SARA’S ON THE MARCH!

Posted byiainlawson27Posted inUncategorizedTags:, , ,

On the international spectacle of Scotland’s Kidnapping, plunder and not merely forced, but fake marriage, (or union)

Sara Salyers

Gaslighting. Force your victim to swallow the opposite of the truth, then teach your victim to parrot the opposite and to do so while the truth stands, naked, in plain sight. Once you can do that, you have absolute control. That’s the core message of Orwell’s 1984. 

My current preoccupation is with the wearyingly regular criticism of Salvo’s focus on ‘hoary/old/archaic, disused, irrelevant, historical Scottish institutions, documents, laws and statutes’, spouted by the so confident but so thoroughly and obliviously duped victims turned perpetrators of the gaslighting. They counter the message of Salvo with the enticingly rational and reassuring dismissal: ‘You see, we need to leave all that pointless – if interesting – ancient history behind us and get our independence through modern, diplomatic strategies and possibly international law.’ This message is reassuring, even comforting in a way, because it affirms what is familiar, a long established and accepted political reality rather than the stark, new perspective offered by Salvo which upends everything we were  led to believe before. 

How to explain this? Imagine a kidnap victim so thoroughly gaslighted and for so long, that she has come to believe her kidnapper is actually her spouse. After all, he has gone to the trouble of arranging a forced marriage! She is unaware that she has been kidnapped. She is unaware that the marriage was a fraud. She has lost her memory and no longer knows where she came from or who she is. 

Now imagine that this victim, thinking of herself simply as an unhappy wife, directs her energies to obtaining, as amicably as possible, a divorce from a partner who has become a bit controlling, even abusive. She ignores the fact that she was forced into the marriage and focusses entirely on the fact that her ‘spouse’ is unwilling to grant that divorce. Her only option, she believes, is to find a way to force her ‘spouse’ to agree. This, of course, is what her kidnapper wants her to think. 

Now imagine her reaction to someone who suddenly appears to tell her that she is not the person she believes herself to be, that her life has been a lie for years, that she is not an abused spouse but the victim of a ruthless and determined kidnapper, a criminal who organised a fictional marriage in order to gain possession of all that was hers and who regards her with the contemptuous cruelty of the slave owner. He has made her his property, not his wife, and has no intention of ever releasing her. Her only route to freedom is to expose and challenge his crime. 

Everything she believed is untrue. All her efforts to obtain a divorce from a fake marriage have not only been a waste of time but have served to reinforce the ‘union’ that in reality masked her kidnapping. A welcome message? Not so much. 

From allegory, let’s return to the rejection of Salvo’s ‘hoary/old/archaic, disused, irrelevant, historical Scottish documents, laws and statutes’. While complacently certain of this reasonable and comfortable critique, on May 6th, a good number of those who repeat it will watch, some will even attend, an English medieval pageant harking back to ‘the Hammer of the Scots’ in its ceremonial rituals and to 1066 in its constitutional character: the coronation of Charles III.  The purely English spectacle will transfix a global audience of millions who, like most Scots, and certainly those Scots in respectful attendance, will have no idea that what they are witnessing is not just a coronation, but the re-kidnapping of a nation, a false claim to ownership of that nation and the legal fiction, the fraud, that justifies the theft of Scotland’s territorial assets. 

His English majesty, Charles III, will not take a combined United Kingdom coronation oath, as you might expect if a single and new kingdom was created by the Treaty of Union. (You may remember Dorothy Bain, Scotland’s Lord Advocate, explaining this constitutional ‘reality’ in her submission to the Supreme Court in October 2022.) Nor will Charles will take the Scottish oath which is required by Scots law for any legitimate monarch. We find this requirement mentioned in the Claim of Right Act of 1689. Instead, he will take the English coronation oath, written in 1689. Though altered over the centuries, it remains the same – the English coronation oath. 

And this means that, exactly like the ‘UK’ constitution imposed on Scotland, the ‘UK’ Crown is simply the English Crown. And that *really* matters. It does not matter who is crowned king but which Crown exercises its rights and prerogatives over Scotland. 

In the simplest terms: Under the institution of the English Crown from 1066, (the Anglo Normal model), the monarch was ‘overlord’ and head of state, ‘sovereign’ politically, legally and territorially. Every inch of English land belonged to that monarch and was only allowed to be ‘held’ by those to whom the Crown granted it. The monarch’s political and legal sovereignty over the nation was transferred to English Parliament in 1689 and it is from that transfer of power, established under a 300 yr document!, that we get the modern doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty so recently upheld by the Supreme Court. 

This is important. Both the territorial sovereignty of the English Crown, which persists to this day, and the political and legal sovereignty claimed by Westminster, stem from the constitutional character of the English Crown. 

 
Established by Kenneth McAlpine around 840, almost 500 years before the Declarations of the Clergy in 1310 and Arbroath in 1320, the institution of the Scottish Crown is irreconcilably different. The right of the people to elect or to depose a ruler, (who ascended partly through hereditary and partly by election), which is to say the sovereignty of the people, originates from the Celtic model of the 9th century,  just as the subservience of the nation to the English monarch originates with Anglo Norman model of the 11th. (Anyone interested in understanding how it was shaped should dig into the character of the Irish kingship which, like Scotland, whose Gaelic population at the time was part of the Irish, consisted of many ‘ri’ or kings and an ‘ard ri’ or high king who stood, nominally above them.)

The Community of the Realm (Scottish people) was – and remains – the Crown of Scotland which remains intact. As the embodiment of the Scottish Crown, the people themselves, the Community of the Realm, are head of state not the monarch, who only represents the Crown/Community of the Realm. As such, the people are entitled to remove any monarch, or government, that fails them. (The very suggestion of which is treason in English law!) This is demonstrated by the Claim of Right Act of 1689 when the Convention of Estates, describing itself as a ‘full and fair representative of the nation’, sacked the king *and* parliament. The sovereign, the Community of the Realm, established exactly who is head of state in Scotland – and it wisnae the king! (Which is why ‘the right of the Crown’ in Scotland is so different from the feudal right of a supreme overlord which applies in England.)

The fact that Charles III of England will take, not a United Kingdom coronation oath, nor the legally mandated Scottish oath, but only the English coronation oath proves two essentially important things to those who aren’t too blinded by gaslighting to see it. It proves that there was no ‘Union’ but an annexation, a ‘kidnapping’, in plain sight, of a sovereign nation. And it proves that the treaty was a legal fiction, a fraud perpetrated to provide the appearance of legitimacy, (a longstanding British colonial MO) to an act of straightforward colonisation. Scotland has been incorporated into the colonial domains of England, as a possession of that nation, to be governed according to the English Constitution and under English territorial, legal and political sovereignty.

Both kingdoms ceased to exist in 1707 and a new ‘United’ Kingdom was formed. Really? The character of the Crown defines the character of its kingdom. As long as the English-only coronation, the English-only coronation oath and the English-only Crown institution define the ‘new’ Kingdom, there was and is no new, United Kingdom that replaced the kingdoms of England and Scotland. What we have instead, is simply England continuing under a new name. The oath that Charles takes on May 6th incorporates Scotland into his English ‘kingdom’, no matter what name it takes. It establishes English rules of governance and installs the English ‘right of the Crown’ in Scotland. And it is by the English ‘right of the Crown’, (that feudal right of the supreme overlord, in his capacity as head of state), that the theft of Scotland’s territorial assets – coal, oil, gas, renewables, water and more is legitimised. 

The Treaty of Union never enabled such a switch or had the competence to authorise it. Westminster sovereignty is another English principle, and even if it passed to the new Parliament in 1707 it could hardly claim the power to retroactively extend the Treaty so that the Crown of Scotland was replaced by that of England. The Treaty was and is a fraud. A legal fiction for masking an illegal act of annexation – that thing the coloniser does. 

On May 6th, while most of our people, and millions across the world, will be watching the venerable pageantry which glorifies the continuity of England’s ancient royalty, I’ll be in Glasgow at the AUOB rally. And I will be crying foul, to as many who will hear it, at the solemn spectacle of Scotland’s kidnapping, plunder and not merely forced, but entirely fake marriage, (or union). And to hell with those who insist on doing the kidnapper’s job for him, who refuse to see that our ‘hoary/old/archaic, disused, irrelevant, historical Scottish institutions, documents, laws and statutes’ are what exposes that crime for what it is. 

MY COMMENTS

How good is it to see Scotland on the attack, exposing the lies on which the Union is built. This is powerful stuff, so powerful that no cogent argument can be raised against it other than Scotland’s claim are centred on a Constitution and Claim of Right centuries old.

But wait a minute is the Union itself not centuries old, is the oath the King of England is taking not also hark back from centuries before? How does that work? England’s assumption that it is their constitution and their oath that applies. Where does the Treaty conditions say that? I will save you time nowhere is that stated nor agreed.

As Sara states this is a sham forced marriage and Scotland has long suffered from an abusing, greedy partner. No longer as more and more Scots are educated on how this crime has been and is being used to plunder our assets and deny us our rights of self determination.


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.

118 thoughts on “SARA’S ON THE MARCH!”

    1. A letter to a guy that wears a pharoah’s hat asking to kiss his feet. My personal favourite is the bit about the Scythians. The Pope is sovereign.

      Like

  2. The Act of Settlement 1700 confirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that Parliament determines the title to the Crown. By law it applied to G. Britain, then GB & Ireland, then the UK of GB & NI. It was last ammended by the Sucession to the Crown Act in 2013 to remove the discriminatiory religion and sex bits. In further fascinating post-1700 developments, it’s now illegal to burn witches.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I ask myself what constitutional authority can be held or conferred by a parliament where Scotland has no meaningful representation and the English majority has been sorely abused – I feel the answer is none.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. The (5 million) people are (all) sovereign(s). Thing is, the sovereigns disagree with each other (on ideas like ‘Scotland has no meaningful representation’). Hence elective democracy. Nevermind, as Mel Brooks said, it’s good to be king, but if we are all sovereigns surely I shouldn’t be paying any taxes, I should be recieving a government stipend, and I should have a very expensive party hat?

        Liked by 1 person

    2. In fact, the issue is whether or not the parties to the treaty, monarch and parliament, held the constitutional authority to transfer the power of the Crown in Scotland to the constituency of the Union. 1. The Scottish parliament never had the sovereignty of the English institution. Any Act passed by it could be struck down by the hurt of Session on successful appeal by a member of the public. (Salvo, see final business of 1706 parliament.) 2. As Anne had taken the Scottish coronation oath, very explicit about her duty to preserve and never to transfer the rights, rents and privileges of the Crown, and as the institution of the Crown in Scotland was entirely different to that of England (Crown = Community of the Realm not monarch who ‘accedes to government’; right of the Crown = rents, rights and privileges of the whole people to this day), she not only had no such authority she was legally prohibited from doing so. We have, here, what the experts coyly describe as a constitutional anomaly. But not really. We have a constitutional incompatibility resolved by perfidious Albion by the expedient of ignoring it, (and what is lawful), and applying the English principle to Scotland without the smallest of ground for doing so. So what if the limits and conditions and articles of the treaty prohibit such an action? It was always a legal fiction and absolutely typical of the British/English empire.

      Acts prior to Union, such as the Act of Settlement may not simply be retroactively applied to Scotland. Incorporating Union, despite the sudden discovery that its modern meaning would be a jackpot for the Unionist argument, meant simply the incorporating of the two parliaments into one.

      You are doing what the English establishment has done for over 300 yrs with the assumption that it still works. The authority of the English constitution is not the authority of the Scottish constitution. The sovereignty of an English Parliament could not automatically pass to a ‘United Parliament’ and thence to the constitutional arrangement in Scotland. It has succeeded first through violence and then through wiping the Scottish historical record and the existence of the constitution of this country from the consciousness of Scots. But the affirmation of English principle and the English re-interpretation of the treaty – even by every Court in the English and annexed Scotland – cannot accomplish this magical transformation whereby neither clear treaty limits nor agreed rights apply. No amount of repetition by authorative voices can change what is recorded, what is lawful or just – or the abrogation of these things into the former. And your English principles didn’t become lawful just because they were rebranded as the ‘UK’ constitution, in the expectation that the name change justifies applying them to Scotland purely because it is part of the UK. A sleazy sleight of hand that will (even more) bring international opprobrium on the British state as it is exposed internationally. Indeed, this reliance on an argument founded on the sovereignty of an English Parliament, in breach of the Claim of Right, is precisely the exceptionalism referred to by Mark Elliott (Cambridge Faculty of Law). It dissolves on contact with international reality becoming instead a loudly persistent accusation of colonial oppression against the British/English state.

      The long twilight of ignorance and gaslighting is over. If you wish to engage in the debate you will find, increasingly, that you will be required to know something of the long hidden but stubbornly persistent Scottish constitution and the real limits and conditions of a treat which will now, either have to be honoured, (altering utterly and irrevocably the control and self-determination of the nation of Scotland within the Union), or the decolonisation process will begin in earnest and with international assistance. .

      Liked by 5 people

Comments are closed.