    All Ghandi had to do was walk to the sea and make some salt.

    In the end all you have to do is ignore them. Their power comes by people accepting their claims. When you don’t, their case collapses. The World now watches them and the gun boat, armoured car, bayonet and hangman’s noose are no longer available to the “Empire”. The propaganda no longer has the same impact it had when Pathé News and MSM with circulation in the millions controlled our information. Bribery still works as we can see from the lifestyle of those elected to represent us. The “award” of Roman Citizenship was always a powerful too over the Colonies.

    Westminster was designed to entice the simple into thinking ….”.I am nearly one of them!”

    We await a leader who does not ask permission to be a Nation.

    Liked by 4 people

  20. There are some sixty to seventy pieces of legislation which were unable to proceed through Holyrood because they were blocked by the late Queen. Perhaps now would be a good time to revisit at least one of them as a test case. Then again, I’m no politician…

    Like

    1. Neither are those we have elected.
      No backbone and accepting an English Court’s ruling. Time we Scots advised them they have no Standing HERE!!

      Like

  23. I don’t know about other people, but whenever I press “like “ to a comment this morning the star vanishes and my like doesn’t appear.

    This obviously must be why the dozens of likes to my wee comment haven’t shown up. 😊🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Not a fan of the «Führerprinzip», just look at the mess these leaders leave in their wake.
    Those at «the top» trusted to direct affairs must be accountable 24/7 to those who put them there.
    No autocrats.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.