This is an article authored by Xaracen, a regular commenter on Yours for Scotland. More about the author at the end of his article.

So, for their own safety, they retreated to this summer house in a private garden to sign away Scotland’s sovereignty in peace.”

They didn’t own Scotland’s sovereignty in the first place, so they couldn’t possibly have signed it away, but Westminster claims, considers, and acts as if they did exactly that. 

What they actually signed away was Scotland’s Parliament and its statehood, giving them under the Treaty to the new Parliament of the UK, created to govern both kingdoms jointly. In essence both the old parliaments merged in the Palace of Westminster as a single parliament containing two sets of MPs to represent the two kingdoms. I take great issue with the nature of that joint governance.

Language really matters here as it does in many things. That’s one of the reasons we have lawyers, and why legal language requires to be as precise as possible to minimise the risks of ambiguity. Westminster as an institution just absolutely loves ambiguity, it employs it in its favour almost every day, because it gives the English establishment all the wiggle room they need to keep Scotland under their thumbs. And an unwritten constitution is about as ambiguous as one could get. 

A good example of how ambiguity favours the English establishment is the Sewel Convention, which, even after it was ‘enshrined in legislation’ as an agreed recommendation of the Smith Commission and accepted as such by the UK Parliament, is now treated by Westminster as effectively meaning the exact opposite of what its words actually say. The ‘enshrining in legislation’ was meant by the Commission to put the casual dismissal of the convention by the UK Government out of their easy reach, but the legislation was neutered by the use of the word ‘normally’, and its resulting lack of justiciability was confirmed by the UK’s so-called Supreme Court. So much for agreement and legal clarity.

The authority that Westminster enjoys as the Parliament of the United Kingdom over Scotland cannot be based on England’s sovereignty nor on England’s constitution, as neither can possibly have any legitimate standing in Scotland because she had and still has her own sovereignty and constitution, and neither of those was ‘signed away’ because the signers (including the Scottish commissioners, the Scottish monarch, and the Scottish parliament) simply didn’t have the requisite authority under Scotland’s constitution and Scotland’s sovereignty to do that. Instead, it seems clear to me that the UK Parliament’s authority over Scotland has to be based exclusively on Scotland’s own sovereignty, but crucially, on only a delegated form of that sovereignty, because that was the only form that Scotland’s commissioners and parliamentarians had, and not the genuine sovereignty of the Scots themselves, who still own it today. Pretty much by definition, delegated sovereignty is always outranked by the original, and that is why any governance of Scotland and the Scots can only be by their consent. That was the case for centuries before 1707, and it is still the case today in spite of Westminster’s best efforts to pretend otherwise. 

The precise legal mechanics of how Westminster can use that sovereignty can be argued over, no doubt, but I haven’t seen anything that gets to grips with it. I do have my own view on it, though, which is this; 

I have argued in the past that the Scottish sovereignty exerted by Westminster can only have come in the form of the inclusion within it of the Scots MPs, who alone in the joint Parliament of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, represent the Scottish founder of the Union, the other founder being represented by all the other MPs. It is the Scots MPs who represent the sovereignty of the Realm of Scotland in that place, and there is no other body or institution that can do so, because the representation of Scotland in the governing body of the UK is precisely what our MPs are there for, in precisely the same way that England’s MPs are there to do. And there is certainly nothing about the non-Scots MPs that gives them any formal power over Scotland at all, and even more certainly nothing that outranks that of the Scottish elected representation who alone unequivocally wield the sovereignty of Scotland’s people on their behalf.

The Union was an agreement between two equally sovereign kingdoms, and obviously neither kingdom had any authority over the other, because that’s what being sovereign means. It then clearly follows that neither kingdom’s representatives in the new Parliament can have any authority over the other kingdom’s representatives. In turn that means their differing numbers in the Parliament can have no lawful bearing on that constitutional and sovereign fact. Westminster’s simple majority voting system, carried out without any regard to the differing and continuing sovereignties in the representation, is simply nowhere near nuanced enough to make its alleged democratic credentials a legitimate justification for denying the sovereignty of Scotland as an equal partner in the Union while vastly emphasising England’s sovereignty on the basis of mere size. The voting system worked perfectly well pre-1707 when every MP was the equal of every other MP and they all spoke for the Kingdom of England, but this simplicity was inadequate post-1707, with two different kingdoms being represented with differing sovereignties and constitutions, and where neither can be subsidiary or superior to the other.

Given the above, it is a clear and illegitimate mockery of Scottish sovereignty and the Scottish constitution that England’s MPs consider themselves fully entitled to overrule the Scottish representation to enforce English-desired legislation on Scotland against a clear majority of the Scots MPs. But since none of the non-Scots MPs own any legitimate authority over Scotland by themselves, then overruling the Scots MPs on any matter they are entitled to consider is unlawful, unconstitutional, and ultra vires under the Treaty of Union and under the Scottish constitution, because it puts the sovereignty of Scotland entirely at England’s disposal without the consent of the true owners of that sovereignty. This is nothing more than majoritarian constitutional bullying, and that is precisely how England’s MPs have used it, and Scotland has suffered greatly over the centuries as a direct result of that intentional abuse.

Enough is enough! Something has to be done about this.

I have argued in the past for a simple change that would go a long way to restore to our representatives their Scottish authority in Westminster, by making a change in the rules governing Westminster’s voting system. At the moment, that voting system completely ignores the fact of the differing sovereignties of the two kingdoms’ representations, so that a simple majority carries the day. Since England’s representation is massive compared to Scotland’s then virtually every voting outcome is an English outcome, even if Scotland’s MPs voted unanimously against while England’s barely bothered to vote at all. But by requiring that the votes of the Scottish kingdom’s representatives be counted separately from those of the English kingdom’s representatives, and requiring joint majorities before any amendment or bill or motion can be passed, a UK Parliamentary vote that will apply to both kingdoms must come down to just two votes, one English vote versus one Scottish vote. Scotland would be far better able to defend itself from the abuses of the English establishment, and it desperately needs such a defence. 

An alternative might be to take a leaf out of the European parliament’s rule book, whereby every country’s representation in the parliament is granted a veto, introduced precisely to prevent the kind of majoritarian bullying England has been inflicting on Scotland for centuries, apparently entirely oblivious to the gross unfairness and the intense resentment it generates here.

Either of these simple rule changes could be made in Westminster very easily, but the Westminster establishment under any of its always-English governments will never do it without very strong pressure from the Scots MPs and from their constituents and hopefully other interested parties. And coming back to the necessity of precise and careful language, any such proposed rule change must take great care not to permit any ambiguity that might provide useful wiggle room to give English MPs and/or the English establishment any kind of an unfair edge. If anything, the edge should be given to the Scots MPs for a change. 

It could even be argued that it isn’t a constitutional change in itself, as it only restores and confirms what should have been the case all along given the actual continued sovereignties and constitutions of both Scotland and England, but it would certainly alter the balance of power between the two kingdoms to something far more equitable. England’s establishment will hate it. And all by itself it could break the deadlock on Section 30.

In my view our MPs should be demanding this change right now, and constantly making utterly obstreperous pests of themselves until Westminster concedes to it. I think any and all forms of disruption to the operation of Westminster is justifiable to get this appalling abuse of Scotland’s sovereignty corrected. It is unacceptable to Scotland and must be tolerated no longer!


A cogent and intelligent article, well argued. I am encouraged by the growing realisation that we can use Scotland’s ancient constitution to good effect in the 21st Century. A year ago few had heard of the Claim of Right or the fact that Scotland has never joined a territorial Union. That information is now becoming well known and various political impacts are being developed and deployed to good effect. Lively times ahead.

I am, as always



  I am an ex IT support engineer and manager, and have been retired for just over ten years.  I have been an enthusiast of Scotland’s independence for most of my adult life, but until 2011 it was really no more than wishful thinking. In 2012 I joined the SNP after David Cameron declared he’d run the SNP’s neverendum for them if they were too scared to do it.  I eventually became an activist, mostly distributing leaflets, and even managed an SNP stall with my son before the referendum, and directly experienced the dishonest tactics of the so-called Better Together side.  But after 2016’s Brexit referendum I became increasingly disappointed with the SNP leadership’s ever more obvious lack of motivation and initiative in progressing independence and never making any serious attempt to resist Brexit or to use it to follow through on  their declarations,  and the final straw was Nicola Sturgeon’s capitulation speech on 31st January 2020.

When Alex Salmond started up Alba, I joined up in the first week. Nothing much happened after that,  but I’d been interested for some time in how exactly Scotland got itself into the Union and how Westminster acquired such excessive power over Scotland, and I was trying to make sense of how the legalities worked,  or often, failed to work, and then Sara Salyers articles appeared on your blog, and they were a revelation! It was at that point I started commenting on your blog and sometimes in the National, but I decided not to renew my National subscription when it fell due in January, and diverted the subscription instead to Salvo. 


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 signatures 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. A great article.

    I particularly like this:

    “Pretty much by definition, delegated sovereignty is always outranked by the original, and that is why any governance of Scotland and the Scots can only be by their consent. ”

    We could boil it down to a simple campaign slogan: ‘Power delegated is power retained’.

    The delicious irony of it all.

    Liked by 13 people

  2. Yes, A very good summation of Scotlands situation!!
    It raises the questions, What is to be done to rectify the situation?
    and by whom?
    It appears Nicola Sturgeon

    Liked by 1 person

  3. sorry!!
    It appears Nicola Sturgeon and her cabal are not up for the fight.
    They would lead us down the garden path to a doomed to fail “de-facto” shambles we cannot win!!
    Since Scots Law is not English Law we should use it to legitomise the proposed October Referendum.
    I must confess I do not want a referendum I want this dreadful Uniom dissolved and our sovereignty restored and to be free of Tyranny

    Liked by 12 people

  4. One of our lovely tour guides could help out here by starting up a tour or doing a wee video about it.


  5. Many thanks, Xaracen.

    Every other month I read yet another article, offering another positive perspective that arrives at the same positive conclusion – Scotland’s sovereignty rules. Conversely, and most tellingly, is the almost lack of challenge from those who would ‘like to’ disagree with any of it – seems they’ve all gone quiet over there?

    So, apart from our citizens being more aware of Scotland’s great wealth, of how that wealth’s plundered, and has been plundered for generations, by England, of how independence is normal, and of how the very word ‘independence’ is now a daily thread of discussion running through Scottish society – something not known as recent as 20 years ago – we now have a new, very powerful weapon at our disposal – we’ve been independent all along.
    Genie well and truly out of the bottle, we’re now carrying a very big stick.

    Liked by 11 people

  6. It’s a good point raised, because one of the “greatest” unwritten conventions shoring up the Treaty of Union, is specifically how the Westminster Parliament wrestles control of Scotland’s Sovereignty away from Scotland’s people.

    I think it’s fair to say Westminster’s colonial misadventures have become much bolder with each passing decade since Devolution, (largely I suspect because Devolution was a wholly unconstitutional pup we were sold, but a pup which we took to our hearts). Prior to Devolution, I think there’s a sense that Westminster was very uncomfortable talking about Scotland in constitutional terms, was paranoid about Scottish Nationalism, and was fully aware that engaging with Constitutional arguments meant taking Kryptonite out the lead lined vault and playing with things you really ought not to play with.

    The prevailing attitude of Westminster politicians seems to have been, “Look, we’ve gotten away with this scam for three Centuries, but for the love of God, don’t let anybody scrutinise the detail. It’s imperative we avoid any thorough examination of the facts”. The McCrone Report? “Jesus! We have to bury that! Good Lord. That must never see the light of day”.

    The next bit is a bit awkward, because it’s “stuff” that’s been in my head a long time, but I don’t have a source for it. If I read it, I read it a long time ago, and I have absolutely no idea where. Nevertheless…

    The way the UK Parliament usurps Scotland’s Sovereignty is NOT ordinarily to subjugate it. Typically, Westminster reluctantly concedes the Claim of Right, and more or less always has. They haven’t subdued Scotland by direct subjugation, but something more subtle and less unlawful.

    The unwritten convention runs something along the lines that Scotland, by agreeing to be part of the Union, thus agreed to ally Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty with the will of Westminster. In essence, Scotland remained sovereign, but had committed itself to abiding by the will of the Westminster Parliament. It was “deemed” that Scotland had given perennial consent to go along with whatever the House of Commons decided. There was never a need to ask us Scots anything specific, because we’d already agreed to it in principle. Thus, sovereign, but not sovereign.

    This was the essence of the UK being a consensual Union, because Scotland “freely” consented to enter into the Union, and once in the Union, Scotland had no mechanism to articulate dissent. In other words, Scotland had agreed not to disagree. Scotland was thus Sovereign, but bound by the willing consent it had given.

    The implication being, I suppose, that if Scotland didn’t consent to the will of Westminster, the Union would collapse. Thus it became imperative that Scotland should be denied opportunity to articulate dissent, and I believe this is why the UK Government is acutely wary of UK Referendums in principle. Brexit was very much an exception to the rule… because the UK Government had in my opinion grown negligent and complacent about the constitutional reality.

    Brexit was a disastrous error for Westminster because in the UK’s consensual Union, the Brexit Referendum gave Scotland the rare opportunity to register dissent from the will of the UK Parliament, and for that dissent to be expressed by Scottish citizens who were conspicuously “sovereign” citizens.

    Unionists and Brexiteers alike insist that Brexit was a UK-wide vote, and that it concerned the UK leaving Europe, not the individual components of the UK. While that may be true, it’s irrelevant on both counts. Scotland shouldn’t be penalised for Westminster’s lack of foresight, and irrespective of the franchise in England, the voters in Scotland were sovereign by Constitutional definition. Westminster should have been a lot more careful about holding a Referendum.

    I’m not going to repeat my criticism of Nicola Sturgeon for failing to defend Scotland’s interests, though it does bear repeating.

    Instead I’m going to focus on two other issues of importance.

    First, that Brexit was only deliverable by subjugating Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty, and that act of subjugation should have been vociferously disputed and defeated. Brexit broke the Treaty of Union because one “equal” subjugated the other.

    But second, not only did Brexit violate the Treaty of Union, it also demolished the unwritten convention which shored up the Union, by asserting that the Union was consensual. Scotland’s consent was asked for, but not given, thus the unwritten convention asserting the Union is consensual lies torn to shreds besides the Union itself.

    The irony is, that while I believe Devolution always was an affront to Scotland’s Claim of Right and Constitutional sovereignty, Scotland’s negligence and casual indifference towards the unconstitutional improprieties of a devolved “parliament” were mirrored in a Westminster Government which was equally negligent and casual in it’s own interpretation of the Constitutional realities.

    I know, I know, Devolution was seen by many as a half-way house to Independence, and gave Scotland a vessel to advance Scotland’s interests. I know, I know. But it lacked the same Constitutional rigour and probity which the Treaty of Union itself lacked. It was a fudge designed by expediency in order to stitch up Scotland’s Constitutional Rights and further empower Westminster.

    Brexit was a sloppy and grossly unprofessional misadventure which even a semi-competent Constitutional Lawyer should have hung out to dry, and used to secure Scotland’s exit from this dysfunctional, corrupt and grossly exploitative “Union”.

    Sadly, Scotland couldn’t find a semi-competent Constitutional Lawyer. We had Nicola Sturgeon in charge, determined to capitulate despite being clueless about what she was capitulating to, and blind to the heaven sent chance for Scotland to escape the Union which she was squandering.

    Liked by 10 people

  7. When was the last time any politician or political party asked the Scottish people for permission to wield the sovereignty of the Scottish people on their behalf.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. @kennyparrafinlamp

    All we need now is a party populated by men and women, all of whom, from the leadership down to local branch-level, are willing, to wield that ‘big stick’, relentlessly and courageously, with no prisoners taken. Uncontrolable events, might yet produce such a party as a matter of existential necessity.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Yes, and as the increasingly seedy SNP/Greens independence ‘leadership’ is now plummeting out of control – and horrifically tainting our movement – we now, more than ever, need a stable hand once again on the tiller.
      Can you imagine the type of independent Scotland we’d have under the current SNP? – Gangsters, perverts, corrupt Lord Advocates, paedophiles, extreme right-wing corporate bodies, unaffordable health care and offshore criminals? We really need to depose the psychopaths soon, before Scotland becomes any more Tory/corrupt than it is.
      We also *really* need to put the word round to family, friends and neighbours re the unpalatable future being forced upon us by the current bad actors in Holyrood. We campaigned hard in ’14, we’ll campaign harder, longer, when the time comes.

      Liked by 8 people

  9. It is I suggest very important that the word “consent” appears so frequemtly in the posts above.

    That word was central when I wrote the “Declaration of a Sovereign Scot.” The extracts that follow illustrate the importance of that word – consent – deliberately in use as an “active” verb.

    “Exercising my Claim Of Right as a Sovereign Scot, I declare:

    I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Treaty of Union established through the Acts of Union in 1707….

    I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Scotland Act 1998, and all subsequent relevant Acts of like nature and purpose, ….”

    The “active” withdrawal of “consent” in those specific terms, creates hard documented evidence, signed by individual Sovereign Scots, and lodged with the United Nations for the countries/members of the world to examine, and be fully aware of.

    It draws on our past, but is a Declaration made in our present, and will (I hope) play its part in regaining Scotland’s future.

    (It is Stage 1 in this initiative, it is and will remain an open invitation to all Sovereign Scots who wish to participate, with other Stages to appear this year.)

    Liked by 7 people

    1. The Treaty was unlawful was it not? It was signed by Nobles Sovereign scots did not know of this betrayal until after the signing which led to riots.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Alba Mellon, Scots most certainly did know about the Treaty. So I am afraid that you have got that wrong. They knew about it and didn’t want it and made sure the Parliament knew by raising petitions against it. The riots were also evidence of opposition to it. The fact is that there was no democracy back in 1707 and the people were ignored.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. They rioted once word got onto the treets and the rumours of this betrayal spread thoughtout Edinburgh I found it iuntewresting to read the names of those who signed and those who were against the treaty.


  10. Since language is in the title, I”ll say this, walking around my home town of Glasgow today I was shocked at the amount of English accents, from Birmingham, to Liverpool and London all in the space of a hour or so.

    The colonisation of Glasgow at least, is well underway, the armies of England in the past that Scots fought were on most occasions repelled, however this stealthy army of English folk currently invading Scotland, with the aid of the Scottish government looks likely to succeed in its task, a task that will severely hinder our cause.

    One wonders where all these people live in Scotland, and what doctor or dentist they are registered at, that pushes Scots back down the list, we know from the 2014 indyref that 72.1% of them voted to remain in the union (No voters).

    Should these incomers have a vote on the decision of our country’s future, basically a vote on the union, I say no, one vote among many is not complete discrimination.

    Look at it this way the English government and its court (UKSC) thinks that Scots shouldn’t have a vote to decide our future at all, which is discrimination against a whole nation.

    I fear that any indy minded government after we oust Sturgeon, will give the vote to the uknown number of English folk (The census is still hidden from us so we can’t put an exact figure on it) living in Scotland regardless of how long they’ve lived here, just to appear democratic to the outside world, and it will be Scots that suffer for this.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Agreed Republicofscotland
    Unfortuately there is no point in voting for Alba. Alex stated categorically at one of his wee Alba book meetings that. He will have none of this natavist stuff. So tough luck on you indigenous Scots.. second class, an after thought, always considered last.

    Also that Alba want a referendum using the same franchise as 2014, a sure winner there then eh.

    As for sovereignty don’t let Alba Kidd you they want parliamentary sovereignty. The illegal in Scotland English version. I would like Alba to come clean on this issue our constitution States that the Scottish people are sovereign and above every institution in the land.

    Therefore in an independent Scotland there will be NO absolutely. NO parliamentary sovereignty or is Alba trying to hoodwink us.

    Liked by 5 people

  12. “Unfortuately there is no point in voting for Alba. Alex stated categorically at one of his wee Alba book meetings that. He will have none of this natavist stuff. So tough luck on you indigenous Scots.”


    If that is true then I’m afraid all is lost, Sturgeon is in office until 2026, and possibly longer, three more years of incomers flooding North to escape the Americanisation of England’s public services, one can only imagine the stress Scottish public services will be under by then, as they are teetering on the brink right now as part of this I hate to call it a union for it isn’t one I’ll say onesided prison.

    Then we have on top of this the plethora of wealthy retired English folk who will move North to buy a fairly decent sized property in Scotland at a cheaper price than in England and still have spare cash left, to add insult to injury they often pick up wee corner shop jobs to keep them busy in retirement, jobs that local pensioners and young folk in Scotland badly need in rural areas of the country.

    If Alba, (Salmond or whomever eventually manages to become FM) or any supposedly indy minded FM does gives these unknown number of incomers from South of the Border the vote on our self-determination, I fear its game over for us. Infact with the Scots that would rather have a foreign government look after their affairs and the incoming English combined against us, I fear the tipping point has already been breached thanks to Sturgeon and the wasted years since 2014.

    Think of it this way, in 2014 Scots voted to dissolve the union, and in 2016 the Welsh voted to remain in the EU, incomers in both cases (mainly the English) swung it against the the indigenous people’s choice. This is what lies in wait for us if we go down that road.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Hi Republicofscotland
      No country in Western Europe allows non nationals / incomers to vote in their national elections, some have time exemptions so after 10 or 20 years of constant living in a particular country they get a vote there are even restrictions for the franchise in local elections.

      Alba want to be nice and cuddly to everyone who just happens to be here for a wee holiday so same franchise as 2014. The suicide option.

      Politicians of all parties in Scotland don’t give a monkeys about the indigenous people of Scotland, they are always bleeting about some poor refugee group.

      In the area I live in there are a couple of hundred refugees from Ukraine, now hold on. None of these people are relying on a food bank , living in the dark, being taken to hospital with hypothermia, starving, fearful, skint. No they are nice and cosy in hotels.

      So why is it that it is our people who are suffering to which country should they seek asylum.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. ”Politicians of all parties in Scotland don’t give a monkeys about the indigenous people of Scotland” It is about time we all united against this Union Of Unequals I have always supported genuine refugees but sadly many scots are refugees in their own country as homelessness increases alognside rising poverty as we descend the ladder to join the poorer countries in Europe,large parts of Glasgow are slums with slum landlords making fortunes . The @albaParty I have joined and went to their meetings we have wonderful men and women involved who have no fear of speaking out against anyone or any party right now they and Salvo’s Claim Of Right 1689 have lit up a dark tunnel in Scottish Politics . I don’t want Scotland to throw open the doors either unless we can prove they are genuine refugees but all children must be protected no matter where they are from but it appears that many of those arrinving in Scotland are healthy males with no ID so by all means protect the helpless geunine asylum seeker but we must also focus on our own folk.I see our own children with hollow eyes in our streets and you know they are hungry and possibly neglected . Crime will rise because crime walks hand in hand with poverty .


  13. Hi Wullie.

    Yes you have a very good point, I can’t ever recall any Scottish government appoint a minister just for one group as Neil Gray was appointed to make sure Ukrainians coming to Scotland didn’t find themselves homeless, yet recent reports have shown that over 30,000 Scots are currently homeless.


    However the influx from down South is in my opinion the main driver, and I will call it a problem for that’s what it is, history has shown that when the indigenous folk of a country are overwhelmed by incomers that the indigenous folk tends to suffer, our position is further exacerbated by the fact that a foreign country controls immigration and the so called union allows the southern incomers to cross over the border into Scotland and reside in Scotland for as long as they please and at present there’s nothing that can be done about it. Independence would change all that.

    Reading a few Twitter feeds today, one jumped out at me Grouse Beaters in which he showed a piccy of a lovely cottage up North (Scotland) that’s for sale, it’s advertised for sale in London, need I say anymore? Time is against us and unless an indy minded FM is appointed who will restrict the self determination vote to Scots, and possibly those who have lived here a whatever amount of time that is seen as acceptable, ten, twenty years etc, winning an indyref, if that’s the route that we take starts to become increasingly more difficult.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Any of these interlopers reading some these comments hopefully won’t be put off voting for indy, particularly since many have moved here because they hoped to escape England’s descent into fascism and rascism. With the polls slowly rising, you can’t assume that some of that rise is not due in part at least to some of these newcomers. The franchise for uk General elections, very likely our next opportunity to vote for indy, is outwith the influence of the SG, if your registered no matter what your nationality, you get to vote.


    1. Golfnut, EU citizens do not get a vote in UK General Elections. If you have no acceptable proof of identity you do not get to vote. 16/17 years do not get to vote either. Sturgeon going for the worst option for independence?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. If your entitled vote in UK general elections you have to be registered, if your entitled to vote in Scottish elections you have to be registered. They are seperate franchises, I did say UK elections and I also said that next vote is likely to be the UK ge, whether or not it is used as an independence will be ultimate up to conference and not Nicola Sturgeon.


      2. Golfnut, on the one hand you are keen to ensure all who live in Scotland can vote on Scottush independence ( i.e. the SNP policy of civic nationalism) but when a policy for voting on Scottish independence ( i.e. Using a UK GE) is suggested and means civic nationalism is dispensed with you then don’t seem to bother. A tad inconsistent is it not. Your comment that SNP members will decide – well we will see won’t we. In the interim why were SNP politicians lying about the mechanics of holding a de facto Holyrood election this year. Like say Oct 23 as promised.


      3. There is nothing inconsistent about my comment Cubby nor did it define my preferred option, but for the record my preferred option is to fight which ever comes first, Holyrood GE or Westminster, with an explicit question asking voters to give permission to withdraw from the Treaty of Union.


      4. Golfnut, civic nationalism has always been SNP policy. SNP policy is also to be in the EU. A UK GE de facto referendum discriminates against EU citizens which also means it discriminates the citizens of the very organisation the SNP wants to join. It also goes against the SNP civic nationalism. There could be a Holyrood de facto election this year if the SNP wanted it but politicians from the SNP deliberately lie about how straightforward it is to do this. You like so many SNP supporters choose to look away from the facts. Oh and a UK de facto also means a reduced chance of a yes vote.

        So last June Sturgeon says a UK GE de facto will take place now you say it is up to the members to decide. So why did Sturgeon say that last June?

        Nothing but nonsense and broken promises from the SNP leadership.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. last June Sturgeon says a UK GE de facto will take place now you say it is up to the members to decide. So why did Sturgeon say that last June?

        Maybe I said that because that’s what the conference was called for, to debate the various options put forward by not only the NEC but by the branches. To me at least a democratic process.
        Actually I’m a bit miffed now with the idea that it’s me or indeed the SNP or even the SG that is ok with or denying EU citizens, 16/17 year olds or trying to see reduce voter participation, that would be the UK gov. I
        Just for clarity, if you don’t want a westminster GE de facto referendum on Independence what do you think we should be campaigning on.
        The major benefit to a westminster GE vote is that it is a head on confrontation between the principal of parliamentary and popular sovereignty, remember on the day we vote westminster doesn’t exist as a parliament.


      6. Golfnut now you are not only looking away from the facts you are looking away from the questions I posed and answering your own question.
        I asked why did Sturgeon say last June there would be a U.K. GE de facto referendum if the London court said no. Now it was pretty obvious the court would say no. So why did she say that with such certainty. That is the question I posed. It was NOT whether you thought the membership should have a say – I agree with that.
        Sturgeon is a time waster. When the London court said no Sturgeon should have immediately said I will use the Scotland Act to carry out a de facto Holyrood referendum in Oct 23 unless the UK changes the Scotland act to allow a legal referendum in October 23. It’s called having a plan to get a vote on independence. What did she do instead – meekly said she accepted the London court decision, said there would be an SNP conference 4 months away and then pressed on with what she is really really interested in GRR.

        Liked by 2 people

      7. Because it’s pretty obvious that Nicola Sturgeon has not backed away, she is however required as leader of the SNP, not the government, to follow due process and allow the party it’s say. A process which allows everyone to put forward, no matter how sensible or bizarre, their opinion on what, where, when and how the next election will be fought. It might be galling sitting on the sidelines of that process but that’s where you chose to be.


      8. Golfnut, Sturgeon didn’t consult the SNP membership on appointing a Britnat Lord Advocate and she didn’t consult the membership on going to the London court. She never consulted the electorate that her request to vote SNP for Indyref2 would involve going to the London court for approval. Sturgeon is a time waster and a charlatan.


  15. “it puts the sovereignty of Scotland entirely at England’s disposal without the consent of the true owners of that sovereignty”

    Fabulous piece. How can what is so ckearly described by Xaracen be anything other than an ongoing, daily breach of the Treaty of Union?

    Liked by 2 people

  16. If I wanted to move to Australia, Canada, or America, I would have to score enough qualifying points in their respective immigrations system. The points are based on age, (if you’re over 45 that’s typically 0 points or sometimes a fail), work experience, language proficiency, have employment, have work visas, have relatives, have accommodation, have money to support myself… if you don’t fit, you don’t get in.

    People retiring to Scotland from England face no points test or qualifying criteria whatsoever.

    If you’re Scottish, you can expect to be roasted alive for making such an observation, branded a bigot or a racist, yet at the same time, we know the UK government is content for Scotland to become a retirement home for Southerners who make their money from selling property in the South, flee England’s rat-race and retire to Scotland to live on the proceeds, inflate house prices and make it impossible for local families to find accommodation, and local services falter and disappear. This isn’t theoretical, it is happening.

    How many of these retirees, who will qualify for free NHS care, prescriptions and treatment in Scotland which they’d have to pay for in England, would actually qualify to immigrate to Canada, Australia or the USA? If they’d be denied from moving there, then why should Scotland be denied the same prerogative?

    Scotland, trapped in the Union has no protection whatsoever against this colonial style / economic migration. None.

    Worse too, while we can expect to be branded bigots, racists and xenophobes for daring to raise the issue, or even threatening to limit or curtail their voting rights to reflect the standard and common practice in other parts of the World, we see a different prevailing attitude towards refugees and economic migrants who risk their lives crossing the channel to find a way to a better life in England. These desperate people are mostly guilty of wanting a future for themselves when their circumstances make it unlikely in the places they’ve left, yet the UK Government is content to shove them on a plane to Rwanda.

    We can only conclude that bigotry is a more sinful vice than hypocrisy in the UK. Nobody want’s to be branded a bigot. But being branded a galloping hypocrite seems like a badge of honour. It’s fine treating Scotland as a retirement home / doormat for economic migrants from England, while children, vilified as economic migrants are drowning in the Channel. Hypocrisy meets with universal approval for looking down your nose on Scots and foreigners alike in the true Briddish tradition.

    I do not hate English people retiring to Scotland. I really, really don’t. Australia doesn’t hate migrants. Canada doesn’t hate migrants. Immigration “made” these Nations prosper, though the indigenous people perhaps wouldn’t agree.

    The world is awash with Scotland’s diaspora, and I am not blind to what that means. The English migration is doing to Scotland what Scottish migration did throughout the colonies, the Scottish migration did to the native Americans what the Gaelic migration did to the Picts… I see that. It’s the nature of things. Populations move and evolve. But that isn’t the full story.

    Is the world a better place for having indigenous cultures? Absolutely. Would we be richer if there was no surviving legacy of Navaho, Apache , or Sioux? Were we enriched when the Pequot were wiped out altogether? No, we absolutely were not. The diversity of human culture is the one great redeeming feature of humanity. The bottom line is, I don’t care one way or the other about silver haired retirees, but I very much do care that Scotland’s rural, island and Gaelic communities are at risk of being lost and destroyed forever. It is neither bigoted nor discriminatory to want that catastrophe averted.

    If you get the chance, there’s a series you can watch on Netflix entitled Ancient Apocalypse, where a journalist, Graham Hancock, puts forward a controversial but considered theory that our understanding of the past is missing a huge chunk in the chronology. It’s dismissed as ridiculous by Establishment Archaeologists, and Mr Hancock gets a lot of stick, but whether or not you buy in to his theories, there are spellbinding enigmas in the World which defy explanation.

    In Episode 5, he visits Göbekli Tepe, in Turkey. I won’t spoil the program for you, but as a stonemason who has contemplated the heavens while carving the odd sundial, and wondered about the lost meaning of our own Pictish stones and their symbols, the suggestion that the carved creatures found at Göbekli Tepe are astronomical depictions of the stars, and actually create a date (and possible explanation for the end of the last Ice Age), …well, it gave me goosebumps. It’s like Science Fiction in reverse. How could we have known any of this, so long ago? It’s completely impossible, but yet it’s there, literally carved in stone 12,000 years ago.

    What I cannot stomach is the hypocrisy in UK attitudes, and the weakness foisted upon Scotland that we must forfeit the right to control our own immigration the same ordered and rational way they do in Canada, Australia,…. and England.

    It’s not that we have nothing distinctive to protect. Scotland is a veritable jewel box. In Scotland we have our history of Gaels, Picts, Norse, Northumbrian, and we have enigmatic symbols and mysteries, vitrified Iron Age Forts, Crannogs, and all the wonders of Neolithic dwellings on Orkney… We are being colonised by people who know or care nothing for this, but yet go weak at the knees when Tony Robinson’s Time Team digs up a chipped fragment of Roman pottery that is their history, not Scotland’s.

    Simple fairness requires parity, and I ask for nothing beyond parity. Westminster isn’t interested in parity or Scotland having any rights in particular, which leaves Scottish Independence as a vital necessity for Scotland, if we want Scotland’s culture and identity to survive and be protected.

    We don’t need Tony Robinson to dig up a Gael and speculate about their culture, and have an artist sketch what they looked like. For the moment at least, we can still go and meet a Gael and ask them to describe their culture, and hear it described in their own language. That is an endangered culture which is precious to us and should be defended and protected at all costs, and yes, that means controls on immigration proportional to the risks posed by immigration.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Excellent analysis, Breeks. Without sovereignty a people have no control over their borders or their population and this has been our reality for the last three centuries and more. Independence is made more difficult once a people are displaced and/or become more culturally diverse, also given the fundamental importance of national identity/national consciousness to an independence movement.

      Once an indigenous people account for less than half the population of the territory the prospect of their becoming independent becomes remote; the imperial power knows this, of course, hence the ongoing (largely covert) UK demographic policy, and delayed census. Colonialism also deprives a people of their language/culture – which forms the basis of their national identity – and the adoption of the colonizers language makes them conditioned to align with the supposedly ‘superior’ culture of the colonizer, assimilation leading many of them to assume a new (British) identity, which is a cultural illusion.

      In order to fully understand their wretchedness a people first require to undertake ‘a reasoned study of colonial society’ (Fanon), which the national parties often fail to do, as is evident in our case. Demographics of a people subject to colonial procedures is clearly a critical determinant of independence, and ongoing demographic change may well prevent (its intention, after all), independence:


      Liked by 3 people

  17. Of course it was illegal.

    However a Bill passed at Westminster passed India as property of a Company to the Crown.
    (The Government of India Act 1858 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (21 & 22 Vict. c. 106) passed on 2 August 1858. Its provisions called for the liquidation of the British East India Company)

    A carefully engineered ploy given that the RN acted to defend the British East India Private Army as it exploited India and China and that Queen Victoria obtained great wealth through that arrangement.

    Or the Private deal QE had with Churchill when she came to the throne – attached

    When the Bank of England was created, A Company with only 100 shares, only two shares were issued and ownership was held under the Official Secrets Act.

    We have the recent evidence of the Royal Household demanding changes to Bills to protect their interests before it would be signed.

    My point is this article is in my view 100% correct and that takes you in simplified language to two options.
    a) Demand reparations but will India ever see the £45 Billion stolen far less Scotland.
    b) Recognise that the UK is run by an elite and we should get out as soon as we can and stop further theft.

    Some would describe and organisation that demands reward for “protection”, that seizes property under threat, that avoids taxation, that has people assassinated, that engages in drug running etc as a Crime Syndicate…..We call them The Royal Family.

    Some one will be on after this is posted to say it is ancient History. My answer is simple “Theft is Theft” and if a hungry mother can be classed a criminal for shoplifting to feed her child why do we ignore Centuries of Criminal Acts by one Family?

    Queen Elizabeth I never married, but whether she was actually the “Virgin Queen” has long been in dispute. From the moment she ascended the throne in 1558, rumors circulated of the Queen’s “secret” lovers. The most notable was Robert Dudley. Although in 1560, Dudley’s wife turned up dead at the bottom of a staircase with her neck broken, and the question became not so much whether the Queen was a virgin as whether the Queen was a murderess.

    King George III lost the United States in 1776—and his sanity in 1810. But his most embarrassing scandal may have been his failure to persuade even one of his nine sons to marry a respectable woman in order to produce a legitimate heir. In 1795, he finally strong-armed his eldest son, the future King George IV, into marrying, but the sole child of that loveless marriage died childless in 1817, kicking off a “succession crisis,” which resulted in several of George’s sons dumping their girlfriends to marry European princesses in a race to conceive the next heir. Spoiler alert: the winner was Edward, Duke of Clarence, King George III’s third son, who in 1819 fathered the future Queen Victoria.

    As someone who grew up under Pathé News I know how well we. have been conditioned. People stood at the end of Movies as GSTQ was played. The TV ended at night with GSTQ and in many households people actually stood in their own living room ( those with King Billy on his Charger). My own household even had the Queen and Philip on the wall. (We all have a past and I still cringe)

    Those Millions spent on lying in State, Funerals, Coronations, Weddings, Births are to distract you in the same way a pickpocket does as he lifts your wallet.

    The Republic is long overdue, as is raising awareness of just how much has been stolen from us.
    The corrupt pyramid will collapse when the Monarchy ends its control.

    Getting any of our money back….That is a very different issue.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Thanks Ian, another brilliant article. And thanks Xaracen.

    This “An alternative might be to take a leaf out of the European parliament’s rule book, whereby every country’s representation in the parliament is granted a veto, introduced precisely to prevent the kind of majoritarian bullying England has been inflicting on Scotland for centuries,” There is also the American system of having two representatives in the senate for each of the states, so that senate decisions are not swamped by the most populous states. Imagine a senate of 10 from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is also possible as a second chamber. And boy would it change things around here.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Graham Hancocks Ancient Mysteries series is compelling viewing, I watched the series over two sittings which probably would have been one had my better half not returned home.
    Scotland undoubtedly post the union and in reality probably even just after the vote will need to address the issue of inward migration, Scotland needs to urgently increase its workforce, not it’s numbers of retirees and I do see a major influx coming from south of the border, possibly from our own diaspora but also those just seeking refuge from a government intent on causing misery for the poor.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. From this: “And there is certainly nothing about the non-Scots MPs that gives them any formal power over Scotland at all, and even more certainly nothing that outranks that of the Scottish elected representation who alone unequivocally *wield the sovereignty of Scotland’s people on their behalf*” we get the best possible elucidation between the sovereignty – absolute and untransferrable! – of the people and the relationship of our elected representatives to that sovereignty. They “wield it on our behalf” but do not own it, or become its ‘custodians’ or anything other than the representatives/symbols of the sovereign people. Perhaps Alba might consent to alter the policy that confers parliamentary sovereignty of the “custodians” to this effect? I hope so.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Extract from the Declaration of a Sovereign Scot:

      ‘ … any Oath of Allegiance to be sought from, and given by, a potential Member of the Scottish Parliament recognises the Sovereignty of the Scottish People in the following terms: “By this oath, I acknowledge that if elected as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, it will be as a result of votes cast by Sovereign Scots, and I do solemnly swear and affirm that my allegiance is, and will remain, to the Sovereign people of Scotland.’

      Written over two years ago now – and within the parameters that the “Declaration” in its entirety must fit one A4 sheet of paper, it was my way of addressing the source of Sovereignty within Scotland, and ensuring it was both recognised, permanent, and conditional. (As per the Declaration of Arbroath).

      Thus – IF!

      Liked by 1 person

  21. O/T.

    Well done the Scottish ruby team, if only our politicians had the same desire to get us out of this union.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Language matters – My last project before retirement was to oversee the engineering integrity of the installation of a project in the Republic of Ireland.

    My enduring experience gained from the project is the nickpickedness of the Irish over the wording of texts. A linguistic caution that we Scots perhaps need to adopt when dealing with the English.

    Some years back a “company doctor” arrived at our ailing engineering company, he required of me to tell a basic pack of lies to a client… ” It’s only words” he said.

    And so the dilemma is to consider the accuracy of the words expressed with the integrity of the party expressing said words.

    And so in detailed writing, and signed please.

    Ps No I didn’t tell his pack of lies.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: