Much of UK law may be fraudulent

A guest post by Xaracen, who is a regular reader and occasional contributor to this site. He is a retired IT engineer and Manager.


Decisions made by England’s MPs cannot be considered UK decisions unless and until Scotland’s MPs agree them, and Westminster has no business pretending otherwise.

Because the Union is a binary entity, composed of two partner kingdoms, no decision made by one partner (via his MPs overruling the other’s) can be binding on the other, nor binding on the Union or any part of the Union. Such unilateral decisions made by one partner’s MPs cannot legitimately be passed by the Union Parliament.

Here’s why;

The two sovereign kingdoms of Scotland and England agreed by Treaty to joint governance of both kingdoms by a single parliament, each kingdom being represented by its own body of MPs and, like their sovereign parents, neither body has any legitimate authority of any kind over the other.

Clearly, neither body of MPs can represent the United Kingdom on their own, so any decision made by one body over the objections of the other cannot be deemed a UK decision, it having been made by only one partner. Such a unilateral decision cannot be made binding on the other partner, nor legitimately be passed as a UK decision by the UK’s Parliament and thus made binding on the UK. Nevertheless, the UK Parliament has permitted this since the inception of the Union on the basis that there is only one body of MPs, all of whom are UK MPs, and thus any majority must be a UK majority, and so is entirely valid.

But this justification is fraudulent, because it is incomplete, and thus masks and ignores the crucial truth that the UK is not a single homogenous entity, and neither are its MPs.

Yes, they are all UK MPs, but each one is also, and primarily, the representative of one or other of the two parent kingdoms who elected them, and the sovereignties of those parents must be respected because a, they still exist, and b, they are still sovereign, and c, they both have every sovereign right to expect their representation to count for exactly as much as the other’s in any and all UK decision-making. The differing numbers of the two bodies of representatives merely reflects the size of their home populations (and which together are also not a single homogenous population), and not their relative ranking in a pretended hierarchy of authority. Those ranks are exactly equal precisely because their parents’ sovereignties are exactly equal, both holding ultimate authority in their own domains, that being what ‘sovereignty’ actually means, both in Scotland and in England.

England’s MPs outnumber Scotland’s MPs by about ten to one, but they still only represent England, and have no legitimate authority over Scotland or her MPs because Scotland’s separate sovereignty makes them irrelevant. For the same reason, Scotland’s MPs have no legitimate authority over England or her MPs, even if ever they were to outnumber them, because of England’s separate sovereignty. So the distribution of parent-derived authority across both bodies of MPs is equal, ie. 1:1, even if their numbers are not. The Westminster institution’s carefully maintained indifference to that equality is fraudulent, abusive and unlawful.

In addition, Scotland’s sovereignty is embodied in its population, and they owe no allegiance or obedience to Westminster, and certainly not to England’s MPs. They will respect the rule of law if they consider it properly constructed by legitimate authority, but being sovereign, they can refuse consent to those laws they consider illegitimate.

England’s sovereignty is effectively embodied in her MPs. The claimed ‘unlimited sovereignty’ of the UK Parliament is based on the assertion of English parliamentary sovereignty from their 1689 Bill of Rights, but it has no relevance in Scotland. The English population, not being sovereign, has no choice but to be law-abiding, even if they disagree with some of those laws.

In 1707, Westminster acquired authority to govern Scotland, conferred on it by Scotland’s ratification of the Treaty of Union, but that is only delegated authority, not actual sovereignty, so it doesn’t even equal Scotland’s sovereignty, let alone outrank it, and that delegated Scottish authority is in the form of Scotland’s MPs. None of that Scottish authority was delegated to England’s MPs. Scotland’s MPs acquire their delegated authority directly from the sovereign Scots via the process of being elected by them in a UK general election. England’s elected MPs acquire their authority from the UK Parliament itself on arrival at Westminster.

So, what does it all mean?

It means that the Union does not belong to England alone, that the UK parliament has no right to favour England’s MPs over Scotland’s via its too-simplistic majority voting system, and that the only legitimate basis for passing legislation (or any other matter that requires a vote) in the UK Parliament is joint agreement by the two partners of the Union.

It means that England’s MPs must NOT be allowed to use their 10 to 1 majority to overrule a decision made by Scotland’s MPs, because that denies the sovereign rights of the Scottish partner of the Union, and is thus abusive and invalid. Valid decisions can therefore only be jointly agreed decisions, determined via two majority votes, one from each kingdom’s body of MPs. This requires the votes of the two bodies be counted separately, and there can be no casting vote if the two outcomes differ because that would mean denying the authority of the losing kingdom, so instead the matter must be renegotiated or dropped.

Even more importantly, it also means that any existing legislation (or other matter) previously passed unilaterally by England’s MPs is invalid and ultra vires, and thus fraudulent and unlawful, and renders the UK Government and the entire Westminster establishment culpable for their criminal lack of due diligence on the constitutional and legal provenance of their authority to govern the twin kingdoms of the UK in the way they have.

Scotland’s MPs are fully entitled to insist that such fraudulent legislation be rescinded, or declared null and void, or renegotiated. In addition, the Westminster establishment must incur penalties and/or be liable to make restitution for any damaging consequences arising from such legislative fraud. A major example of course is all of Brexit and its related consequent legislation, and that will be outrageously expensive and extremely embarrassing for Westminster and the UK government to be pulled up on. It would be a well deserved humiliation that cannot come soon enough.

They would also constitute major breaches of the Treaty and major breaches of Scotland’s sovereignty and constitution, and thus would be concrete grounds for ending the Union. Ending the Union would not anull any obligation regarding penalties and/or restitution.



It is enormously healthy that issues like this are finally being discussed and more and more people are developing both knowledge and interest in how such unfair arrangements are just imposed on Scotland when they are not based on any solid legal basis. An example is our oil and gas. Scotland is a territorial nation and territorial nations are entitled to own and benefit from the assets on our land and sea. We know these powers were never transferred to England because neither the Monarch or the Scots Parliament ever owned them because they were owned by the sovereign people of Scotland. Salvo put a really good podcast out a couple of days ago highlighting these lies on the INDYSCOT News site. You can watch it on YouTube or on this site if you choose.

I am, as always



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.


81 thoughts on “Much of UK law may be fraudulent

  1. Whilst the jurisdiction of Scotland and England continue separately in many respects. The treaty of union creates the dissolution of Scotland and England as constitutional entities, creating the new entity of UK. Author thus initially relies on a moral argument, rather than a lawful or constitutional one. Sovereignty – entirely agree with whats said. A problem here is perhaps countering 300 years of deemed custom and practice.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. “The treaty of union creates the dissolution of Scotland and England as constitutional entities”

      This isn’t true, the Treaty did no such thing, it merely created a new entity with enough delegated authority to govern itself, but nothing in the Treaty expressly requires the dissolution of either Kingdom, because, at least for Scotland, neither the monarch or the parliament had the authority to do that. The dissolution of either of their old parliaments wasn’t required either, they just became irrelevant.

      Both Scotland and England are still constitutional entities, because both constitutions still exist and have effect, (ask Boris if his slap-down by Scotland’s constitution still stings), and their respective sovereignties still exist, the latter by dint of the lack of any adequate authority to remove or transfer them. What was transferred to the new Parliament of Great Britain was delegated authority, not sovereignty.

      Both states simply ceased to be self-governing states, being governed jointly instead by a single Parliament representing both constitutional entities, each of which are directly represented in that Parliament in the form of their MPs. The UK is thus a third bilateral composite entity, but it has no more authority over either of the two kingdoms than they conferred to it. And internally in the Parliament their two representations have equal authority, and must do because of the equal sovereignties they represent, they just don’t have equal numbers.

      There is a moral argument too, but I didn’t make it. Agreed that three hundred of years of custom and practice doesn’t help, but there is no statute of limitations on breaches of sovereignty and treaties.

      Liked by 13 people

      1. Well, I think your on a limb, express dissolution or not. But your point about Johnson supports you, and Id like you to be right. So Ill read up a bit.

        Liked by 5 people

      2. I absolutely agree with your comment. If I could just add one thing which might help readers understand this situation better is to see the parliament created by the Treaty of Union as a devolved parliament. Powers were devolved to westminster not in absolute terms but with conditions. Westminster cannot be a sovereign parliament because it’s powers were limited by the Treaty. That should have been our argument right at the very start of this journey.

        Liked by 4 people

    2. There is nothing in the Treaty that dissolves Scotland or allows England constitution to be the rule for the UK. SCOTLAND’s Claim of Right was a precondition of Treaty. No respect for Scotland’s constitution then no Lawful Union.

      Liked by 13 people

      1. The 2 entities continue to exist, in practice relegated by the new entity. Yes thats clearly correct. Imposition of Englands constitution – that comes back to custom and practice, which is a very hard thing to get around. Perhaps the answer here is not how long, or how widespread its imposition has been – but how frequently, if at all it has been challenged. A partial breach doesnt facilitate repudiation, and certainly remedy must be allowed. I think Xaracens argument of equality of sovereignty clearly stands, but it doesnt lead to equality of representation per se – though it surely should do where issues of constitution are concerned, and that perhaps opens an avenue to repudiation of the Supreme Court amongst others.

        Liked by 10 people

      2. That may be correct but Dorothy Bain on behalf of Scottish Government conceded that Scotland had been incorporated in the UK in her submission to the Supreme Court


      3. Bain was acting Ultra Vires – the red sovereignty of Scotland is not hers to deny.

        In 2014 the US stated it was a pity the union has begun with such brutality – internationally the ugly oppression is recognised. Yes house jocks fought against us at Culloden – what people seeking freedom has not had to deal with its own house jocks, those kapos of history?

        Brexit is a major treaty violation and we, the people, should not accept it.

        Liked by 9 people

      4. ” I think Xaracens argument of equality of sovereignty clearly stands, but it doesnt lead to equality of representation per se”

        It absolutely must lead to equality of representation because there are only two partners, but that does not mean equality in numbers of MPs, that numeric difference is simply down to the differing sizes of their respective home populations. The equality of representation is met (or should be) by the two bodies of MPs getting one vote each, a majority vote by England’s MPs, with or against a majority vote by Scotland’s MPs. It’s not remotely hard to arrange and manage, but it doesn’t suit the English establishment which runs Westminster and the government to permit that to happen, for obvious self-serving reasons.

        It’s how we can enforce that equality to be put in place that is our key problem. Massive public outrage may be one way to do that, and that requires widespread knowlege of the issue by Scotland’s people.

        Liked by 8 people

      5. Equality of representation in all matters simply isnt reasonable, think your buying into your own argument too heavily. But you have a valid argument where constitutional matters are concerned.

        Liked by 5 people

      6. Well semantics really. I could equally turn that on its head and point out you are in fact promoting inequality. Im no fan of Westminster, but its range is broad – and proportionate representation is for the most part fair and appropriate. I think you have to accept, if you cant convince a zealot like me – your arguments in trouble. But as I say, where constitutional matters are concerned, I think you have something.


      7. Derek, there are only two equally sovereign partners in the Union, neither of whom can have any legitimate authority over the other, and as far as I am concerned that is an unequivocal fact, and equality of representation is therefore an absolute prerequisite for the continuation of the Union, and should have been recognised as such from day one of the Union in May 1707.

        The Treaty has nothing that expressly requires the subjugation of Scotland’s sovereignty to England’s, and such subjugation after the Treaty came into effect was entirely unwarranted, and still is.

        The different sizes of the two partners is of no relevance, because sovereignty is not remotely dependent on that, nor on anything else but the word of the partner nation declaring it. No-one outside that nation has any right to question that nation’s declaration of its own sovereignty, lest their own be questioned. You either have it or you don’t.

        Both partners were clearly sovereign pre-Treaty, so both still are, and therefore equal by definition, and still are. All matters within the Union are dependent on negotiation between the two equal partners.

        If an inequality is required in some particular matter, then its terms must be negotiated, too.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. Ignores the reality that Scotland joined a universally unequal union. Really applaud you for putting forward your perspective, it prompts debate, and thats constructive.
        Personally – Ill be taking your point about equal representation on, in terms of constitutional matters. I think thats very good. Sincere thanks.


      9. “Ignores the reality that Scotland joined a universally unequal union.”

        That isn’t the reality, Scotland created the Union along with England. Your ‘unequal union’ was only unequal in size, not in authority. You are ignoring the reality that the greater numbers of England’s MPs does not add anything to their authority as a partner compared to Scottish partner’s authority.

        You are basically arguing that England’s larger size needs some recognition, and I happily agree with you. Where we differ, however, is that I can see that the recognition already exists in full, in the fact of England’s vastly larger MP numbers, and that is exactly the right solution.

        Nevertheless, they still only represent England alone, and England’s voice is still only one of the two voices in the Parliament of the Union, and it is no more authoritative in the Union than Scotland’s, so doesn’t get to pass binding legislation on its own, and you know it certainly wouldn’t accept Scotland doing that.

        Liked by 2 people

      10. Well, as I agreed yesterday – Englands voice is no more authoritative on matters pertaining to the union than Scotlands. Really good. Offers lots of scope for elaboration. Beyond that, bit of a stretch – waste of effort imo.


      11. Sure. All of its a stretch. Your attaching legal significance to theatre. Its value is PR.


      12. The unwarranted overruling of the Scottish sovereign partner by the English sovereign partner in the Union is far more than theatre, and is unquestionably of legal significance when the overruling imposes potentially and often actually abusive legislation on the Scottish partner, and on the UK. It never happens the other way around. You think wanting that corrected is a stretch? Its value is lightyears beyond PR!

        Liked by 1 person

      13. Trying to distort what Ive saids rather lame. I would far rather have left the subject, but Ive tried to disengage politely several times – and your determined to pursue me.
        Let me explain it to you this way – Declaration of Arbroath, 1689 Claim of Right, treaty of union – the law isnt static, old legislation simply becomes eroded or superceded by things like custom and practice. Common law is the only thing that stands the test of time. Their only benefit is to underline Scotlands nationhood.
        Charles didnt sign up to the Claim of Right because its relevant, and noone would have cared if he didnt. He did so because it adds to the gravitas, and mystique of the moment. Its theatre. However equally theres PR value of theatre in your argument. If it gives a few people a sense of indignation, and motivates them – thats good. And makes it worthwhile. But its legal value is trivial.
        The only mandate, the only event that will make any difference whatsoever – is achieving a popular majority. Thats the key to independence.


      14. Derek, I’m sorry you feel I am pursuing you, that was not my intent. You made statements I either disagreed with, or I didn’t understand because they were unclear, at least to me.

        In the context of this blog, the comments section is where debate actually happens, so some to and fro is not merely expected, it is its very purpose. Given that, where I disagree with a statement of yours or anyone else’s, I can legitimately say so as long as I am polite about it, and I believe also that it is a matter of epistemic courtesy that I explain why I disagree. I think that is a reasonable stance in any debate worthy of the name. You engaged, and so I engaged. For those statements of yours I thought unclear, I asked for clarification, and I think that is reasonable, too.

        But if you wish to disengage, be my guest, and my best regards to you, and thank you for the conversation.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Because the countries have vastly different sizes of population. Equal numbers of MPs aren’t essential, so long as the voting mechanism in the parliament counts the votes of the two partners’ MPs separately, and compares the resulting two decisions for a majority in favour, which would be two decisions in favour for a matter to pass. Simple majority rule would still be in effect but we’d now be counting the decisions of two partners and not the decisions of 650 MPs.

        As I’ve said above, this would be easy to set up and manage, it’s just that the beneficiary of the current asymmetric setup would simply refuse to implement it because it would lose its unwarranted domination of the Scots MPs on the merest whim. It is that domination that has been the mechanism that permitted the outrageous abuses of Scotland for literally centuries, and it must end.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Unfortunately that is true and we (our government in Holyrood) can be shown to have colluded in this injustice over many years.
    How can we re-assert the argument that the situation currently accepted in is not historically correct and is, indeed, an injustice on the people of Scotland.?

    Liked by 8 people

    1. We can form a Liberation Movement, gather a respectable number of signatures and register the movement with the UN. Then we can launch a nation-wide campaign to reveal the fraud and gaslighting which underpin this ‘voluntary Union’, showing that the Treaty was merely a legal camouflage for English annexation of Scotland and that this fraud continues today, establish the rights and responsibilities inherent in the terms and conditions of the Treaty (rights and obligations are inherent with any treaty), show which rights have been violated and which limits overstepped and what Scotland would like with these restored – and take the same evidence to the international court. All of which is underway with Liberation Scotland, its campaigning arm, Salvo and the upcoming campaign! Not demanding, begging or pleading to be allowed out of the prison and not hoping to escape with the ‘clothes on our backs’ anymore – but taking back what has been stolen, every last foot of land, every penny made from our resources, every aspect of our identity and every ounce of self-respect, confidence and self-worth. This is how we come out of the corner fighting.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. Thanks for that Sara. I am signed up to the Liberation movemen, and have encoraged friends to do so too but would like to have an idea what is a ‘respectable number’ of signatures and how close we are to getting the rquired number. though I appreciate it might not be advisable to reveal such information at this time. Nevertheless, encouraging news would be appreciated as sorely needed!

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Thank you Sara, You truly make me happy with the thought of their faces, when they find out that they have been found out. I so look forward to that day.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. I also dream about holding off from that final break with the British Establishment while we restore the assets of Scotland to the Scottish people and negotiate reparations, perhaps in lieu of that exemption from the shared ‘debt’ payment, remove ourselves from the national grid, provide Scotland’s domestic supply from renewables, set up the Common Good energy fund, negotiate reasonable rates for what we supply to England … and watch. For a while.

        Liked by 5 people

  3. “May” be fraudulent.?

    Westminster passed an Act to take over India from a Private Company that they helped support taking by force wearing British Army uniforms..( a mercenary Army). How did a Nation come under London by an Act at Westminster? How dare Russia and China use military force to impose their land grabs.
    The Westminster mindset is to assume authority. The Andy Wightman book “The poor had no lawyers” is a lower level example of the Empire mindset. You drive a stake in the ground and say “this is mine”. Who can challenge the powerful and wealthy?

    The Law is what I say it is.

    The Murrells are demonstrating that approach at the moment. You remove the democratic rules and impose your will. When challenged you simply look indignant and say (It is fair, I don’t know what their specific complaint is……) .Sturgeon is saying…..Who cares what it looks like, I say it is legal.

    Liked by 12 people

  4. Xaracen has the rights of it and has expressed the issues in a very clear and pointed article above. Yes there maybe problems countering 300 years of illegal practice, but there is no reason why we should just accept any further abuse going forward. Salvo.Scot , Liberation.Scot and Iain’s blog can help in this way by reposting far and wide this article and the video of the Seven Lies. More exposures of this abusive relationship between Scotland and England must be presented to the gaslighted communities not just of Scotland but for the English as well. Can’t wait for the next steps, and hope I am active enough to be of some assistance and help. One thing I can do is give time to the hub once established in the North East.

    Liked by 12 people

  5. Just because a thief holds on to goods they have stolen from you and held them for a long time does not make the thief the legal owner of your possessions.

    Liked by 13 people

    1. How is India getting on with recovering that £45 Trillion London stole from them?
      The Native Americans are not doing well either…or the Aboriginal people of Australia. Those Eskimos etc, etc.
      I have little hope of recovering what has been stolen but I can try to stop the thief returning every day to lift a fresh load.
      We keep leaving the door open and standing back while the robbers ransack the house. It is even worse now that they have started to squat in our home.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. The Native Americans actually got oil rights and there’s a film about this and how wealthy at one point. They also successfully sued to be given money owed. I found information about it on the Lakota law for Native Americans I think. It was a while ago so some of the details might be wrong but Obama had to change course due to a court ruling I think.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. I am pretty sure this was the tribe but can’t recall the name of the film. But there’s evidence on the net about the Native Americans and oil. Whether it covers all not sure then we had the Standing Rock water defenders. If you do a wee bit research it’s there.

        Liked by 4 people

      3. I think three men from one of the intelligence agencies helped because the Native Americans started being killed at that time because of it.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Well in Scotland’s case, there’s that ‘share’ of the UK debt that can be cancelled in lieu. We can get back our constitution, laws and languages, control of the assets about to be handed to corporations via ‘Freeport’s, ownership of the undisclosed profit share currently going to the UK treasury, control of our government and finally authority over any and all policies or statutes proposed by them. We may not be able to undo the past but we can reclaim what is ours and, when we come to sell our energy to England, maybe do what the energy companies do? Add a repayment ‘percentage’ to the tariff?

        Liked by 4 people

    2. However if squatters obtains residence in your property, and remain unchallenged – they obtain legal rights with the passage of time.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Whether a crime or offence times out or not is up to the legislation defining it, not all crimes decay into non-crimes. Are you saying this should be relevant here?


      2. The ability to litigate declines with the passage of time. You think that lacks relevance?


      3. Well, Im not an expert in treaty law Sara. Just a journalist like yourself. So Ill avoid comment there. Fraud however, time limits 6 years. Varies by jurisdiction.


  6. I am getting more and more angry about all this stuff. what are our MP’s doing about it? complaining about Sunak’s swimming pool? WGAF.
    We are about to have the Windsor Agreement imposed on us and Jack interfering with Scots Law. Our MPs should be taking Scotland out of this Act of Union immediately

    Liked by 7 people

  7. The Might-is-Right principal, as history shows, requires no legal underpinning, whatsoever. The buying-off of the local ruling class is really all that is required in terms of expense by the always more powerful land-grabber. The numerically tiny, patronage-enriched, local ruling class will in-turn, employ a variation of the Might-is-Right principal against its own country-people through the courts, by supplying, imposing and enforcing all of the legally underpinned justification necessary to consolidate its own position and power; in concert with that of the land-grabber, of course. Thus the production of a new, legally underpinned narrative of constitutional “reality” is created and imposed. A “reality” disseminated throughout the land by those recipients of trickle-down patronage who occupy positions of power and authority within all of the country’s influential institutions. Fraudulent it always was, but as we now know, courtesy of Salvo, not remotely beyond legal challenge! With few exceptions, the silence of our political-class on the matter has thus far been deafening: but as direct recipients of the patronage accruing from the status-quo, perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised by their reticence.

    Liked by 12 people

  8. I’ll check up to make sure it’s sorted Karen-Claire. You might want Iain to ask remove this post so your number and email address aren’t in the public domain?


  9. I remember not so long ago being scunnered about the mire the Yes movement was bogged down in thanks to the SNP and one optimistic type claiming when a party falls it can happen with surprising speed so to keep the faith. Boy was he right. Whether the SNP falls or is salvaged by a new leader (not you Humza sit down) is not all that important to me but things are moving in the right direction and with Liz Lloyd standing down to spend more time with her leaks things are looking up. Over to you Salvo ,Alba ,ISP.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Smitty

    Humza is no longer receiving live updates from HQ.He had been getting these fed to his team by Chris Jones the IT manager via Ian McCann. Online voting has slowed tight down and very few more are expected. They are now awaiting on postal votes, but even those will not be enough for Humza. The rumour that Humza had secured most votes and is having a celebration tonight are completely false. Humza is going to be in Inverness at the final husting. he was gong to pull out of the rest of the hustings, but has been told to stay in as his change of behaviour and dropped social media output was noted and he had to maintain the impression that he was unaware of the live results.

    HQ staff and SPAds are all concerned about their jobs as a Forbes administration will likely be sacking most. SPAds are employed directly by Sturgeon and they are redundant from the day she ceases to be FM. None are expecting to be retained.

    One insider says that Todd, MacCallan and MacPherson are the favourites to be demoted from their jobs to the backbenches with another saying that this three amongst others will be asked not to stand again. Michael Mathieson is the only cabinet secretary expected to survive the cull. If a minister or cabinet secretary resigns, then they get their ministerial top up tapered down over 6 months. If they get sacked then they get nothing. So a mass of resignations are expected. there are rumours that Emma Rodrick is to resign from the party and go as an independent with a possible move to the Greens at a later stage.

    Humza’s team are now going through the motions with many now parting away from the campaign in an effort to rescue their own careers, with none of them saying anything and their social media output no longer putting out any more campaign messaging. It is very hard to get any information now as they have pretty much locked down to their core.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. have always been confused with English Sovereignty.

    taken from Queen Anne in 1796/7.

    thus only Sovereignty relating to England, as Scotland’s Sovereignty has and continues to be with the people since 1320 (Declaration of Arbroath).

    does this not mean that only decisions relating to England are determined by the English part of Parliament and anything relating to Scotland are subject to the Scottish people (or, their appointed delegated representatives)?


    1. @grumpydubai; In my view, no. The UK Parliament is the governing body of the UK, its purpose to provide joint, co-ordinated governance over both kingdoms, with all relevant decisions made jointly by both partners via their representatives. Neither MP body should be making decisions in isolation for any part of the UK, especially if there will be consequences for the other partner’s territory.

      In your scenario, both kingdoms’ MPs would still be making their own decisions for their own domains in the same way they did pre-1707, just with both doing it in the same building. There would be no Union.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Hard to believe…it he has been accurate in the past

    Smitty says:
    17 March, 2023 at 7:37 pm
    The biggest story ever in Scottish politics is about to break and people are going to jail. I said a couple of weeks ago that people had done some bad things and were about to get found out. Well they have been.

    The crimes that were committed by the Murrells are now under investigation by the police. This is not a lie and they will end up on serious charges. The resignations of Sturgeon, Foote, Swinney, Livingstone, Lloyd are all connected. This is not anything to do with the missing money. I repeat, this is why Sturgeon resigned.

    Humza Yousaf is not involved but he knows about it. He knew of the allegations before he became candidate. He knew of the allegations before he became candidate. He agreed to offer what protection he could for Sturgeon and Murrell. Lloyd and Foote have been involved in his campaign to make sure he wins, but this has failed. They don’t have the numbers and they know the game s up. It is a short campaign to be carried out before the Murrells are bundled into the back of a police van.

    The house of cards is going to collapse imminently and all those arseholes who have backed who backed Humza and have eagerly joined in with his toxic campaign are going to find that there is a special place in hell reserved for them. The NEC, half of the MPs & MSPs, all the SPADs, all of the comms teams, HQ staff and every trougher have a bow wave of shit coming there way shortly and there will be no life raft for them. A total reset and a total clean out.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Xaracen excellent and informative article, with much I agree with, the majority of the people of Scotland have been duped into believing that Westminster hold power over Scotland when it doesn’t your article highlights this nicely.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Oh it has power – as the introduction of the English treason Act (1708) changing our own version to their showed, Butcher Cumberland demonstrated elegantly, the 1820 massacre and ‘treason’ trials demonstrated and the Supreme Court (unlawfully replacing our own) and so much else has proved over the years. They have all the power, for now, but none of it has been legitimate since they first demonstrated that the ‘Treaty’ was a mask for annexation and oppression. And much of it is demonstrably illegitimate right now.

      Liked by 4 people

  14. Watch You tube and there are people now saying England has a hidden constitution that Parliament is not even sovereign, even over the English. The point being is we are being lied to by politicians enriching their selfs at the expense of the public by selling of state assets for privatisation. The politicians getting a kick back and paid money for lobbying in the private sectors interests. If the people are sovereign do you think they can sell of parts of the NHS against the peoples will, our the utilities.
    On a different note Bute house is closing for refurbishment. You can bet that the security services are bugging the place head to foot for the new leader Ash or Kate, If its Humza they’ll have a transcript anyway.
    Dissolve the Union.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. If you mean the interview with William Keyte about the wide-ranging remit of England’s common law jury system, it was as much an eye opener as Sara’s expositions of Scotland’s constitution.

      Liked by 3 people

  15. Excellent article. A sovereign people always hold a veto in any international alliance. Only a colonised people are forced to reclaim their sovereignty.

    Liked by 5 people

  16. Good morning from a pile of rocks off West Scotland and yes the ferries are still a shambles and to add to it the Corran ferry is still broken down though that is not down to Calmac. Glowing tributes to Murray Foote which I am sure has nothing to do with him knowing where the bodies are buried but just the fact he is a swell guy and all round good egg. Fatigue with the leadership contest is starting to set in and at the moment I would take Mussolini if he could make the ferries run on time.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. Well, there you have it. The architect of The Vow is a ‘swell guy’.

    Forgive my advancing years, but I do not recall him disassociating himself from that pack of lies. Those who sing his praises must have short memories.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. The rats are leaving the sinking ship , Capitain Sturgeon and the first mate Murrell will try with all their power to distance themselves from the lies and stich ups they have created. The day of reckoning comes closer with every passing minute, tick, tock, tick tock . The cabal will not avoid the cull that is coming for their betrayal.
    Strugeon must resign as an MSP now.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Smitty update
    So everything i said is happening. There will be more to fall yet. Sturgeon will be on the backbenches by next FMQs. Her position is no longer tenable and there are big stories to come out over the next few days which she sill not be able to survive. Peter Murrell will be arrested this week on multiple charges. The shielding they enjoyed has gone.

    I have been shown the evidence that HQ does have visibility of the live voting. Oswald, Murrell & Finn have all denied that this function exists, however the evidence that has now been passed on that is does. Oswald will have to resign as a MP for her denial of this. Finn will have to be sacked from McKee’s office. This will be made public very soon, and it will then bring the entire contest into disrepute. We know that Humza was being fed live results from HQ but we were not given the physical evidence. However a junior member of his team is shitting himself now as he has seen what has happened to Lloyd, Murrell & Foote. He is on the edge just and he has already spilled to a MP who is now on the warpath.

    The NEC are a complete mess. It is a circular firing squad now. They could all potentially be facing giving evidence under oath with major financial and political consequences for them. This seriousness of what they have been involved in is now starting to sink with blame being passed about. The vote will need to be restarted but it is likely that Humza will have to drop out once the evidence of collusion with HQ and vote tampering is made public. Humza’s political career is finished. It will be a two horse race; Regan v Forbes.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Still not 100% sure about Smitty as he is telling us exactly what we want to hear but god he has been fun and is having an effect.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The temperature in the room dropped about 7 or 8 degrees when somebody speculated Smitty might be Alyn Smith… but it was just mentioned as a flying-the-kite possibility…

        I don’t think it is, but I’ve entered the warning in the log book just in case.

        Liked by 1 person

  20. I doubt Smitty is citizen Smith but even if it is him I doubt it will be enough to save him after all the devious shit he has got up to over the years.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. arayner1936 We’re aiming for 100,000 but I think it will be more. We haven’t even started the campaign yet but we had over 6K a couple of months ago and it’s climbing purely through social media. I haven’t asked the admin recently where we are now!

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: