In Right of the Crown?

Sara Salyers

In 2022, while ‘the nation(s) mourned’ the death of Queen Elizabeth, officially anyway, Scotland had another reason for mourning. Along with the mortal remains of Elizabeth Windsor, the dazzling but entirely English royal pageant, representing an ancient but entirely English, constitutional monarchy, effectively buried the Crown of Scotland. 

“This is your heritage and history!” The spectacle proclaimed. “Behold its glory, its continuity and its power!”

And we did. One monarch, one monarchy and one Crown, the pageant reminded us, whose essential character is universally understood. But the message was a lie. An important lie. 

Although we have a single monarch, there are, two UK Crowns, physically and institutionally. (This is why we have a separate Scottish Crown Estate Office.) The reason for this is the irreconcilable characters of the Scottish and English Crowns.

Any kingdom is a territory, as well as a people, ruled by a monarch. But, crucially, a kingdom may also be described as an area of land held by, and depending on the existence of a Crown. A Crown is not only a monarch. It is a constitutional institution whose character will vary from nation to nation and is distinct from the individual who may wears it. It encompasses territorial, judicial, political and economic authority, what we call ‘sovereignty’, the final and absolute authority of any nation as well as ‘ownership’ of the land and its resources.

The Scottish Crown is widely believed to have disappeared at the Treaty of Union, a belief deliberately fostered by the British establishment. It did not – could not. Even more widespread is the belief that the Crown, Scottish or English, hardly matters in the modern world. This could not be more wrong.

The Crown as an institution still determines the source of power and the ultimate control of, well, pretty much everything. The one on display, the only one ever spoken about in the public domain, the one everyone is familiar with and that has been used as the basis for legislation applied in Scotland, as well as the rest of the UK, is the English Crown institution. Let’s repeat that to be very clear: it is the English institution of the Crown. It works in the following way:

“Conventional feudal theory and practice was based (in England and elsewhere) on the premise that a kingdom was first and foremost a feudal entity and, in that sense, the property of its king or queen.” R Callander ‘How Scotland is Owned’ pp. 45 – 46 (Canongate, 1998)

“The origin of the ‘Crown Estate’ is in 1066. After the Norman Conquest all land belonged to the King and despite changes since then, there is still a presumption that land is owned by the Crown unless there is evidence to prove otherwise. Crown land is managed on behalf of the government by the Crown Estate, which must now be managed by a Board who have a duty to maintain and enhance the estate using good management techniques.” (British Geological Survey, Legislation & policy: mineral ownership, Mineral ownership in the UK,

“Crown interest” means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department.” Promoting Development in Scotland” Crown Estates Commission 1998

In summary, the English Crown Estate and the English ‘right of the Crown’ derives from the character of the monarchy in 1066. English Crown equals monarch. The kingdom of England, the land and assets held by the English Crown was and remains ‘a feudal entity’, the property of its king or queen. Political and economic sovereignty were transferred to the English Parliament by the English Convention of 1689. Ownership and control of the territory and its assets remain, in principle, the property of the monarch, managed by the English government through its various offices and department. The Scottish Crown is very different.

“In Scotland’s feudal system, this situation was radically tempered by the Crown’s status as representative of the Community of the Realm which vested that ‘ownership’ in the sovereignty of the people. “ (R Callander ‘How Scotland is Owned’ pp. 45 – 46, Canongate, 1998)

“This distinct identity was not affected by the Union of Crowns in 1603 and has continued since the Treaty of Union in 1707, when Scotland ceased to be an independent state but continued to be a sovereign territorial nation” ( The Land of Scotland and the Common Good, Report of the Land Reform Review Group, May 2014, Section 1 – Land of Scotland, Land Reform Review Group Secretariat)  

Put simply, the Crown of Scotland represents the people of the nation rather than any individual and monarchs have always and only represented that Crown. Scottish Crown equals Community of the Realm.  Kings or queens ruled not by feudal entitlement but by the consent of the people, who could withdraw that consent and, therefore, the power to govern.

Therefore, the common folk and people of the aforesaid kingdom of Scotland, worn out as it is by the stings of many tribulations ….. agreed on the said Lord Robert, the present king.  … Declaration of the Clergy 1309

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own right and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King… Declaration of Arbroath 1320

Therfor the Estates of the kingdom of Scotland Find and Declaire That King James the Seventh being a profest papist Did assume the Regall power and acted as king without ever takeing the oath required by law and hath by the advyce of Evill and wicked Counsellors Invaded the fundamentall Constitution of the Kingdome and altered it from a legall limited monarchy To ane arbitrary despotick power … wherby he hath forfaulted the right to the Croune and the throne is become vacant… Claim of Right Act 1689

To bestow or remove kingship, to be able to grant or remove the  power to govern is sovereignty.Scottish sovereignty is vested in the Crown of Scotland, just as it is vested in the Crown of England. But the – inexpressably significant – difference is that the Crown of Scotland is not his Majesty King Charles III. The Crown of Scotland is the people, ‘the common folk’ as much as the titled or ennobled. 

The constitutional character of the Scottish Crown is something no monarch had or has the authority to alter. The Treaty of Union gave Queen Anne no special, new power to change the institution she inherited from Kenneth McAlpine. The Scottish parliament did not suddenly become a copy of the English, its members ‘custodians’ of the sovereignty of the people, (with the power to take it away to Westminster). Neither monarch nor parliament  possessed the sovereignty of the Crown which, we are told today, somehow passed to the new, UK Parliament in 1707. But you can’t sell or lease a house you don’t own and they owned neither ‘sovereignty nor the ‘right of the Crown’ in Scotland to negotiate away.

The British state has dealt with the problem by burying it and pretending it doesn’t exist. Almost everything done in the UK ‘in right of the Crown’ conforms to the rights of an English Crown. Notwithstanding the two separate Crown Estate Offices. Notwithstanding the territorial sovereignty of the Scottish nation. Notwithstanding the need for separate arrangements for the administration of Scotland’s territorial assets. The Scottish Crown, and all that it implies for the rights of the people of Scotland, has become a kind of ghost in the constitutional machinery of the UK. But buried or not, the Scottish Crown, the sovereignty of the people over their government and over their territory, remains. Because there is no lawful way to remove it – and no lawful way to make the institution and rights of the Crown uniform across the UK. 

This is a glaring example of the gaslighting of Scotland by the British establishment. Behind it lies an incontrovertible and, for that establishment, extremely dangerous fact. 

It was dangerous enough to impose English treason law in Scotland in 1708, breaching the Treaty of Union. It was dangerous enough to convince Westminster to phrase the first petroleum extraction act, which applied almost entirely to Scotland’s oil and gas act in purely English terms:

“An Act to vest in the Crown the property in petroleum and natural gas within Great Britain and to make provision with respect to the searching and boring for and getting of petroleum and natural gas, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

1 Vesting of property in petroleum in His Majesty

(1) The property in petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is hereby vested in His Majesty, and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum” (Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 CHAPTER 36)

Of course, Scottish oil and gas cannot be lawfully vested in ‘His Majesty’ or ‘Her Majesty’ or any government on the majesty’s behalf, whatever Westminster decrees – a precarious constitutional position for a British state that is heavily dependent on Scotland’s assets for revenue. Hence the need for fraud by semantics, such as an Act which vests, “in the Crown the property in petroleum and natural gas within Great Britain” and then explicitly in “His Majesty”, something only constitutionally possible with the English portion of these assets.

But the continuance of the Scottish Crown is not only dangerous because it changes the legal ownership of Scotland’s territorial assets. When the ‘head of state’, (the Crown), is ‘the Community of the Realm’, then the security of the state, the power of the state and the interests of the state can never mean the security, the power and the interests of a ruling elite, of corporations or a privileged class. The security, power and interests of the state are, instead and quite simply, those of the people as a whole. In right of the Scottish Crown reframes everything, from privately owned energy, land (mis)use, environmental protections, and freeports to civil rights and those ‘exceptional measures’,rendition, detention without trial, imprisoning journalists or shutting down and penalising protest, imposed for the ‘security of the (English) state!

In fact, this not only sets Scotland apart from the rest of the UK, it is a major constitutional lever, if we are willing to recognise and use it, to break Westminster control of Scotland and to reform an oppressive political and judicial system right now. Today. We could start ‘small’. We could start by pointing out that it’s precisely ‘in right of the Crown’, that the people of Scotland are entitled to decide whether the Stone of Destiny, (ours even if it is just a cludgie stane from Scone monastery!), should go to London to legitimise the coronation of Charles III –  or not. 


We really must educate the people of Scotland about why England’s constitution cannot be allowed to apply in Scotland. There is no legal basis for it to do so. Yet it is this false narrative that is being used to plunder Scotland’s resources, our oil and gas, our renewable energy and all the rest.

There is nothing in the Treaty of Union that justifies this theft. Scotland is still a sovereign territorial nation and as such still owns these resources which are being literally illegally plundered by Westminster. Scotland’s constitution still exists and cannot be legally extinguished. It can never have ever been treated away. Neither the monarch or the Parliament ever possessed the power to do do. The crown in Scotland belongs to the people and is held in trust by the Monarch.

Now we can talk about eliminating poverty in Scotland, we have done so for generations. A very good place to start would be stopping this illegal plundering that robs us of the wealth to solve this problem. We don’t even need to be Independent to achieve this, a course is open to us via the UN on a ruling that forces England to respect the conditions laid out in the Treaty of Union and ends this robbery of the wealth that belongs to the sovereign people of Scotland. We need to pursue this through Liberation.Scot as a matter of urgency.

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.



  1. Sara Salyers, I salute your “indefatigabllity” . You are doing much needed work in rehabilitating our sense of nationhood . Both you and Alf Baird are great assets in a noble cause . Lang may yer lums reek .

    Liked by 19 people

    1. I second that! The execrable English establishment, the (EEE), systematically set about re-interpreting history and rewriting it, and re-interpreting legal and constitutional documents, and used the results to justify bringing forth unlawful legislation and making decisions on matters it was clearly not entitled to make, all to glorify the EEE, and greatly enrich many of its members, at the actual huge expense and extensive abuse of Scotland and her people. As organised crime goes, the EEE is one of the longest-standing crime syndicates on the planet, and puts the Mafia to shame as mere playground bullies.

      Liked by 7 people

  2. This is a good summary of the reality of where ownership of land and resources actually lie.

    Iain is right when he says we need to educate people. Oil, gas, wind, water and much more and the Scots are peasants, poor peasants in their own land. Subterfuge yes to hide the reality and worse should worse be needed to retain the plunder of Scotland’s assets. The British have done that all round the world.

    In a country at the present time where ordinary Scots struggle to heat and light their homes in a country endowed with energy resources you really would think that folks would wise up. But for many no, because like the Beasts of George Orwell’s Animal Farm so many of our people are just that, poor beasts in harness denied the comforts of the rich resources that their country bountifully supplies to their colonial masters.

    Yes Iain, we need to educate because it does not have to be like this. And for those of a more technical, historical, constitutional bent, a very good summary Sarah.

    And maybe today, and maybe every day, we should all ask ourselves, what have we done to further the education of more of our people to the reality of what is happening.

    Liked by 16 people

    1. We are doing our best Willie and we do see some progress among the general populations. Amongst politicians the ignorance continues. Probably need to get rid of 90% of them before anything happens. Working on that as well!

      Liked by 17 people

      1. They are doing a good job at making themselves irrelevant really. How many of them do we actually see fighting for all the things mentioned in this article? If they are not serving us then who are they serving apart from self? UK government are being exposed as well although we are here and tend to be focusing here, it’s happening all over.

        Liked by 8 people

    2. I don’t think it’s what we’re doing or not doing Willie, but maybe the way we’re doing it.

      For as long as I can remember, I have known that Scotland was sovereign, but it was a notion to hold on to. I now have a much firmer grasp that it isn’t merely a notion, but something real and terrestial. Something, a principle, which the Union Establishment would have ditched a long, long, time before now, – had they been able to.

      Sara Salyers and SALVO have been a revelation, and continue to do wonders both to articulate the Claim of Right, but also flesh out the wider context for these constitutional arguments. Once again, there are lots of Unionists, and I’m sorry to say a disgraceful number of pro-Independence gradualists, who would like to put it all back in the box and close the lid, but once again, they cannot do it.

      But for every layer of archaeological stratification which SALVO uncovers, the painful truth is Westminster, (with the feckless complicity of Sturgeon’s SNP), are busy re-burying Scotland’s Constitution with new layers of stratification layed down, typically with liberal dozes of horse manure.

      We can’t blame Sturgeon for Devolution, but Section 30 of the Scotland Act wasn’t the gospel, not until Sturgeon’s “Government” agreed to be subjugated, rather than contest the Constitutional legitimacy of the invasive Scotland Act.

      Not only have we witnessed Holyrood establish it’s credentials as a Vichy Assembly which can barely bring itself to mention the Claim of Right, nevermind act on it, we have witnessed the invasive doctrines of Westminster Parliamentary Sovereignty directly challenging and subjugating Scottish Democracy, and seeking to deeper embed the sketchy credentials of the UK Supreme Court. Instead of outcry and combative resistance, which constitutional probity demands, all our elected officials have demonstrated is their supine complicity with these new layers of stratification, which seek to bury the very constitution which Sara Salyers is trying to dig up.

      I find this whole SNP Leadership contest to be a massive distraction. Not because we are finally rid of Sturgeon, (hallelujah!), but because whether the result sees Humza Yousef donning a crash helmet to run himself headlong into a Scotland Act Section 35 brick wall, or Ash Regan turning every future Election into an Independence mandate, (yes, yes, yes, Ash Regan would get my vote). But at the same time, we’re not seeing the whole picture, what else is actually happening here?

      What I see is, instead of rebuilding the drive towards Independence around a dynamic and apolitical Convention of the Estates, loyal ONLY to Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty and WHOLLY outside the jurisdiction of Westminster, we are once again constructing an new Independence initiative around a “First Minister”. – A Holyrood First Minister who’s station, authority, and status are all codified by the same Westminster 1998 Scotland Act which dictates whether we Scots allowed to vote or not, overseen by the rubber stamp of a UK Supreme Court, and with MSP’s who are demonstrably content to be silenced by arbitrary UK government dictat.

      I repeat, Ash Regan is our only hope, particulary since Yousef and Forbes would repeat the absurd “Both Votes SNP” strategy. But my misgivings about Ash Regan’s strategy stem from it’s reliance upon the tainted system of UK Democracy.

      We are already compromised and divided about whether a Westminster based mandate needs 30+ Scottish Seats or a 50%+1 share of the vote, and equally at Holyrood, we are compromised and divided about a Constituency Party and List party managing to co-ordinate a Supermajority between them, and whether even that can still be spiked by the Scotland Act. What a blinkered and bloody mess, with no clarity, focus, strategic vision or direction beyond the next election. And yet we’re going to sell this plan to the UN are we? We can’t even sell it to 2/3ds of the SNP.

      I was 13 years old when Scotland held the 1979 Devolution Referendum where UK Democracy introduced the 40% rule to skew the result. I’ve witnessed a prevailing philosophy where Scots would “weigh” the votes for Labour and/or vote for a monkey if it wore a red rosette. Yet time after time, election after election, Scotland didn’t get the government it voted for.
      In 2014, I saw an Independence Referendum wrecked by a Unionist lies and propaganda on our TVs’, (which apparently had it’s result swung by the “domestic” style voting franchise). Then we had Brexit, where Scotland’s sovereign 62% mandate counted for nothing. An election where an unprecedented 96% of postal ballots returned, and where the Tory’s knew the result in advance. How many Countries in the Middle East have I seen bombed to dust in the name of Western “Democracy”? How many “Regime Changes” were affected to further Western “Democracy”? How many elections have been interferred with to secure the “right” result? The Maidan Revolution, – the made in America revolution more like. For decades, Taiwan was agreed by all to be part of one China, but wait, wait, wait, here comes democracy to make sure the US doesn’t lose it’s strategic foothold. Isn’t that the same democracy bug now assaulting China’s constitution?

      Go ahead and brand me a heretic, but “Democracy” to me looks almost indistinguishable from the Religion of the medieval Christian Crusades… the benign facade to sanitise and justify brutal military conquest and colonial subjugation. What once was done in the name of Christianity is now done in the name of Democracy. Same old smiley face of bloodthirsty colonialism.

      I “might” be persuaded to trust Democracy to deliver Scottish Independence, (or not, if that’s the verdict), but only a democracy which has Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty and the Claim of Right at the heart of it. And therein lies my problem with Ash Regan’s SNP democracy. Ash Regan is in front by a mile in my book, but sadly, I fear meaningful change ain’t gonna come no matter who wins in Holyrood.

      In Scotland we need our MP’s and politicians weaned off Westminster white sovereignty, and that means “white” democracy too… We Scots must begin to see the watershed between red and white sovereignty.

      Westminster needs Holyrood much more than we do, especially since Sturgeon has nullified it’s threat to the status quo.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Speaking about the Crusades, there was a list composed of folk who were involved in this and what they may have received and I don’t remember if there were many Scottish or Irish on it, I can’t really remember but I posted it on another social media outlet that I don’t use now. Also when the Black Douglas was apparently going to the Holy Land with Robert’s heart he apparently only helped as the King of Spain at the time apparently asked him to but was killed by the moors who also apparently honoured him by carrying his body to the King instead of leaving him. I thought as I read it, probably set up. Anyway I personally don’t favour a rushed through independence and the convention just pushed via a group of politicians. Wouldn’t it be better that we had a clean up job first and the people from Scotland get to be involved in the very things that were hidden from them being restored?

        Liked by 4 people

    1. Alba alone are not enough. When Neale started the Scottish politicians should have all took the lead and began to. However they need to go further and be bolder and braver, if they don’t we should be wondering why not?

      Liked by 3 people

  3. And this is precisely why I believe it is dangerous that so called nationalists to speak of abolishing the Scottish Crown and wanting a republic. The Scottish Crown is the ace in the hand for independence and the Scottish people. No wonder those who wish to subjugate Scotland peddle republicanism. They are aware of the power of the Scottish Crown if exercised properly and so try to convince the people to agree to remove it themselves voluntarily. This must be fiercely opposed because it is not in Scotland’s interest nor in the interests of the Scottish people.

    Liked by 15 people

    1. It is perhaps relevant to add this to your comment Miranda, that Scotland does not need to retain a monarch to remain a Kingdom. There have been many occasions throughout Scotland’s history where the office of monarch has been vacant or where a minor inherited the throne, a Guardian would be elected to represent the crown. There are very good reasons for remaining a Kingdom, not least leaving this union as a continuing state rather a new state which is the English states intention.

      Liked by 10 people

      1. The times when Scotland had a Guardian over a minor who inherited the Scottish Crown or Scotland didn’t actually have a monarch were some of the worst times in Scottish history……

        Liked by 2 people

      2. An excellent point Miranda, the so called wars of independence a case in point, however, those years of almost constant warfare and pillage, however badly the King and nobles had been humiliated by Longshanks, the election of a Gaurdian represented the continuation of the Kingdom as per my first comment.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. This is why I like this blog, people here give ideas and point out things that we might not have thought of. With politicians we are limited to their made up policies for their parties only deciding and discussed with their membership. Here potentially everyone who has a stake in Scotland as in the people are able to contribute without people voting it down and rubbishing it.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Fae See, I’ve been meaning to thankyou for reminding me of a book I hadn’t read in nigh on 20 something yrs, the ‘ Scottish Realm ‘. I’ve no idea when I lost my copy but you know what happens, out of sight out of mind, bit like our constitution. Anyway managed to pick up a used copy from Amazon.

        Liked by 2 people

    3. Well said, Miranda.

      At the time of Queen Elizabeth’s death, there were approximately 70 pieces of Scottish legislation which she opposed and blocked. Did she oppose them personally or did she oppose them as ‘The Crown’? If it was the latter, then which ‘Crown’?

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Another good question might be, did Cameron have the permission of Queen Elizabeth to commission a legal opinion from Crawford and Boyle, the purpose of which was to extinguish the Kingdom of Scotland.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. This is not just another lie, it is THE LIE upon which all the other lies are based.

    We already know that there is no route to independence via Westminster because they have ignored, and will continue to ignore any mandates for such provided by the people of Scotland to its representatives.

    Westminster would like nothing more than have us play their games and go around and around getting nowhere and blowing hot air in their House of Commons. Although there is one other thing they would like more, and that is for us to disappear and stop pestering them about independence – well tough because that ain’t happening!

    After all, did Lord Offal of Garvel not put us unruly Scots in our place recently when he stated that the UK government was aware that the Scottish government had been “encroaching” on matters reserved to Westminster, in discussing “separatism and the constitution” when conducting its business outside the UK – in breech of the Scotland Act 1998.

    He went on to say that “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.” I’m trembling – not in fear but in anger!

    The problem is that Lord Offal is right! What we supposedly can and cannot do as a Westminster devolved administration is set out for us to follow in the Scotland Act, and that’s how they tie our representatives into playing their games.

    However, it is all great evidence for Salvo and Liberation to use when we take our case for Self-Determination to an international audience and for an international decision. We have very recently had it confirmed that the international route is closed to political parties and that is what Salvo has been saying for months.

    That’s where we come back to THE LIE and all the other past, present and future lies.

    I believe that apart from many in the diaspora, almost all other people outside these islands think that Scotland only exists as a nice place for a holiday (weather depending) and without the support of Mother England, Scotland would be on the road to nowhere.

    Well, Salvo and Liberation are about to blow the lid off that particular lie!

    Liked by 16 people

  5. Great piece and a focus for renewed effort in this year of coronation but perhaps educating the people of Scotland is maybe a secondary move after we have educated the People’s elected representatives in both places and cleared out the corridors of power of the wheest for Indy brigade

    Liked by 8 people

    1. I have to agree, Iain. It is IMPERATIVE that the Representatives that we have elected to do Independence for us are truly educated as to the power they are being TEMPORARILY being imbued with. Its quite apparent they are not familiar with the history of ‘Scottish sovereignty’ nor exactly what it means. And it is high time that they were conversant with facts which make/give them power to say ‘No, we’re not doing that and you haven’t the power to make us do it’, to Westminster. It is time our elected government learned of their REAL POWER and their ability to strike the Scotland Act down as being outwith the power of WM to force it on another sovereign nation.

      I think if Scottish Nationalist Representatives were more knowledgeable about the power of Scottish sovereignty (and their power of VETO!), it would if not sooner, then eventually, filter down to the man in the street. And once we were assured that SCOTTISH Parliament understands its remit, Scots voters could be then be shown where their individual true power lies & the amazing changes that power could make in and to their lives! I believe a taste of that could well pull a lot of fence sitters in! Because much as the use of our own historical Bills and Claims could do for us, Independence would give us even greater scope for investment & fulfilling social contractual services, which we so sorely need!

      Indeed, Iain. Starting at the top seems to me the way to go, too.

      Liked by 7 people

  6. At what point is an independent Scotland created. The moment a vote in favour of 50% + 1 is announced? And if so – does the state have the lawful right to defend itself.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. No, the UK state only has a right to defend itself from external threats, that’s what the international right to territorial integrity refers to.

      Internal threats, which is what Scottish independence will be, may only be defended on constitutional grounds, the real terms of which don’t favour the UK state, so that right to territorial integrity doesn’t apply. Interestingly it could be argued that Scotland, while not a self-governing state, should be a beneficiary of that right, given the nature of the Union and the continuing sovereignties of both kingdoms within the political Union it actually is, as Sara has just spelled out.

      As for your other question, I think that we would have declared our independence from Westminster as a principle, but only as a necessary first step to begin the settlement negotiations, with further steps being the recognition of our independent statehood by other nations across the world, and negotiating or renegotiating entry into other international bodies like the UN, EU, perhaps NATO, and others.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Thanks for the answer. Would you agree ..
        Scotland exists as an independent state from the moment the duly elected make a public declaration, following a ballot majority. And has the lawful right to defend itself from external threats from that moment.
        Recognition by other states, and commencement of settlement negotiations are subsequent practical issues.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Sorry, Derek, I don’t really know at what point the UN right to territorial integrity would apply, but the border between Scotland and England is well-defined, as is Scotland’s territorial waters defined in its EEZ, and neither England nor the UK is entitled to change it to Scotland’s detriment even now, so it shouldn’t be a problem, though given the well-known over-developed sense of entitlement of the UK’s English establishment, there are clearly no guarantees.

        Liked by 5 people

  7. Im not sure what the process is when the so called Scottish Parliament resumes with its new F.M.
    Will there be much swearing of allegiance to the crown, presumably that will be the UK/ English one.
    Unless the members of the Scottish Parliament and the F.M. swear allegiance to the the Scottish people and swear to uphold our Scottish constitution anything that they do by way of parliamentory bussiness will be deemed unlawful.
    Lest see how the bowing and scraping plays out as they prostrate themselves as vassals to a foreign power.

    Liked by 15 people

    1. Yeah and I am thinking what if the companies who have purchased things that they weren’t entitled to without actually knowing what it says in the constitution as well as Scotland not being in a territorial union but a political one, wouldn’t the politicians potentially be in bother for ignoring this?

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I would much prefer a new FM and new MSPs, if there is an election folowing the election of a new FM, to swear allegiance only to the people of Scotland. that would clarify that they are OUR representatives and answerable only to us, as the people, and so could be depsed by us if they did not fulfil thisr duty to us, as previous Scottish Goverments have lamentably failed to do.
      I also see no need for the FM to be aworn into the British Privy Council, which, upon Independendence, would be the instrument of a foreign state.
      Great to see all the ideas coming together here, now that there is possibility of radical change, although i appreciate the road ahead will not be easy.

      Liked by 8 people

  8. Very interesting and thought provoking article. I believe that we have reached this point due to the complete capitulation of politicians to neoliberalism. They were (are) supposed to be the guardians of public good, yet have sold out to big corp. They are beholden to ‘the markets’ rather than the people, yet the great irony here is that the financial markets cannot exist without national treasuries and central banks – yet the recognition of THAT sovereign power is never recognised , let alone exercised.

    Of course, Holyrood does not possess such powers as that of a monetary sovereign government, yet, even excluding the sovereignty mentioned in Sara’s article, it has failed miserably to use the envelope of powers it does have for the public good. Instead it has embraced neoliberal ideals – corporate capture of a national investment bank, PFI for trees, grants for wealthy landowners, selling our energy assets at a pittance, and of course the avoidance of any public control over our energy, rendering more and more of us fuel impoverished. Any of these would be shoe-in policies of a London Labour or tory government.

    I’m sorry to say that it looks very likely that this will continue under the next Holyrood government. It doesn’t where you live in the UK, or who you vote for. The political, economic and media capture by elites is all but complete. Yes, the people ARE sovereign, but few realise it.
    Meanwhile we look to France….

    Liked by 10 people

  9. We need to use the upcoming Coronation as an opportunity to educate and agitate. The presumption has long been that independence and the constitutional status of an independent Scotland are separate issues. This was / is the position of the SNP and thankfully ALBA have moved on from this.
    I propose this from an entirely pragmatic perspective. The numbers support this.
    In the latter years of the reign of QE II support for the monarchy in Scotland (excluding don’t knows) was remarkably consistent. In the UK, the monarchy enjoyed a net support of 50% (ie. 75% approve / 25% disapprove). For residents of Scotland, net approval was 14%.
    This 14% net support was used to justify the neutral or monarchist position. All those spectral hundreds of thousands of “soft No’s” that are presumed to be monarchists.
    This is the false prospective of that equates “residents of Scotland” with the potential body of the electorate from which a Yes vote can be harvested.
    Applying the methodology proposed by Professor of Geography (Oxford) Danny Dorling, net support for the monarchy at that time amongst indigenous Scots could be calculated as 7%. QE II was of course a greatly respected head of state. Less so her publicly opinionated, interfering eldest son.
    From YouGov October 2022: Do you think an independent Scotland should continue to have a monarchy, or should it be replaced with an elected head of state? Excluding don’t knows, among “all Scots” there’s a net 1% support for retaining the monarchy. But this of course is not “all Scots” but rather residents of Scotland. Applying Prof Dorling’s methodology, amongst autochthonous Scots a republic enjoys 6% net support.
    There is momentum here and this is before education and debate.
    There will be support for a republic among non-indigenous residents of Scotland but within their own group this may be a minority opinion.
    The British state and establishment propaganda machine will in effect be working to our advantage. The 24 / 7 force feeding of sickening sycophancy to a population already turned against the extravagant, anachronistic imposition of KC III will be counterproductive to the aims of the British state.
    Nicholas Witchell gwan yersel.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. We could all wear a crown on coronation day to represent ourselves and make the point that we are the crown of Scotland. 😄 Paper ones etc just for making a visual point.

      Liked by 10 people

      1. Crowns for marchers are being ordered! Their real significance will be explained the the speaker for Salvo! (Leah or myself.) And we have a ‘fun’ surprise, I hope, for both the rally and the morning of the coronation.

        Liked by 3 people

    2. But a huge BUT is that the sovereignty of the Scots people flows through the Crown. We should be very careful about what we do with that Crown before we become Independent or we might inherit a similar position to the politicians hemmed in by the content of the Scotland Act. Beware Westminster bearing gifts.

      Liked by 10 people

      1. Thank you for a great video post Fae See.
        Thomas McArthur’s song writing deserves recognition from a much wider audience.
        “Scottish Resistance”, “Rob Roy MacGregor” just to name two. But there are many more.
        I believe, he is an important talent to Scotland’s cause now, and have every confidence in him becoming a bigger talent in the future….

        Liked by 2 people

      2. If someone takes the time and energy to give us a gift, I think that they deserve thanks and appreciation of at least letting them know that we appreciate it. We are all needed and every bit counts by each person.
        Songs are a good way since forever of getting a message out that’s enjoyable depending upon your preferences. It’s also a good way to learn that’s easy and that’s also one of the ways that people use to learn another language as well.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. A brilliant analysis, Sara. Chree hunner year o Daylicht thriftdom an mankit deceiverie o a hail naition an aw Scots fowk.

    What does this say about the apparently unknowing (cough..splutter..) Scottish legal establishment? How curious, that the fundamental principles of ‘Scottish Constitutional Law’, which you describe admirably, do not even appear to be part of the teaching curriculum for Scots lawyers:

    As Iain says: “We really must educate the people of Scotland about why England’s constitution cannot be allowed to apply in Scotland”, and Scots lawyers too it seems.

    Remeed an restitution?

    Liked by 14 people

    1. Well now would be a good time to get them started. For those who are already in the profession and might be bored it could give them something that they should have been taught but were not. I mean like we have had our history restricted, languages and important days not highlighted they lawyers should be outraged that they have been denied their proper education in terms of Scotland.

      Liked by 8 people

  11. “Yet it is this false narrative that is being used to plunder Scotland’s resources, our oil and gas, our renewable energy and all the rest.” The introduction of a new narrative is akin to the imposition of a new reality; the task of doing so cannot be overstated in terms of its immense difficulties. Effectively, the task entails the displacement of the dominant narrative and its replacement by the new narrative. It is a revolutionary task. In simple terms: it’s about getting people to view reality differently by means of the introduction of a new story that they’ve never heard before. An empowering story based on extant historical evidence hitherto hidden from them by intent and design by the beneficiaries of a thoroughly unfounded folk-tale which amounts in its telling to little more than pure deception and moonshine! Salvo and Liberation, acknowledging that a new narrative and its dissemination in Scotland is nigh impossible, are, in fact, advocating the only possible solution. As an ancient nation, we are absolutely entitled, as such, to take our case and its evidences for international adjudication to an arena wherein the fallacious writ of British parliamentary sovereignty holds no automatic sway.

    Liked by 7 people

  12. England has been in breech of Scotlands constitution since 1707. Every Scottish political representative since that time has acted unlawfully and continue to do so to this day. Tic Tok

    Liked by 6 people

  13. The Crown Office Scotland Q&LTR (now K&LTR?) was/is responsible for collecting the assets of those who die without leaving a will.

    As we have a separate Scottish Crown, have all the monies hitherto collected been retained in Scotland?

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Interesting to see that some of our southern cousins (the more aware ones) are taking the opportunity of the coronation (and the associated oaths and promises (and the very particular/specific language/vocabulary involved) to have a good poke around some of the better hidden recesses of the English constitution – The author and researcher Edward Fitzgerald has very recently pulled together a lot of fascinating info in book format titled ‘Smoke and Mirrors’.

    Some really quite interesting information being brought into a wee bit more light for investigation – I hope (but don’t anticipate) these dedicated researchers enjoy lots of public interest in their work in England – Some of which bears significant similarity to areas of interest Salvo and friends are high-lighting here in Scotia.

    Liked by 5 people

  15. Sara’s analysis is revolutionary. Yet so far its articulation is (understandably) monarchistic. Salvo’s constitutional iron-smelting may prove to be Scotland’s last molten moment. Is monarchism the only mould into which it can be poured? “We are all the Crown” is surely a latent republican manifesto. So will a compatible alternative mould become available? What with shall we strike the great anvil of our final battle? Republican blacksmith hammer or royalist tuning fork?

    Liked by 1 person

  16. I have repeatedly tried to join Liberation Scott. They say my username already exists. Even though I have tried many different ones. Or my email exists already. I want to join. I don’t know what to do. Is there anyone with real authority who can help me? Karen-Claire Voss

    Sent from Outlook for Android ________________________________


  17. According to the Declaration of Arbroath the Scottish people have the right to choose their own monarch. What if they chose a different one to Charles III before he is crowned ? 🤔

    Liked by 1 person

  18. My good friend Laurie Flynn, who no WordPress account asked if I would post this on his behalf:
    Dear Sara , Thank you all your effort and hard work excavating the actualities and complex nature of the 1707 Union and the constitutional position of Scotland.
    Today’s piece really set me thinking.
    It also reminded me of a couplet from the Robert Burns poem “Contented with little”
    It reads as follows:
    “My mirth and good humour are coin in my pouch. And my freedom’s my lairdship no monarch can touch.”

    Liked by 6 people

  19. @Golfnut you are welcome. I love information and I have come across a lot of weird and wonderful things. When the net wasn’t so censored I found things about the USA not being as free as they thought, a paper from Egypt saying that there were no pharoes as they weren’t called that and obviously things in regards to Scotland as well. Now I swap browsers to see what different searches come up.


    1. Am currently on ocean brower as they promise to clear plastic bottles fae the ocean the more you use it. I haven’t checked them out but it’s free. Brave is another I tried.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. It has all changed and hundreds if not thousands manage with no problem. In Karen’s case I personally sent it to the admin and I received a message back confirming she was a signed up member and that he had sent instructions to her on how to sign in. I suggested she checked her junk folder as sometimes some service providers put it there.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. I see a reference above to “changing the narrative”, and I’m wondering if we might move things in that direction by adding a little letter “s” every time we write “UK”, to make the point that there are two kingdoms. Hence: “UKs”.

    I can see the questions around the timing of a change from monarchy to republic, and I think there may be an advantage in keeping our separate choice of monarch as a way of moving to independence.

    As a republican, I’m in two minds about wearing a crown at the march.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: