I can respond, but I fear it’s forlorn in the sense there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
There is a structural difference to the way English divine sovereignty is a top down distribution of power, whereas in Scotland, the pyramidal hierarchy is reversed; power begins with the many and is distilled to create a leadership / management capable of administering the Nation’s needs, but forever answerable to the Community of the Realm… the people.
I’ll confess, I’m not an expert on Magna Carta and the English Parliament asserting it’s superiority over the crown. As far as I know, that didn’t actually happen. The English are deluding themselves. The Crown in England remains sovereign. The Coronation of an English Monarch sees the head of the monarch anointed with oil by the Church, ( the moment the power and approval from God enters into them).
Yes, granted the role of the English Parliament changed, but it didn’t depose the sovereignty of the Monarch because every Bill, even in the UK Parliament requires sovereign ascent. The Monarchy might be described as a figurehead, but it retains a sovereign veto. The English/ UK Government is also described as “HM” Government, it is opened and closed by the Monarch; the Military is HM’s Armed Forces, we have HM’s Revenue and Customs etc. It is a gross distortion of reality to imply parity between the top down English sovereignty with a Parliament given power, and the bottom up representative style Scottish sovereignty. The respective constitutions were fundamentally incompatible, and remain incompatible. The Treaty of Union CANNOT properly exist without first, and necessarily, suspending the Scottish Constitution. The problem for Westminster is that Scotland’s Constitution is not theirs to suspend. The ruse of Union only “works” if enough constitutionally illiterate Scots can be bribed, duped, ermined, or coerced into going along with the con.
The Unionists endeavour to dismiss references to Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty and pay it lip service. Curious however that the new Monarch, sovereign figurehead of England, HAD to swear fealty to Scotland’s Claim of Right. It’s hardly fair to describe his oath to his conditions of employment as “lip service”.
Scotland’s Sovereignty was NOT diminished in any way by the Treaty of Union. That is a lie. Show me the mechanism which allegedly did this, because the Treaty of Union did not. What Scotland did lose under the Union was the process and protocols of government which connected the Scottish people to their Constitutional Rights and entitlements. The Union hijacked the process. Nothing more.
The Sovereign Community of the Realm still exists, the Sovereign Scottish Constitution still exists. All the Union did was pinch the bit in the middle; the process of government, and used process to sever the link between Scotland’s people and Scotland’s power, and insert the Westminster Parliament into the breach, together with an invasive doctrine of top down English divine sovereignty which is irreconcilable with Scotland’s popular sovereignty.
The Union is, and always has been a fallacy, a lie, a Constitutional slight of hand which has survived three centuries through coercion, sophistry and brazen deception. Never ONCE has it boasted legitimacy. I pray with every waking hour that this generation of Scots, my generation of Scots, will return to Scotland the Constitutional legitimacy that was subverted in 1707. The Sovereign Community of the Realm will finally reconnect with the Constitution of Auld Scotland, resurrect the mechanisms of Scottish self Government and boot out the parasitic colonial imposter who has plundered Scotland’s rights and prosperity for over 300 years.
MY COMMENTS
Thanks to Sara Salyers and Salvo/ Liberation at long last these issues are being discussed and examined. The first big benefit of these discussions is the educational benefit as more and more Scots get a much better knowledge of how the Treaty of Union came about. The real bonus is slowly but surely the Scottish Constitutional position is becoming clearer in Scots minds and the by product of that is the increasing exposure of how Westminster has illegally and fraudulently ignored its provisions to allow them to plunder Scotland at will. A time of reckoning is approaching. I am sure the campaign being led by non Party politicians and free of political diversion on other policy priorities will prove a good route much more difficult for outside interference to interrupt. Like Breeks I see hope, and progress, ahead
I am, as always
YOURS FOR SCOTLAND
Beat the Censors
Regretfully there are some among us who seek to censor what others read. Sadly within the YES movement there are sites which claim to be pro Indy but exist to only promote one Party and will not publish articles which come from bloggers who don’t slavishly support that Party to the exclusion of the rest of the YES movement. I ask readers who support free speech to share articles from Yours for Scotland as often as possible as this defeats the effectiveness of the censors.
Subscriptions
Free subscriptions are available on the Home and Blog pages of this site. This allows,for an email of each article to your Inbox and that is now how several thousands get my articles each day. This avoids problems that some have experienced gaining access from Twitter and Facebook. You will be very welcome to choose whatever route works best for you.
Salvo
The work and important development of Salvo has been a beacon of hope in 2022 and as it develops Salvo is creating campaigning hubs throughout Scotland. Salvo will join with Liberation.Scot and as the campaigning arm of Liberation we are looking at very effective campaigns kicking off very early this year and introducing some new campaigning methods as well as those that have worked well in the past. This requires money so all donations to this site, once the running costs are covered, will go to support the work of Salvo/ Liberation. I think you will see it well used and effective.
Liberation.Scot
We are seeking to build Liberation.Scot to at least 100,000 members just as quickly as we can. This is part of our plan to win recognition as an official Liberation Movement via the United Nations. We intend to internationalise our battle to win Independence and through the setting up of our Scottish National Congress will prepare and develop our arguments to win progress in the International Courts. Please help by signing up at Liberation.Scot. It is from those who sign up to Liberation.Scot that the membership of the SNC will be created by ballot.
YOURS FOR SCOTLAND 
Brilliant Breeks! The issue of the sovereignty of the Scottish people, and the voices raising it, are growing in number and volume.
LikeLiked by 18 people
Good article Breeks.
I’ve said it before but to me it does seem pretty obvious why there is no British or UK written constitution. The constitutions of England and Scotland in 1707 were entirely different and contradictory. So it had to be a fudge, from which the UK has bumbled on obfuscating the tenuous basis of its existence.
Now we have ‘UK’ judges asserting that Scotland is neither a colony nor does it have the right to self-determine under the auspices of an organ of the British state i.e. the Holyrood Parliament. There’s that contradiction right there in November 2022.
LikeLiked by 17 people
I don’t actually see the contradiction. Truth be known, I think we can use it to our advantage.
Holyrood can’t, (or rather won’t), act beyond the constraints of the Scotland Act, which draws into sharp focus the reality that the Scotland Act is merely the written constitution of a puppet assembly, and thank goodness, not the nation itself. “That” is what the Supreme Court ruled on.
The Scotland Act is NOT the Constitution of the Scottish Nation, where the people remain sovereign throughout the Realm of Scotland. Westminster and it’s UK Supreme Court, in their infinite colonial wisdom, have merely succeeded in putting a muzzle on their own poodle, before chopping off it’s bollocks.
Meanwhile we Scots now know beyond all reasonable doubt that Holyrood is a broken down Vichy Assembly, thoroughly impotent and beholden to Westminster, codified with unconstitutional doctrines running throughout the colonial Scotland Act. Accordingly we “should” know from here on out, that Holyrood is ideologically “their” institution, not ours, and is thus a political dead end for furthering Scottish Independence.
Under Scottish “Red” Sovereignty, where the Scottish people are sovereign, Holyrood has effectively impeached itself by running itself aground under the Scotland Act, while turning it’s back on Scotland’s Constitutional Rights and kneeling before Westminster’s invasive white sovereignty.
If we now start to play our Constitutional cards right, we have even got rid of the dreadful Nicola Sturgeon; no longer the First Minister of Scotland, merely the First Minister / Gauleiter in Westminster’s Colonial Outpost in Edinburgh.
As ever, Westminster tries to hold both ends on the string; with total control over the obsequious Nicola Sturgeon at one end, and the safe pair of unionist hands, Alister Union Jack at the other end. And poor wee Scotland stuck in between having nowhere else to go. Aye right.
It’s “Red” Sovereignty or bust baby. Actually, it always was, but at last, the Constitutional phoney war is coming to an end, and the white elephant of Devolution is exposed and undone as a busted flush.
LikeLiked by 12 people
Good points all, particularly the canine analogy!
LikeLiked by 8 people
Great post.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Not quite.
The written decision (by the judges) simply stated what anyone able to read already knew, ie that the constitution was a reserved matter. Intriguingly the actual decision did not try to imply, let alone infer, that a bill to hold a referendum on it could (or should) be subject to challenge in consequence.
eg
“6. Conclusion
92. We therefore answer the reference as follows:
(1) The provision of the proposed Scottish Independence Referendum Bill
that provides that the question to be asked in a referendum would be “Should
Scotland be an independent country?” does relate to reserved matters.
(2) In particular, it relates to (i) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and
England and (ii) the Parliament of the United Kingdom”
The judge (lord Reed) went beyond that, for whatever reason, to add the contradiction you speak of that has hitherto helped deflect from the apparent reluctance of independence supporting authorities to embrace the decision and endeavour to empower Scots via referendum (or adequately explain the actual obstacles thereto) regardless.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLike
A brawlike analysis by Breeks. The Union aye wis an aye remeens a muckle poleetical fraud on aw Scotlan’s fowk staerted an anely haud thegither bi Scotlan’s mankit ‘elites’, an noo includes thon sae-cawed ‘naitionalist’ SNP MPs an MSPs wha tak the Croon’s Shullin an dae hits biddin.
LikeLiked by 11 people
As always Breeks highly enlightening , not only is HR the servant of the Scotland Act and WM but EVERY politician and member of the civil service within it is working FOR and on behalf of the union
This is where a constitutional convention has to HIGHLIGHT the OUTRAGE that England is not SUBJECTED to the aberration of devolution within the uk but has HIGH JACKED the lie that they ARE the rulers and they are the uk
LikeLiked by 8 people
As always BREEKS delivers another powerful and emotional statement describing the reality of our Scottish subjugation by Westminster.
His message is clear and supported by Sara’s research which has to be placed before the Scottish People
and influential supporters around the globe.
Just the same message is being prepared by our newly formed SALVO Highland group in the form of a ‘Scottish Liberation Movement’ booklet. It will soon be forwarded to Iain Lawson and the SLM Steering Group for their approval and comments before we publish it officially in the Highland Region.
Iain’s comment below is a signal that the SCOTTISH PEOPLE have to be informed in every way possible.
“The real bonus is slowly but surely the Scottish Constitutional position is becoming clearer in Scots minds and the by product of that is the increasing exposure of how Westminster has illegally and fraudulently ignored its provisions to allow them to plunder Scotland at will. A time of reckoning is approaching.” Iain Lawson
Regards
Neil🏴
LikeLiked by 7 people
Look forward to reading it Neil.
LikeLiked by 3 people
O/T But surely inspirational.
From Craig Murray’s excellent blog.
First though we must vote out the vile, sordid rapist paedo enabling Greens and SNP and get Alba into office. Lets get it done when the time comes and be rid of not only the SNP/Greens but onesided prison of a union, that robs Scotland of its wealth.
“The UK Supreme Court was quite right within the narrow confines of UK domestic law. Plainly the Union of England and Scotland is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act of 1998, and the Scottish Parliament could not hold a referendum on it in terms of that Act.
But UK domestic law is entirely irrelevant. The Kosovo Opinion of the International Court of Justice makes crystal clear that the domestic law of the state being seceded from, is not the determining factor as to whether a secession is illegal.
Whereas the reliance by the UK Supreme Court on the criteria of the Federal Court of Canada in the Quebec judgment, over fifty years old and superseded by the cold hard fact of over 23 non-colonial secessions since, is simply laughable.
But while the right of self-determination of peoples in international law is crucial in the case of Scotland, and while Scotland undoubtedly qualifies as a “people” because it is a long established historic nation with its own legal system, culture and institutions, there is one overwhelmingly important criterion for recognition grounded in pure realpolitik.
It was long accepted as the only criterion for recognition that a state had factual, practical control of its own territory. That position has become softened by more principled considerations since the second world war, but the actual control of the territory claimed remains the most important factor in gaining international recognition.
Why did Catalonia fail where Slovenia, Kosovo and the Baltic states succeeded?
Because realpolitik rules in practice, and the Slovenians, Balts and Kosovans had obtained actual control on the ground of the land they claimed. The Catalans had not.
Physical control is not a sufficient condition for recognition – see the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus – but in effect it is a necessary condition.
The UK Establishment will never agree to Scottish Independence. Scotland’s resources are far too valuable to them. Scotland has to declare Independence unilaterally, and take it.
It is no use doing this like Catalonia, where the Spanish civil guard and judiciary effectively wiped out the nascent state before it could breathe.
A Scottish government, whether arising from the Scottish Parliament or from another body, needs in declaring Independence to ensure it has practical control of Scotland.
That means that the organs of the state have to acknowledge the Scottish state. All taxes collected must go to Edinburgh, not to Westminster. The judiciary must apply Scottish laws and not Westminster ones, where they conflict, and specifically apply all new laws post the Declaration of Independence. The police must answer only to Scottish authorities. Ultimately so must the military stationed in Scotland.
At the time Independence is declared, immediate action must be taken to ensure all civil servants, judges, police and military take an oath of loyalty to the people of Scotland and its new government, and renounce any previous loyalty to Crown and to UK political institutions. Anybody refusing must be summarily dismissed from their positions.
We have the example of Catalonia before us. We also have the example of Egypt’s only ever democratically elected leader, President Morsi, who died horribly in jail after being overthrown by a CIA coup because he failed to take the elementary precaution of dismissing and imprisoning all the military regime’s corrupt judges. He should have learnt from Fritz Bauer.
Let us not make those mistakes.
Ultimately, it boils down to this.
1) Westminster will never agree to Scottish Independence.
2) Scotland therefore has no option but to declare Independence unilaterally.
3) Any independent state must be prepared to defend itself by physical force from foreign attack. So must a newly declared Independent Scotland.
4) All who refuse to serve an Independent Scotland must then be removed from all organs of the state.
5) Once an Independent Scotland has physical control of its territory and resources, international recognition will soon follow. Brexit has completely changed the political atmosphere with regard to the crucial attitude of the European Union to London’s government.
Not to mention that London’s government is an international laughing stock.”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/01/trains-mostly-planes-and-automobiles-part-5/
LikeLiked by 4 people
I usually have the greatest adnmiration for Craig. But that piece is just absurd.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pft…Tell that to President Morsi, Craig Murray has nailed in that article.
LikeLike
Oh, Craig nails most things. But his proposed route to Scottish indepependence really does seem absurd.
LikeLike
daveytee19..
Yes he does nail most things in his articles, that’s why a British government tried to fit him up (Jack Straw and Co) and then the Scottish government did the same via the Alex Salmond fit up.
The FACT is that these positions in office WILL need to swear allegiance to Scotland on independence, Alex Salmond if he returns to Bute House will need to use a an iron fist to remove the iron fist of Westminster, Murray lays it out, it will eventually boil down to this route, we’ll need to take our independence for it will not be willingly given, Scots just need time to get their heads around it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t think we can wait the ten years, at least, it will take for Alba to sweep into power.
LikeLiked by 3 people
There is no ‘think’ about it
LikeLiked by 1 person
As alfbaird said, A brawlike analysis by Breeks, weel din.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Breek’s post appears to be precisely the same as one he posted inthe previos thread. At that time I suggested certain corrections but unfortunately he does not appear to have taken account of these. So just as he has repeated his post I regret that I’m having to reiterate my obeservations.
1. Power in Scotland has never started with the many and been “distilled” upwards – just like everywhere else, power has lain with the rich, the militarily powerful, and religious leaders. I am not aware of any instances where the Scottish leadership has been answerable to the the people, and I have in fact shown how the passing of the Act of Union against the will of the people, clearly demonstrated that the people were ignored and were far from being sovereign. If you maintain your theory of “bottom-up” government and soveriegnty of the people, let’s have some examples.
2. You don’t think that the English Parliament ever exerted its authority over the Crown? Magna Carta applied restraints to the Crown back in 1215 and was subsequently renewed and extended on three occasions that century. Are you still not aware that Richard II was forced to abdicate by a representative delegation of barons, clergy, and knights? You don’t presumably know that the English Parliament (lords and commons) deposed Richard II after hearing 33 depositions against him? Have you never heard of Oliver Cromwell or the Glorious Revolution? Both Scottish and English parliaments from time to time made life uncomfortable for their respective rulers.
3. As has been pointed out several times. Scotland lost its sovereignty and its constitution, such as that was, when it was “completely and entirely” incorporated into the new Kingdom of Great Britain which had one overall parliament. The Act of Union makes incorporation quite clear. If Scotland’s constitution was to be preserved the Act would have said so. It didn’t. Anyway, can anyone say with certainly what the Scottish constitution was?
4. English divine sovereignty? English monarchs ruled with the “royal prerogative”. It was the Stuart dynasty that was so keen on “divine right”, especially James VI who wrote a treatise on it, and poor Charles I who lost his head over it. They believed that their kingship came from God, not the people, and that they were answerable to God and God alone. Doesn’t really go with sovereignty of the people.
5. Charles III, for reasons which I have explained several times, did not “swear fealty” to the Claim of Right – had he done so he would have had to remove all Catholics from positions of power, outlaw Catholic books and schools, and ban Catholic mass from being preached. Oh, and he’d also have had to allow torture in serious criminal cases provided there was some evidence against the unfortunate victim. What Charles did was swear to protect the Church of Scotland and the protestant religion, nothing more. If you don’t believe me, read his accession oath.
I really don’t think there’s a single thing in Breek’s post that I can agree with or that can be supported with any evidence. But there again, we never do get much evidence to support Salvo’s claims. Oh hang on, there is one thing I can agree with – there are none so blind as those who will not see!
LikeLike
Quick question Davey, for context.
Union or Independence?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think your question is too simple paultbird.
Most Unionists don’t actually advocate the Union; they don’t want Scotland to be recognised as an equal partner in a treaty between constitutional equals, but instead the see Scotland stripped of her Constitutional Rights, and powerless to defend herself from exploitation and being a toxic waste / test ground for anything the Westminster Government wants hidden away, from nuclear waste to depleted uranium ammunition. From Beaufort’s Dyke to Gruiniard, to the rotting hulks at Rosyth or the submarine base in close proximity to because Glasgow is expendable in ways Portsmouth is not. Scotland, the playground for the bloodthirsty rich and the retirement home for English pensioners is Scotland’s future under this Union.
That isn’t Unionism they are advocating, it is Scotland’s permanent and irreversible subjugation.
There is also a pattern of hostility towards the merest notion that Scotland might actually enjoy certain protections under international law. Why is it such an anathema to Unionist beliefs that Scotland’s Constitutional rights “might” have survived the dog’s breakfast treaty of Union which was so “watertight” it cannot be codified in writing, demands the suspension of critical analysis and a library’s worth of unwritten “conventions” to negotiate the paradoxes and brazen contradictions? Unwritten conventions which can be changed on a whim, but of course Scotland is perennially required to submit to.
It’s a subtle thing to notice, but having banged on about sovereignty for years, long before it was popular to do so, I have seen it time and time again, where proud Scot-buts would immediately seize upon the notion you were “looking for a magic bullet” to make the nasty Union disappear; even Sturgeon’s SNP like to sup that Koolaid from time to time, denigrate Constitutionalists by implying they looking for a quick fix / lazy shortcut out the Union.
I am not looking for a “magic bullet” , nor any dramatic triumph “lost and hidden” in the Constitutional small print. I don’t believe that’s what SALVO is doing either. I am not seeking to make a case that the Treaty of Union void and annullable, but instead, build upon surviving evidence and vestigial remnants of Auld Scotland’s Constitution which clash with modern day violations of such constitutional principle. By way of example, we have the emphatic democratic will of Scotland’s sovereign people summarily overruled and Brexit forced upon us. In this way, we build up the evidence of the Treaty being breached, not annulled.
It is adequate, (for me personally) to believe the Treaty of Union has already been breached by centuries of perfidious dishonesty, but more severely breached, and more frequently breached, since Scotland bought the “pig in the poke” of Devolution.
Since the Treaty of Union has been breached, it is my belief Scotland should not feel bound by an constraints laid upon it by the breached Treaty, (such as Westminster’s colonial Scotland Act), but instead look towards declaring the Treaty breached and at an end. This “lifts” Scotland’s affairs out of Westminster’s domestic legislative capacity, (hence Holyrood and a Section 30 debacle is revealed as a complete and total diversion), and real progress requires Scotland to rehabilitate a “presence” and legal personality in International affairs. This is where SALVO’s Convention of the Estates and Liberation.Scot dialogue is thoroughly electrifying. Game on!
This objective requires first rehabilitating the Constitutional Sovereignty of Scotland as it undeniably existed before the Union, and further rehabilitating the mechanisms and protocols whereby Scotland was formerly able to act independently with the potency and purpose of a sovereign nation which Scotland was, and remains. Step forward SALVO once again.
We have adequate and sufficiently numerous “respects” to Scotland’s Claim of Right both from Westminster itself via their own legislation, and the recent ascension of Charles III to the throne, to serve as direct evidence that Scotland’s Claim of Right remains extant in law, and indeed binding on the sovereign ruler of England. Scotland’s sovereignty is thus “real”.
Consequently it seems clear and unequivocal that Scotland is being denied access to the Constitutional rights and integrity to act as the sovereign Nation it properly is, and use this status to formally dispute Scotland’s treatment under the terms of a dishonoured Treaty of Union. The Treaty is now breached, and Scotland must seek to have the International Community of Nations recognise that Scotland is now divorcing itself from England, and that the United Kingdom has ceased to exist.
We have both the material and categoric breaches of the Articles of Union, and appropriate demands and mandates in terms of Nationalist MP’s elected to warrant a formal dispute. We also have the emphatic democratic will of our people being overruled by Brexit and our voices silenced by Westminster obstructing our access to domestic democratic protocol. We have everything we need to bring down the final curtain on the United Kingdom, except, “perhaps”, the clear and emphatic democratic majority in favour of Independence. Is that our “gamble”? Maybe, but I believe not.
By various accounts, had the voting franchise in 2014 been a constitutionally based franchise, with nationality counting automatically, but citizenship qualified by a respectable period of occupancy, then Scotland would have been Independent in 2014. But I accept, in 2023, that ultimate majority is “all to play for”, and would still need to be won. But win it we shall.
However, a Treaty of Union that has been breached in law is dead, and cannot be resurrected by the will of Scotland any more than by the will of England. The product you would create is an end to the UK Union, but a situation where Scotland was balloted in favour of “a” Union with England, and with England yet to be balloted. But even here, this would be mandate in favour of “a” Union, not “the” Union. Any 2023 (or beyond) “new” Treaty of Union, you would hope, would be a darn sight more equitable, constitutional and lawful than the farce of the 1707 Treaty. (Provided of course, we don’t let Sturgeon anywhere near the negotiating table).
Worst case scenario? Well, right now, I’m looking a the UK/England waking up to the idea that Brexit was actually a very bad idea, and apparently polling suggests Brexit run today would poll in favour of remain by 9%. The road ahead looks rocky, but a Nation demonstrably can live with a decision it regrets. So would Scotland “regret” Independence in the same way? I honestly cannot see it, but “if” we did, there are measures available to prevent a mistake being a cataclysm… but I don’t see any mistake to begin with.
An Independent Scotland with the power of sovereign action could engage with our friends in Europe, witness our Nation coming back to life and seeing the benefit of our own resources. We could if we so desired appeal to Europe and our diaspora to help Scotland get back on our feet and engineer the societal demographics we need and desire.
We could, and I hope would, develop Scotland’s space industry by booting the disgraceful BBC into orbit, and establishing a modern and vibrant Scottish media which respects our status as a nation, and doesn’t just serve up a daily smear of our NHS or Education system. A progressive media would be nice, but an end to regressive BritNat propaganda is essential.
Is Scottish Independence a disaster thrust upon England? Well, I fear it may, with England the way it is. But the problem there is not Scotland’s departure, but England being the way England is. Their head seems to be quite firmly up their arse these days. Any trauma endured will be of their own making, but I don’t want that to happen. Paradoxically, I very much like England, in spite of itself. There is no reason why an Indy Scotland and Indy England could not function better as friends standing shoulder to shoulder, rather than chained in this joyless, barren, and abusive marriage. But is no reason why divorce and an Independent Scotland should harm England’s prosperity.
This comment is way too long already, but in briefest terms, an Indy Scotland that grows to become the Istanbul or Hong Kong of Western Europe “could” underwrite the risks of England’s Brexit gamble, and open up a new globally significant trading interface between Europe, BRICS, the America’s and Canada, plus England and the Commonwealth, just as other interfaces are disintegrating before the growing prospects of war.
No, that isn’t a Scottish exceptionalism. It is my aspiration to see a modern cosmopolitan Scotland emerging from the gloom and trying to catch up with the world after three centuries of being treated like a backwater designed to service and flatter our deeply ungrateful southern neighbours.
Scottish Independence could be the catalyst for a little more brightness in the world, and a refreshing wee shoogle of the snow globe in the midst of declining international relations.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Breeks I was aware it was a simple question, and using Unionist is really me just following common parlance.
I felt that whilst comprehensive daveytee19’s replies could be conceived as perhaps condescending, it was then difficult for me to figure out where his true interests lie, especially given the work and the thought gone into those comprehensive replies.
He has now kindly given me a very well thought out answer. These social media pages and blogs are all too often these days infiltrated by those with the opposite agenda, with answers cleverly designed to cast doubt and muddy the waters.
As I have asked questions perhaps I shoild set my stall out, I am aching for us to he free from Westminster, I have no affilaition with any political party, in fact I hope in an independant Scotland we can have a different way of running things, perhaps a peoples assembly with ordinary folk having some say, for a limited time, a bit like jury duty, or a referdum model that seems to work well in Switzerland, I despair when I read questions like ‘which party would you vote for in a new Scotland’ I think party politics is the biggest problem, it has turned the politicians into rulers rather than representatives, the party agenda takes precedence over the peoples wishes.
I voted SNP1 and Green2 last election, I saw them as driving the bus, the GRR bill didn’t really worry me but with UK propaganda machine weaponsisng it it has hurt the cause, there are many now changing their vote because of this despite the damge that may cause the Independence majority. I would happily vote for the bigger picture, the minutiae can be sorted later. The biggest issue I have currently with SNP is following the SC decision they should have had contingencies in place, there were only two outcomes afterall, but to come out on the day and suggest an emergency meeting early 2023, and the eventual date near 6 months after the result is appalling, and suggest either a different agenda or worse a complete lack of answers I despair as to what we do moving forward, as SNP seem not to be listening to those that seem to know what they are talking about.
Liberation and Salvo seemed to offer another way, without politicians, so perhaps those with superior knowledge on the subject could offer help, have any of you seeing flaws with Salvos argument sought out Sara and her team to see if you can offer a route through the mire?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Paultbird, independence of course. I think I’ve believed in Scottish indepepndence all my political life. I can remember being inspired on listening to former SNP leader Arthur Donaldson back in the early 60s, but when I went to live in England I voted Liberal, there being no SNP available. On my return to Scotland I joined the SNP, campaigned during elections and on the doorsteps in 2014, and consistently voted SNP. Unfortunately, like many others, I became disillusioned with the SNP for a number of reasons, not least its apparent lack of interest in independence, and instead joined Alba, of which I remain a member.
I was a lawyer for most of my professional life and respect the rule of law without which there is anarchy. Perhaps my experience in law has made me a touch cynical, but presented with theories which seem far fetched I like to investigate them to see if they are backed by any evidence, and that’s what happened when I first came across Salvo. Unfortunately I found that its theories, which seemed unlikely, had little evidence to back them up and were, indeed, largely fanciful. I do dearly want independence, but my experience in law has shown me that if you present a weak or misleading case your credibility will suffer and the only person to benefit will be your opponent. That I fear is what is happening with Salvo.
Achieving independence will not be easy and will require hard work and commitment. There are ways of going about it, a number of which I and others have suggested in past postings. Presenting unreal and fanciful ancient constitutional theories is not one of them.
LikeLike
Thanks Davey
It helps people like me understand where you are coming from, your answers are comprehensive, and must take a bit of time to construct.
It’s difficult these days to separate the genuine from the ‘lord haw haws’ how much infiltration from vested interests, and how much are genuine advocates. It gives a bit of balance, so I thank you for your considered reply.
LikeLike
Aye, fair comment paultbird.
I don’t think anybody can be certain of anything, and anybody saying otherwise should be taken with a pinch of salt. There is no “slam dunk” conclusion to this. Ultimately Independence needs to secure International Recognition, and that is the singular prerogative of the sovereign Nation giving it. But we CAN make our case as compelling as we are able.
The two biggest frustrations for me are that we collectively behave as though we were sailing into uncharted waters, but the truth is we used to know these Constitutional waters like the back of our hand and could sail through them instinctively with our eyes closed. SALVO, god bless SALVO, is doing more to rediscover these once familiar landmarks and re-chart these waters than the Faculty of Advocates and Scottish MP’s combined have managed to do in over 300 years.
The second frustration is the “credit” given to the UK Constitutional status, when the Union itself was tainted by corruption, bribery and coercion from the day of it’s inception, yet “somehow” for three hundred years the UK’s ersatz unwritten constitution and highly dubious improvised unwritten conventions can duck and dive to dodge scrutiny, and make up or alter protocols on the hoof. As ever, Rule Britannia, Britannia waves the rules!
But the moment Scotland begins to raise legitimate and prudent questions about Scotland’s factually documented but conspicuously absent sovereignty, there’s suddenly a legion of pedantic critics who crawl out the woodwork and demand a level of minutest proof and authentication, completely ignoring the fact that the legitimacy of Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution is infinitely better documented and acknowledged, (even by Westminster itself), than ANY particular element of the UK’s “make it up as you go” unwritten Constitution.
Aye Scotland, we meant well with the Sewell Convention, but unfortunately it’s not worth the paper it’s written on, and unfortunately you’ve been completely undone and betrayed by our use of this slippery wee word “normally”.
It seems to me, as a layman, that even the vestigial fragments we KNOW about Scotland’s Auld sovereign Constitution are more than adequate in terms of source, provenance, documentation, cross reference, corroboration and international recognition, (and frankly, let’s include honesty); to knock the UK’s hokey and improvised unwritten convention of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty out the proverbial ball park.
Scotland’s Constitution maybe is compromised to a degree by unfamiliarity and orchestrated disinformation, but then it has been buried alive for three hundred years, and yet it is still more robust in it’s legitimacy than a bullshit Treaty of Union, which from the beginning has been the embodiment of perfidious treachery and impropriety.
If we cannot find a Scottish Lawyer capable of toppling the UK’s precarious house of cards and restoring the sovereign legitimacy of Scotland, (sovereignty to which even the King of England swears fealty), then perhaps we need a Convention of the Estates to examine why Scotland’s Court of Session is so impotent and dysfunctional, and no better than a chocolate fire guard when it comes to protecting the Realm of Scotland from colonial insurrection, and robustly defending it’s national, sovereign, constitution.
Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge a second parcel o’ rogues who have lined their pockets and kept their traps shut while all of Scotland paid the price.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Davey, you said this again, “If Scotland’s constitution was to be preserved the Act would have said so. It didn’t.”
But I say again, “If it had been agreed that England’s constitution was to be preserved the TREATY would have said so. It didn’t.” And I can say also, “If it had been agreed that England’s constitution was to become the constitution of the UK of GB the Treaty would have said so. It didn’t.”
I see folk quote Articles I and III of the Treaty;
“I. THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN;”;
“III. THAT the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled The Parliament of Great Britain.”, and then claim that obviously they meant Scotland’s old Parliament was to be abolished, but rarely conclude that the same is true of England’s old Parliament. But actually, neither Parliament is named for abolition, and neither Parliament is named for ‘succession’ to the UK Parliament. It’s pretty obvious that the English establishment never had any intention of abolishing their Parliament, intending instead that it to continue as the new UK Parliament by little more than a simple change of name, and that while joint governance of both kingdoms was to happen, there was no requirement for joint agreement between both kingdoms’ representatives; as far as England was concerned, only England’s representatives need agree for any legislation to pass, agreement of the Scottish representatives was irrelevant. None of that is in the Treaty, and therefore none of that was agreed.
Others have already pointed out that the issue of the constitution of the new UK of GB was unclear precisely because the Treaty and associated Acts of Union didn’t mention them, apart from the citing of Scotland’s Claim of Right in the Scottish Parliament’s Tenor.
So I can also say this, “Anyway, can anyone say with certainly what the English constitution was?”
LikeLiked by 5 people
It wasn’t agreed that England’s constitution would be preserved. There was nothing about constitutions. The new state would therefore have its own consititution. Inevitably, however, as the new state and its parliament were dominated by England, it was largely elements of the English constitution that were adopted. I suppose it was an early example of realpolitik.
You’re right that the new GB parliament was to all intents and purposes a continuation of the old English parliament. Every English MP in the Old English parliament also had a seat in the new GB one which sat in London, used the rules of the old English parliament, and was bicameral, and Scottish representation was paltry. That meant that in any dispute the Scots would always be over-ruled, just as today. But it was clear from the Treaty and Act that that was going to happen – it’s not as though the Scots weren’t aware of it. Why the Scottish commissioners and parliament agreed to that I don’t know, but they were cognisant of the situation. They should of course have listened to the people, but they didn’t.
No, I can’t say for certain what the English consitution was. I’m not trying to make a case for it. Others here however are stating that the Scottish constitution remains alive and enforceable, and I therefore wonder what the Scottish constitution actually is. Presumably those who are asserting that it is alive should know.
LikeLike
“It wasn’t agreed that England’s constitution would be preserved. There was nothing about constitutions. The new state would therefore have its own constitution.”
I don’t accept your conclusion, Davey; it doesn’t logically follow from your two prior sentences, because it isn’t the only conclusion one can draw from them. If there was nothing about constitutions in the Treaty then it provided no basis or authority to introduce a new one, no basis or authority to adopt England’s exclusively, no basis or authority to adopt Scotland’s exclusively, and no basis or authority to change the constitutional status quo in either kingdom.
It also doesn’t follow from your previous statements such as; “In 1707 no country in the world had a written constitution.”, and; “The whole question of writing a constitution would never have entered anyone’s head. It would be another 71 years before the United States produced the world’s first written constitution” So the conclusion that ‘the new state would therefore have its own constitution’ cannot seriously be drawn.
That years down the line the new Union Parliament might need to amend ‘its constitution’ is irrelevant, because the Treaty didn’t provide for that eventuality and the UK Parliament didn’t and doesn’t have the lawful authority to do it anyway, it never had, at least as far as Scotland is concerned, because neither the Scottish Parliament nor the Scottish monarch had the authority to amend the constitution as exemplified in the Claim of Right, and it was literal treason to attempt it. If neither had such authority, then neither can have conferred it to the UK Parliament via the Treaty, and the UKP cannot have lawfully acquired the authority from elsewhere. And don’t bother asserting the UKP’s ‘unlimited sovereignty’, because it’s never been properly justified, and the UK’s Supreme Court should be ashamed of itself for adopting it as legal canon.
If it was known in advance by either party that there was a need for a new constitution for the new Union then the time to settle it was in advance of the Treaty as part of the negotiations, not after it was ratified and the Union went live, when the terms of the new constitution would be set almost exclusively by the English establishment. And something of the sort certainly was known in advance because the Union of the Crowns had been a constant headache for the throne for over a hundred years because of the legal and constitutional differences between the two kingdoms’ polities.
As you said, “Why the Scottish commissioners and parliament agreed to that I don’t know, but they were cognisant of the situation.” They were indeed cognisant, and I have read in at least one history book* that it was the real reason for including the reference to the Claim of Right in the Tenor in the first place, by the Parliament. They were deeply concerned about the implications for Scotland of the paltry representation of the Scots in the new parliament given the arrogance and hostile attitudes of the Engish parliamentarians, so they conceived the ploy of inserting the CoR into the religious Tenor in the hope that it would not be noticed by the English Parliament during their deliberations in their own ratifying Act of Union until it had passed. The book also said that both the pro- and anti-Union sides of the SP debating the Treaty fully understood the implications of the insertion. The idea was that Scotland’s constitution would therefore be preserved, at least partially since the CoR doesn’t represent the full constitution, as a bulwark against English depredations. It did pass ratification and became a Treaty obligation, not that it made any difference to Westminster’s treatment of Scotland, but when has Westminster ever paid any real heed to its treaty obligations to anyone when it didn’t suit it?
So it is a disgraceful and almost certainly unlawful breach of the Treaty and at the very least a breach of faithful negotiating that it was left until after the Union began, and I do not doubt that that was the intention of the English establishment all along. On that basis alone the Treaty should be thrown out and torched. It would not be untrue to say that the Treaty was therefore effectively and deliberately breached before the negotiations even started, and that the Union should have been ended on the first attempt to amend, sidestep, or ignore Scotland’s constitution.
* I don’t remember which one, I have several, but I’ll try to hunt it down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well Xaracen, if that’s what you think, that’s up to you, however illogical and incorrect it is. I’ve said my piece and I’m not going to bother going over it all again.
All this talk about how awful the Treaty and Act were reminds me of that (very) old Scottish joke. You know the one: Grumpy Minister: ‘Ah had a dream last nicht. Ah dreamt ye were aw doon in the fires o hell. Ye were moaning and wailing and beseeching the Lord wi ‘Oh Lord, we didnae ken it would be like this.’ And the Lord in his infinite mercy said ‘Weel ye ken noo.’
LikeLike
Then it seems we must agree to disagree, until new information turns up, and when it does I suspect it will come via Salvo. We might both be surprised.
Keep the faith and best regards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Davy when you were training to be a lawyer, how much were you tought about our Scottish constitution?. You were probably tought by people who knew nothing much about it, if at all. Or by traitors in the Scottish legal establishment whose only interest in it was to keep future generations of Scots lawyers, ignorant of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Got me bang to rights there, Tony. The answer is nothing, probably because having been to an English university I qualified in English law. Everything I know about the Scottish constitution is self taught, which is maybe why I keep asking so many questions about it. Only trouble is, no-one ever answers them which suggests that no-one here knows any more that I do.
LikeLike
Thats an interesting couple of points there, now as Davey asserts no one here seems to know, then surely one has to assume that no one there knows either?
Now reading Davey’s contributions, I can’t help but detect a certain tone, it seems to me reading it anyway that it’s a certain Uk indoctrinated view perhaps, the new parliament usurped both the old etc etc, have you considered looking at it from another perspective, say from perhaps Salvo’s perspective.
History is usually written by the the victor, we know that, and Dave’s points to me the reader, with my own prejudices es
LikeLike
Thats an interesting couple of points there, now as Davey asserts no one here seems to know, then surely one has to assume that no one there knows either?
Now reading Davey’s contributions, I can’t help but detect a certain tone, it seems to me reading it anyway that it’s a certain Uk indoctrinated view perhaps, the new parliament usurped both the old etc etc, have you considered looking at it from another perspective, say from perhaps Salvo’s perspective.
History is usually written by the the victor, we know that, and Dave’s points to me the reader, with my own prejudices, seem to come from a position of assumed superiority in the current system being the judge. If I’m simplifying and understanding what was said they didn’t mention the claim of right directly perhaps, with the assumption being that the new regime meant that all previous laws were superseded, perhaps not mentioning the CoR directly could be there downfall, if they didn’t remove it from the books then perhaps it can be argued that it still stands, and that had the new State wanted to eradicate it they would have done so, by naming it.
I think Sarah’s hit the nail on the head, by not removing the CoR that was enshirened in perpetuity the UK state has overlooked?
Now I’m no lawyer (I know I’m stating the obvious here) but so gar from what I read from Davey is him almost arguing FOR the UK state, can I ask Davy to go the the other side of the courtroom and see if he can come up with an argument for our side.
Glass half full folks, if no one remembers exactly what was said and why, then lets argue it out, the other side are just as in the dark as we are, if all this was known the. Folk like A Jack wouldn’t have to lie through his teeth reminding us Scots we don’t want in the EU.
LikeLike
Davey the clever sympathetic critic is being slowly revealed as a negative plant here to argue, sorry surrender to the Union’s argument. He played a clever game but eventually his never ending negativity and absurd acceptance of unproven Unionist assumptions gives the game away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As far as I’m aware the Scottish constitution died in 1707 when there was an incorporating union between England and Scotland. Clearly the new state could not labour under two consititutions, both of which were unwritten, and so it would have its own new constitution. Because England aws very much the larger and more powerful of the two former states, it was inevitable that it would be its former constitution that was to play a bigger part. I’m not saying that was good thing or a bad thing, but it’s what happened. Several people have suggested that the old Scottish constitutuion remains extant, but my various requests for evidence that that is the case remain unanswered, perhaps not surprisingly as it would be such an unlikely scenario. Also, as the Scottish constitution was unwritten and died along with the sovereign Scottish state 315 years ago, it is, I suggest, well nigh impossible now to state what that constitution was – which is, presumably, why my various requests for information on that have again gone unanswered.
Rather than being indoctrinated, I regard myself has having started with a pretty open mind on all this. I’m very much in favour of Scottish independence, but if someone tells me something that on the face of it seems a bit unlikely, I like to investigate it for myself and I’ve written in this blog about the results of my investigations. I’ve read Salvo’s website in some detail and having looked as far as possible at the facts find it difficult to agree with almost anything at all that Salvo claims. If you don’t believe me do it yourself – take one of Salvo’s claims, do a bit of research on it, and see what conclusion you come to. For instance, Salvo claims that the heart of the Scottish constituton is “the principle of the Primacy of the Common Good. So there is a compact between the lenders, (the people), and the borrowers, (the government).” So please, look into that, do some research, and find out if that is indeed true.
Or Salvo says: “The incompatibility of the constitutions was never resolved. Instead, the two nations agreed to keep their two constitutions, with a guarantee that in post-Union Scotland the Claim of Right would continue.” Well, do your research. See if you can find eny evidence of any such agreement or guarantee. I certainly haven’t been able to find any and no-one here has ever been able to provide me with any. You could try asking and see what response you get. Best of luck!
LikeLike
You claim the Scottish Constitution does not exist. Salvo claims it has been intentionally buried. Salvo has already researched, found and published parts of that Constitution. That work is ongoing. I suspect Davey you are a clever plant in this debate. You claim to support Independence but are always negative about it. You want an example, you just accept England’s constitution becomes the UK CONSTITUTION even though you know there is not a single document or agreement that states that. You know the UK BOASTS of its great unwritten constitution, which of course is the blank cheque arrangement that allows Westminster to move the goalposts at will but you are happy to allow this to go ahead and challenge those who oppose doing so. I am awaiting an article from Sara with an update on the work she is doing. I suggest you hold off until that arrives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DaveyTee19 is no different from the Unionist doctrine of unwritten conventions taken as gospel without rudimentary scrutiny, and simply asserted as being superior to the formal Constitutional doctrines of Scotland. Scottish doctrines which ARE documented, ARE supported by evidence, ARE witnessed, and DO have provenance.
The Union only survives by brazen and baseless assertions, tireless misdirection, and orchestrated sophistry. You will notice that “defence” of the Union is invariably focussed upon disputing the minutia and arbitrary discrepancies in Scotland’s Constitutional integrity, but never ever dwells very long upon the dodgy “legitimacy” of Westminster’s Parliamentary Sovereignty. The “fight” is never on “their” patch, but invariably to discredit Scotland, it is never to prove the rights and legitimacy of the Union. Are we surprised? With it’s origins mired in seedy corruption, bribery, coercion and innumerable ultra vires improprieties, is it any wonder why they don’t like to talk about it?
There is a curious parallel with Better Together in 2014 being singularly unable to make positive case for the Union. The “fight” was Project Fear, and all about discrediting Scottish Independence. There wasn’t a single progressive or positive argument “for” the Union throughout.
There is yet another parallel, with Unionist voices asserting the Union is mightily secure, and swearing blind there’s no demand for Independence. But yet to a man, they all run in abject terror from holding any further referendum that would actually, “prove” it. The “fight” isn’t about winning a Referendum, but discrediting Scotland’s rightful access to democracy and making sure a referendum never happens. My, my, what confidence…
That is why “minor” issues, such as King Charles III swearing fealty to the Claim of Right matters, because every now and again, there’s a gap exposed in the myriad layers of Unionist horseshit, and the baseless waffle of Unionism comes unstuck because it runs headlong into the legitimacy of Scotland’s Constitutional Law.
Another “glimpse” of Scotland’s Constitutional potency in law was Joanna Cherry’s legal victory over Boris Johnson and his prorogation of Parliament. The details “almost” don’t matter, because what evidence exists of “a sovereign Westminster Parliament” when the Prime Minister of that Westminster Parliament can be compelled to abide by a ruling from Scotland’s Court of Session, which coincidentally drove a coach and horse through the jurisdiction of the UK Supreme Court?
Is Scotland’s Constitution watertight? Well, never say never, but as far as practicably possible, I think it probably is. Perfect? No, but show me a nation with better authenticity to it’s origins and constitution.
There is confusion however, because as Brexit proves, Scotland’s “sovereign” will demonstrably CAN be overruled, so how can Scotland possibly be sovereign? Well, because there is a world of difference between being overruled and being “legitimately” overruled. Sturgeon HAD to dispute the legitimacy of Brexit, but she failed, she refused, she capitulated, and she should rightfully have been impeached there and then. (It isn’t too late).
The weakness in Scotland’s predicament is not in honing the Constitutional argument we can win, but overcoming the monstrous dead weight inertia of a truly massive three hundred year long fallacy. The fraud is mature, long since bedded in, and has layer upon layer of fictions masquerading as truth, many accepted AS truth, and all interwoven with arbitrary conventions designed to make access to the truth impenetrable. For a full three centuries, the will of Westminster has prevailed over this shameful dog’s breakfast and the Union has weathered every challenge…. Yet it still cannot, dare not, commit the UK “constitution” to written form because the odious “clarity” thus revealed would surely be it’s nemesis.
Yet for all that, even after these 300 years of obfuscation, the King of England, with wealth and power beyond measure, all the pomp, prestige, and privilege extended to the sovereign ruler of England, and no doubt with a veritable legion of slippery Constitutional advisors, can still be humbled into swearing fealty to the principle of Scotland’s Claim of Right as an obdurate precondition to becoming King of Scots.
Aye. There it is. Do you see it yet? Scotland’s sovereign constitution survives.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Iain, a number of pople here have asserted that England’s constitution became the UK constitution, and complained pretty vehemently about it. I’d never given it much thought, but I’ve actually accepted these assertons, if only because it seems clear and pretty obvious that by and large such consititution as England had prior to the Union was indeed largely adopted by the GB parliament. It’s just fact – I’ve no great opinion as to whether its right or wrong, but I do think it was inevitable having regard to the size, power and wealth of the parties to the union. As I said earlier, it’s just a example of realpolitik.
I’ve read what Salvo has to say about the Constitution. At best it is largely misleading, at worst plain wrong. For example. Salvo says: “the Scottish Claim of Right Act was ratified by the parliaments of both England and Scotland and its continuation in Scotland guaranteed as a condition of the Union. Given these terms of Union, not only is Scotland entitled to the continued provisions and force of the Claim of Right as was guaranteed……..”
1. The Claim of Right was not ratified. It’s only reference in both Treaty and Union was in the tenor (the bit the Scots insisted should be tacked on to the end of clause XXV) with regard to its religious provisions, and that is made quite clear in the preamble to the tenor and the subsequent wording. (” the tenor of the aforesaid act for securing the Protestant religion and Presbyterian church government within the Kingdom of Scotland, is as follows:”) It’s constitutional implications, which were in any event limited to the ability of the Convention to depose one king and appoint another, something that England’s Bill of Rights also did, were neither mentioned not guaranteed.
2. Its continuation in Scotland was not guaranteed as a condition of the Union. The continuation of the protestant religion in Scotland was.
Salvo is good at making claims. It’s not so good at backing them up with facts and evidence.
LikeLike
Davey, mibbe I’m wrong here. You say Salvo is making claims but not backing them up. From my side you seem to be making assumptions on what happened, but not backing them up with anything other than thats what ‘probably’ happened, instead of picking holes and doing the UK’s job for them, why not use your huge intellect and experience to pull apart the UK constitution, the unwritten one, until them all people will see you as being nothing more than an Uncle Tam, if you wanted independence as you claim you would be looking to help Salvo rather than take pot shots, I’m sorry if that offends but reading your points leaves me with that feeling.
LikeLike
Breeks, I see that you are persisting in the falsehood that Charles “swore fealty” to the Claim of Right whileas in fact all he did was swear to protect the protestant religion and the Church of Scotland.. Here’s what he said – please point out to me the place where he “swore fealty” to the Claim of Right:
“I, Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of My other Realms and Territories King, Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled “An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government” and by the Acts passed in the Parliament of both Kingdoms for Union of the two Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland. So help me God.”
Just for your information, here’s what the Church of Scotland makes of it: https://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/articles/king-charles-vows-to-protect-the-security-of-the-church-of-scotland
Or The National: “https://www.thenational.scot/news/national/uk-today/21326343.charles-vow-protect-scottish-church/
LikeLike
King Charles swore to uphold the Claim of Right.
If he has designs on altering what that means, or truncating the Claim of Right in any way, then by doing so, he we would be committing High Treason in Scotland.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No Breeks, read what he said. The promise was to “maintain and preserve the settlement of the true Protestant Religion and the rights of the Church of Scotland. Certainly he mentioned the Claim of Right, but only in respect of the laws made in settlement of the presbyterian religion. It’s quite clear – If you read anything more into that you’re deluding yourself.
LikeLike
The Unionists would love if it was so. Since day one they have tried their best to give the impression the Claim of Right only relates to some guarantee for the Protestant religion. It stands for so much more and makes KC 111 subservient to the people of Scotland. Failure to accept that invalidates the Treaty. That is why he had to do make his acceptance of it so publicly clear. They do their best to try and insist it is some bizarre ancient act of little meaning, hoping no doubt Davey that there are folk like you all too ready to take their side and try to promote their myth. Not on this blog you won’t!
LikeLike
Paultbird, you accuse me of making assumptions but not backing them up with anything other than that’s what ‘probably’ happened” An assumption is defined in the Cambridge Dictionary as “something that you accept as true without question or proof”. I actually accept very little and always endeavour to give reasons for what I say, reasons that usually anyone can check for themselves. No doubt something may slip through the net occasionally, but can you justify your allegation by providing examples of the baseless assumptions you say I make?
I also note that during this exchange you yourself made a rather wild and totally unsupported assumption about the Claim if Right. I also invited you to check for yourself a couple of claims Salvo makes and which I think are rather unlikely. I wonder if you did so?
LikeLike
Hi Davey
I didn’t say you made assumptions, I was paraphrasing what I read from you, I can’t be arsed going through all your posts, but I was asking if I had understood you correctly, perhaps I missed the odd question mark, unlike your learned self I’m just a bloke, I was making reference, perhaps poorly that upon reading what you wrote you made examples of the new rules usurping what went before, the fact that nothing was named as being usurped meant they didn’t want it included.
As for my wild claims, again it was posed as a question, if they didn’t name the claim of right as still standing, or even superseded, then could we not argue the opposite, but that didn’t fit your narrative to discredit me or have another pop at Salvo.
If you want independence as you say, would you time not be better spent on helping them win the argument, rather than taking pot shots after looking at the minutiae and semantics of days gone by.
As the saying goes, with friends like you…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t email me again
LikeLike
Ehh???
LikeLike
Iain, of course the Claim of Right itself relates to much more than religion. I’ve never argued that it doesn’t. My argument has been that save for its protection of the protestant religion and the Church of Scotland the Claim of Right has never been preserved or guaranteed by the either Treaty or Act of Union, and that in the accession oath Charles did no more than promise to protect protestantism and the Kirk.
For example, just say that Charles did “swear fealty” to the Claim of Right, as Breeks claims. Well, as I said before, that would mean that he would have had to remove all Catholics from positions of power, outlaw Catholic books and schools, and ban Catholic mass from being preached. Such measures would be unthinkable and completely unacceptable nowadays, but if Charles was indeed “swearing fealty” to the Claim of Right, that’s what he’d be agreeing to. There would be a tremendous outcry, not only from the Catholic church in this country, but also from the Vatican state and Catholics worldwide who would be appalled that the head of state of a supposedly Christian liberal democracy was taking such a bigoted attitude. It would be a diplomatic incident. Even non Catholics here would by and large be appalled. The fact that there has been no moutcry shows that that was not what he swore to do. As the Church of Scotland itself made plain the link I previously provided “King Charles III has vowed to uphold the Presbyterian system of Church governance in Scotland.”
Let’s just look at the Act of Union again to check just what Charles was required to do. It’s in the tenor to Article XXV: “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”.
That seems pretty clear. Charles was swearing to protect the religion and church as were established in the claim of right and other laws. He was not supporting or “swearing fealty” to anything else in the Claim of Right, far less to the whole document.
And now it’s struck me why Salvoists won’t accept what seems to be patently obvious. Salvo’s claim that the Claim of Right was preserved and guaranteed by the Act of Union rests solely on three mentions of the claim of right in the tenor to that act, a tenor, of course, that was specifically for the purpose of “ securing the Protestant religion and Presbyterian church government within the Kingdom of Scotland”. Each and every one of these mentions refers to the Claim of Right in a similar religious context of the tenor, nothing more. If the Salvoists were to accept that the Oath that the monarch swears on accession was indeed limited to protection of protestantism and the Kirk then that would also inevitably apply to the other two mentions and Salvo’s whole argument that the entire Claim of Right was preserved would be blown out of the water, as indeed it has been.
LikeLike
So they just cherry pic the bits they want to keep and ignore the rest? Has that been documented where they said we don’t want that bit, only the religion bit? Or perhaps I’m not understanding you correctly.
LikeLike
I am past arguing with you Davey. The Claim of Right was a pre condition of Union. Without respecting it there can be no Union. That was the situation then that is the same situation today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Iain. time to call a halt to this discussion as we all seem set in our ways. But can I point out that even if you don’t accept what I say I may have been able to point out some weaknesses in Salvo’s arguments that Salvo might care to address. If they want to make their points stick when faced with critics a lot cleverer and more knowledgeable than me, they really need to get a bit more evidence to back up their contentions.
Would you rather I didn’t post on your blog in future? I do seem to have engendered quite a lot of debate.
And Paultbird, I’m a bit astonished by your assertion that you didn’t say I made assumptions as only a few posts earlier you wrote (and I quote): “From my side you seem to be making assumptions on what happened, but not backing them up…..” I assume, incidentally, that you didn’t do the little bit of research that I suggested. Pity – you might have learned something although perhaps you decided not to in case it was something you didn’t really want to learn. As for the accession oath, yes. you’re not understanding me correctly but that’s possibly my fault for not being clear enough.
LikeLike
As long as you are polite I don’t have a problem, I have had to bin a couple of your posts in the past because they had become borderline abusive. I will let you know if I have a problem but I try to give everyone a fair crack.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quote “ As far as I’m aware the Scottish constitution died in 1707 when there was an incorporating union between England and Scotland. Clearly the new state could not labour under two consititutions, both of which were unwritten, and so it would have its own new constitution. Because England aws very much the larger and more powerful of the two former states, it was inevitable that it would be its former constitution that was to play a bigger part. I’m not saying that was good thing or a bad thing, but it’s what happened. Several people have suggested that the old Scottish constitutuion remains extant, but my various requests for evidence that that is the case remain unanswered, perhaps not surprisingly as it would be such an unlikely scenario. Also, as the Scottish constitution was unwritten and died along with the sovereign Scottish state 315 years ago, it is, I suggest, well nigh impossible now to state what that constitution was – which is, presumably, why my various requests for information on that have again gone unanswered” unquote.
Davey thats the bit where I felt you were admitting to certain assumptions or presumptions, perhaps I understood you wrongly.
As for me reading up on stuff I may not like the answer too, I’ll do that when you reach out to Sarah and offer the might of your intellect and experience in order to reach our common goal, so far sadly from reading your comment at best you have given in, at worst you are working for the opposition.
Now wether that is true or not, only you know, I’m only presenting my understanding based on reading what YOU have written and how you end your argument, usually with a little backhanded complement.
If you meant other, and I have completely misunderstood, then I apologise.
LikeLike
DaveyTee19, you claim that the guarantee of the Tenor refers exclusively to those aspects of the CoR that apply to Scotland’s religion, that is, the rights of the members and the Presbyterian kirk hierarchy ‘as established by the Laws of this Kingdom in prosecution of the Claim of Right’, and this was certainly a main purpose of the Tenor, and you further claim that any other rights ‘as established by the Laws of this Kingdom in prosecution of the Claim of Right’ are not guaranteed, and so may be supplanted by English ones.
Now I am not a lawyer, and like you I have no training in Scots Constitutional Law, but it seems clear to me that those religious rights must rely at least in part on the secular rights enjoyed by all of the Scots, under the same ‘Laws of this Kingdom in prosecution of the Claim of Right’, freedom of assembly being one obvious example.
I’ve put it to you before that teasing apart the religious and secular natures of Scotland’s constitution is by no means as simple and straightforward as you seem to be suggesting, and while I’d said that religion permeated everything, it is also true that secularity permeated everything, as it clearly must in any society. The preservation of Scotland’s constitution is therefore an essential and inextricable part of preserving Scotland’s religion, and that was the purpose of the Claim of Right, and the purpose of its inclusion in the Tenor.
I don’t know if this is down to your legal training, but I have noticed that much of the form of your argumentation is based on framing a question or a claim from a particular perspective, as in
‘Scotland’s constitution wasn’t expressly preserved, therefore it was presumed that it be replaced by England’s’
with no mention that exactly the same could be said for England’s constitution, thereby putting the onus on us to justify rejecting the claim whereas the onus should really be on you to justify your claim or question. That is why I have sometimes just recast your own claims and questions from the opposite perspective and throw them back at you, to expose that framing. Just because the question can be asked that way, doesn’t mean the question is legitimate or relevant. You often rely on unexpressed assumptions or presumptions which, because they weren’t expressed, they are unexamined. But they really do need to be examined because of my next point, concerning the Treaty.
I don’t give a pair of foetid dingo’s kidneys* that this outcome and that requirement had been agreed or ‘understood’ between the two negotiating teams of commissioners, or the pro- and anti-union parties in the two Parliaments debating the Treaty prior to ratification, UNLESS all of those agreements and understandings were expressly written into the Treaty, OR the documents that clearly contain those agreements and understandings were expressly referenced by the Treaty as some Acts were, like the Act for Securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government 1707 (also known as the Tenor), for example.
If they were not so written or referenced in the Treaty then they can have no legal force because THEY WERE NEVER RATIFIED! Without ratification they can have no formal legal standing, and the Treaty cannot possibly give them that standing if it doesn’t even mention them.
Any action taken by the new Parliament of Great Britain based on such unratified agreements must therefore be ultra vires and unlawful.
Discuss!
*Kudos to anyone who gets the reference! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I entirely agree with Daveytee19’s demolition of the Breeks post. I loved “English divine sovereignty”.
William
LikeLike
A good article Breeks but unfortunately one point of weakness remains….the People failing to recognise their Sovereignty.
Scotland at the moment is like a prison where the gates have been opened but nobody dare step through. We are conditioned to see ourselves through the lens created by the Colonial Masters.
England created a myth regarding the Union and spent three Centuries acting and behaving as if it was fact.
I agree fully with your article and those of Salvo, Liberation and many others but that work is akin to opening the prison gates. The prisoners still move around inside following the routine imposed on them by the guards. They are conditioned and no better example of that conditioning exists than Holyrood, the SG and the SNP. This is the group who run the tobacco trade, who dictate the “prison” rules. Why would they surrender years of “power” by encouraging the inmates to seek freedom.
Look at the weight of evidence produced and yet the People still vote SNP and remain afraid to even consider that open door before them.
Westminster are simply waiting for this current phase of Independence calls to pass. We have reached this point many times in our past only to see it recede ( The Fifties being the last).
We need someone inside the prison to walk out through that open gate. It is not Sturgeon or the SNP because their “legal” and “recognised” Referendum is to suggest the gate is still effectively closed even when wide open.
LikeLiked by 4 people
True Clootie, but just suppose these Constitutional arguments were mainstream and happening on Council TV, so you didn’t need to go looking the Internet to find discussion about Scotland’s past and constitutional history.
Just suppose too those programs were made in Scotland, by Scottish production companies, and it was the Unionist perspective which was given the token right to reply. Do you think Scotland’s General level or awareness would rise or fall?
I don’t know whether a lot of people watch them or not, but beside IndyLive and Phantom Power, I find Bruce Fummey’s Scottish History Tour videos on YouTube very watchable indeed, and all of these outlets should be flourishing on TV, be much better funded than they are, and not be reliant upon social media funding while trying to compete for air time with the BBC monopoly and it’s £5.3 billion income, the vast majority of which is a state hand out.
Scottish Broadcasting is NOT about some poxy wee soap opera set in Brigadoondee or deepest darkest Glasgow in the 50’s. We have so much more that could be turned into quality broadcasting.
Scotland in some ways is like the Fellowship of the Ring as the party try to cross the snow capped misty mountains; one wizard Saruman is casting spells and incantations trying to wake up the ill will of the mountain, while the other wizard Gandalf is casting spells and incantations trying to put the spirit back to sleep. Scotland’s “New” media is trying to wake the people up and become much better informed, while the BBC propagandists are trying keep the majority asleep, dumbed down and unaware.
Strangely enough, that’s increasingly what The National seems to be doing to criticism of Sturgeon’s SNP.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Aye Breeks, we might well wonder what Scotland would have looked like if its meritocratic elite running our social institutions mostly and naturally comprised Scots-speaking Scots instead of what we are forced to endure – a combination of people recruited from the mother country and a privileged Anglicised-Scots class wha aye collogue thegither tae haud oor Scots native cultur doon, an oor naition an fowk an aw.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/elitist-scotland
Colonialism is always ‘a co-operative venture’ with native elites (Fanon). Postcolonialism refers to the essential remedy for such oppression (via liberation) as ‘self-recovery’ of a peoples culture and language (Memmi).
LikeLiked by 4 people
Great stuff above and below the line – sadly I can’t seem to register my likes with individual statements.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is an important video with explanation of what’s happening around the world and the effects of colonisation. People might think well it’s not important because it’s not exclusively about Scotland however it could be said that it’s applicable to anywhere. Vandana also speaks about women being shot for trying to defend nature, the dangers of chemical milk, meat etc I wish someone who says that they care about our environment would perhaps invite her or send people out to India where she is going to be teaching so that it could possibly help our country.
LikeLike
Vandana also speaks about how eating processed foods and other violent foods, actually increases violence in the person. If anyone worked in school who over the past few years noticed violence increased, we couldn’t explain why, some might have suspected diet.
LikeLike
Something is interfering with access to this site.
A piece by Kenny MacAskill mailed out last night appears to be missing when access to YFS is taken through the Google browser.
Additionally I’ve had a couple of posts go missing on Wings for Scotland. One has now however appeared whilst another follow up is now missing.
Both were about MacAskill’s exposure of the renewable wind scandal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Meanwhile Scotland’s pathetic political representatives will continue to obey all anti-Scottish laws passed by Westminster.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daveytee19, you are entirely and comprehensively wrong:
1. Preamble to Treaty and Acts of Ratification (Union), “And that the said estates of parliament have agreed to and approve of the said articles of union, with some additions and explanations as is contained in the articles hereafter inserted. And likewise, her majesty, with advice and consent of the estates of parliament, resolving to establish the Protestant religion and presbyterian church government within this kingdom, has passed in this session of parliament an act entitled, act for securing of the Protestant religion and presbyterian church government, which, by the tenor thereof, is appointed to be inserted in any act ratifying the treaty and expressly declared to be a fundamental and essential condition of the said treaty or union in all time coming. ”
You understand what ‘by the tenor thereof’ means, presumably. Thus, word for word was the act, crafted in light of the approaching Union, made a fundamental and essential condition of the said treaty *or union* in all time coming. And within that Act the one and only statute named is … the Claim of Right. Used against William as a constitutional safeguard, understood by even the English Unionist and spy, Dafoe as ensuring that: “The Laws of Government, (in Scotland), continue as the Government continues establish’d in the Claim of Right, I mean as to the Limitations of Government and Obedience” ad protected in Scotland from any attempts at alteration (William III again) or criticism (his faction) whether in writing or speech under penalty of death (High Treason).
So we know both what was ratified as a condition of the Union for all time coming, how it was understood and that you do not realise it WAS ratified speaks very poorly for all that reading and research you claim to have done.
Salvo doesn’t make assert that the Claim of Right was ratified because we do not need to. The Treaty and both ratifying Acts do that with perfect clarity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sara, the act referred to in the preamble to the Treaty was presumably the “Act for securing of the Protestant religion and Presbyterian church government 1707”. The purpose of the act was precisely what its name suggests, nothing more. And indeed, just like in the Act of Union itself, the Claim of Right gets a mention. But getting a mention is not the same as being ratified. And so while the Act itself was to be fundamental and essential, the mere fact that the Claim of Right was mentioned does not mean that it was. If you read the Security act you’ll see that whenever the claim of right is mentioned it is done so purely and simply as a reference in connection with the Protestant faith, nothing more. It was never ratified and to say so is grasping at straws.
Defoe? Are you really trying to rely on Defoe, an English spy and propagandist whose mendacity was well known and who has no authority whatever? And even if you are, how does the quote you refer to in any way back up your theory that the Claim of Right was ratified by the Treaties and Act of Union?
Sara, you are entirely and comprehesively wrong.
LikeLike
Ok Davey the one thing I don’t like it is when you constantly refuse to accept what others say without providing any evidence to substantiate that they are wrong. You have had your innings on this, a lengthy and fair one, but it’s back to the pavilion for you for today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Amazing. “The purpose of the act was’ (insert convenient interpretation which ignores the entire context (threat of invasion), wording and effect of the one name statute within this ‘religious’ act as if *your* understanding of the intent and purpose is all that is needed to overcome the constitutional standing and implication of the condition. Go and read Aidan O’Neill’s explication of the *accepted* legal implication of the Claim of Right, no matter how, where and why it was ratified. There is an overwhelming abundance of evidence as to the real reason for putting a ‘religious’ act into the conditions of the treaty, an abundance of evidence that it was well understood to protect the ‘limits of government’ in Scotland post Union and a great deal of contemporary writing on what McCormick called ‘the constitutional anomaly’ it created. You want to redefine and interpret the history – go ahead; you’re in lots of Unionist company. You want to make *your* interpretation, (and those of other Unionists who have argued that the CoR only intended to protect the religion of Scotland so we can ignore everything else it says), obliterate the inconvenient constitutional provisions of a well used constitutional instrument, obliterate the documented intent and meaning of both the Act and its deliberate insertion for ratification and further, airbrush away the fact that the Claim of Right *is* an acknowledged UK, constitutional document which speaks to the sovereignty of the Scottish people. You’re not only wrong; you are well out of order. (And you might, now, have the grace to admit that you were talking utter nonsense when you said it was not ratified?) . So, then, throw your Bill of Rights in the garbage. It was passed in the same year, under the same circumstances, for the same purpose as, and – if you examine the protected sectarian laws it upheld – with far more vicious effect on Catholics than the Cor. It, therefore, clearly never *really* intended to do anything else, such as to confer Parliamentary privilege or sovereignty. And as it was only an English bill (passed by a Convention actually, not a parliament), and was never mentioned in the Treaty (unlike the CoR) its just irrelevant history. No? I didn’t think so.
Yours are part of a long, long catalog of deeply dishonest, Unionist absurdities: Scotland volunteered to extinguish itself; Scotland obviously knew it would be governed by England under the English constitution, (so it’s not colonialism if we impose English constitutional law); whatever conditions Scotland imposed on Westminster in this ‘voluntary agreement’, they were *obviously* subject to later English alteration but that was what Scotland ‘volunteered’ for … and a host of others which you will find dissolve on contact with actual and internationally recognised law.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Breeks, this and your comments are masterful and extremely helpful in the development of the case for simple justice, for the principles of bona fide’ and ‘pasta sunt servanda’ (expected to apply to any international treaty), and for the implications of those principle once we can get them recognised and can begin the process of restoring what is ours.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh dear God! ‘Pastas are being served! Sorry. That should, of course, read ‘pacta sent servanda’. (Thanks auto correct!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I give up. It did it again! sunt not sent.
LikeLike