BREEKS ARGUES SALVO IS THE WAY AHEAD.

Posted byiainlawson27Posted inUncategorizedTags:

An excellent commentary from regular contributor Breeks.

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.

MY COMMENTS

Breeks highlights the futility of always playing by Westminster rules. Rules they have no right to dictate and which are liable to change on their whim when ever they please. We are just realising in Scotland that the Scotland Act which “ granted’ us the Scottish Executive also encased every Scottish politician in a straight jacket at the same time.Debarring our politicians the ability to discuss our constitutional status abroad without falling foul of the “reserved” nature of the constitution within the Act.

Little do they realise it, but by keeping our Holyrood representatives outside that educational process greatly improves our chances of progress. It will be taken forward by Salvo/ Liberation. We will make the contacts, we will crowdfund the legal actions, starting small with test cases in Scottish courts, but all the time working towards a method to raise Scotland’s case for justice through the United Nations. We are already investigating and researching a number of potential test cases, seeking to identify those that offer the best prospect of favourable decisions,

There is and must never be straight jackets on the people of Scotland. We cannot be bought off. Beads, mirrors and honours will not buy us off. We intend initially to force Westminster to stop plundering the resources of our nation, of which they have no legal claim, and having won that battle and thereby making ourselves a much less attractive colony than we currently are, to win full Independence for our country.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland


BEAT THE CENSORS

Regretfully there are some among us who seek to censor what others read. Sadly within the YES movement there are sites which claim to be pro Indy but exist to only promote one Party and will not publish articles which come from bloggers who don’t slavishly support that Party to the exclusion of the rest of the YES movement. I ask readers who support free speech to share articles from Yours for Scotland as often as possible as this defeats the effectiveness of the censors.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

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.

SALVO

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.

LIBERATION.SCOT

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.

44 thoughts on “BREEKS ARGUES SALVO IS THE WAY AHEAD.”

  1. Great article, Breeks. Westminster’s rules were designed specifically to benefit England’s Union and to disadvantage Scotland as England’s sovereign partner. The playing field is a vertical ladder of those rules, with England at the top illegaly dropping boulders down on us Scots! We need to play a different game.

    Liked by 14 people

  2. Breeks nails it again!

    There is no route to independence using a Westminster-designed referendum, or even if every MP from Scotland was in favour.

    They believe that the shackles of the Scotland Act and their trusty UKSC will never be broken, and that is only true if we continue to play games designed by them to frustrate / avoid independence for Scotland.

    Humza Yousaf in his reply to 5 questions asked of him by the Equality Network stated “Their challenge of the GRR bill is not only an affront to trans rights, but also an affront to Scottish democracy. I will support the GRR and repeal section 35. I am unapologetic and unequivocal on that issue.”

    So, he thinks that he will “repeal section 35” and that he is “unapologetic and unequivocal on that issue”! Well, good luck with that because it will be a clever trick indeed! Perhaps someone should whisper in Humza’s ear that Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act 1998 and that is WESTMINSTER legislation. Or, perhaps he has found a way for our new FM to “repeal section 35” that none of us had previously considered!

    In 2021, the UKSC passed judgement on Scotland’s incorporation on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scotland’s domestic law.

    The judgement of the Supreme Court around this time last year stated that:

    “Section 28/7 of the Scotland Act preserves the power of the UK Parliament to make laws for Scotland”

    The judgment went on to say that there were 6 points with which the Supreme Court did not agree and
    “if any provision of a Scottish Act of Parliament purports to modify Section 28/7 of the Scotland Act, it will fall outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament”.

    Basically, this Supreme Court judgement was about Westminster maintaining ultimate control over Scotland and its competence to make laws, and that we were being naughty devolved children and the Mother of Parliaments knows best what’s good for Scotland.

    So, that’s what they think about what we have at Holyrood being a “Scottish Parliament!”

    Breeks mentions the “feckless complicity of Sturgeon’s SNP”, and while that is undoubtedly true, had it been any other political party undertaking similar actions to avoid independence, I am sure that Breeks would be just as scathing about them as he is about the SNP.

    However, having attended meetings recently of various parts of the Yes Movement, there is once again excitement and hope for the future. That excitement and hope has been generated by Sara and the formation of Salvo, with the prospect of a fully functioning Liberation and Scottish National Congress. That’s why the people of Scotland can join the non-party route to Self-determination and independence, because Salvo welcomes members from all parties and none.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. Everyone in Scotland’s population is free to exercise their wish for self-determination in numerous ways, of course; especially so by joining Salvo, which welcomes members from all parties and none… Salvo is already gaining a steadily increasing number of members – and this is delightfully satisfying news!

      Liked by 3 people

    2. All the real issues stated concisely. This Scotland act is a cuckoo in the Scottish nest. How can Scots not see that adherence to ‘our parliament’ is bowing to english rule. The gravest worry I have is that they do see that. The cringe is strong still and many Scots chase that anglicised civilisation’. Poor saps.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Living as we do in a world of competing media outlets, I would’ve thought those with hard-information might’ve taken the initiative and shared their knowledge with the international news-hungry outlets that are out there. We surely can’t be the only ones to know that there’s a lurid and internationally newsworthy story to be told here.

    Liked by 8 people

  4. Our politicians have shown themselves with a few honourable exceptions to be careerist, low grade, unprincipled, middle-management hacks.
    What we in Scotland have experienced as a takeover of a once radical party by a timid, gradualist, “managerial group” is a universal phenomenon.
    The managerial group is by instinct conservative and inclined to alignment to a higher managerial group (the British state).
    The managerial group is an agglomeration of middle class, naturally conservative individuals. In their dreams the blossoming of mass participation witnessed in 2014 brings them out in a sweat, not of euphoria but of terror. They have a contempt for the masses.
    The term “populism” is not an indication of democratic legitimacy but rather a slur they use to denounce any challenge to their self appointed “superior”, “paternalistic”, “liberal “ authority.
    In America the “liberal”, “centrist”, Clinton faction spat out the term “populism” as a venomous curse. Anyone who wasn’t supportive of offshoring manufacturing (or indeed service) jobs was denounced as belonging to Trump’s “deplorables”.

    In the UK, the existential struggle between this self entitled, perpetual managerial group derived from the ranks of middle class humanities graduates and a resurgent vestige of a working class mass movement, was played out between the Corbynite Momentum and Blairite Progress.
    The professional politicians of Progress, devoid of any real world, working experience were intent on burning the Labour movement to the ground rather than see Momentum gain unchallenged control of the party.
    This may appear uncharacteristically self-sacrificial on the part of ruthlessly self interested, Blairite apparatchiks, but as events would unfold it was apparent that backroom deals had been struck. For their treachery, Blairite MPs John Woodcock, John Mann and Ian Austin (amongst others) would be awarded cozy Peerages and QUANGO posts by a TORY administration.
    The true allegiances of these “centrist” (as the msm would have them described) MPs is not to the party in whose name they stand or to the constituents they claim to represent, but rather the British, deep state. Indeed, the constituents whose taxes provided their lavish salaries and expenses were treated with utter contempt.

    The high point in true, proportional representation at Holyrood was 2003 with eight MSPs outwith the five establishment parties..
    You don’t have to support the political platforms put forward by non-establishment individuals or parties to support the general principle that a multitude of voices enhances debate. By design, we are left with slightly different flavours of our managerial class endorsed, bland menu.
    The fall of the Scottish Socialist Party was the result of various factors, but their political posters at election time were a feature of our streets. The ability of the SSP to harness the enthusiasm of their support and promote their message through poster campaigns will have played a significant part in their returning six MSPs in 2003. By the 2007 election, Margo MacDonald would be the only independent voice at Holyrood. As of the 2016 election, Holyrood was reduced to the five establishment parties
    This display of “populism” was intolerable to our managerial class. By the 2016 election, 32 out of 36 Scottish councils has established by-laws prohibiting election posters on council owned street furniture.
    The four “hold-out” councils continue to allow election posters on street furniture, proving that any perceived “littering” issue can be managed rather than resorting to prohibition. It’s no coincidence that all four councils are rural and are substantially populated by independent councillors, free from the admonishments of any party head office. Is the potential for a wee bit litter too high a price to pay for a vibrant, mass participation democracy? The answer from our permanent managerial class is apparently; yes.

    So yes, our politicians are content to manage our devolved administration within limits set by the British state. Pete Wishart is an outlier only in as much as his decades in service to the British state have removed his self awareness. For the most part Pete’s colleagues are more circumspect and take care to disguise their true motivations lest they reveal the grift. Even this is changing as certain individuals (MacDonald and Macpherson to name but two) are emboldened by the recent torpor of the Yes movement.

    Salvo and the SSRG are the way to go. I say this not because I believe their legal representations will alter our current position in either Edinburgh or London. The perversity of the contempt finding against Craig Murray by Lady Leonna Dorrian proves that the establishment will contort the law to suit their ends. Rather that Salvo / SSRG are an ideal vehicle for educating and reinvigorating the movement and insulating it from the suffocating influence of our elected politicians that they have demonstrated time and time again.

    Liked by 8 people

  5. I agree 100%, Breeks. The answer to the stalemate lies in a parallel approach with both politics and constitutional/international law. I often made these points through the years, but was roundly laughed at and pooh-poohed – mainly by Unionists, but also by the foot-draggers and pension pot cabal.

    The Union of the Crowns was bleated back at me when I tried to explain that the Crowns had never been one, only the head on which they sat. The fact is that devolution itself, and all that stems from it, is illegal according to the Treaty and the CoR because nothing could be done in Scotland that was not done in England, and with the agreement of both partners. The Supreme Court is also illegal according to the Treaty.

    When Scotland became a devolved nation, England should have been devolved at the same time. It would have been far more difficult in England, with the size of the counties and cities, but it should have been done at a regional, then a national level, and the same could have been done for Scotland, devolving power downwards, rather than upwards.

    I don’t believe that there is any way now in which to save the Union for the benefit of all its parts because it is essentially England and the rest – completely ultra vires. I have always believed that Westminster and the English establishment know this, and have always known it. We must take our case to the UN (I know, it’s not necessarily our friend, but, if we can get even one sponsor… ) but that must be backed by political action – winning an election (the 12th win) + a ratifying referendum.

    There will be no peace otherwise. I also agree about the first two candidates, and I would not expect them to last long. Only Ash Regan has the nous and determination to make independence happen. If she does not win now, she will later, or someone else with the same qualities will, because we are nearing the end of the journey, regardless of how it appears right now. The thing is, the whole strategy and tactics will have to change, or change will be forced on us all.

    I know I said I would not comment again, Iain, because of a certain person who has bullied me off several sites for totally erroneous reasons because he has misunderstood everything I have ever written, but I just wanted to say this. Not trying to grab credit either (too long in the tooth and cynical to care for baubles) but I have been saying the same thing for many years now: that our constitution and international law are the ways forward, coupled to political action. It gives a warm feeling to know that many now agree. Also, my stance that Alex Salmond was removed for political reasons, and no other, which were always a red herring – is now patently obvious. Thank you.

    Liked by 10 people

      1. Thank you, Iain. I’m not sure it was meant in earnest for its own sake, but the person is a very strong ally of the independence movement and of Alex Salmond, as am I. It was, perhaps, my own fault in that I did not express myself clearly or not strongly enough to satisfy him, but I voted for Alex Salmond as leader and would do so again, if that makes it any clearer. Not sure he’d want the poisoned chalice, though, but he is and will always be our statesman politician.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. All the real issues stated concisely. This Scotland act is a cuckoo in the Scottish nest. How can Scots not see that adherence to ‘our parliament’ is bowing to english rule. The gravest worry I have is that they do see that. The cringe is strong still and many Scots chase that anglicised civilisation’. Poor saps.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Aye, it’s a strange Union where one sovereign partner obviously considers itself to be the Union, and that the other sovereign partner is just one of its many regions, but an unruly one with unacceptable delusions of grandeur, and who therefore must be kept firmly gagged and manacled in the loft.

      But the occupant of the loft has managed to free a nail, and is quietly picking the locks on his chains.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Being a lockpicker myself, and having had enough of this damned union, I would enjoy immeasurably the chance to pick the locks on the chains that hold us down…

        Liked by 2 people

    3. Lorna, I read most of the Indy blogs and sometimes read the comments first before the article and you and others make a valuable contribution that enlighten and inform…..so keep f..img writing.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Thank you, Clover. I only hope that we all live long enough to see independence. Have just returned from England. Lovely people everywhere. Kind and generous. Our beef is not with them, but with the British State.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. I look out for your comments too Lorna, and please don’t feel bullied by anybody. You remind a lot of people that common sense is alive and well.

        My only advice, based on my own experience, is that the scroll button is just as good as a thick skin, and very often better.

        I also agree with you about England. I have good friends, and a number of English folks I know and respect greatly, and it’s nice to keep in touch and remind them they shouldn’t perceive Scottish Independence as a slight against them, but merely an issue of Scotland’s self government.

        Most actually realise that, but there are one or two friends who still seem susceptible to the propaganda. I do my best, without shoving it in their face, but what we need to appreciate is that most of the propaganda and false information down there in England goes completely unanswered and uncorrected. They believe what they’re told on the BBC.

        I don’t expect any of these friendships or acquaintances to change one iota either side of Scottish Independence. My biggest fear would be a greater antithesis if Scotland doesn’t go it’s own way, ill feeling stemming from Scotland’s further subjugation, and frankly, their shame and embarrassment about it.

        Liked by 5 people

      1. ptw1953: don’t worry, he totally misunderstood what I said. He thought, because I wouldn’t condemn the Alphabeti women that I agreed with them. My point was that hounding them was pointless: a) because it would all come out eventually; b) that every time they were mentioned, Alex Salmond’s trial was dredged up all over again and he was discredited in Unionist eyes all over again. Sometimes, it’s better to let sleeping dogs lie – until they wake by themselves.

        Liked by 4 people

    5. All the real issues stated concisely. This Scotland act is a cuckoo in the Scottish nest. How can Scots not see that adherence to ‘our parliament’ is bowing to english rule. The gravest worry I have is that they do see that. The cringe is strong still and many Scots chase that anglicised civilisation’. Poor saps.

      Like

  7. Your medical freedoms are up for being given away without your permission via the WHO pandemic treaty. Whilst we focus on independence and the leadership of who will be the new leadership you need to be aware of what the UK government are potentially going to do.

    Liked by 3 people

    2. Here there’s an important discussion taking place and there’s no a Labour, Liberal or Scottish politician to be seen.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Brava, Fae See. Bit of tumbleweed here I see! but I for one don’t see this as an unrelated issue. As there’s no guarantee folk will have been able to take on board and come to terms with the reality of that particular aspect of the dark establishment agenda, before separation, it’s my fervent hope that once it becomes widely known, the whole atrocity will be taken forward as a priority under forensic focus come that time, and fast action taken, related as it is to surreptitious global ‘colonisation’ – I mean, that’s our thing, isn’t it? So thank God, the Claim of Right is an escape vehicle allowing (us at least) the opportunity thereafter to work with the actual truth and nothing but the truth in Scotland. Andrew Bridgen couldn’t be more clear and accurate, all based on official stats, yet my own Lib Dem MP (in response to my asking her why she didn’t attend) simply “doesn’t agree” with him according, to her secretary. Par for the course, of course…

        Liked by 3 people

  8. Bravo Breeks, like you we have to think the unthinkable and liberate ourselves from the feudal servitude to failed indy politicians. We really have reached the politcal dead end the Irish reached in 1918. That Ash Regan is the nearest thing we have to an indy supporter among the candidates, and that her campaign already looks nobbled by pretendy indy boys like Russell, Murrell and their North Brit staffers, says it all.

    As Alf Baird has described so well, our politicians have reached a rapprochement with the colonial power. They have become accustomed to a privileged life within the structures of oppression. Our London-centric indy politics needs to become a people’s liberation struggle. If not, we are condemning future generations to poverty and second-class citizenship within the UK.

    A first step would be to highlight the betrayal of the current SNP regime. Whistleblowers, there is a large Scottish diaspora, not subject to the dictates of Scotland’s corrupt judiciary. There are also foreign publications that might be inclined to print the whole sordid story of Sturgeonism. You know where we are.

    Liked by 12 people

  9. 1689: The Declaration of the Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland containing the Claim of Right.

    There was a battle fought that year at the Bridge of Killiekrankie.

    Meet – and enjoy – Tam and Kevin … aka The Bunnets, and the song of that battle.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. @lorncal

    Really glad to see you back with us in the debate. Your absence was noted and your opinions were missed. I may not always have 100% agreed with you, but I don’t remember a whole lot of ambiguity regarding your position.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. @JDN even if there is tumble weed and only one or two view it, it’s information that people need to know and discuss, as it is part of the whole in terms of constitution, sovereignty and Salvo and a clear demonstration of why it’s necessary.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Not agreeing with what Andrew says isn’t sufficient enough an excuse when the lives of others depends upon it. Andrew clearly is pointing to evidence that can be sourced and even points out it’s the government’s own data so all mps bar a couple don’t agree with it and are refuting the evidence or don’t consider it worthwhile?

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Aye the constitution. Politicians supposedly representing the sovereign Scottish people would be well advised to read it very carefully. Acting against the sovereign Scottish people carries some quite horrible penalties.

    Liked by 6 people

  13. I have always believed that our freedom lies within the treaty of union because of the many abuses by Westminster over the years to the detriment of the people of Scotland. “No taxation without (true) representation” and eventually the people will rise!

    Liked by 4 people

  14. I have no faith or confidence in the SNP to get us independence. Forbes’s I fear will not rock the boat shes another continuity candidate. We need to put our weight behind Salvo and Politically Alba.
    Soon the SNP will offer a federalism with there Labour pals the last act of selling us out.
    We gave them a mandate for independence they stabbed us in the back. News the time to pull the plug on this nest of vipers. Ash Regan was their last chance.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I would tend to agree that, if Ash Regan is not elected, the SNP will slip into a series of leadership elections until they sink beneath the waves. Such stupidity is hard to get one’s head round and such chances do not come along very often. Still treading carefully in Nicola’s footsteps. So be it. It will then descend into a proper confrontation and blood will flow (metaphorically speaking – always have to add that for the congenitally hard of thinking). Meanwhile, I think a citizens’ case should be made to the UN, based on the Treaty breaches and other constitutional and legal breaches, as this will let the Unionists and Westminster know that we have a hard-headed legal and constitutional right to independence, based on the Treaty and not just misplaced sentiment.

      Liked by 6 people

  15. As the countdown to the Humza coronation or the Kate revolution ticks down I do not give a flying whatever. The only chance of the SNP getting my vote in the future has gone unless Ash wins and then it will be conditional. Over to you Salvo ,ISP and Alba. Get your skates on.

    Liked by 7 people

  16. I am writing this on Sunday with the result expacted tomorrow. i am not hopeful that Ash will get the votes she needs to win or even that Kate might win on Ash’s second place votes (and appoint Ash to he cabinet) because the number of SNP members has still not been fully addressed, meaning that ‘ghost votes’ may still be deployed by those who want continuity.
    However, should this happen, I will not lose hope because, given the work by Salvo and Liberation.scot, we now have a potential vehicle superior to any Scottish government that might be elected or whichever leader is chosen tomorrw. Through the Claim of Right, a body of Scottish citizens now know they have the right to stand up for the people and over-ride government decisions that are not in the best interests of the people.
    Those of us on this forum must do our bit in spreading the word and getting as many people as we can to sign up to this as the more we have, the more credibility and force it will have on the international stage. Let’s get active for the sake of our country.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. I hope I am not too late to comment, however, I think that there is a simple change that gradualists would be willing to embrace which would be a leap forward.

    Before the Union the Monarch had to call Scottish Parliament sittings in order to get taxes transferred from Scotland. The Parliament used this need to force their periodic call and only passed the necessary bill to transfer taxes as their last action. With the Union, however, the UK Government Officers could demand and receive all revenues taken in. There was therefore no need to recall the Scottish Parliament. Because of this it is now assumed that the Parliament was abolished, just like in England.

    If you study the motivations of the Scottish negotiators you are aware that they never meant that the Parliament and its a ability to alter Scot’s Law were every included in the Union negotiations, with their concentration on levelling the taxation throughout the new economic Union. I do not believe that the devolution act has any authority in Scot’s Law as it is outside Westminster’s authority to call a Scot’s Parliament . However, in two votes the people of Scotland enacted the recall of Parliament and its embedding in Scot’s Law beyond the reach of Westminster and its Supreme Court, as well as its right to raise taxes.
    I believe that we can re-establish the Scottish Exchequer, which was abolished in1981, though guaranteed in the Treaty and fund the Parliament as a first call on the revenue, and the Scottish Government as the second, with any surfeit going to the UK Government. And all within Scot’s Law. And with little fiscal difference for the UK government to complain about.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. This is the way forward and it has been clear for many years that Westminster has no fear of any mandate provided because they know our elected representatives are not brave enough to see it through.

      However, they will fear Salvo and Liberation. Scot because they cannot control a people’s movement so easily as they appear to have done with the current Devolved Administration at Holyrood. They can continue to call what is based at Holyrood whatever they want but it is NOT a parliament and cannot be so because our Parliament was never abolished, because they did not have the powers to do that.

      In any case, a country’s parliament makes laws for that country but it is not a “parliament” if Westminster has a veto over what the Devolved Administration passes – e g. via a Section 30 or Section 35 Order.

      However, the new FM appears somewhat confused about his role and his powers.

      On 6 March, in reply to 5 questions asked by the Equality Network, Scottish Trans, LEAP Sports Scotland, LGBT Youth Scotland, Stonewall Scotland and LGBT Health and Wellbeing, he stated: “I voted for the GRR bill and, as First Minister, I will challenge the UK Government’s Section 35 order. As a devolved issue, the Scottish Parliament has the right to decide, and the UK Government has no right to exert its authority over our pursuit of human rights. Their challenge of the GRR bill is not only an affront to trans rights, but also an affront to Scottish democracy. I will support the GRR and repeal section 35. I am unapologetic and unequivocal on that issue”.

      So, our brand spanking new FM states that he will “repeal section 35” and that he is “unapologetic and unequivocal on that issue”.

      Well, good for him, we need a strong FM to stand up for Scotland and its people. However, perhaps one of the SNP lackies can quietly whisper in his ear that the “section 35” that he is sure he will “repeal” is Westminster legislation and not passed by whatever they want to call the chamber that houses the devolved administrators in Edinburgh.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. If the FM was willing to embrace the view that the Scot’s Parliament was not passed in to being by Westminster but by the votes of the Scottish People, then under Scot’s Law he can ignore both Westminster and the Supreme Court as having no authority. It would strengthen his case if the Scot’s Parliament moved to act independently and only constrained by the Treaty of Union and the Act passing it’s constraints into Scot’s Law, first.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Sadly I have a fear things may be moving in the opposite direction.

        Trouble is brewing between a Scottish “Government” wanting to get rid of jury trials, and the Faculty of Advocates which wants to keep them.

        If Sturgeon’s petulance and not listening are traits we can expect from Mr Continuity Yousaf, I don’t see an improvement in relations, but instead, a growing likelihood of acrimonious dispute. Throw in further grumbling issues about the Lord Advocate’s roll in the Alex Salmond conspiracy, and jailing of Craig Murray, there would seem to be grounds to expect a souring of relationship.

        I need a refresher I think on Roddy Dunlop’s attitudes towards SALVO and a Scottish Convention of the Estates, because Scots Law would surely be one of the Estates concerned, and the Faculty of Advocates adopting Claim of Right principles to defend Scots Law from an “uppity” Devolved Assembly channelling a colonial drive to assimilate Scots Law into UK Law could see the Convention of the Estates assume potency and credibility very quickly.

        Perhaps we need SALVO on a charm offensive to persuade the Faculty of Advocates that a Scottish Convention of the Estates can be a very good thing, and an essential component of Scottish culture and society, that is not merely a thing confined to the pursuit of Scottish Independence.

        If the Faculty of Advocates needs more constitutional leverage to resist the erosion of Scots Law principles, then a Convention of the Estates would logically deliver it.

        If Sara Salyers is correct, then the Court of Session itself may be subservient and answerable to what is essentially a “sovereign” Convention of the Estates, it would be fascinating to see this relationship rekindled after so long a silence.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Iain: and not before time. If SALVO can have the CoR, Treaty, et al ‘sound’ in Scots Law, then the chances of being able to take our case to the UN opens up considerably. That can’t be the end of it, of course because we still need to establish our case in politics, but the whole point of having our constitutional levers ‘sound’ in Scots Law is that it then becomes legal to take steps to independence. Many Unionists believe that we have no such right. Once that right is established, it narrows their field of operation against independence, as their use of illegality becomes another string to our bow. This should have been done years ago. The work that SALVO and others have put in is immense, so that might have been an obstacle, but it no longer is. Go for it.

        Liked by 2 people

  18. I think you may have an uphill struggle to get Roddy onside as he has been entirely negative about the claim of right so far. I fear for Scotland if the rabble in the SNP got their wish and got rid of jury trials. They seem prepared to use the law as a weapon to intimidate as things stand with several vexatious prosecutions that in some cases were thrown out by a judge as soon as presented in court.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.