What follows is the reply received from the International Court of Justice in reply to Steve Norris’s letter seeking guidance on how Scotland could seek a judgement from the Court. Initially the reply might seem negative but take the time to read the explanation Sara Salyers of Salvo/ Liberation has added which confirms that the route being followed by Salvo/ Liberation in seeking status to address a UN Committee as a recognised National Liberation Movement is the correct one and has the prospect of genuine success if we can meet the criteria to achieve the crucial status. People can help by joining Liberation.Scot and Salvo.Scot.

Dear Sir,  
In reply to your e-mail, I have to inform you that the International Court of Justice is not authorized, in view of its functions strictly defined by its Statute (Article 34) and Rules, to give advice or make observations on questions such as those raised in your communication.

The Court’s activities are limited to rendering judgments in legal disputes between States submitted to it by the States themselves and giving advisory opinions when it is so requested by UN organs or specialized agencies of the UN system.

It follows that neither the Court nor its Members can consider applications from private individuals or groups, provide them with legal advice or assist them in their relations with the authorities of any country.

That being so, you will, I am sure, understand that, to my regret, no action can be taken on your communication. 

Yours faithfully,

Information Department International Court of Justice


Thank you, Steve Norris 

Sara Salyers 

15th March 

Scotland, though most of her people may never know it, owes Steve Norris a huge debt. 

Salvo and Liberation launched just 8 months ago. We’ve spoken about how the Union has imprisoned Scotland and how the UK (English) establishment is determined to keep us imprisoned by throwing away the key. So it’s not surprising that the UK establishment has cast scorn and derision at the idea that the Claim of Right is any kind of weapon or key to free us from this prison.   

Following the launch of Liberation Scotland with the Edinburgh Proclamation and the creation of the Scottish National Congress Working Group, chaired by Iain, we’ve seen the hostility, read and heard the accusations, that we are diverting the energy of the independence movement from real progress.  We are told it’s a foolish fantasy that Scotland could launch an international campaign with any hope of bringing a case to the ICJ for a ruling without the Scottish politicians or Scottish Government at its head.  

We did repeatedly try, calmly and patiently, to explain the truth: that no devolved government has any route to the world court. The only route is as a ‘person with international standing,’ either the government of a state or an organisational body recognised and granted standing by the UN.  

No devolved government, and certainly no politician, can have such standing. A Liberation Movement, however, gains recognition by the simple act of registering with the UN. It can gain standing at the discretion of the General Assembly and be represented by a friendly UN Committee that can put forward its application for an advisory ruling. This is what we knew and what the ICJ’s reply confirms. 


The arguments of pundits, social media commentators and the various legal experts who have been trotted out to convince the public that we in Salvo and Liberation are not only ignorant of international procedures, not only talking nonsense, but are irresponsibly fooling the Scottish public, are turned back on themselves. (But we will not hold our breaths for the apologies.)  

Steve Norris has done what the Scottish government should have done long ago. He has sought, and got, clarification from the International Court of Justice on what is and what is not possible for the Scottish Executive (‘government’) and politicians to achieve internationally. The ICJ’s reply has ended the argument that was, as we knew, based on speculation, misunderstanding and wishful thinking as to the power of our own, Scottish ‘government’ on an international battlefield. The simple logic, as well as the simple justice, of the Liberation campaign is now almost unassailable.  

But what about the influence of our politicians? I will let Lord Offord answer that question.  

“Scotland Office minister Lord Offord of Garvel told peers in Westminster that, while devolved governments are allowed to engage internationally, they must be limited to the scope of devolved matters.  

He added that the UK Government is “aware” that the SNP administration has recently been “encroaching” on reserved matters in its foreign engagement on issues such as “separatism and the constitution”, which is in breach of the Scotland Act 1998.  

Lord Offord said the situation would be “very closely monitored” by UK ministers going forward.  

The Scottish Government has breached the law in its foreign activities by discussing independence, a UK minister has told Parliament.  

The minister said in the House of Lords: “Foreign affairs is a reserved matter under Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 and therefore the sole responsibility of the UK Government and UK Parliament.  

“The Scotland Act is clear that foreign affairs is outside the competence of the Scottish Government and therefore they cannot and should not encroach on matters such as separatism or the constitution.  

“We have been aware that they have been doing that in recent times – and our Secretary of State for Scotland has met with the Foreign Secretary and that will be very closely monitored in future.”  

He added that this meeting between the Secretaries of State was to “discuss the matter of the Scottish Government’s activities internationally” and that both ministers are “very clear that any overseas engagement by the Scottish Government should not encroach into reserved matters”.  

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Bruce of Bennachie told peers that the Scottish Government has “no legitimacy” to promote the break-up of the UK abroad.” (The Scotsman 9 March 2023) 

Anyone who thinks the UK government will not be keeping very close tabs on the international activities of our elected representatives and will not be prepared to take action against those promoting support for Scottish self-determination, has not been paying attention!  

Finally, what about the political parties and their non-elected representatives? There is an Alba ‘charm offensive’ already underway internationally and one planned by the SNP.  (There goes the argument that without our elected representatives, we wouldn’t be taken seriously.) While this is useful and very welcome, what exactly is the tangible and measurable outcome? Without legal standing of any kind these initiatives cannot bring about what is most urgently needed on Scotland’s behalf. 

Scotland’s constitutional position within the UK hangs on the provisions of an international treaty, the Treaty of Union. Effected by the agreement of two independent, sovereign nations, any violation of its fundamental terms and conditions, (especially of its preconditions and of the limits of what it grants to the new state), cannot be arbitrated by the violating signatory, a ‘partner’ to the treaty far superior in numbers and in political power to that of the injured party. It is a matter of international law and must be rehearsed in the international, legal arena. And this is a far greater matter than simply the denial of Scotland’s rights, in international law, to self-determination.  

The implications of Lord Reed’s representation of Scotland as a ‘territory’, without voice yet neither oppressed nor colonised, is inescapable. The Treaty of Union, the guarantees sought and provided to Scotland and her people, is both the instrument of the Union and simultaneously meaningless. He might as well have said: 

‘Scotland was foolish enough to sign a treaty which gave England what it wanted, absolute control by this English dominated parliament, (and the English establishment), over its land and people.  

Now this sovereign Parliament, (the absolute and final authority under English law), shall make that contract mean whatever it chooses. And there is nothing the people of Scotland can do about it – because you signed the contract with perfidious Albion and, as with the EU withdrawal terms and the NI protocol, its Parliament can and will make that contract mean whatever it chooses.” 

Lord Reed has spoken and the highest Court in the land has ruled. With no direct access to the international court, whose rulings the UK government is bound to observe in theory, if not in practice, there is nothing the Scottish people can do about such oppression. 

But we do have an access route. One that is so alarming to the British establishment that, even though the Scottish government and the Scottish politicians have no way to gain standing with the ICJ, it is moving to shut down any possibility of diplomatic moves by Scotland’s elected representatives.  

We have Liberation Scotland, whose public campaign begins in earnest in a matter of a few months. And when we do go, with the signatures gathered, to the international community, we will not be looking for assurances of our rights as already established in international law. We will be looking for much, much more.  

Scotland must be accorded its rights under the international Treaty of Union. The UK government must meet its own treaty obligations by restoring the constitutional provisions ratified by the signatory nations and by relinquishing the assets that could not lawfully be transferred by parliament or monarch to Union control. If those rights and obligations are denied by the UK government, then the treaty was a mere pretext for annexation, something which cannot be voluntary and which context and reason will show to be far from the intention of the Scottish parliament.  Which is to say that Scotland is, by definition in international law, a colony.  

Now that the facts are finally clear, we can make the case for Liberation to the people of Scotland with the evidence to back it.  So, on behalf of Liberation Scotland and Salvo, its campaigning arm, I invite Steve Norris to take a bow. We are deeply grateful.  

Now watch and listen as our friend and ally Craig Murray explains our route and confirms what Sara has written above


Steve has helped open the door, he has obtained written confirmation of our route forward. It is now up to us, each and everyone of us to spread the word. We start by joining Liberation.Scot and if we want to be a campaigning member join Salvo.Scot as well. We get all our friends, workmates, family to join. We share articles to every platform we can think of. We educate our people on their rights as the sovereign people of Scotland.

It is time to leave the politicians playing catch up with the people of Scotland. It’s time for the people to lead the fight. Together, United behind Liberation we will be successful.

I am, as always




  1. The reply is exactly in line with what I’ve been saying and writing for a few years now. Without statehood, Scotland can only get an advisory ruling following a resolution put forward to the UN general Council on our behalf by a friendly state or states. Such a resolution would start on the basis of our clear right in international law to self determination, a right without a remedy in the national system and move on to seek an advisory opinion on the detailed routes. The wording would be carefully and persuasively drafted on the basis of the facts of our current treatment as a quasi-colony.

    I believe that there are many such friendly states and while I hope that those elected by us to Holyrood to secure independence have been speaking to them about this I rather fear the worst. Starting proceedings in the UK Supreme Court, a national forum whose judges could not be expected to do anything to bring about the disintegration of the system they have sworn to uphold, does not give me any hope whatsoever.

    We must not forget that to achieve independence in terms of international law, the only system that ultimately counts here, a new state must be recognised by a significant number of other members of the family of nations. The resolution should be seen simply as the first, necessary, step in the process towards achieving that.

    Liked by 13 people

    1. Steve has performed a great service for Scotland and achieved clarification of our way forward as outlined by Sara.

      There are 2 alternatives, always presuming that the current parties of government remain in control, and the first is to continue as we have always done – playing Westminster’s game by Westminster’s rules and achieving absolutely nothing to advance the restoration of our self-determination, independence and our rightful position as a sovereign nation within the UN family of nations, with all the rights and obligations that position demands.

      Or, the Yes Movement can realign behind the international route and join with Salvo and Liberation to educate our people to the reality of the union, to build and advance our standing in the world by seeking allies outwith the UK that is forbidden to our elected representatives.

      No-one pretends this is going to be easy or without challenge – not least from Westminster and all that entails, but there are many others based here in Scotland, who will stop at nothing to keep Scotland under the oppressors large thumb and to show what good colonial servants they are. We know where they are and as Alf Baird tells us, they have infiltrated all aspects of the higher echelons of Scottish society and have no allegiance to Scotland.

      However, this is a time of excitement, progress and a new way that until recently had not been considered never mind tried – so what does that tell us about the people we have had in the past, and have now, that are supposed to protect us from subjugation and exploitation?

      One step at a time but always in a forward direction.

      Liked by 10 people

    2. Hesitate to add Ewan that committees of the UN itself can seek rulings as well and that is our most likely route at the moment although we would be delighted if any friendly state wished to do it for us.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. I think there is a massive clue in this reply:
        “when it is so requested by UN organs or specialized agencies of the UN system.”

        Doesn’t one of those specialized agencies deal with ancient treaties?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. There are several that could apply, the most obvious is decolonisation but there are others as well. We are researching this to identify the most likely, obviously European members, or former British colonies offer potential.

        Liked by 6 people

      3. There was a Scottish UN group already established before in regards to Scottish self determination and of course the devolved Parliament.

        Liked by 3 people

      4. Yes, you’re right, if you can bring it within the remit of one of them. By the way, I was half way into Oban when I realised I’d typed Council for Assembly, mo chreach!

        Liked by 3 people

  2. I would assume that the SG has done nothing to promote the cause of Independence….look at how they treat the membership of their own Party!
    The Party only continues via Short Money which means via the Union.

    Keep up the good work. You may become the only route to Independence.

    Liked by 9 people

      1. I see a huge risk introduced by the appalling Sturgeon administration:
        The UK is registered with the UN as two countries, a Principality (upgraded to country by the UN due to the lack of an executive prince) and a province.

        This used to be readily found through google but is very hidden now. Wales will have a copy – they rejoiced at being upgraded to a country.

        If we get a house jock SG I suspect Westminster will seek to change this to a single state – and we know the pathetic house jocks would be so keen to oblige they would wet themselves. Wales may be our only hope.

        Time is not on our side.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. *Coughs discretely* … “The Declaration of a Sovereign Scot” initiative is also in play – using a different strategy and tactics – but with the same identical objective. I believe strongly that it is very much a positive and in no way a negative that different approaches are being used.

        Que sera!

        Liked by 10 people

  3. Everything moving into place. Unlike the stagnant, elected Holyrood representatives of the independence movement, people are working towards a goal and they have a desire that sinecures and position will not blunt, a desire to restore the constitutional rights of the Scottish people. I feel buoyant after reading both articles. Many others will too. Help by signing the Edinburgh Proclamation at and be part of the campaign by joining Salvo.

    Liked by 9 people

  4. I hope he’s now going to write to Kate Forbes and ask her to take it to ICJ when she becomes FM.
    You never know she might just be interested, don’t put money on it.


    1. I don’t think you understand neither Kate Forbes or the Scottish Government, which is a colonial administration can win status, only a genuine people led National Liberation Movement can.

      Liked by 11 people

      1. Can you explain how Wales was upgraded to a country as reported by marionJ99 while Scotland still remains a colony?
        Wales, as a kingdom, was overtaken by the Norman3s, and subsequently isolated by the English building castles along its borders. Scotland never suffered that fate and retained its kingdom up until the end of Elizabeth 1st reign when it was united by James 6th and 1st. It was not until 1707 that this situation ended by what we all know and how. I believe my history is more or less correct.


      2. ajmb0243 – The UK is registered as two countries, a Principality and a province. It was the UN that upgraded Wales to a country due to the lack of an executive prince- Wales celebrated!

        Wales did not have an executive prince because the “UK” deeply believes it is England and neither Wales nor Scotland has any standing in their eyes. The Westminster choice would have been to downgrade Wales to a county – just as that is their choice for Scotland. This is entitled and wrong. We need to end this and Westminster have to be told, not asked – that is extremely clear.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. I have a great deal of faith and trust in Sara Salyers that is why I joined Salvo/ Liberation and also the @AlbaParty .The SNP are commiting political suicide and still they promise Independence,in 5 years time! If you beleive that lot them you desrve to go down with the SNP many of the best activists I knew have died knowing they were lied to by a once great party now part of the London estanlishment.

    Liked by 6 people

  6. This has cheered me up, circumventing the colonialists and their vichy quisling administration.
    We have been at this point before in our history only to be betrayed by our politicians, now its it’s been taken out of their treacherous lying hands.
    Dissolve the Union.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. 1707 was a betrayal by Nobles who cared not for the Sovereign scots now history repeats but this time with politicians in the SNP who thought they were Nobles.
      It is now up to us to take a grip of Scotland this is the only way to scare those uppity corrupt scum in London and their ball boys in Scotland!

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Good question.

      Another good question:
      Are the SNP MPs Scottish tax rate payers or not? Seems a fair question as their party is setting the tax rate.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. I don’t hold the membership list so the answer is I don’t know. I think it unlikely because as yet none of them have responded to the invitation to take part in a podcast for Salvo and Liberation members.

      Liked by 5 people

  7. So in essence we need to TAKE our independence (Ash Regan’s plan) and if Westminster digs its heels in then the ICJ could step and mediate between two sovereign nations, what’s strange is that Scotland is already a sovereign nation, maybe because we are in a union the ICJ feels it can’t act until its broken, which takes back to Ash Regan’s plan.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Don’t think that’s a good one. It suggests UDI which stands or falls on International recognition. Very hard to achieve as nation’s are averse to the UDI route because one day it might be them. The Liberation route is the way to go.

      Liked by 8 people

    2. That would be the obvious and quickest way forward but for one serious drawback. Our voting system is now in the hands of private companies. As a direct result we have seance, including and since the referendum, voter turnout or returns of over 90% for the first time. This, of course is a statistical impossibility given the 11 – 17% inbuilt redundancy, (error due to population changes which the register will never keep up with).

      “Electoral registration processes need updating in order to ensure as many people as possible are registered, according to a new study by the Electoral Commission. Its research found that 17% of eligible voters in Great Britain are not correctly registered at their current address, representing as many as 9.4 million people. Meanwhile 11% of the register entries are inaccurate, affecting up to 5.6 million people.

      The first detailed look at the health of electoral registers in three years, the research highlights that while the proportion of people registered to vote in Great Britain remains stable, young people and private renters are still less likely to be correctly registered.” The Electoral Commission, 2019

      If we are really generous, the highest ballot return possible is, therefore, somewhere around 87%. And that would mean 100% of those actually eligible to vote had voted. This simply never happens. In a really extraordinary turnout, or postal return, you might get 90% or perhaps 95%; remember, that is 90 – 95% of the 87% who are *actual* voters on the electoral register. If 95% of real voters turned out or sent back their postal ballots, in either case it would be reported as an 83% return. (This year, those registered for a postal ballot will have to reapply every three years which should improve the ‘redundancy’ percentage in the registered, ‘postal’ electorate.) Now go and check some the return figures for recent elections referendums, especially the postal ballot returns for the independence referendum and Brexit (In England).

      Now, without a vote showing the democratic will of the people, Scotland will not get international recognition and the Scottish government would likely be dissolved by Westminster. With a vote, plebiscite or referendum, what do you thing GCHQ will do? What do you think they are already doing? Does this government strike you as law abiding and honest in any way? Does it play by the rules? Or does it feel entitled to commit any crime it sees fit because it is, and always has been, above the law? (The real meaning of the world privilege is private law!) See why we need a ‘workaround’, yet?

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Indeed they have passed legislation permitting illegal activity in certain circumstances if it helps reduce threats to the UK SECURITY AND ECONOMY. Losing Scotland is certainly in those categories.

        Liked by 3 people

    3. (Hint – you are looking for returns of over 87% in those referendums or elections. And yes, there are areas where we are supposed to have had a 96% voter return, something now becoming ‘normal’. Fraud in plain sight!)

      Liked by 7 people

  8. I’m with Marx. Groucho that is, not Karl.

    I would not join any organisation which would have me as a member. Except for Salvo and Liberation. It is crucial that as many people as possible are made aware of the content of the above pieces. It is crucial that as many people as possible acquaint themselves with the process, both historic and future. When we have shared knowledge, it becomes more difficult for those forces of darkness who would seek to exercise control and distort the truth.

    Almost daily, the limited scope of the ‘political’ process in Scotland is becoming clearer. Sorry to go back to the word ‘crucial’ but I cannot think of a more apposite adjective to qualify the proposed ferry route from Rosyth. That should be ‘one giant step’. Witness how Ireland has succeeded in circumventing brexit. NB: no capital for ‘brexit’, as there is no capital for ‘bourach’ (I refrain from using a stronger term).

    Perhaps, I’m getting ahead of myself, but if the Scottish Government is constrained by Westminster, what is to prevent a group of like-minded individuals, altruistic rather than politically affiliated, formulating a strategy for Scotland’s future prosperity?

    Perhaps the ‘Diaspora’ can show us a way?

    Liked by 7 people

    1. “Perhaps the ‘Diaspora’ can show us a way?”

      Yes, perhaps like this example:

      Oor diaspora is what we might call ‘Auld Scots’, as distinct from ‘new Scots’. Postcolonial theory tells us that a colonial regime prioritise the latter while disregarding the former. Colonial government ‘values’ protect the interests of the colonizer, not the native.

      The colonizer and his institutions will always act to restrict development of the colonized, not least on expanding his industries, and seaports, international trade, or shipbuilding, among many other things. The only purpose of a colonized people is to serve the needs of the ‘mother country’.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. I have been considering all the blunders made despite the fact there are people like yourself and others who had solutions to the problems that the Scottish government ran into in regards to ferries, currency and other areas. Now prior to let’s say the present SNP leadership if you were to ask the Scottish public who were the most competent, kinder government between the UK and here I for one certainly felt like we had the lesser of two evils. Obviously it wasn’t perfect our youth didn’t get taught the history and such but if you wanted to change course and have the folk leaning towards the UK government or have them appearing to be better despite the fact they are the problem, wouldn’t you ignore all the solutions on purpose?

        Liked by 3 people

  9. So there we have it, in plain, unambiguous language. On reading the CIJ’s reply, like others, I’m sure, Salvo and Liberation immediately sprang to mind.

    As Sara Salyers puts it in her response above:”Now that the facts are finally clear, we can make the case for Liberation to the people of Scotland with the evidence to back it.” Steve Norris, deserves everyone’s gratitude for this initiative.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. It seems that the Yes movement may be approaching its Ceausescu moment and I welcome this. However, things are getting nasty out there. Folk who should know better are directing their sights at the minions amongst the cult. It’s important to remember that we’re dealing with a cult here. Many in the lower echelons were enticed into its grip precisely because they were uneducated, weak, vulnerable, immature. Yes their behaviour may have been deplorable, but many were just following the lead set by the cult leaders.
    Thankfully it appears that their Cultural Revolution has been relatively short lived. Some folk have suffered genuine harm while it ran its vicious, semi-undisciplined course and they are entitled to retribution. Exercise some considered judgment when targeting individual members of the Red Guard.y

    Liked by 7 people

  11. Sara and Iain, thank you for your kind words. They mean a great deal.
    I am but an ordinary Scottish citizen who wants to see my country take its place in the world, and for the fortunes and hopes of its people to be restored.
    We have lost much time, but it is never, ever too late.
    If Project Humza fails, and I believe it will, the entire YES movement will recover its balance and strength.
    And that, along with Sara and others’ work on the absolute need to reassert Scotland’s constitutional standing and rights, will begin to gain internationally attention – no matter how much our adversaries try to prevent it.
    That is the key to the door.
    Hammer an iron wedge into a wall thought to be impregnable, into that tiny crack called Scottish popular sovereignty, and keep on hammering, and it will break.
    The UK is held in low regard right now both in Europe and across the world.
    This is our chance.
    Saor Alba.

    Liked by 14 people

    1. Thank you for your efforts on Scotland’s behalf, it has clarified the position that we knew was the case but to have it confirmed by the ICJ is so helpful.

      During my 25+ years in the Third Sector, I have seen dozens of great projects destroyed at the very moment they were to achieve their goals, simply because of jealousies and personalities and so it seems our chosen vehicle for independence has fallen foul of a similar problem.

      However, once this farcical leadership election is over, whatever happens, the movement must let go of the past and move on with a new purpose and drive but never forget how we came to be where we are at present.

      As you say, “This is our chance” and with Salvo and Liberation not connected to any political party, they meet the criteria that you have confirmed. Exciting times ahead and hope for many who had none just a few short months ago.

      Liked by 7 people

    2. And thank you Steve and all the other “Steves” out there who along with the “Saras” including Sara S are doing their damnedest to find us a way out of this fetid union whilst the main vehicle is grounded in the mire.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Brings me back to a dinner I was at before the virus lock down. Each of us at the table were different nationalities and the host pointed it out. He was like this is nice an international table. More than a few times it’s crossed my mind especially when a couple of things that I thought about he produced. I was like wtf did he read my mind or coincidence? 🤣

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I mean the international table part I go back to an relate it to now in regards to a possible solution. Reason being is now a few of the nationalities at the table, well the countries are at odds with one another but outwith this in the country we were having the dinner at was in the middle.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. A lot of people might think it bonkers but it’s completely true. Nice big guy, fearless and somehow he helped conquer a couple of fears I had by doing things and it was like he knew without being told. Took us up a mountain and the truck was sliding down and his girlfriend and myself though feck it and started laughing as we were facing possible doom (the two men were all serious as it was happening)A wee couple of private things as well. I am the type to say well that’s strange but then folk think I am as well but I really don’t care, I just tell truth and folk can take it or leave it.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. I’m a great fan of clarity and the ICJ’s letter provides that. So we now need to find one or more international sponsors in either independent countries or UN committees. Ireland seems an obvious choice, though the Scot Gov seems to be pissing them off over a needless fight over Rockall (the place not a substitute for a swear word!).

    I wish Salvo and Liberation good fortune.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. If you consider the nuSNP as unionists who turn to GCHQ for help then picking a fight with Ireland makes perfect sense.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Interestingly, I think that if the Rockall argument could be made to stand up with Ireland then the UKG could use that to claim Shetland holds the offshore rights and is not just an enclave on the Scottish continental shelf the event of independence. They seem to think Shetland would want to go with rUK.


    2. Angus Robertson has been in photo ops with the Irish cultural government body. I felt like commenting about how he’s no popular here.

      Liked by 3 people

  13. (@Iain – hope this is permissable – in part it relates to Sara’s post about electoral registers, the numbers involved and potential fraud – it is also highly topical given the current leadership elections and potential fraud?)

    Back in 2019, I did a series of videos, and followed it up with a Petition to the Scottish Parliament, this was the introductory video to the series involved – if you and any others are interested, I can supply more.

    Why? Because my efforts with the Declaration and the Liberation’s efforts both face the full might and powers not just of rUK but the wider geo-political interests that will also be in play. They appeared in 2014, and wil reappear even more strongly as soon as there is a real threat to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. just one important point, Mike. A group of us gathered hard evidence of vote rigging. We began the process of requesting a judicial review on the basis of that evidence. After weeks of intense effort we discovered that no judicial review was possible. Why? Because a consultative referendum has the legal standing of an opinion poll. There is no ‘contract’ between the voters and government, whatever assurances are given that the result will be respected. Where there is no contract, there can be no fraud and therefore no ground for review. A police inquiry would have been possible but only if either the Scottish government (SNP) or the EMB requested it. Both refused to do so.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Like life – it’s complicated, which is why I did a series of videos to separate all the elements involved, but below is just one aspect, it comes from the Referendums Scotland (Act) 2020. The flaw lies in the “permitted period of 8 weeks” (when I did the videos it was whilst it was a bill and it was 6 weeks).

        5 years after the 2014 Referendum, the Security Committee at the HofC posted evidence of possible Russian interference in 2014. Personally, I doubt the evidence they used – but that is not the point – you only need to be 1 day over the 8 weeks, and no matter the credibility of the evidence you are out of time. E – all in just 8 weeks.

        Even within the 8 weeks – you need a QC (KC), a Petition into the Court of Session, and a tom of money.

        Important!!! The Petition I submitted was eventually closed – but after the Parliamentary Session closes (and it has – this was 2019) I can reword and resubmit it. I intend to do so – but it is 100% a question of timing as to when I do so and because of the other elements (one deals with Human Rights and that relates eventually to one of the stages in the declaration initiative) so now is not the time – but expect it to appear in due course.


        39Restriction on legal challenge to referendum result

        (1)No court may entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast as certified by a counting officer or by the Chief Counting Officer under section 9(2)(b) or (as the case may be) (4) unless—

        (a)the proceedings are brought by way of a petition for judicial review, and

        (b)the petition is lodged before the end of the permitted period.

        (2)In subsection (1)(b) “the permitted period” means the period of 8 weeks beginning with—

        (a)the day on which the officer in question makes the certification as to the number of ballot papers counted and votes cast in the referendum, or

        (b)if the officer makes more than one such certification, the day on which the last is made.

        (3)In subsection (1), references to a petition for judicial review are references to an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Brexit > consultative > Gina Miller > Joanna Cherry > judicial review?

        … and apologies over state/grammar/spelling in last post.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. Sorry if I am being thick and missing the obvious here Sarah, but what do you mean here when you typed ‘EMB’?


  14. @Iain I found the site ages ago as I was trying to find out about our history and other information because as you well know we didn’t get taught in school and I felt like there’s unanswered questions. I posted one of the links in response to one of your commentors last night and low and behold, left a stupid meme and muted me. Haha. No fecks shall be given, not a single one. People don’t like truthful information. I am the opposite.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. So apart fae the author of the letter to the court, all you guys and gals, we have the people from our recent past to thank for leaving us a wee paper trail. It’s like a wee treasure hunt through our timelines that have been sitting waiting to be found and connected to then be shared to the people to help free us.

      Liked by 4 people

  15. Kudos to Steve Norris.

    Perhaps the international community is asking,

    “Why does Scotland continue to send representatives to England’s parliament in Westminster when, in relation to Scotland, it knows that parliament to be fundamentally undemocratic and anti Scottish?”

    “Surely Scotland can’t want its independence that much if it continues to send its representatives down there when it can easily [without anyone’s permission] absent them from such an ignominious situation?”

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Excellent point, Doug. I’m also wondering what excuse our Scottish ‘nationalist’ elected majorities of national representatives in Westminster and Holyrood have for continuing to take an oath to The Crown, i.e. our oppressor?

      Liked by 4 people

  16. @Mike Fenwick GIna Millar et all challenged the legitimacy of the referendum per se. We may have been misled but we were told that the actual voting procedure could not be subject to judicial review because there was no ‘contract’ involved in a consultative referendum/opinion poll and without contract there is no fraud.


    1. In one of my earlier comments I mention that I was using “human rights” as part of the Petition I submitted. You use the word “fraud” and maybe (I don’t know) that is what prompted what you were advised???

      See if this helps:

      This is an extract fom an article related to the Gina Miler case: It was heard by a panel of three distinguished judges in the High Court which decided on 3 November 2016 that, given the loss of rights for individuals that would result from the process, Parliament should decide whether to trigger Article 50, not the executive.

      Note the reference to “the loss of rights for individuals” – that ties in with the approach I used, and will (eventually) adopt again, “human rights” because that can also be founded upon in the Declaration initiative.

      What was interesting – purely as info – was that the Petitions Committeee (with I suspect the involvement of the Scottish Government) took the issue very very seriously, so seriously that they referred the matter to the Law Society of Scotland for adjudication. (That became a whole other story!)

      As I said it’s complicated, be aware of this:


      1. PS: Re my reference to the “8 week” time limit – The Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 introduced a three month time limit in which to bring judicial review proceedings.

        Spot the difference???

        Which is why I will return to the subject!


      2. Well, yes, we were alleging ballot stuffing and ballot substitution – and where the police had conducted no investigation. Fraud, but not applicable in an ‘opinion poll’ referendum. If there were already an investigation which had confirmed the facts reported, we could have had a judicial review on the human rights grounds. But by the time the investigation was complete we’d have been out of time for the review. Of course no investigation either because, again, no real ‘fraud’ so we could not report a crime. We tried.

        Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: