A very interesting article from well known journalist Dr. David Torrance. It was originally published by the UK CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION ON THE 16th May 2023.

David Torrance: “Nothing in the Nature of a Second Coronation”

On 23 April 2023 the Sunday Telegraph carried a striking headline: “Scotland to host its own Coronation for the King with Stone of Destiny at its heart.” During a thanksgiving service at St Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh, the report continued, King Charles III was to be presented with the Honours of Scotland (“the oldest regalia in the British Isles”), after they had been escorted from Edinburgh Castle by “a people’s procession of about 100 representatives from different walks of life across Scotland”. Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf said the service “later this year” would be “similar” to that held in June 1953 for Queen Elizabeth II.

That earlier service had been a colourful example of what Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger called “invented tradition” – occasions which “appear or claim to be old” but are in fact “quite recent in origin”, usually associated with nationalism. The Queen’s “Scottish coronation” had served as a reminder that Scotland was an historic nation within a more recent “union state”. This post, which is based on records held at the National Archives and at the Lyon Office, explores the evolution of and constitutional controversy surrounding this invented tradition.

“Some appropriate use”

During 1951, a committee of the Church of Scotland (also known as the “Kirk”) had considered the “place” of its representatives on “occasions of National Importance”. With the death of King George VI in February 1952 creating “a new situation”, not only did the Moderator of the General Assembly attend his State Funeral on 15 February 1952, but the committee began to examine Kirk representation at the last coronation in May 1937. This led, “with the utmost cordiality on both sides”, to an invitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Moderator to present the Coronation Bible to the Queen at her coronation in June 1953.

The political context also proved conducive to a more prominent role for Scotland’s “national” church. Since the late 1940s, the Scottish Covenant movement had demanded a devolved Scottish Parliament, and hundreds of thousands of Scots appeared to agree. In response, the Conservative government which took office in 1951 established a Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, to which the Church of Scotland gave evidence.

James Stuart, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, wrote to the Queen’s Private Secretary, Sir Alan “Tommy” Lascelles, on 2 May 1952, just as the Kirk committee was about to present its report to the General Assembly. Stuart suggested:

that if The Queen felt able on Her Coronation visit to Scotland to attend a short national Service of Dedication and Thanksgiving … to which representatives from all parts of the country would be invited, and if, further, some appropriate use could be made at such a Service of the Scottish Regalia, this would give great satisfaction both to the Church of Scotland and to the Scottish people generally.

Stuart added that the use of the Scottish Regalia (the Honours of Scotland) had also been considered in 1936-37 but had been “rejected on the ground that it savoured too much of a second Coronation”. The only precedents were the parading of the Honours during George IV’s visit to Edinburgh in 1822 and the Scottish Sword of State having been carried before George V at the dedication of the Thistle Chapel (home to the chivalric Order of the Thistle) in July 1911. George and Queen Mary had earlier “inspected” the Honours of Scotland at Edinburgh Castle, as had King Edward VII during a visit in 1903.

Lascelles quite correctly consulted Jock Colville, Winston Churchill’s Private Secretary, but expressed concern that the idea of the Queen being “recrowned” in other Commonwealth capitals might “instantly be revived” were Stuart’s plans to bear fruit. On the other hand, Sir Alan thought a service “not specifically connected with the Coronation, at which the Scottish Regalia could be paraded” could be arranged, although it seemed to him “a matter of far-reaching State importance”. Colville did not seem to agree, advising Churchill that Stuart’s request was “harmless”. Ahead of an official announcement from Buckingham Palace on 17 November 1952, the Scottish Office once again reassured Lascelles that “every precaution will be taken to avoid any suggestion that this Service would be in any sense a re-coronation”.

The date for the “National Service” was fixed for 24 June 1953, just three weeks after the coronation at Westminster Abbey. The Times reported that it was the Queen’s “desire that the honours of Scotland should be carried to the cathedral on the occasion of the service, and that the congregation should, as far as possible, be representative of all parts of Scotland and of all aspects of Scottish life”. Arrangements were to be under the general supervision of Lord Lyon King of Arms (Scotland’s chief herald) and the Scottish Office, in concert with the Church of Scotland and St Giles’ Cathedral. Like the coronation itself, the ceremony was to be broadcast on television and radio.

“Coronational” considerations

The first difficulty arose when the Dean of the Thistle Chapel approached the Queen’s Private Secretary suggesting that the Queen “publicly hold the Scottish sceptre” during the service. This struck Lascelles as “constitutionally improper” and the matter was referred to Lord Simonds, the Lord Chancellor. He was of the view that Article 24 of the Acts of Union meant the Honours of Scotland “were not intended to be used in connection with the Coronation of Sovereigns of the United Kingdom”:

Anything that would suggest that the Service in St. Giles’s [sic] next summer was in the nature of a second Coronation would be undesirable … If The Queen were to hold the Scottish sceptre, Her Majesty would be repeating, during her Coronation Visit to Scotland, one of the symbolic rites already performed at the Service in Westminster Abbey, and the symbolism might be regarded as implying that Scotland was a separate kingdom.

The Lord Chancellor’s objections appear curious. Although Article 24 provided that “the Crown Scepter [sic] and Sword of State” will “continue to be kept as they are within that part of the United Kingdom now called Scotland”, there was nothing expressly prohibiting their use in situ, as they would be at St Giles’ in June 1953. The symbolism might be politically risky, but it was not against the law.

By the beginning of 1953, the Lord Lyon was observing in one letter that the procession envisaged for the National Service was “abbreviated from the ordinary state progress with The Honours” as “used at the Openings of the Scots Parliament” prior to 1707 (the legal basis being a Scottish Privy Council Act of 1681). It was, wrote Lyon, most important to:

recollect that the Public – and indeed the World … expect to see something consistent with Scottish tradition and of the ceremonial which came down through the ages … A carrying of the Honours by “officials in uniform” instead of Earls in robes, would be an anachronism, and an anti-climax, reminiscent not of Scotland’s History, but of some Balkan kinglets’ parade. It would take only very little deviation to change a most inspiring and evocative progress into a banal fiasco.

Lyon took care to add that “nothing suggested, in any way, savours of a second Coronation”, believing it was only in the “intra-Cathedral service … that ‘coronational’ considerations would emerge”.

This was the preserve of Charles L. Warr, Minister of St Giles’ and Dean of the Chapel Royal in Scotland. To him it was suggested that the Stone of Destiny be brought to St Giles’ for the service, that the Queen should wear the Scottish Crown and that the Sovereign “should make a vow before the assembled company and that they, by some act, should pledge their loyalty to her”. Warr soon became aware of “uneasiness” in “some official quarters in the south” (England) as to what he intended. A “high personage” in the government even remarked to a “distinguished” Scottish peer: “Look here, is that fellow Charles Warr out to stage a second Coronation?” Eventually, as he recounted in his memoirs, Warr managed to produce an Order of Service “impregnated” with Scottish history but which “satisfied all parties”.

The carrying of the Honours, meanwhile, prompted one “claim” which required careful handling. Sir Malcolm MacGregor of MacGregor had written to Lyon on 22 November 1952 to remind him that his clan had escorted the Honours during George IV’s visit in 1822. And as clan chief, he was “most anxious” it “should again exercise this ancient right and privilege”. The Scottish Secretary, however, was opposed, as was the Queen (it is not clear why, although the Clan’s lawlessness had led to its persecution for much of the 17th and 18th centuries). Lyon finally wrote to Sir Malcolm on 6 April 1953, saying tactfully that “it does not appear that modern official sentiment is favourable to allocation of functions such as those performed in 1822”.

The Queen had approved all the other arrangements during a meeting with the Scottish Secretary in mid-February 1953, agreeing that:

the Honours should be carried by those with hereditary claims to do so except that she feels it would not be appropriate that the Sword of State should be carried by a woman. Her Majesty has expressed the wish that the Countess of Erroll may be willing to delegate her responsibility to Lord Home, the Minister of State; in which case the Crown would be carried both to the Cathedral and from the Cathedral back to Holyrood by the Duke of Hamilton.

“Piety and patriotism meet”

On the day itself, The Times laid it on thick:

No royal ceremony in recent Scottish history has so pleased the people of this land or made a greater popular appeal with its deep significance … At St. Giles’, as nowhere else in Scotland, piety and patriotism meet in closest community.

The 1,700 guests inside St Giles’ witnessed much, it has to be said, that “savoured” of a second coronation. Psalms from the coronations of Charles I and II at Holyrood in 1633 and Scone in 1651 were sung, the Dedication was “paraphrased” from the Scottish National Covenant of 1638, while the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were blessed by Charles Warr. Later, and as trumpets sounded, he handed the Honours of Scotland to the Queen who gave them to their bearers as they knelt in turn to receive them. A few weeks later, Lyon passed on the Queen’s congratulations and observed that the “bearing of Honours has evidently been just what the Scottish people wanted to see”, a ceremony “rooted in the history of Scotland and her ancient line of Sovereigns”.

Concluding observations

Following as it did controversies over the theft of the Stone of Scone from Westminster Abbeyin 1950 and the destruction of pillar boxes over regnal numbering, the ceremonial of 1953 had simultaneously to satisfy national sentiment while not appearing to suggest that Scotland was a separate kingdom. It seems to have worked: the Commonwealth Realms did not demand “re-crownings” and by the end of 1953 the Scottish Covenant movement was on the wane.

Despite repeated assurances, however, that nothing on the day would “savour” of a second coronation, this is difficult to square with what actually occurred. Although it was not placed on the Queen’s head, the Crown of Scotland played a central role, as indeed it would at the revived (if not invented) ceremonial that accompanied openings of the devolved Scottish Parliament after 1999. The Crown was also affixed to the late Queen’s coffin as it lay-at-rest in St Giles’ in September 2022. Indeed, it was during her long reign that Scottish State ceremonial reached its fullest extent since 1707.

The reports referenced at the beginning of this article – since confirmed at Holyrood by the First Minister – have thus far attracted little or no comment, let alone controversy. The explanation for this is perhaps twofold: the Scotland of 2023 possesses a devolved parliament which that of 1953 lacked, while its governing party (the SNP) has since 1999 embraced specifically Scottish royal ceremonial as an expression of Scottish distinctiveness, a reminder – as it was seven decades ago – of Scotland’s autonomous place within the United Kingdom.

With thanks to Adam Bruce for his help with this article.

Dr David Torrance, House of Commons Library

(Suggested citation: D. Torrance, ‘“Nothing in the Nature of a Second Coronation”’, U.K. Const. L. Blog (16th May 2023) (available at


David provides a valuable service highlighting the lengths Westminster have always went in the past to disguise that the “UK Monarch” has no rights to the assets of Scotland and that Westminster continues to spin that the UK MONARCH has identical powers in Scotland to those they legally hold in England. They don’t, they can never have, because unlike England the Crown in Scotland is represented by the Sovereign People of Scotland, not the King or Queen of Scots. There can never have been a “Union of the Crowns” because no Monarch of Scotland or indeed Parliament of Scotland has ever held the legal power to unite the crown with England or anyone else. It was never theirs to unite, they only held it in trust for the people. It was never theirs and in the same way you can never legally sell anything you never owned, the Crown of Scotland remains in the form of the sovereign people of our nation. This is crucial because it is this fantasy of a Union of the Crowns that is being used historically right up to the present day to illegally plunder Scotland of our assets like oil, gas, renewables and soon our water UNLESS we get solidly behind Salvo and Liberation and start an international campaign to bring this robbery to an end and obtain reparations for the centuries of theft. They are right to be concerned because every day Salvo/Liberation are bringing these facts to more and more Scots. As our campaign builds it will become much more difficult for Westminster to continue. Scots families facing increasing poverty and soaring energy and food prices will be mobilised to fight back. Sign up now at Salvo.Scot and Liberation.Scot.

I am, as always



Sadly some websites seek to censor what their readers have access to read. This is particularly true of sites whose existence is primarily to support the views of one particular party and they seek to block articles which do not slavishly support that particular doctrine. My readers have worked out that the best way to defeat that attack on the freedom of speech and thought is to share my articles widely, thus defeating any attempt at censorship. My thanks for this.


Are playing a crucial role in taking Independence forward. This site limits donations to Yours for Scotland to a maximum of £3. We do not need more as all we seek to do is to cover the costs incurred in running the blog therefore once this is secured each year all further donations are forwarded to Salvo and Liberation. My thanks for all who choose to support us in this way. It is appreciated.




  1. It’s all moot if the English king doesn’t take the Scottish oath to uphold the Claim of Right, and I’m not talking about the ‘easy bits’ that’ll keep the orange clad peasants at bay, but the whole thing, including;
    That by the law if this Kingdome no person can be King or Queen of this realme nor bear any office whatsomever therein nor can any successor exercise regalle power until he or she swear the Coronation Oath. That would be the Scottish Coronation Oath. Over to you Charles.

    Liked by 11 people

    1. Can anyone supply the text and terms of the Scottish Coronation Oath as it would be of interest to readers of this forum.
      I would hope it contains, in specific terms, an undertaking by the Monarch to uphold the sovereignty of the Scottish people and to swear to uphold their interests. Any oath of allegiance should be from the Monarch to the people, not the otherway round which was the case in the farcical ceremony in London, where peopel were expected to bow and grovel to a very ordinary man who is only a monarch because of an accident of birth, which should not set him ablove us and result in the ridiculous pantomime of people having to walk away from him backwards!
      We need to emphasisie this difference and the fact that we Scots are not obliged to show deference to the King of England.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Sara Salyers posted the below, last year;

        The Scottish coronation oath without which KCIII cannot legally become King of Scots:

        We […] faithfully, promise and swear, by this our solemn oath in presence of the eternal God, that during the whole course of our life we will serve the same eternal God to the utmost of our power, according as he has required in his most holy word revealed and contained in the new and old testaments, and according to the same word shall maintain the true religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching of his holy word, and the due and right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached within the realm of Scotland, and shall abolish and withstand all false religion, contrary to the same, and shall rule the people committed to our charge according to the will and command of God revealed in his aforesaid word, [and according to the loveable laws and constitutions received in this realm], in no way repugnant to the said word of the eternal God, and shall procure to the utmost of our power to the kirk of God and whole Christian people true and perfect peace in all time coming, that [we shall preserve and keep inviolate the rights and rents, with all just privileges of the crown of Scotland, neither shall we transfer nor alienate the same, that we shall forbid and repress in all estates and degrees, plunder, oppression and all kinds of violation, and we shall command and procure that justice and equity in all judgements be kept to all persons without exception], as the Lord and father of all mercies shall be merciful to us, and we shall be careful to root out all heretics and enemies to the true worship of God that shall be convicted by the true kirk of God of the foresaid crimes out of our lands and empire of Scotland, and we faithfully affirm the things above-written by our solemn oath.

        Note the crown in Scotland is not, as in England, the individual known as the monarch but the entire community of the realm represented by and not embodied in the monarch. The lovable laws include that enacted by the CoR as Breeks explained as a singularly protected set of principles (under pain of high treason) 1703.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. I am so glad that this historic difference between the Scots Crown of the people of Scotland and the Royal English Crown by the inheritance of the first child of England’s pervious Monarch is the important topic here. WE ARE THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE of SCOTLAND, any Monarch wearing our Scot’s Crown is doing so at the will of our Scottish people NOT by birthright. By-the-way I fancy being Scotland’s 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Quine fae a wee while afore Aye kick the bucket. Whae will nominate me?

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Dr.David Torrance? I must have missed the ‘doctorate ‘ event. Was he not a journalist dead against Scottish Independence, writing copiously in the Herald??

    The people of Scotland are sovereign – end of story.

    Liked by 13 people

    1. I knew I’d seen this somewhere.
      ‘Standing up for Scotland’ : the Scottish Unionist Party and ‘nationalist unionism’, 1912-1968 / David Torrance.
      This is the title of his PhD which he did at the University of the West of Scotland.
      Doesn’t say who his supervisor was.
      I actually wouldn’t mind reading this.
      Yes, I am a glutton for punishment.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. It looks like everyone and their dug had a say…..EXCEPT the Sovereign People of Scotland.
    A Colony must appear as a Colony, never as a Nation.

    Liked by 12 people

  4. The prospect of King Charles III of England coming to Edinburgh to fudge some kind of pseudo-coronation will not wash with the people of Scotland. They will not be able to get away with the charade that took place in 1953.

    As Iain mentioned, there never was a “Union of the Crowns” in 1603 and the Administrative Power that is the UK government knows this to be true but will still try to foist a ceremony but NOT a “second coronation” on the people of Scotland! A “second coronation” would reinforce the truth regarding the differences between the 2 Crowns and what they mean in reality. However, Scotland is a very different nation nowadays as compared with all the faux British patriotism following WWII.

    It is calculated that despite having almost £2 billion, the Westminster coronation of King Charles III of England cost over £100 million. However, that cost was not met by the coronated King of England but from public funds – in other words we all made a contribution to “the big day” whether or not we wanted to do so. So, should this farce go ahead, I assume that Charles will not be paying for it either!

    With over £100 million of public money spent on his English coronation and whatever we will be expected to fork out for the proposed event in Edinburgh, that sum could have helped to significantly lower the appalling and totally unnecessary figure of 24% of children in Scotland living in poverty.

    No doubt, the BBC in all its biased glory will go overboard once again to ensure we Scots and the rest of the world sees what they expect us to see. However, the BBC is not the only provider of global information nowadays. This would present another opportunity for Salvo and Liberation Scotland to help re-educate the people of Scotland as to their true history and their subjugated position as England’s colony as was portrayed so recently by Charles seating himself on the Cludgie Stane!

    Finally, I would never condone violence in any form but if this farce does go ahead, I wonder how many reinforcements Police Scotland will require to ensure a “trouble-free” event?

    Liked by 6 people

  5. Posting about this on another blog, here is an extract:

    … watch the reaction and posts that will appear when that ceremony for Charles in Edinburgh gains wall to wall BBC and MSM coverage as another example of Scotland being told, most emphatically, of our permanent subservient place within the UK.

    Then, but perhaps only then, will those who awake offer their cheers and boos, with the damage long since done, the same damage and psychological infiltration that has been consistently generated since 1707.


    What ceremony? This one.

    The Scottish Crown Jewels will be presented to the King in a special service of dedication and thanksgiving at St Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh.

    Thousands of onlookers are expected to line the Royal Mile for the ceremony, which will see the Honours of Scotland escorted from Edinburgh Castle the short distance to the cathedral by a people’s procession of 100 representatives from across the country.

    But while the date of the service is still a closely-guarded secret, it seems that a government agency may accidentally have let the cat out of the bag.

    Historic Environment Scotland sent an email to thousands of its members last week warning that Edinburgh Castle is due to be closed to the public on Wednesday, July 5, because of ‘anticipated ceremonial activity’.

    It also warned that the Crown Room at the castle – which normally houses the Honours of Scotland, featuring the oldest Crown Jewels in the world – is due to be closed from July 4 to July 6.

    Last week, Buckingham Palace revealed that the King is due to be in Edinburgh hosting a garden party at the Palace of Holyroodhouse on July 4.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. The History and Significance of the Crown of Scotland – hope despite the initial context this is of interest – and likely controversy!

      Liked by 5 people

    2. Surely he needs to swear the oath to be the rightful King of Scots.
      At present he is king of England only, though Wales and Northern Ireland, depending on their consitutional status. We need to get this information out to the peoplpe of scotland along with the theft of our resiurces following on from the false claim that the westmister government can do what ot likes with Scotland and her land.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Just after the queen died, Charles swore some kind of oath to uphold protestantism in Scotland. Wasn’t that related to this?

        At about the 4 minute mark, he swears to uphold the Claim of Right of Scotland.
        *sit down Timmy, this isn’t for you*


      2. Yes he is willing to publicly acknowledge the archaic part of the COR, the most divisive and outdated part, but makes no mention of the truly unifying parts that would unite Scotland in approval. That is no error it is deliberate policy.

        Liked by 3 people

  6. The powers and privileges of the UK monarchy are not homogenous across the UK, and no-one has the authority or the right to make them so. To nobody’s great surprise, this just reflects the fully equivalent fact that Westminster’s authority over the UK, despite its fulsome assertions to the contrary, is also not homogenous across it, and the reason for both these situations is sovereignty; both of them.

    The utter hypocrisy involved in both matters is abusive and deep, and the English establishment is at the root of it.

    We need to rid ourselves of that establishment, before it gets rid of us.

    Liked by 11 people

  7. I would like to see the Stone cut up into over 5 million pieces, one piece given to each Scot; after all we the people are sovereign and I think the majority are in favour of a Republic. That would certainly stop any future stealing or borrowing of our Stone in order that English royal arses could sit on it, and we wouldn’t even have to hide it, as it would reside in every Scottish household.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Apparently a piece of the stone was given tae Ireland by the Bruce for sending some people fae Ireland to help with the war here. The Blarney stone. I mind of my granny speaking about the kissing of the stone when someone was gifted with the gab.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Posted too quickly; I meant to add, the only things the two sovereignties have in common are that their authorities are both absolute in their own domains, they are fully equal, and they are fully entitled to demand mutual respect.

    Liked by 6 people

  9. David Torrance is an arch-Unionist and old-fashioned Scots Tory, who has a fetish for all things Constitutionally Unionist. He never writes anything without having an underlying political motive. So what’s his game here?

    Liked by 6 people

    1. I am sure he did not do so to help Independence but nevertheless he has by highlighting the efforts to suppress any thought that the “Union of the Crowns” does not confer to Westminster the rights to plunder Scotland’s resources.

      Liked by 10 people

  10. My impression from the events at St Giles in 1953, though i cannot give any assurance of their accuracy given the time that has passed, and the fact that i was a teenager with little understanding of politics, though i was disgusted that the late Queen opted to be known as Elizabeth II, given the fact that the first English Queen Elizabeth had signed the order of execution of of her first cousin, our Queen Mary of Scots.
    As to the events in Edinburgh, my recollection is that there was a lot of resentment about the fact that she appeared in ordinary day wear and carried a handbag, unlike the fancy costume and crown she wore each year for the opening of the Westminster parliament. As usual, the media presented it as something that Scotland had wanted and we should be grateful that Her Majesty had recognised her Scottish subjects, as we were referred to at that time. Absolutely no recognition of the ancient history of the Scottish crown and the very differnt concept of that symbol in Scotland.

    Liked by 10 people

  11. This scenario transcends placards and politics. To whom can I make meaningful representation that I, a sovereign Scot, do not wish Charles III as my king?

    Liked by 8 people

  12. The US/UK military-intelligence cartel intend use ‘Devo Max’ aka ‘Home Rule’ ploy, to retain a degree of ‘invisible’ control over Scotland’s resources and psyche; and in doing so seed division and wear-down Scots morale in order to gaslight-compel economic concessions to the Crown Estate & England and to erode political resolve intended force the continued siting of their Trident nuclear submarines based near the City of Glasgow.’

    ‘Devo-Max: Ireland 1922 to Scotland 2022 – Live. Die. Repeat.’ (2022)

    Johnny McNeill
    #GaslightingGilligan (©2017) 
    Twitter: @GasGilligan (*free download*)

    Liked by 4 people

  13. The concerns expressed by the UK state that there must be no suggestion of a second coronation are in direct contrast to the registration of the UK with the UN:
    TWO countries, a Principality and a region (NI). Wales was upgraded to a country by the UN due to the lack of an executive prince – Wales rejoiced and the UK may have noted it should take its own constitution more seriously. However, I doubt the UK mindset that England is All has changed.

    I would expect the “second coronation” concerns relate not to tradition but to the Crown Estate. No part of that box of goodies can be under Scottish control …

    Liked by 7 people

    1. I rather suspect you may be correct, Marion. The Crown Estate is a hugely lucrative investment that offers Scotland little to nothing.

      Liked by 6 people

  14. I understand that James VI became king of England in «personal union» the two countries staying politically independent. Personal unions are historically common. Usually they are not long lasting.
    James seems to have been glad to quit Scotland and eager to obliterate the name under the fantasy moniker «Great Britain».
    We would be well rid of his legacy and its baubles.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I believe the remains of a baby were found in the walls of Holyrood Palace, wrapped in finery with the initial ‘I’ that would be Latin for James. There are stories that the baby son of a Scottish lord was substituted for the dead prince. Perhaps there is something in these stories and the Stuart line ended with Mary, leaving a potentially angry and resentful heir apparent.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Here’s a wee video with a collar fae the order of the thistle. She says that there’s nae makers mark so they are just estimating who made it.

    Liked by 2 people

    I posted this before whilst doing a wee bit of research for personal reasons and I know that it’s a film but the Brave Heart film gift of the thistle and the dream scene had me doing some research because that’s just the way that my mind works. 😄 I keep a wee box with Blessed Holy Thistle in it as well. Testing tae see if it works. 🤣


  17. As long as there are but 100 of us.
    Is there something significant about bringing together 100 individuals from across the land. Thul be nae ordinary punters that’s for sure. A hundred unionists, more than likely. A hundred pseudo Scots who would lower themselves and bend the knee to a foreign king.
    Whit was that bit about high treason again.
    Scotland the best wee corrupted country on the planet.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Yeah well it’s about the hearts of the individuals who choose to take reward in exchange for service. How many times have we saw those who will hurt people for personal gain?
      People call us nationalists but what about thinking about ourselves differently from the label that is put there to create an image of something that is nasty. ‘Nasty Nats’ the SDM likes to circulate into the minds of others. I think of the people of Scotland who wish to exit the UK as those who are not willing to hurt other people here or abroad for reward. They look around and see what being part of the UK has done to many including people here and instead of reward for service to a small group of individuals they want reward for everyone and to be fair. We don’t want to rule England or any other country that is the UK. We want our government and politicians to be held accountable for wrong doing if they should become corrupted. All the things that is being revealed about profiteering and food security, going after political opponents and the many positive things that we hold in our hearts to this day we know is service and fairness to all.
      We waste time arguing with those who are not positive, have no positive case for remaining and they put information into the public so that we respond in a way that they can highlight as nasty because they can’t show the benefits of the union to the Scottish people who know in our hearts there’s a better way.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. Scottish nationalism is what is known as ‘defensive nationalism’ protecting the rights and territory of the sovereign Scottish people and nation. This is quite different from ‘aggressive nationalism’ such as the English Tories ‘one nation Britain’ political ideology which imposes Anglo cultural assimilation, a British identity, and domination over the ‘Celtic periphery’ nations.

        Liked by 5 people

      2. The video is the European Parliament Committee and not what is stated on the initial link. Very worthwhile that all listen when you get a chance. It’s lengthy so might be best for over a few days.


  18. History has always been about the people. Kingdoms and empires rise, but because they are usually corrupt and to the detriment of the majority, they eventually fall. The people of Scotland will, hopefully very soon, realise that they are being played by the corrupt, that they are being denied their innate rights by those who benefit and are deemed of no value hence the reduction in quality of life. One way or another, like other peoples suppressed and raped, they will topple the agents and institutions of the establishment. It has been the cycle of all civilisations from the beginning of time.

    Salvo/ have, through their efforts (thank you), I believe accelerated this revolution by educating the people on their (hidden in plain sight) constituted rights which have been ignored by our political class for far too long. Prosperity to Scotland and NO Union.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. This might be out there if you’re the closed mind type but Paul’s research takes us back to Israel on the prior video before this one in regards to colonisation and such.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. There never was a ‘Union of the Crowns’ in 1603, only two crowns placed on one head. This has always been a misnomer, and generations of children have been misinformed on this issue. The speeches and writings of Queen Anne in 1707 make this very, very plain. Too many people invested in keeping us in the dark on this issue. What happens is that the reigning monarch, when being crowned, is crowned as King/Queen of each realm of Scotland and England, hence the importance of the Stone of Destiny in keeping us in our place under the English monarchy, but, if there is any precedence, it should be Scotland first and England second, as James VI of Scotland took the vacant English throne through direct descent from the last monarch, Elizabeth Tudor, who was the niece of his great-grandmother, Mary Tudor, wife of James IV, and sister of Henry VIII of England. James VI’s mother, Mary Queen of Scots was a second cousin once removed of Elizabeth; they shared a grandmother and aunt in Mary Tudor. The regnal numbers now are, of course, entirely English and do not reflect the Scottish regnal numbers at all.

    From 1603, through 1707, to the present day, all kinds of unconstitutional shenanigans have taken place with, it has to be said, Scottish active collaboration, on the one hand, and ignorance, on the other. The true situation is as SALVO states, and even devolution should never have been acquiesced in because it is illegal under the Treaty terms, when England was not devolved at the same time as Scotland. Everything, from 1603 to the present day has been ultra vires on the part of the British government and state. It is strange that even Queen Anne understood the real situation, but vested interests refuse to acknowledge the plain truth – even as it stares us right in the face.

    Liked by 7 people

  20. Extract from Feargal McCluskey’s (BLOSC’s) latest proffering: TYRONE THE LABORATORY OF ENGLISH COLONIALISM. (Various of Alf Baird’s mentors gain mention in the full article) —

    “From the perspective of Ireland, England’s first colony, the tendencies of colonisation and the radical humanism of decolonisation resonate through the island’s past, present, and future. As the final bastion of Gaelic civilisation, Tyrone represents a case study in Césaire’s emptied society, suppressed culture, collapsed institutions, confiscated lands, murdered religions and ruined artistic magnificence. In short, the suppression of extraordinary possibilities. All of this begins with the othering of the ‘thingification’ of the native.

    “Before the final collapse of the Gaelic Order, the population of Ireland circa 1540 lay somewhere between 0.75 and 1.0 million. As such, ‘the conquest must rank as one of the most destructive conflicts anywhere in sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century Europe.’[13] In fact, if not fully in actuality, the intention was to extirpate the Gaelic Irish. Burghley‘s 1575 ‘Degrees for the Government of Ireland’, proposed an early form of apartheid between the Gael and the Old and New English. A quarantine to stop the spread of the Gaelic contagion.[14] More famously, Vice regal secretary Edmund Spenser, paid real attention to the evil of Irish language and culture:

    “‘the words are the image of the mind, so as they proceeding from the mind, the mind must needs be effected with the words; so that the speech being Irish, the heart must needs be Irish “for it hath been ever the use of the conqueror to despise the language of the conquered, and to force him by all means to learn his’.[15]

    “English policy vacillated between frustrated accommodation and the pursuance of partial extermination and apartheid. Ultimately, however, both extirpation and accommodation were firmly based on colonial concepts of cultural superiority and when the Gael sought to assert their own autonomy and cultural legitimacy, the genocidal zero-sum implications emerged into clear relief. “

    Liked by 6 people

  21. I would agree, Iain, that there never was a Union of the Crowns. It was impossible to do that, as there was only one monarch, and the Scottish PEOPLE, the ‘crown’ in Scotland, were not consulted, didn’t agree to it, the ancient laws in Scotland prevented such a thing and thus, it could never BE combined. Even English WM knew combining the crowns couldn’t work. But as long as they thought Scots didn’t know the rules of the game, they continued to get what they wanted out of that union.

    But if, as WM & their minions are wont to do, they continued and still continue to perpetuate the idea of ‘Union of the Crowns’ farce, in order to justify stealing our resources, stealing our revenue and refusing our right to self-determination. then they need reminded – WHEN CROMWELL DECLARED ENGLAND A REPUBLIC, he effective DISSOLVED THE UNION OF THE CROWNS. The English crown no longer had any sway over us, no new ‘union of the crowns’ was ever re-entered into or signed & thus it means EVERY MONARCH England has crowned since then HAS BEEN AN ENGLISH KING ONLY. After the ‘reign’ of Cromwell (and his son, who gave up the responsibility of rule), England just pretended that none of the Cromwell thing had happened or changed ANYTHING, they looked for a new monarch and thus James VI got the role of dual reigning king because he came from Scotland. But that was ALL they got – a king. Nothing that comes with the English king, comes with a Scottish king. The Scottish king owns nothing in Scotland – certainly not the land, the resources or the right to expect the Scots to behave as their leal subjects. James VI actually gave England NOTHING from Scotland, except his ‘royal’ position. From 1649, that whole thing has been a LIE. BUT as is the custom with WM, whatever they want, they steal. And the sham has continued to this day because it benefits them GREATLY.

    It is more than time we disabused WM of the idea they OWN Scotland, the resources & the people. Time to show WM the door. And while we’re at it, let’s show SNP the door too, given they are allowing this sham to continue in order to keep collecting big salaries & fill BIG pension pots, when by rights they serve SCOTS, not t’other way round!

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Well we know that faith in politicians have dropped across the board however the support for independence has not and if you ask people why or what they would like the two that are no accountability and belief that no matter who they are they serve self and are all making false promises. So how publicly could politicians redeem themselves is the issue that is in question in order to regain trust. For me just making promises isn’t enough and saying that you will do something, proof is required. It was good to see Ash in the zoom conference with Sara, Collette, David and Peter. Now if we had our independence supporting politicians agreeing publicly to support Salvo/Liberation put their name to it, sign up etc would you think that you would trust them more? I quite like Neale Hanvey for at least in the beginning leading the proclamation. He’s kind of earned my trust for that as someone who is already elected.

      Liked by 6 people

    2. Katielass04, that is, indeed, an excellent point about the implications of Cromwell’s republic on the Union of the Crowns since it was never “ever re-entered into”. I have also heard it claimed from an English perspective that England is still in fact a republic which has further implications for the United Kingdom as the following quote elucidates (apologies to the author as I no longer have a note of who wrote it):

      “England is still a republic. The “United Kingdom” is constitutionally null and void. The 1660 Act of Restoration was illegal because only the second Long Parliament had the right to adjudicate on the restoration of the monarchy. The 1660 Convention Parliament had no legitimacy. Constitutional “experts” and professors of law know this, but will never admit it in public. The “UK” (the Crown British State) simply doesn’t exist. England is still an independent republic.”

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Indeed Saffron Robe. I’ve read that too somewhere (that England is still a Republic), when I first heard of SALVO & was reading the background of some of their information, but can’t remember where & having a look for it, without success. It’s a very interesting theory and it makes sense, given the circumstances & what was done to return England to ‘normal’ after the death of Cromwell. And it took a lot of years, given the country didn’t want another catholic king, so the kingship was put on hold for a few years, till they finally accepted James VI was the best of a bad bunch.

        But of course, the present WM will NEVER admit to that and it will go all round the houses trying to disprove it in their own inimitable way – in other words, LYING to suit their agenda. They’ve done that to Scotland for generations now; lying, ignoring, using high court judiciaries to reframe the laws to suit WM’s wants & needs (Scotland’s huge resources & revenue) & sneering at any evidence Scots use to prove the corrupt and manipulative use of the Treaty of Union ‘contract’ is a huge con trick. Even Scotgov refuse to accept it and act on it, tho it too knows the ToU is a WM con job.

        Liked by 2 people

  22. The facts are so plain, the two most aggressive «nationalistic» entities in recent times have been anglo-saxon. i.e. England/Britain/UK and the USA, the latter had a excellent teacher in the subject adding grand style genocide and ethnic cleansing to the corporate mission statement.
    Both are defenders of the «Rights of Man».
    Is it easier to lie in English?
    Scotland’s relationship with this culture and its trappings is «sinister».
    A readable intro to the cultural dynamic may be found in
    PALO ALTO, a history of California, Capitalism and the World by Malcolm Harris.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. And Slavic, and Muslim-fundamentalist. But one of the most devastating wars since WW2 was in the DRC and it’s eastern surroundings (not that many people notice, it may as well be on the Moon). The participants were/are Congolese, Ugandan, Rawandan, Angolan, Chadian, Sudanese, etc, etc. It involved genocide on a scale not seen since WW2. Scotland’s relationship with this culture and its trappings involves most of us carrying a little part of it around with us in our phones every day and not giving a shit.


      1. Africa was no paradise before the arrival of European and Arab «interests» but it has become more hellish since. Very much a case of out of sight, peripheral and who cares anyway.
        Congo is totemic of vile colonialism and its residue.
        The pharmaceutical industry’s singular interest in Africa is well documented too.
        All in the name of humanitarian philanthropy, making a better life.
        Get a smartphone Africa and Amazon, Google, Netflix and Twitter your life away.


  23. On the Salvo site, the first item regarding The Claim of Right concludes with these words:

    “But most of all, we will have to gather together. Because the people of Scotland are sovereign, even Westminster acknowledges that (though it does not acknowledge where that sovereignty comes from).
    And because the power is and always was, ours and not a government’s or a monarch’s, once united in our demand for what is already ours, we cannot and will not be stopped. Want to help? Join Salvo now.”

    So do we want an English monarch ruling over us? No we don’t. Do we want a newly constituted King or Queen of Scots? No we don’t. The above Salvo statement is incipiently republican. Salvo should forthwith articulate that implication explicitly and resoundingly. It is glaringly obvious that we are now into the endgame against inveterately imperial England. After 800 years of resistance ours is almost certainly the last Scottish generation which will be capable (just) of repelling the voracious all-consuming invader. Our movement must coalesce into the gleaming diamond-point of republicanism. It must lucidly enunciate with the clarion clarity of republicanism. We owe it to all the generations who have come before. If we indeed have the honour of participating in Scotland’s last stand, of uttering Scotland’s last breath, let our resonant voice echo seismically around the globe like the aftershock of Krakatoa: “This Scotland. This Republic!”

    Liked by 3 people

    1. But first we require a clear operation of a Convention of the Estates, most purposely in the 21st century a Scottish National Congress, truly representative of the people of Scotland.

      Liked by 3 people

  24. I am working my way through this. It is a long and hard, yet interesting read. It does however, highlight how we are viewed by our neighbours. My take on this, so far, is that a country being attacked, brutalised, oppressed and occupied is in no position to agree to political nor constitutional issues/unions. Any deal agreed and signed is not worth the paper is written on. Without the free will of the people and its political/legislative bodies any agreement under pain of death with a foreign aggressive military force cannot be deemed legitimate. As has been mentioned earlier (thank you) Cromwell’s Republic and then the undemocratic and illegitimate rump parliament ended what England refers to as the uniting of the crowns (as I prefer to say Not a Uniting but One head Two Crowns Two Kingdoms) by the removal of the Scottish and English Kings head. Effectively cutting the Gordian Knot that bound Scotland to perceived English dominance.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yes… I’ve wondered that myself a few times. In modern UK, a contract signed under duress, can in many cases be voidable. And I’ve often wondered, given how astute and far-seeing our Scots ancestors were in putting together a Constitution, Claim of Right & safeguarding those principles in the Treaty of Union, if they had any kind of similar law, preventing forced signing of laws against the wishes of the ‘Crown’ or in other words, the people of Scotland? Given the circumstances, ie threat of violence by the English if the Treaty wasn’t signed, I’d say that in similar circumstances today, the Treaty would most certainly be voided. But… I wonder if there was any such ‘get out clause’ back in 1707 or earlier? It’s an interesting thought…

      Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: