A guest article from one of my favourite correspondents Breeks.

Further to some ongoing discussion, partly on Wings, there are clearly differing opinions about whether a Plebiscite General Election would be deemed a success if it secured 30 Westminster seats, or, as others insist with some passion, whether a 50%+1 share of the vote would be required. Rev Stu was of the opinion that 30 seats was worthless, with zero prospect of securing International recognition, but I disagree. 

For my part, I am firm in my convictions that winning 30 Westminster seats WOULD give us victory. A majority of Westminster seats is NOT worthless, because it is the threshold whereafter a majority of Scottish Westminster seats cannot be defeated by the minority of Scottish Westminster seats. SCOTLAND CAN THUS ACT! We can remove Westminster’s grip on Scottish sovereignty and issue sovereign edicts.

While I very much do count that as a victory, I also agree with Rev Stu that only a fool, or a very brave man, would use that benchmark as an instantaneous guillotine style execution for the Union. I also agree that neither the people, nor the international community, would go for it… So let’s not do that!

However, armed with an ADEQUATE democratic mandate, and a Westminster Parliamentary system’s majority supporting that mandate, there is no reason whatsoever why the Scottish MP’s could not declare it their intention to end the Treaty of Union by a date of their choosing, and thereby commit to ending the Union without actually ending it, (think along the lines of Article 50 declaring the UK’s formal intention to leave to Europe, lodged months in advance of the actual departure). 

Then, I would suggest our Westminster MP’s remove themselves from Westminster, and declare themselves a provisional Scottish government, or better still, merge with wider elements in our Community of the Realm, and come together as an interim Convention of the Estates defending Scotland’s Constitutional Rights and Sovereignty.

Let’s say, for example, Westminster could then be served with formal notice that Scotland considers the Treaty of Union had been breached, and the United Kingdom has been given (say) a period of two years grace, either to address and reverse the unconstitutional colonial infractions and save the 1707 Treaty of Union, or negotiate a NEW Treaty of Union, or, fail to reach a compromise and watch as the Treaty of Union permanently expires by default… and thereafter the final decision on the future of Scotland would be the subject of a Scottish ratification plebiscite. 

The Union would be over, but with it’s actual conclusion held in abeyance, and granted a stay of execution pending a negotiated settlement / conclusion.  I think it would be important to agree a stay of execution which “could” be rescinded, and Independence abandoned before the ratification plebiscite, if that was the course dictated by the negotiations. Thus there is a chance we might encourage Westminster, and more importantly Scottish Unionists, to engage and enter into talks constructively…. bearing in mind, the “Scottish Backstop”; – the Treaty of Union is already dead in the water if they don’t.

Naturally, those two years of negotiation would be fraught and difficult, (and demanding), but if our Scottish MP’s were removed from Westminster, the negotiations would be between Nations, National interim Governments, and literally be inter-national negotiations with no place for UK domestic law or UK Supreme Court interference, and no more Scotland Act holding any sway whatsoever. As for Scotland’s technical status, I am reminded of Scotland’s “holding pen status” mooted way back in 2016. Amongst other things, we are EFTA ready from day 1.

With Constitutional probity on our side, a pro Independence mandate in Westminster, (however technical a mandate it might be, – doesn’t actually matter, just so long as it has legitimacy), add two years of hard bargaining and treaty negotiations ahead, and then the whole package is to be finalised with a ratification plebiscite, BEFORE the Union is actually pronounced dead, I firmly believe Scotland could, and would, take International Opinion along with us. 

A Westminster 30 seat mandate IS the threshold we need, it literally is, but not to kill off the Union with a single shattering blow, WHICH NOBODY WANTS, but to blow the whistle and give Union two years to settle up amicably, make the case for ending or keeping the Treaty of Union, renegotiating a new Treaty of Union before the deadline expires, or if there’s no good faith to be found, for the Treaty of Union to be deemed breached and at an end by default, and irrespective of any mandate. 

In many essential ways, we quite literally shadow the protocols of the Brexit Referendum. The Brexit vote didn’t drop us out of Europe instantaneously, it just started the process, with a known end-game conclusion “IF” the negotiations failed and there was no interim change of heart. I say Scotland uses the Brexit process as our template for the last mile in our journey to Independence.

But that’s not all. Brexit isn’t the only precedent or template we have to follow. We have the Claim of Right.

Forgive the gross oversimplification, but in 1689 there was a Convention of the Estates convened which used what became known as the 1689 Claim of Right to put King James VII on Constitutional trial for allegedly abandoning the Scottish Throne, and subsequently removed him as King. 

I believe there is a parallel legitimacy behind convening another Convention of the Estates in 2023, (which might in time become known as the 2023 Claim of Right), only this time, the object of the exercise is not to put the Scottish King on Constitutional Trial, but to put the Treaty of Union on Constitutional trial, with special emphasis on Scotland’s unlawful Brexit Subjugation, and bring to an end to the litany of unconstitutional improprieties suffered against Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty. 

A “technical” majority of 30 Westminster seats, is the “servo mandate” which gets the big wheels moving. It is enough. 

The 30 seat mandate is also using Westminster’s First Past the Post system against themselves. If they’ve lived by First past the post, let them die by it. Why should Scotland cut them any slack and impose upon ourselves a George Cunningham style 50% rule? Let “their” lousy system bite them on the arse. Their “rigged” electoral system has disadvantaged Scotland for over 300 years and is part of the reason we’re leaving! Using it against them seems perfectly apt to me. 

Don’t forget too… We are looking at 30 Westminster seats as our threshold,  having returned 56 out 59 before now. They should have heeded the warning of what lay ahead. By all means, aim high for 59 seats out of 59, aim high for a 50%+ share of the vote… But just remember, Auld Scotland comes back to life with a 30 seat majority. THAT 30 seat majority is our critical threshold, not a 50% share of the vote. We save “that” threshold for the Ratification Plebiscite in 2025.


There is little doubt new thinking is required. The dilution in a matter of weeks of the SNP proposals displays they are not interested in being serious about achieving Independence and are motivated only by securing their pay and pensions. They have become a huge disappointment to all but their blindest supporters.

I am, as always


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.


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.


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.


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.


  1. Isn’t the Treaty of Union breached or not irrespective of the number of independence supporters elected to Holyrood or Westminster?

    How would you a) find out it has been breached and b) declare it null and void? You don’t actually need elected representatives to do a) but you probably need them for b) since there needs to be a mandate on the next steps, either to re-sign it or go our own way.

    Generally there are still a lot of assumptions made when talking about the future. We saw this week that Holyrood is completely subservient to the Scottish Office, irrespective of people breathlessly imagining it to be a government in waiting.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. I believe it is yes.

      But if a contract is breached, it ends when it is declared breached.

      But caution is required, because rushing to declare the contract breached too early can backfire on you, because that very contract you’ve declared breached “might” have included dispute resolution in the small print, and compensation protocols which actually protected your rights, and you’ve just torn it up and liberated the other party from binding conditions they’d willingly agreed to.

      Far better to stay calm, make the case why you believe the Contract breached, without actually declaring it breached, and give the party in breach of their obligations an opportunity to rectify the situation. And if they can’t or won’t, then go for the jugular. Declaring the contract breached is your backstop.

      The other thing to remember, is that Westminster is unlikely to sit on it’s hands as this is happening. If we rush to declare the Union breached, then Westminster could and likely would bring Scotland to it’s knees simply by halting all funding. Scotland needs to recruit friends, preferably powerful and influential friends who may be prepared to sanction Westminster in response and encourage them to be reasonable.

      There is so much to do, again, look at Brexit, it makes 8 years of idle stagnation look utterly criminal.

      As part of this whole package, I would also lobby the Westminster government and the EU with a proposal for Scotland to become a buffer state and intermediary, filtering English / EU trade as a go-between. I’ve spelled this out in more detail elsewhere, but give England material assistance to help their Brexit misadventure actually succeed, and encourage them to recognise some benefit to Scotland’s departure. Give them something positive out of the deal.

      This isn’t a one option deal. This “strategy” must have layers to it, must be multi-faceted, and have a mountain of diplomatic work going on behind the scenes. Preparation, preparation, preparation…

      Liked by 8 people

    2. Going back to Brexit as our template, the Brexit Referendum essentially committed the UK to leaving Europe, but it took Article 50 Notification to begin the process of leaving, and that was the UK government’s prerogative.

      Scotland could cite any material breach in the Articles of Union, and our Brexit subjugation, as similarly committing Scotland to ending the UK, but it would be expedient for all concerned to adopt a Brexit style transitional period, set a deadline for concluding negotiations and a default scenario ending the Union if negotiations are unproductive. We strengthen our negotiating position with a breached Treaty of Union as an ultimatum to be used for leverage, but we can reserve declaring the actual breach of Treaty as the final coup de grace once we know in full detail what happens afterwards.

      The problem is, the Article 50 protocol and template is Article 50 in the Treaty of European Union. The 1707 UK Treaty of Union has no such exit protocols to guide and regulate the process, so we would be relying on reason and expediency rather than precedent to guide a successful process. I doubt things would be so neat and tidy, but following a parallel process would seem a logical place to begin.

      Liked by 6 people

    3. The articles of The Treaty of Union are listed below. I can see no obvious breach, others may have a different view.

      Rules of Government
      Article 1

      On 1 May 1707, the two kingdoms of Scotland and England shall be united into one kingdom GREAT BRITAIN and the crosses of St Andrew and St George be joined and used in flags, banners, standards and ensigns at sea and on land.

      Article 2

      The succession to the throne of Great Britain will pass to the Protestant heirs of Princess Sophia of Hanover and all Papists shall be excluded from the Crown of Great Britain.

      Article 3

      The United Kingdom will be represented by one and the same Parliament to be called the Parliament of Great Britain.

      Articles 18-19

      Scotland will keep its own separate laws, legal system and courts of law.

      Articles 20-21

      The Royal Burghs of Scotland and those holding heritable jurisdictions i.e. posts and offices granted for life, will have their rights and privileges preserved after union.

      Articles 22-23

      Scotland will be represented by 16 peers in the House of Lords and 45 members of Parliament in the House of Commons in the first Parliament of Great Britain. Scottish peers will have the same privileges as English peers.

      Article 24

      After the Union, there will be one Great Seal for Great Britain but Scotland will retain use of the Great Seal of Scotland for matters relating to private rights or grants. The Scottish Crown, Sceptre and Sword of State and all Scottish public and private records will be kept and will remain in Scotland.

      Article 25

      The final article revokes all previous acts that might operate against the union and confirms the full authority of law in passing the Act of Union.

      Rules of Trade
      Article 4

      All subjects of Great Britain will have freedom of trade within the United Kingdom and with her colonies.

      Article 5

      All trading ships will be registered with Customs Officers in Great Britain.

      Article 6

      Great Britain will operate the same trade regulations and be liable for the same customs and duties on imports and exports.

      Article 7

      The level of excise duty on liquor set across England will operate throughout Great Britain.

      Article 15

      Scotland will receive the sum of £398,085 10s sterling, known as the Equivalent:

      to reimburse Scottish investors for their losses in the Darien colony

      to close the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies

      to pay overdue salaries to Scottish government officials

      to invest in promoting the fishing industry, the manufacture of coarse wool and other industries in Scotland

      to help Scotland pay new taxes due in the future from the British Parliament.
      Article 16

      Great Britain will use the same currency. Coins minted in Scotland will have the same value as those minted in England.

      Article 17

      Great Britain will use the same form of weights and measures. The Scottish system will be abolished and replaced with the English system.

      Tax Rules
      Articles 8-14

      Scotland will pay

      a new land tax

      new taxes on salt and malt but not until 1710

      duties on windows and lights, and on coal, culm [coal dust] and cinders but not until 1710.
      Scotland will not pay

      duties on stamped paper, vellum and parchment.

      The scope of the Treaty is limited to Great Britain and hence excludes Northern Ireland. Ireland did not join the Union until 1800 when The Kingdom of Britain became The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. For those of who think that the Brexit agreement regarding Northern Ireland breaches Article 6, this not true (although it does breach the 1800 Act of Union).


  2. If the logic is valid then it could be executed this morning. The SNP MPs could travel back to Scotland and the Supreme Leader could make the announcement.
    ….and there lies the problem! The way forward is whatever the “Selfie Queen” decides. Not the voters, not the Sovereign People of Scotland. One person now dictates the entire Independence strategy.
    The fig leave cover story of the NEC or a Party Conference is now laughable. One Person now has total control of our future.

    Sorry Breeks but only one person will select our future and she has shown that she will shape that future. She yesterday issued a statement of fighting the Westminster intervention without consulting anyone. She instructs the NEC on what to pass or reject.

    No plan will develop unless Sturgeon presents it…..

    So why do the SNP MPs not walkout today and execute your plan……because Sturgeon didn’t approve it.
    She will not approve it in two years or twenty years. So removing Democracy from the SNP also removed it from the Sovereign People of Scotland.

    …I wish it was not so!

    Liked by 12 people

    1. Barrhead Boy gives a great example in today’s Blog (below). Brexit, Supreme Court Ruling etc ….nothing. However try to halt her Gender War and it is action THAT day.

      “As many of us suspected this rebuff on GRR has incensed our First Minister and her cabal of Gender zealots more than the Supreme Court rejection of an independence referendum. On that day she announced that she would hold a special conference some 116 days later to discuss what actions her party would take over Scotland’s Constitutional future. No such delay over GRR. She is already being affronted and mounting a legal challenge, suddenly she and her biology denying crew are finding their voices over Scotland’s lack of democracy. The same voices that have been fairly muted since 23rd November 2022 well really since November 2014!”

      Liked by 10 people

  3. I think that Breek’s plan is a sound one. The SNP leadership has clearly demonstrated that they have neither the wit, the will nor any strategies to deliver on their promises. Currently, I think, we have 47 independence MPs sitting in Westminster. Each and every one of them has a mandate to bring about Scotland’s independence. All they need is the political will to do as outlined in Breek’s plan, starting now.

    Liked by 9 people

  4. The only solution that I can see to that is to remove her. She may have over reached herself in using the GRA to attack Westminster’s interference in Scottish Government policy so I hope it will turn out that she does not have the backing of the people over this flawed ideology. While her sucessor may be no better, s/he might be forced to make concessions on the GRA. which would weaken her/Hos position with the young zealots who are pushing for it.
    We can only hope that the iron grip holding the SNP against any progress towards Independence might weaken in those circu,atances. Meanwhile we need to carry on getting support for Liberation Scotland and mobilising those who are against the GRA as proposed.

    Liked by 11 people

  5. It has been made perfectly clear to us that Westminster will never allow another independence referendum via a Section 30 Order and in any case they would simply ignore the outcome. So, why are we throwing so much time, effort and resources into achieving this outcome?

    It has also been shown time and time again that no matter what Scotland’s representatives at Westminster have to say on any issue, they can use a Section 35 Order to block anything not in the interests of the Westminster elite. That is why I lost faith a long time ago in any Scottish political party being able to achieve our goal playing by their rules.

    As our current representatives have abandoned any pretence of a quest for independence in favour of social engineering, Breeks has added an interesting alternative to be considered by Scots who truly seek self-determination and independence.

    To the lovers of the Union, who will state we have self-determination on devolved matters, it cannot be so termed if Westminster uses their veto of a Section 35 Order whenever it suits them. Don’t get me wrong, I am in no way in favour of the First Minister’s Bill to alter biology but with Westminster now using the Section 35 Order for her GRR Bill, what chance do we have of them agreeing to honour the results of any approach to them for independence, no matter how many mandates are provided by the Scottish people and by whatever method?

    As far as I’m concerned, any new thoughts on how to bypass the Westminster route are welcome and Breeks has just shown us one way to be considered.

    Liked by 8 people

  6. A pro-majority of national political representatives already exists at both Westminster and Holyrood and has dome since 2015 continuously. So we already have the required majority.

    In order to break the impasse we should call a convention of these representatives and merge with heads of trade unions, religious groups, local authorities etc- invite unionists … but they won’t come – and vote on an intention to end the Union. If passed then declare that is what we will do, pending endorsement by the people of a properly constituted referendum. The latter should be made in Scotland with all terms and conditions decided by our representatives i.e. no British/London government involvement, interference or influence.

    If ratified we set the timetable to begin and end negotiations. These negotiations should not involve the option of establishment of New TOU. The Brits have experience of this and would tie us in knots … remember perfidious Albion and all that. Rather the negotiations would be about the separation of assets. And by ‘assets’ I do not mean our natural resources – these are ours and not to be traded. The assets would simply be office infrastructure, building etc. More importantly discussions would, importantly, cover a new trade agreement after removing ourselves from the Union plus a tight timetable removal of nuclear weaponry on Scottish soil among other things.

    However, whatever we try to do at the moment the problem of course always comes back to the roadblock in Charlotte Square.

    Liked by 8 people

  7. “ If the logic is valid then it could be executed this morning.”

    Theoretically yes in principle, but success requires preparation and lots of it, and would be “cleaner” via a Plebiscite UK Election where the Scottish MP’s were not affiliated to any political party, but stood for election on a single issue manifesto for Independence, so that every seat won was an unequivocal vote for Independence.

    Yes, we’ve had 56 out of 59 MP’s, currently we have 47 out of 59. So yes, we have had the numbers, but the SNP have made such a guddle of the mandate, and furthermore, twice now set the infuriating precedents that an emphatic majority of Independence MP’s was allowed to languish in impotence and become meaningless. I believe these factors have given opposition MP’s grounds to contest whether the 2019 SNP mandate could be used, while other are left wondering whether the SNP can be used.

    There is also the SNP factor, and whether the SNP has enough integrity to honour this newest mandate and adhere to the ascendancy of Scotland’s Sovereignty. If the SNP had been so inclined, they might have capitalised on the Supreme Court encroachment over Scotland’s Constitutional affairs as outrageous provocation to act. Sadly the SNP’s primary instinct is capitulation.

    I believe this strategy would deliver Independence, but I profoundly lack trust or confidence in the SNP. Far better for Scotland would be 30+ “YES” or Scotland United candidates with only Scottish Independence and nothing else, on their manifesto. It’s a plebiscite don’t forget, you’re not voting for a particular party or candidate, but voting for a singular issue.

    The Unionist vote will be unaltered don’t forget, but us in for the Independence Movement, Political Parties are superfluous.
    The SNP, ALBA, SIP…. All superfluous.
    Holyrood is superfluous.
    The Office of First Minister is superfluous, because the Scotland Act and Devolution is superfluous.

    BUT THERE HAS TO BE COMMON CONSENT ABOUT THIS BEFORE THE PLEBISCITE ELECTION TAKES PLACE. We cannot succumb to division, conflicting personalities, party bickering, petty agendas, or conflicting strategies, (or lack of them). There is one Independence candidate in every constituency and ONLY one Independence candidate in every constituency. This is playing hard ball. We are going for Independence.

    When the pro-Independence MP’s are elected, “my” plan would be they remove themselves from Westminster, and merge with wider bodies to come together as a “transitional” Convention of the Estates which recognises no other sovereignty in the Realm of Scotland except Scotland’s. Until the first Scottish Government is elected, it is the Convention of the Estates which represents Scotland, effectively as interim government, and it is the Convention of the Estates to whom the Westminster’s Government must address themselves.

    Iain is quite right. This is stirring the pot. If people have better ideas, let’s hear them.

    Liked by 10 people

    1. Let’s go with the UK plebiscitary election route.

      In theory I agree with you that the Office of FM, Holyrood and Devolution in its entirity is irrelevant when it comes to a British Parliamentary election. In practise Nicola Sturgeon is the head of the SNP and what she says goes in that party. So if she says ‘No’ to a ‘Scotland United’ approach then the SNP won’t participate under that banner.

      It is a sad fact (now) that the SNP has the profile that the likes of Alba and ISP can only dream of. That they are essentially ignored by the mass media so they have limited exposure other than going round the country holding meetings in ton halls and such like. (More power to them for those efforts by the way).

      I think your plan would have legs if somehow the ‘party of Independence’ could be discredited publicly in terms of its, or at least its leadership’s, commitment to Scotland’s Cause. Then you might see a mass transfer of members, supporters and voters to an entity that is truly committed to ending the Union or at least Scotland’s place within it. An umbrella ‘Scotland United’ alliance could then be established and stand a single ‘Independence Nothing Less’ candidate in every constituency at an election.

      Perhaps the stark contrast of the leadership’s response to the UK government’s S35 challenge to the GRRB with that of their lukewarm and half-hearted reaction to the UK Supreme Court ruling on an Independence referendum will be the silver bullet that opens people’s eyes to Nicola Sturgeon and her cabal’s malign influence such that they will be removed. But it has to be fast. Remember, whilst we have been dithering these past 8 plus years the Brits have been busy.

      Liked by 4 people

  8. I think this a good idea, but will Sturgeon. If she’s involved I can see this failing. It is also too reliant on the SNP MPs playing ball. I still prefer Salvo’s way. Sara Salyers way, proving we have been treated as a colony and taking it to an international body. I don’t want Westminster to have anything to do with any negotiations. I want them to feel the hurt of being shown up for the way they have treated Scotland for 300 years. I also don’t want the Scottish Government involved in any negotiations, in any way. It’s the Salvo way for me. A clean break, no politicians involved. They are only interested in themselves, as the current SNP mob at Westminster have proved.

    Liked by 10 people

  9. In response to Breeks’ 30 MP idea.
    1. If only.
    2. SNP priority is the Gravy Train +Pension.
    3. England’s self-destruction via Brexit and the war against the working man by the Ruling/Wealthy Class, is still to play out, but may very well be a significant element in attaining Scotland’s independence.
    4. Right now, Scotland isn’t politically ‘fit for work’ thanks to the SNP/Greens and the Unionist Alliance. An Independence alliance will surely be needed to generate sufficient political will and support to replace the ‘poisoned well’ which is the Scotland which the SNP has created, by accident or design.
    5. The connection between Climate Change and constitutional politics has not yet formed. But Climate Change seems certain to impact England much more than Scotland and may prove significant, eg for population migration as well as food production and water supply.
    I wouldn’t therefore underestimate the capacity of the coming changes in climate to influence Scotland’s independence aspirations.
    It is in fact very possible that Climate Change will serve to highlight even more Scotland’s need to exit the so-called British Empire, if the people of Scotland are to have any meaningful future in a fast changing world, on a fast changing planet.

    Liked by 6 people

  10. Have people forgotten we had 56 MPs out of a possible 59 in the first General Election after the 2014 referendum and nobody suggested this was a mandate for independence then (which they should have !!!) This will be brought up without a doubt if they try to claim a mandate now with any less.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Ireland

    In the 1918 Irish general election, Sinn Féin won the vast majority of seats, many of which were uncontested. Sinn Féin’s elected candidates refused to attend the UK Parliament at Westminster and instead assembled in Dublin as a new revolutionary parliament called “Dáil Éireann”. They declared the existence of a new state called the “Irish Republic” and established a system of government to rival the institutions of the United Kingdom.

    A MAJORITY OF SEATS! The World recognised the Nation…..but they had Political Leaders determined to attain Independence.

    You need committed leadership focused on the Primary Goal.

    Liked by 10 people

  12. Full marks to Breeks for expanding on this Margaret Thatcher own goal. As far as I am aware, it was she who first went on record to validate the 30 seat mandate. Alas, it appears that none of our nationalist politicos have had the wherewithal or the freedom (or both) to take her at her word. What a meaningful riposte that would be to the ‘once in a generation’ faux pas.

    Instead, we are in the grip (mostly) of hidebound genderistas – one trick ponies who seem intent in lowering the bar for aspirational politics. Little wonder that the lateral think tank is developing on this and other sites.

    Liked by 6 people

  13. Extract from Breeks post above “Preparation, preparation, preparation”.

    For just short of 2 years now, and as part of Stage 1, the Secretary General of the United Nations has been in receipt of individually signed “Declarations of a Sovereign Scot”, inter alia, exercising their claim of right and declaring that they do not consent to the continuation of the Treaty of Union.

    As each batch of Declarations is issued, they are accompanied by letters drawing from Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the UN, ie., above and beyond the self determination inherent in the UN Charter itself, and expanding beyond that into the legal opinions and conclusions that have arisen over the issues of self determination.

    Stage 1 as explained above should be seen and understood as wholly preparatory to later Stages in this initiative. Stage 1 will continue as an open invitation to any and all Sovereign Scots who choose to participate, Stage 2 will begin later this year with further Stages to follow.

    Liked by 10 people

  14. I’ve said for a long time we should be using the Westminster FPTP system against them in their own parliament. Their rule so lets bury them in it.

    If we did decide to go down this route we should be getting all of the learned minds to document and evidence the times England have breached the Treaty of Union. This will be our case in any international court.

    where I would differ from Breeks though is that the 2 year period should be used to prepare for full independence as the current treaty would be dead in the water. This time period could be used to confirm and ratify a new relationship with England on our terms and not with a gun held to our heads.

    If only we had leaders with the political intelligence and guts……..

    Great post Breeks

    Liked by 3 people

    1. It basically would be Matt…

      After that two year, maybe shorter Transitional stage, the conclusion would be full Independence.

      There are three distinct options…

      First, the Union is breached and at an end. We can shadow box and pretend there’s a way to reverse Scotland’s subjugation and reconcile the absurd paradoxes on the 1707 Treaty and “fix” it. That, I believe is undeliverable. The Treaty of Union just doesn’t work unless Scotland’s rights are subjugated. But this is the “No Change” option to keep the status quo, and I’m playing Devil’s Advocate even to suggest it.

      Second, the 1707 Union is breached and at an end, but there is an “invitation” extended to London and Scotland’s Unionist community to come up with a prospectus for a “new” UK Union, but a modern Union, where Scotland and England would both retain their independent sovereignty, and have a right of sovereign veto, very much like the EU. The concept of the United Kingdom could survive, but be drastically altered.

      Third, the 1707 Union is breached and at an end, but Scotland doesn’t want a Union at all, and the conclusion of the Transition becomes (hopefully) an amicable divorce, but still a divorce even if it’s not amicable. The end of Transition day thus marks the Scottish Independence Day.

      I said three options, but I favour a fourth. The Treaty of Union is at an end, Scotland is Independent, but negotiates constructively with the EU and Westminster Government to turn Scotland into a “buffer” nation, which is EU compliant in whatever trade heads over to Europe, and thus allows England some access to the EU “through” Scotland, provided it meets convergence criteria. The arrangement also alleviates the Northern Irish protocol, keeping Ireland steady, it facilities European trade with England but having the European Court presiding over standards and compliance, thus encouraging England to stay more compliant with the EU.

      There are parallels with the Benelux Treaty in Europe; where Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg had an economic and political(ish) agreement in place before the Common Market, but the Benelux agreement was entirely compatible with the Common Market, and still exists inside the EU.

      I think the English speaking nations of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales could work on developing a “Britelux” agreement, where ex-UK nations had certain “flexibility” to come and go a little on Europes Four Freedoms. Scotland and Ireland would obviously comply fully, but “accommodations” could be found for England, which were “accommodated” in Scotland, so non-convergent trade didn’t make it over to Europe or compromise the EU’s convergence criteria.

      This is where I think Alf Baird’s suggestions for a massive Container Base at Scapa Flow alleviating the congestion affecting European Ports could be truly transformative; a real game changer, and turn Scotland into a massively busy global node for International trade.

      These 4 options, (and maybe there other options too), would form the basis of the Ratifying Plebiscite, to be agreed by the Scottish people. The 1707 Union is dead, and irreconcilably dead on Constitutional grounds, (so option 1 is virtually a non starter), but the Scottish Nation decides what arrangement replaces the breached Treaty of Union, and has done the preparatory work and political liaison to make it a reality.

      If we can do all of this in 6 months, great, but I think it’s a lot to squeeze even into 2 years. We’re talking about multiple Trade Agreements, finding workable consensus, extricating our economy and trade from a defunct UK, codifying our Convention of the Estates in the short term and developing a Constitution for an Independent Scottish Government in the longer term, a Scottish Currency and Bank, resolving the NATO issues and Faslane – Defence generally, developing a Scottish Civil Service and Tax / Revenue administration, gaining control of Scotland’s assets and revenues, establish a Scottish State Broadcaster to displace the BBC… There’s a lot of work to be done, and “proper” work that gets results, not just some “white paper” scribbled down and launched through a Press Office.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Thanks for the feedback Breeks. I think option 4 would be more preferable to the majority of the people. In fact it might be a good selling point to the unionists among us that we have to convert over to the independence side.

        This would be in effect a pseudo UK continuation to them but with all the benefits of an independent Scotland.

        It would take more intelligent minds than mine to work out the details but we have them aplenty in Scotland. Minds to work out the legal complexities and point out the benefits.

        The fight going forward IMO is the focusing on those benefits and convincing the waverers that they will be better off in an independent Scotland. This will be extremely hard as we will be up against 300+ years of indoctrination as a second rate country and a MSM that will force feed that to us on a daily basis.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. westminster has four international agreements which it is ignoring chagos, gibraltar, malvinas and antarctic. Ignoring any scottish negotiation would be easy. The scottish MPs are paid through westminster and would they want to lose their finance.

    Also at any time since HMRC collect all revenue they can stop funding pensions and benefits. Having over a million pensioners to fund means finding £180,000,000 per week.

    Nice idea but assumes westminster is going to negotiate not something it does

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You do not have to be British or live in the UK to receive a UK Pension. All those Polish Families who lived here for years and returned home and have it paid to them there. It would also collapse at the first Test case in law….you paid your money into the system and you therefore qualify….simple. Go back to your handler for another attack line.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. it doesn’t matter what you have paid if they decide not to negotiate there is nothing we can do about it and if we declare we are leaving they can stop payments. where is the scottish government going to get money from

        “Go back to your handler for another attack line.” standard answer from a SNP fantasist when confronted with reality some of are in the real world

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Given that England seems to be able to pull the plug on finanancing Scotland, as outlined above by Dave, in order to brins us Scots to heel, is there any way we can retaliate by cutting off the oil, gas and electicity which they have manourvered us into sending them with no payment, or even thanks?
      Could we cut off the supplies of these commodities going south, and what would be the international verdict on that? Though i doubt international opinion would be in favour of England cutting off pensions and benefits to Scotland, since our taxes go to the Treasury in London. However, London is not much bothered by international condemnation , if Gibralter and the Chagos iIlands etc are precedents.
      Though i think the Gibralterians are beginning to exhibut disquiet over Brexit!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. energy is produced by private companies which is sold on open market, depending on price england sometimes uses energy produced elsewhere including scotland. international opinion doesn’t matter to westminster there are no real international sanctions. westminster has been ignoring international decisions for years.


      2. The UK Government was contemplating Pariah / failed State status if it tore up the Northern Irish Protocol and compromised the Good Friday Agreement. Ireland stood firm, the EU stood firm, and the US stood surprisingly firm too… But this was lunacy on the part of Westminster, and I think there would have been some straight talking behind closed doors.

        When push comes to shove, the Westminster Government can “usually” be persuaded to see sense, even if it is loathed to admit it publicly.

        But this is where Scotland needs to be developing international relations with all of these Nations and establishing International consensus that Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty is correct under International Law, and stressing the ramifications of allowing International law and sovereign protocol to be flouted.

        Can we get Europe on side with Scotland? I think we can. EFTA nations? I think so. Ex- Commonwealth Nations? Maybe, (Canada you would certainly hope so), BRICS Nations? Hmmm… spicy stuff there. How do you suppose the Chinese, or India, would feel about recognising Scotland knowing that it marked the permanent end of the UK? Then we have the Russians, which could make the fate of Faslane even more “controversial” if there’s an asking price for International recognition from Russia.

        It might be a mistake. I could be wrong. Perhaps Scotland is perceived to have as much blood on it’s hands as part of the British Empire at it’s worst, so perhaps it might not be smooth sailing. But I’m not sure. I think the wider world would welcome Scotland’s return.

        I think the only dubious Country might be the USA, (and apparently the Vatican – bless!), but you know, the UK Government got a wee shock when the US Government stood up for the Irish Backstop.

        A wee distinction as well… If Scotland ends the Treaty of Union, that means the United Kingdom doesn’t exist anymore, so doesn’t that leave the UK Government in limbo somewhat, until it secures it’s own International Recognition as the “English” Government? Would an English government be guaranteed automatic access to a “UK” treasury?

        Liked by 5 people

  16. a lot of excellent stuff in this article. However two years is far too long to give rUK government the time to complete negotiations.

    i agree that either the majority of seats or votes cast for I dependence parties is a mandate to leave the U.K. it should be made clear to rUK government that if it doesn’t negotiate and complete these within six months then it’s Dissolution which is the last thing the rUK Establishment wants since it strikes at the heart of their notions of international prestige!

    if Czechoslovakia could separate in 6 months there is no reason we can’t.

    We must prepare for the worst but hope that the threat will force rUK gov to come to the table.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. We perhaps need to remember that we exist within a colonial environment where, much as we see: “the colonizer denies the most precious right granted to most men: Liberty. In colonial relationships, domination is imposed by people upon people but the pattern remains the same. The colonized, it is true, hesitates before taking his destiny in his hands; we have also noted….the long maintained hope that the almighty power of the colonizer might bear the fruit of infinite goodness. However, revolt is the only way out of the colonial situation, and the colonized realizes it sooner or later. His condition is absolute and cries for an absolute solution; a break and not a compromise.” (Albert Memmi).

    Liked by 8 people

  18. The key is in the headline manifesto pledges. The wish washy “will move to petitioning WM.. blah.. blah”, won’t cut it. It needs to be cut and dried, well laid out and simple. Then there’s no confusion or deliberate misinterpretation, nor is there backsliding by the incumbents when/if they win their 30 plus seats – some achievement given voter ID and eligibility.

    My own preference would be abstentionism, and I hope that there are candidates standing under that principle. I know alot of people disagree with this but for me it is in itself a rejection of WM ruling over Scotland and has to be the first step towards leaving the treaty of union.

    One of the common worries about a plebiscite is that it would get lost in the chaff of policy mandates – education, health etc. So maybe replace the mandate by standing upon a new constitution (perhaps formulated by a people’s assembly) and let people vote for that? That could lay out a broad foundation for an independent Scotland without tying us into specifics.

    Let’s face it, the dice will be loaded in a WM general election. If the SNP are hell-bent on a WM plebiscite AND a follow-up holyrood plebiscite as Tommy Sheppard suggested, then perhaps I’d suggest they reverse the 2020 parliamentary reforms act and bring the term in Scotland back to 4 years. There is absolutely no reason anymore to have a 5 year term and there is no clash with a WM GE. This would put us almost 50% of the way through the holyrood term and potentially a ‘follow-up’ Scottish election within 6 months of the WM general election of 2024.


  19. Good article Breeks. As Scott Egner points out we need to know exactly what we’re voting for, no ambiguity, ‘seeking permission from the people of Scotland to negotiate withdrawal from the 1707 Treaty of Union under the Scots Constitutional principal that the people of Scotland are sovereign and represent the only sovereign authority in Scotland ‘
    The Treaty is important because Treaty law trumps domestic law, the Treaty brings international law into play and Scotland leaving the union under the auspices of the Treaty will go round the world faster than a westminster lie.
    It’s also important because foreign governments may be totally unaware that UK Constitutional law is by Treaty 2 separate constitutional bodies within 2 separate legal jurisdictions.
    The Union Parliament is a prime example of a devolved parliament getting too big for its boots.
    I would really like to hear and see westminster using the Dicey nonsense as the basis of claiming absolute sovereignty but at the same time not being above the law.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. I like this (below), though I’d prefer the Irish model – an immediate declaration. Giving the British state more time to ‘negotiate’ would simply see more propaganda and manipulation of the electorate. The state broadcaster and propaganda media would seek to undermine any confirmatory referendum with predictions of gloom, imo.

    In reality, the breaches og the Treaty of Union should already render it nul and void. It is already over. If the groundwork is done during the plebiscitary election campaign, there’s no need for further delay.

    Our greatest hindrance is the SNP, it may take a generation to remove the poison of Sturgeonism from Scottish politics. Thank goodness there are other non-party political options to progress the cause.

    “I would suggest our Westminster MP’s remove themselves from Westminster, and declare themselves a provisional Scottish government, or better still, merge with wider elements in our Community of the Realm, and come together as an interim Convention of the Estates defending Scotland’s Constitutional Rights and Sovereignty.”

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I’m not hostile to that idea, but wary of the “shock” factor, and a shock factor which then resonates with knee jerk UK/ Unionist reaction.

      A sudden Independence is good for us, but a cold turkey shock to the system for them.

      I like the idea of having a two year transition, “knowing” that the 1707 Union is dead, and debating / negotiating what replaces it, knowing that “something” has to.

      I like the idea that Unionists are suddenly “required” to put forward the positive case for having a Union, (something they conspicuously couldn’t manage to do in 2014). The emphasis for YES is Independence of course, but also building bridges with positivity, and fostering links with the EU, EFTA, and the Brexited English “phenomenon” whatever it wants to call itself.

      I honestly believe Scottish Independence is helping itself, if it helps England survive it’s Brexit misadventure. It will diffuse a lot of acrimony, Scotland’s Independence will look less “punitive”, and demonstrate Scotland’s maturity in International relations at the precisely same time we are fishing for International Recognition.

      And economically, I think it could be viable for Scotland to adopt some of the principles of the Northern Irish protocol, and treat Scotland as a cross between an air-lock and the Duty Free departure zone at an Airport. You can buy and sell what you like without the duty while you’re in Scotland, but the duty and standards kick in according to how the particular commerce exits Scotland and where it goes to.

      The irony is, Scotland would end up more of a Freeport than Brexited England, because Scotland’s status would (hopefully) be EU compatible, (even if Scotland wasn’t in the EU), and having few qualms about the Four Freedoms or the jurisdiction of the European Court.

      Scapa Flow would provide an easing of congestion and much more efficiency passing freight through Europe’s Western seaboard, and the infrastructure put in and around Scapa Flow could be integrated with Scotland’s Energy distribution whether that’s oil and gas or renewable, and Scotland’s burgeoning passenger ferry industry. Opportunity which benefits Scotland AND Europe.

      If there is time to get these notions worked into firm proposals we can present to Brussels, I believe we can encourage Europe to welcome (and recognise) Scottish Independence with urgency and enthusiasm, and any grievance or loss suffered by England would have some consolation in better trade links for them with Europe, and a workaround for the Northern Irish Protocol.

      Scotland gets Independence, recognition, and while a positive reaction from London is probably too much to hope for, we can demonstrate we have at least given England a magnanimous offer to ease the transition and resolve some of their Brexit woes. We can I think make a significant number of English folks less hostile to Scottish Independence. We’re not sticking two fingers up at the English, we’re showing the English a viable Scottish Independence which is good for both our Countries.

      In my scheme, the 1707 Union is dead, it’s breached and there’s no unbreaching it, but before the sky falls in and Scotland and England formally and finally split, we essentially put the whole UK into it’s own Holding Pen status, and take two years or 18 months to decide how we collectively or separately end that holding pen status and move forward; as separate nations with the details worked out, or, as a new 2025 Confederal UK with distinct and separate sovereign government”s” rather than one single government.

      The first option appeals to me, but I feel obliged to accept a significant part of our Nation would choose the latter option. But whether it’s the first option OR the second, Scotland is once again a sovereign Independent Nation picking and choosing which Unions it wishes to join, or not.

      Nicola Sturgeon? You’ll have to remind me. Who is she?

      Liked by 3 people

  21. Extract from Dave above re pensions: ” … it doesn’t matter what you have paid if they decide not to negotiate there is nothing we can do about it and if we declare we are leaving they can stop payments. where is the scottish government going to get money from”

    Last year Iain published this:


    Scottish state pensions will be more than covered by Scottish National Insurance.

    Annual NI receipts = £11476m

    Annual Pensions = £8517m

    Leaves £2959m surplus for other benefits.

    So in essence Scotland has the NI income to guarantee that pensions can be paid in Scotland. As a “tactic” to remove doubts from those pensioners who worry about their future – that is a simple statement of fact.

    Pensions are however a really complicated subject, and whilst I recognise that as a “tactic”, and probably a good one to get us through the gate of independence – it does not address many of the wider issues involved – here is why:

    We need to go back to the start and a decision that was made by politicians – where as is often the case what they decide is based on whether it will win or lose votes.

    The National Insurance Act 1946 introduced the basic state pension, with effect from 1948, but right from the start it differed from the proposals of the Beveridge Report.

    Political considerations made it impossible to implement the fully funded scheme that Beveridge had envisaged because such a scheme made no provision for pensions for those already older individuals who had suffered through the Great Depression and contributed to the war effort.

    Faced with the significant immediate bill of paying pensions to individuals who had not made contributions, the government opted to introduce a ‘pay-as-you-go’ system rather than a funded one.

    We have lived with the consequences of that political decision ever since.

    An independent Scotland should re-think the whole subject of pensions, and social security, and not just inherit the mistakes of the past – is that not what regaining our country’s independence is for?

    Liked by 4 people

  22. Interesting post from Breeks, but there are (at least) two problems which need resolved.

    First, and already mentioned, how do we prevent England cutting off our money and disrupting our trade? Unlike the other English colonies who have gained their independence, we are not separated from England by water. The UK has been acting as a unitary state for 300 years and all finance and trade flows through England. How do we stop our money going to London giving them the opportunity to decide whether or not to give us some back? How do we export Scottish goods when we don’t have the port capacity, the ferries or the agreements in place?

    Second, even if we could get the SNP to go along with such a plan, and that’s a big if, who would be in charge of the negotiations with Westminster? I wouldn’t trust the current SNP to negotiate their way out of a car park, let alone a union.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think a lot depends on “precisely” what extent the Treasury relies on Scotland as it’s cash cow. In other words, how desperate are they going to be, and at what point they’re prepared to discuss the unthinkable.

      The short answer is leverage. If England intends to put the squeeze on Scotland’s finances, we need friends willing to threaten the UK with sanctions… Like the US dropping heavy hints about the Northern Irish Protocol. (This is why I wanted Scotland to be in the EU).

      I said it as an offhand remark, but once Scotland ends the Union, there is no more UK, it doesn’t exist, so I wonder whether Scotland could effectively deny the English Government access to the “UK” treasury. That, and the Bank of England are in joint ownership. England don’t forget is NOT the Continuer State of the United Kingdom.

      Revenue from the North Sea is another debatable issue, because all the contracts and licenses are presumably with the same UK Government which won’t exist anymore, so the companies extracting Scotland’s oil and gas will be eager to sign new licences with the legal owners before they’re in hot water for stealing Scotland’s resources. Again, it may be important that England is not the Continuer UK State.

      I don’t know the laws which decide how a nations resources are carved up, and what protections those laws provide, but I don’t think Scotland will be defenceless.

      I also agree with you about exports, and port capacity. We at least need to know what capacity and volume of goods we’re talking about. Is it conceivable that England shut’s it’s border with Scotland? No more power, water or oil and gas from Scotland. Might they even starve us?

      At the end of the day, if Scottish Independence IS happening, does England “really” want an Iron Curtain style Border with Scotland? We’re not physically going anywhere. Unless they’re “nice” to Scotland, Faslane get’s shut down, and moving Trident anywhere is a breach of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which probably means England (no longer the UK) needs to see if it can hold onto the UK’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

      I very much DO agree about the competence of the SNP. But Sturgeon and the Vichy Holyrood aren’t the problem, because the Scotland Act will have ceased to exist. They’ll all be out of a job and serves them right. It was their decision that Holyrood kowtowed to Westminster, not the Claim of Right, so fk’em. But don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The Old School SNP will still be a fantastic resource which doesn’t deserve to be be tarnished with the same brush as Sturgeon and Co.

      Working to my plan, Scotland’s Interim Government would be a Scottish Convention of the Estates, with the 30+ Westminster MP’s elected in the plebiscite, plus whoever else we the people want included in the Convention. That composition is for SALVO to work out.

      Personally, I want Salmond on board, and a fistful of ALBA people, Eva Comrie, Neale Hanvey, Kenny MacAskill, I want the Common Weal and Robin McAlpine, we’d need representation from the Faculty of Advocates and Court of Session, prominent Business people, Stuart Ballantyne springs to mind. Alf Baird. SSRG, and SALVO’S steering group. Craig Murray would seem a good shout… I’m kinda hoping some of these names would be our 30+ YES / Scotland United MPS elected at the Plebiscite GE. Broadcasting / Communications people, even if they’re based outside Scotland.

      Maybe we need 100 people on that Convention of the Estates, to symbolise the 100 of us left alive necessary to make Sovereign Scotland quorate.

      I can’t lie, there are hundreds, even thousands of questions I don’t have the answers to. (Begs the question what the SNP has been doing these past 8 years, dicking about Transgender bullshit and hocus pocus, versus what it could have been doing to actually prepare the ground for Independence).

      But now is the time we need to be getting organised. Identifying all the jobs that need to be done, and get somebody competent allocated to doing them, and a nervous system running throughout the movement, and management pulling everything together.

      We musn’t be distracted. If needs be, Sturgeon and Holyrood can be collapsed like a house of cards. Perhaps the first job we have is focussing our eyes upon more critical plans and preparations than whatever lunacy the last First Minister, or first Last Minister of Scotland is planning.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Breeks. Thanks for the response. However, I think there’s an element of cross-purposes here. You seem to be talking about a post-independence scenario while I was talking about pre-independence.

        The minute Scotland says we’re starting the process of becoming independent (after the 2024 GE), Westminster could pass emergency legislation reducing the Barnett Formula and Scottish exports travelling through English ports could be put at the back of the queue, or even confiscated on some paperwork pretext.

        My point about negotiations is effectively the SNP saying we’ll only take part if we are in charge. Without SNP involvement, we’d struggle to make progress. With current SNP involvement, we’d struggle to make progress.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: