Salvo, Liberation, SNC Press release.

PRESS RELEASE

Statement from Salvo, Liberation and the Scottish National Congress Steering Committee.

Iain Lawson, the chair of the Scottish National Congress Steering Committee and Liberation Scotland stated, “We were delighted to learn of the expert legal opinion obtained by the Alba Party on the legality of the Supreme Court Ruling last November as to the competence of the Scottish Parliament to hold a future referendum on Scottish Independence.


We are not surprised that the legal opinion provided finds that the Supreme Court ruling would not stand up in the international courts as it is contrary to international law and was erroneous on several points, not least comparing Scotland’s position with that of Quebec.


We note and strongly agree with the recommendation that the best route to correcting the wrongful denial of the right of the people of Scotland to self-determination is by seeking an ICJ, advisory ruling via the UN. (Liberation was established last September to do just that.) A National Convention representative of the Scottish electorate, can of course begin that process although it could not gain official standing at the UN. A Liberation Movement has that ability.
Our proposed goal, however, is somewhat different and more ambitious than obtaining international recognition for a lawful referendum.”


Sara Salyers of Salvo continued “Our organizations have promoted this route since July (Salvo) and September (Liberation) 2022. But we are determined to correct more than the wrongful decision of the UK Supreme Court. The UK government has a very long record of producing judicial rulings and opinions that support its despotic control of Scotland’s people and assets. Most of these would dissolve on contact with international law.


Essentially, the United Kingdom, exists on the basis of an international agreement, the Treaty of Union. That agreement is the constitutional settlement without which there can be no Union. If the limits and conditions of that agreement can be torn up and thrown away, as they have been by the stronger ‘partner’, then what you have is not a ‘united’ kingdom but the annexation of one nation by another.


We are working towards restoring those limits and conditions, (and we’re not talking about the price of salt here!), as the prerequisite for the lawful continuation of the United Kingdom. Without which Scotland can only be reclassified as a an annexed country – a colony.


First, the limits of the treaty mean that Scotland remains a sovereign, territorial nation; Westminster has never had any right to extract our oil and gas, nor is it entitled to our renewables. We aim to restore public control of our exclusively Scottish resources and also hope to use the ICJ process to obtain reparations for decades of stolen assets. Second, the condition of the treaty, the ratification of the Claim of Right, means that the people are the sovereign authority in Scotland with the right to the kind of direct democracy that reflects their supremacy. (As happens in Switzerland.) This provides for us to demand and get a referendum on any matter at any time we choose.


John Brown, speaking on behalf of the Scottish National Congress concluded “ we welcome this further confirmation from an international legal expert that a representative body is required to ensure true representation from the Scottish people in this process and this is what the Scottish National Congress will provide, a body representing the people rather than professional parties and politicians, free of party politics and United in the sole aim of providing fairness and progress for Scotland.


For further info contact:
Iain Lawson xxxx
Sara Salyers xxxx
John Brown xxxx

123 thoughts on “Salvo, Liberation, SNC Press release.

  1. I wish you all well in this undertaking, it gives all of us hope for the future. Mind you I can’t see Westminster giving the cash cow up to easily.

    Thank you for all your efforts on our behalf.

    Liked by 16 people

  2. Excellent. The truth shall set us free. Tick Tock! What a difference, having a political party that actually wants independence, and a legal, constitutional and peoples voice to challenge the smoke and mirrors and lies, makes to the strategy/challenge. Hence the need for the system (Sturgeon) to get rid of Alex Salmond, the real threat to the UK. The Scots like truth and justice. It is part of our very being and will always conquer lies and injustice. Thank you.

    Liked by 15 people

    1. And now the SNP are publishing the intended written constitution we are finally seeing through the mist .the legal route is definitely the way we must go parallel to the political route headed by the SNP .

      Liked by 2 people

      1. We already have a Scottish Constitution that predates the Treaty of Union (1707) and is underpinned by the Claim of Right (1689) as the work by Iain Lawson, Sara Salyers and others has shown.

        Liked by 12 people

  3. Lets get this done
    SET SCOTLAND FREE
    We need to start taking action and get rid of the hot air and buzzwords (wellbeing evonomy, gender recognition, deposit return scheme. King of England acceptance,) and all the other rabbit holes these unionist collaberators are dragging us down!!!

    Liked by 18 people

    1. Precisely! In my view the present, allegedly pro-independence, Scottish Government has two areas to focus on: ensuring Scotland is managed competently so as to build up the economy, skills and infrastructure and national resources and, secondly, making the necessary preparations for independence (which includes those previous areas)…. what we do with our empties, how we manage genuine trans people, symbolic heads of state and what limits we set on free speech are business for an independent Scotland to decide.. preferably with sensible referenda for these issues…. Sorry, not a very articulate or well written response but it’s late and I’m tired…. but looking forward to the gathering in Dunfermline in July. Best wishes.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. The point is :- This mob are leading us astray letting Westminster interfere without PROTEST.
        We also have McIntyre Kemp trying to take over the Yes movement and also calling his fiefdom BfS a movement. All of which are unionist collaborations.

        Liked by 6 people

  4. “Most of these would dissolve on contact with international law.”

    What an exquisite turn of phrase. In fact the whole statement could be summed up by Proverbs 16:24 –

    “Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.”

    Liked by 8 people

  5. We are unpicking England’s lies, and revealing that we are not the ignorant untutored serfs that the English establishment has always intended us to be. We are finding our power was only hidden, not removed and given away to the most undeserving gang of louts in these islands.

    I’m looking forward to some well-deserved shadenfreude in the not too distant future.

    Liked by 15 people

  6. There’s one salient point about every truly International Treaty between two Nations, that is that either Nation can end it, without the permission of the other. Except in Scotland’s case, where we have now have been reduced to colonial status.

    Liked by 14 people

      1. Any Treaty between two Nations, is an International Treaty, and because of this is covered by International Laws. It under those Laws, doesn’t matter if it was signed in 1707 or 2023. British Laws are subservient to International Law. As covered under the Vienna Convention, any Nation leaving another, is not bound by any laws or restrictions, made by the Nation being left. The UK proposed the Vienna Convention to the UN, and as a signatory, is bound by it.

        Liked by 5 people

  7. The real truth, not the truth regurgitated at every opportunity by our colonisers, about our past and our rights is what the people of Scotland have not heard for many generations.

    The real truth has been hidden away for so long that people don’t recognise it when it is put in front of them, after all, “that can’t be right because we were not taught that at school”, or “that can’t be right because it said so on the tele”.

    However, the truth is now out there for all to see and it is providing hope where there has been so little in recent years. There is a return of the vibrancy and the urgency that we saw a decade ago when we shocked the coloniser to their very core – so much so, that there is no chance in hell that they will ever agree to another referendum.

    Who cares? The way forward was lit by Salvo only a year ago. The light burns brighter every day and with every revelation the numbers hearing and learning the truth grow across the sovereign nation of Scotland.

    Now, following this Salvo press release, we shall see how many of the MSM will publish the real truth.

    Liked by 14 people

      1. Not even The National? Mind you, I myself gave up on that newspaper – a couple of years ago!

        But at least we now have HOPE, thanks to all you hard working people, Iain.

        Liked by 7 people

    1. Just watched media politics with Fiona McGregor and Marlene Halliday. They were lamenting the fact that you can’t find a none unionist newspaper in the shops. I’m surprised that they thought that they might. Good contribution from Professor John Robertson.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. We’re Gonna Do It Anyway part of the amazing song by Labi Siffre (Something Inside) So Strong.
        A brilliantly inspiring freedom song!!!

        Liked by 5 people

  8. Just for the record purposes, and not intended in any way to detract from the above central post and the comments in response, this from my post elsewhere on social media:

    “The piece of paper you see in the photo is my official postal record of letters posted on Friday to 17 Members of the United Nations, each of whom found their way to gain their independence from the United Kingdom. The livestream I posted on Friday explains why the “Declaration of Sovereign Scots” initiative may prove to be Scotland’s way.”

    (If interested, and the initiative continues to gain increasing participation from the Yes movement all aross Scotland – you will find the photo I mention and the livestream video (25 mins) via this link:)

    https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100070340354557

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Apologies for an addition, I wanted to complete my reading of the Opinion.

      Each letter I mention above – contained copies of some, not all, of my corespondence with the Sec/Gen of the United Nations – one of which letters (from March this year) contained reference to legal items appearing in the Opinion Alba now have – so be aware that the UN and 17 members of the UN are already pre- notified of the legal factors they have to address.

      Something of critical importance I might add is the final sentence in the specific letter to which I refer, this:

      “I note that Paragraph 3 confirms a mandatory obligation on the Members of the United Nations to actively promote the right of self-determination, in addition to respecting it.”

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Thank you for that information and for your work, Mike. very encouraging. you, sara nd Iain are giving us hope, which is very important for our morale at this difficult time.

        Liked by 7 people

      2. I’ve been aware for years, and have explained this on other platforms, that all member nations, including the UK are obliged under the UN Charter to not just passively accept the ‘right to self-determination’ of people or peoples under their governmental remit, but to actively, and pro-actively, facilitate the expression of that right in whatever way is needed, to allow those people or peoples to actually express that right whenever they choose to do so. That goes as far as educating such a people what it means to have that right, and explaining to them exactly how they can actually exercise it as and when they decide they want to do so. All these things are detailed in the explanatory notes associated with the Charter for the guidance of member nations, and they explain why such pro-activity is needed.

        The UK’s English establishment however is doing the exact opposite; it has gone to great lengths to actively deny the existence of the right as it should apply to Scotland, and to actively prevent any and all means of expressing that right in Scotland, should Scotland’s sovereign people attempt to follow it through. This also in spite of the additional fact that Scotland’s people are actually sovereign in their own country, and as such the UN Charter rights are literally superfluous in Scotland’s case!

        In this way, the UK’s English government, (and every government of the UK is English), is not only acting in contempt of Scotland’s legally acknowleged sovereignty, but is also perfectly deliberately in contempt of the UN Charter, and should be held fully to account for its illegal actions.

        Liked by 8 people

      3. And so do I!

        Different paths – same destination, and with an equal dedication to Scotland and its Sovereign People.

        Liked by 4 people

    2. In my view, the “Declaration of Sovereign Scots” initiative is complementary to salvo and liberation. It’s not in opposition to them so they’re not in an “either/or” contraposition.
      Scots who want Independence should support them all

      Liked by 9 people

      1. And so do I!

        Different paths – same destination, and with an equal dedication to Scotland and its Sovereign People.

        (This may be a duplicate post – and one day I might even learn to post in the right place.)

        Liked by 3 people

  9. I have no problem with the theory , but we must turn our attention to converting the 15 to 20% of voters sympathetic to independence but who won’t vote YeS unless they are convinced that their pockets will not be adversely affected. We have to buy these votes.

    once we have them on board before the I dependence election we spell out that on gaining the majority of seats in that election our MPs dissolve the Union.

    sorted!

    Liked by 3 people

    1. We need to remove all non indigenous Scots from voting in Scots Referenda. They are the problem not your imaginary 15-20%.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. well that’s not going to happen, so address the challenge instead of fantasising about changing the franchise.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. It wont happen so long as mugs like you think we should allow foreigners a vote. That worked well with the Europeans last time????
        Give them a vote and have the English tell them if they vote yes they will be taken out of the EU
        HOW DID THAT WORK FOR SCOTLAND?

        Liked by 5 people

      3. see my other response. i’m a St Mirren supporter and definitely not a Rangers one but in my case politically: no surrender!

        Liked by 1 person

      4. You have obviously SURRENDERED already.
        What happened to your AGFRR taxation system??
        I brought it up some time ago with Shona (the idiot)Robinson and was advised they had looked at it and it was unaffordable!!! When I then asked how a SELF FINANCING scheme was unaffordable NO REDPONSR. This muppet is now finance secretary (I think).
        “we’re doomed”.

        Liked by 4 people

      5. i’ve not surrendered one bit! i’m still raising AGFRR. i confronted two senior parliamentarians last week about it.

        40% of the voting delegates at the last SNP conference supported my motion to reject the current SG proposals on land reform because they didn’t include taxation.

        Neither Shona Robison nor any other minister has ever challenged my proposal. I shall keep pressing until i’m successful.

        Liked by 6 people

      6. I am very glad to hear that. It appears the SNP mantra about land reform and Improving the lives of our population is just more hot air. Having studied your idea I thought it to be first class and accomplished both of their objectives.
        I am then left with the conclusion that our politicians do not want to improve peoples lives or get Independance for Scotland or reform land ownership.
        Seems they are happy taking the money. Turkeys and voting for Christmas comes to mind.

        Liked by 4 people

      7. I think government ministers are in the thrall of Spads, civil servants and experts like the Land Commission, Accountants and surveyors who think you need complexity to reform land and taxation. I don’t think i’m being uncharitable to suggest that all these folks’ interests feed off complexity and jobs for life ( or political life).

        I’ve been in contact with IMF economists who have confirmed to me that land taxation can pay for all of a government’s programme. The World Bank hosts annual conferences on the relationship between land and poverty. When i raised this with the Chair of the Land Commission he was unaware of it and its budget would not allow it to attend the World Bank conference. i found that unbelievable!

        Liked by 1 person

      8. As it happens, I posted this on Wings yesterday in response to another commenter;

        “once you get down to that level of turnout to get an absolute majority you would need to get nearly 80% YES (or NO)”

        Your big mistake is thinking we need an absolute majority. No, we absolutely do not. We only need a majority of those who vote. You can’t count votes that were never cast in the first place. A non-vote cannot be deemed to be either for or against the proposition voted on, and must be regarded as irrelevant.

        The franchise should be as open as feasible, but in Scotland in particular, there is a specific issue that needs properly discussed, and that is to do with the fact that Scotland’s autochthonous electorate are also the owners of Scotland’s national sovereignty, and any important collective decision made by them engages that sovereignty, and so cannot be overruled by a non-sovereign majority even if it was larger. And for an important constitutional matter like independence, that sovereignty must be recognised and respected. And that suggests there may be little point in non-sovereigns voting in the first place.

        Thus the real issue comes down to deciding who in Scotland really owns that sovereignty.

        Liked by 5 people

      9. Am I wrong or do we Scots not own our country??
        Do we give our sovereignty away to peoples (Whatever Nationality) who come to live here?
        Because I reside in Scotland does not make me a Scot does it?
        Reading between the lines of your Wings post I see the UNIONIST trick of trying to count those who do not take the trouble to vote as NO voters (even the deceased on the register) and we like mugs fall for it!!!! Let’s get this ridiculous Voting franchise changed so only Indigenous Scots vote in Referenda.

        Liked by 7 people

      10. I have made the point of the franchise needing to respect the sovereignty of the autochthonous Scots before, and I made the additional point that even for an independence referendum, I could accept that long-resident incomers may be given honorary Scottish sovereignty if they applied for it, in the absence of any Scottish Citizenship acquisition process here. But to my knowlege electoral sovereignty as a specific attribute of the Scottish voters has never been discussed, and I’ve never seen it raised until I raised it, here, and on Wings, and on the National’s comment pages.

        And that only happened because of Salvo and Sara raising my consciousness here, regarding Scotland’s sovereignty and the guaranteed permanence of Scotland’s constitution, and I started thinking through the ramifications of what sovereignty really meant if taken seriously.

        I think it’s well past time our politicians and legal bods took Scotland’s sovereignty seriously, too! We need to dig their heads out of Westminster’s sandbox.

        Liked by 5 people

    2. Hi Graeme,
      what scotland act (year) are you teferring to. Not read it but will, google states different years.
      I thought you were excellent at the podium but ask myself how many of them will now read the Act!!! We must get the franchise sorted or we will forever be behind the English eight ball. The vote must be for native Scots only not residents. In the Brexit vote the English denied Europeans a vote!! I wonder why????

      Like

      1. the 2016 Scotland Act incorporated all previous Scotland Acts and the amendments since Devolution.

        Every time i meet an SNP parliamentarian I ask them if they have read the Scotland Act and been given a plain English explanation of its potential application and restrictions. Thus far no one has told me they have read it from end to end and understood what each section means. From a lawyer’s view it’s incredibly permissive and i’m bound to think that the UK govern draftsmen must have known how permissive it is or they were ignorant of basic Scots Law

        I hope that i have encouraged all members in the SNP to ensure that there is a discussion on how we make real the assertion made by sone of our parliamentarians on Saturday that we are “ taking control”.

        Like

      2. Aye taking conttol of leading the SOVEREIGN Scots people ddown the plughole. Talk of having a “constitution made” “commencing trying to negotiate independence” with Westmimster ALL nonsense”
        They are too scared of losing the English Kings Shilling.
        Also there are too many Unionist plants placed in senior positions causing havoc starting splinter groups. McIntyre Kemp Believe in Scotland trying to rule the YES movement, marches for this that and the other. Some pratt trying to divide Salvo and Liberation Scotland.
        All of the above playing right into the hands of our Colonial rulers.
        DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Why is it not gonna happen? Why should Scotland have to play by a different set of rules (than any other sovereign nation)? Why is it acceptable for the Scots to fight a handicapped referendum? As you point out, we already have enough of a struggle to convince our ain folk!

    Liked by 7 people

      1. I graduated in Scots Law in 1975.My degree included international law. The Scotland Act did not affect the right of the Scottish people to create a separate Scottish state through the dissolution of the U.K. by a majority of our MPs declaring that to be the case and establishing a government and parliament in Edinburgh.

        The expert takes a slightly different view but whatever route is adopted and they are not mutually exclusive, the urgent duty is to buy the votes of the sympathetic though uncommitted.

        That can be done now by the SG taking control of public funding so that there is confidence that the public funds are there without interference from Westminster should the dissolution happen. He who controls public funds controls the debate!

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Seems fairly self-explanatory, given that the pronouncements of ‘their’ English supreme Court will be deemed despotic, illegal and likely to “dissolve on contact with international law”.

        Via our own National Congress/People’s Assembly/Convention of the estates, we will set the criteria for any future referenda – I have a feeling the franchise would, and should, have top billing. It is absolutely vital that we have a level playing field, for probably the first time in our history.

        Liked by 5 people

      3. Let me Guess!! By taking action to make it happen.
        Tell me why it is not going to happen?
        How do you know it can’t be done?
        Do you have a crystal ball?

        Liked by 2 people

      4. It will happen because as stated above ‘ UN members have an obligation to promote independence in addition to respecting it’ .. In our case how can it be respectful to our independence cause if we open the vote to the people whose very nation we are seeking our independence from? And in whose best interests are to keep us tethered!
        As seen in 2014 we can be readily infiltrated by voters from the no side, , everyone on here from all over the country has examples of this happening..
        If your neighbour has been using your garden for sometime to put an extra shed, a hot tub and dog shitting area and one day you decide you have had enough.. Do you give your neighbour an equal and unqualified say in whither you get your garden back of not? How would that work out? If you involved the authorities and they took his side over yours – how are going to feel?
        The EU ref excluded EU citizens, there is your relevant precedent right there.. Make this case for at least a minimum residence period and it will not be seen as so preposterous at an international level -as many other nations have similar restrictions in force especially with such a sensitive constitutional matter as this.
        Hell, the British introduced a test of loyalty/allegiance to the state in the wake of the terror attacks, maybe we should have a fair and sensible voting franchise for independence, free from any skullduggery this time around..

        Liked by 5 people

      5. By joining Salvo and Liberation Scotland who are setting up HUBS all over the country.
        Non political (I am glad to say) and totally committed to getting justice for our people.
        I for one am fed up having our country pillaged.

        Liked by 2 people

      6. i think the way to Independence is clear. it must be a condition of standing as an SNP candidate at the Independence Election that when a majority of seats are gained that the MPs withdraw immediately from Westminster, establish a provisional government, dissolve the Union, declare that only legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament is legal and that Scotland will honour the international obligations and rights of the former U.K. If a candidate is unwilling to commit to withdraw on these terms then he or she must be barred from standing on an SNP ticket.

        It’s time to stop managing devolution, be frank with the Scottish people and give notice to all of the effect of a vote for the SNP. If the people vote for the SNP they get an independent Scottish state. If they vote against the SNP, they have made their choice. That’s democracy!

        Like

    1. If the Un will get involved in the process, we can get advice on how to alter the franchise. as we are not independent yet, we cannot restrict it to our own citizens but i think we can mitigate the effects of incomers voting No by imposing a length of stay condition. i think at least 10 years living in scotland and paying scottish taxes would be sufficien as it would exclude all thos who have moved here since the 2014 Referendum. Not ideal but it would meka a significant difference.
      meanwhile we must continue to inform our fellow scots of the real position of how we are exploited for the benefit of a foreign govenment which wastes our money by giving it to Tory donors and financing their corrupt and dangeropus arms trade, and engaging in illgal wars started by the USA.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. Do you know the result of the 2014 Referendum? How did we get on???
        If you move to any other country will you cease to be a Scot?
        Please stop pedalling this rubbish about residency and tax status.
        Since these people cannot be Scottish Citizens they must not have a vote in a Scottish Referendum.
        I think the chances of Westminster agreeing to another are ZERO but just in case we need to change this system which allows non Scots a say in Scottish affairs.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Yup, where I stay ,there are many new English people have bought houses here in recent times. I like the idea of their term of residence. 10 years would be a good margin, paying their taxes here would also be the right things too do. According to Prof Alf Beard, this is how colonial powers work, encouraging their own to live here.
        If you would like to hear his full take on it, you will find it on Youtube. He lays it all out how they do it.
        It should make any “Real” Scot, very angry with what they are doing to us, things, hopefully things might change soon.
        Another point, In Holyrood, we have The Tories, Labour, and libdems, they are all registered in England.
        What country would allow such happenings in their own country. On Independence we should only have Scottish parties in our parliament, those who actually believe in our own country, what a difference if these English parties could be booted out, and it was only Scots in charge. These english parties are here for a reason, and that is to undermine Scotland it’s people.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. If Salvo say they are going after the U.K. Government with the intentions of taking back what is ours and then pursuing compensation for Scotland and the International courts find in our favour, then personally I don’t think this U.K. Government will be interested in keeping the union if it can no longer use our assets that they been so used to in the past.
    So we could find ourselves sitting round a table with our opponents only to willing to negotiate a way out of this deception and lies that have finally been exposed.

    Liked by 6 people

  12. Bear in mind that this rather zenophobic restricted franchise obsession would mean that every single voter would have to prove that they have lived in Scotland for the last 10 years. Not just immigrants: Everyone.

    Consider how you would do that (that’s YOU).

    I’m not even sure that councils hoard CT invoices for a decade. Your birth cert says nothing about where you have been living for the last decade, and the electoral roll is age-dependant. Have you and everyone else kept bills from 2013, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, & 23? If so, you’re in a very small minority, and you didn’t get bills when you were 13 in 2013. So, you would need your bills, plus the 2013 school roll. etc, etc, etc. Fuck off.

    An administrative nightmare dreamt of by ultra-authoritarian ballonhieds.

    Like

    1. We dont need to succumb to this Unionist focussed Franchise AT ALL.
      We have Birth Certificate Driving licences Tax bills (income and council) so you F*c* off with your complicated shit. I can prove I was born here and live here very easily. Money Laundering requirements do this all the time. The Unionist collaborators know this.
      Thats why they conned the SNP into saying all people living and working in Scotland should have a Vote. We Scots lost the fight right at that point!!!

      Liked by 6 people

      1. I doubt very much that you can prove that you have been living in Scotland for each and every one of the last 10 years. Think about it: Your birth cert doesn’t count, neither does your driver’s license, and I would be very surprised if you have bills from 2013, and every single one of the other ten years. It is fucking complicated and every single voter would have to do it, including you. It’s complete bullshit for authoritarian zenophobes who believe everything they want to believe on the internet.

        The production of ID at polling stations idea didn’t go well, but you support something that is a billion times more complicated, probably because you haven’t bothered to think about it because you are easily led, even by authority figures of the stature of internet bloggers.

        Like

      2. You are full of POO. I do not meed to prove I have lived here you eejit. I need to prove I was born here and CURRENTLY Appear on the electoral register so stpp your Unionist tripe.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. A referendum is not a requirement for independence; this seems an important factor for any people subject to the crime and scourge of colonial procedures, and who retain their ‘inalienable right to self-determination’.

    It looks as if Alba and its legal advice, following the excellent work of Salvo, is more or less recommending the ‘Withdrawal Strategy’ I briefly set out in ‘Doun-Hauden’, and as summarised here on YfS:

    “Withdrawal Strategy

    A majority of Scotland’s national representatives may exercise and assert Scottish sovereignty by revoking the Treaty of Union, as it began. A democratically elected majority of Scotland’s national representatives should initiate Scotland’s withdrawal from the UK union as soon as possible. (OUR SNP NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES DON’T HAVE THE SMEDDUM)

    The British State may or may not wish to contest Scotland’s national representatives’ right, as representing a signatory party to the Treaty of Union, to withdraw the sovereign nation and people of Scotland from the UK union. Should this be contested, the courts may be asked to opine on the matter. (THE UK STATE AND ITS SUPREME COURT HAS BLOCKED AND DISPUTES THE RIGHT OF THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE TO SELF-DETERMINATION)

    If there remains a dispute, then the matter may be taken to the International Court of Justice. The ICJ would then seek to settle the matter in accordance with international law by giving advisory opinion.” (WHICH IS WHERE WE NOW APPEAR TO BE HEADING)

    DETERMINANTS OF INDEPENDENCE SYNOPSIS AND STRATEGIES

    Liked by 11 people

    1. Seems like we will be dining a la carte in an independence restaurant instead of chewing on yesterdays sausage roll in a devolution café (Doun Hauden)
      Pass the popcorn.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. The Question is Alf how do we get the MPs to take this action. Recent events suggest they are quite happy to take the money and merely challenge nonsense using hot air.
      1 Overturning our law GRA
      2 Now deposit return Scheme
      3 Coronation of the Spaniel
      4 Cow towing to this ENGLISH monarch
      5 Allowing him to give the Order of the Thistle to his wife.
      At what point will OUR Scots MPs say enough is enough and we now Resign from the Treaty of Union?
      He refuses to take the Scottish oath and is therefore not our King.
      We must put an end to this shitshow.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. jistjr, my point was that:

        1. SNP MPs/MSPs have been given several electoral majorities sufficient to end the union but don’t have the courage to deliver independence;
        2. The British state/court is now actively blocking our right to exit UK and also our right to self-determination, in violation of international law;
        3. So let us now take our case to the international court, which is what it is there for.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. I’m all for that but feel we need to rack up the presdure on these self serving gutless Bsta**s.
        Question is How?

        Like

  14. I have no reason to doubt Graeme McCormick’s integrity or intellectual powers. However, he assumes that the playing field is level. It isn’t.
    I know this because Willie McRae’s car ran off it.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Interesting how our democratic process doesn’t actually work.

      We have a Westminster Parliament that elects MP’s and forms governments on the basis of a majority party or majority alliance. However, when a majority of MPs from a priorly sovereign country secure the lions share of the seats somehow the concept of majority flies out the window. Well does it. Margaret Thatcher didn’t think so and neither do many eminent constitutional lawyers either think so.

      The problem is that Britain, or should I say England, doesn’t do democracy. There wasn’t much democracy as colony after colony left the empire. Mutilation and death was the payment all to often meted out through the administration of colonial government after colonial government.

      You mention Willie McRae Captain Bungle. Do you think he shot himself through the head in a rush of democracy. Or is it much more sinister than that. Or Ireland in the recent years. A bit of a history there of nationalist lawyers meeting a gruesome end through assassination at the end of a gun. NI was colonial administration every bit a vicious as the suppression in Afghanistan or elsewhere where the British have fought to keep their plunder.

      Targeted by clandestine British regiments like the Force Research Unit another perchance facet of the great British democracy. But read Brigadier General Sir Frank Kitson in his books like Gangs and Counter Gangs or Low Intensity Operations. or the Bunch of Five and one will get a perspective of how from Kenya to Ireland the British state actually operates.

      Everything, as Kitson says, below symmetrical warfare, the dark hand of the state watches, infiltrates, controls the media, or if it doesn’t control the media makes its own, operates agents and agents provocateur. Indeed Kitson even recommends the co-ordination of the police, prosecution and judiciary to take out political opponents.

      And where have we seen attempts recently to jail difficult politicians and political commentators. Alex Salmond, Mark Hirst, Craig Murray, Manny Singh, and others. And of course if all that fails, or blackmail and bribery doesn’t work, then of course the Pat Finucane or Rosemary Nelson option is on the cards.

      So we should reflect on our faux democracy, our colonial existence and think this. If countries around the world from Kenya to India to Ireland to even the USA can gain their independence then so can Scotland. And the start of that process is that of walking into and out of the House of Commons.

      They can kill, murder, maim, bribe, corrupt, misinform, and everything in between but as an Irish patriot once said, no man has a right to fix the boundary of a nation, no man has a right to say to his country thus far shalt thou go and no further. ( Charles Stewart Parnell 21st January 1886 )

      Nor should we forget that in the 14th December 1918 General Election Sinn Fein won 73 out of 105 seats ( with the Irish Parliamentary Party being reduced from 80 seats to 6 )

      Thereafter refusing to sit in Westminster, and mandated to set up Dail Eireann, the Irish on 21st January 1919 convened their new national parliament. And today, one hundred years on, the President of the United States supports absolutely the cause of Irish self determination.

      The prize is there to be taken as it has been so many times before.

      Liked by 4 people

  15. As the stakes are so high regarding «keeping» Scotland, the system will respond with a tsunami of «black propaganda», internal and international. The weakness of Scotland’s media will be exposed.
    The end of the «United Kingdom» is going to be over the customary «dead body», but whose?

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Ah. Alba jumping on the Salvo bandwagon. But still with that filthy word referendum in their lexicon.
    Remember Alex Salmond does not want the sovereign Scots to be in power, he just like any political party wants to tell you what you can and cannot do. Alba want the parliament to be the sovereign power not the people. Of course what they want is illegal in Scotland, it would be a mini version of the English model. Just like we have in Edinburgh. Naw we have had enough of that crap and IMHO that is the legacy of Mr Salmond.
    We will withdraw from the so called union via salvo.scot. No one voted to join with England there will be no vote to leave. Any voting that takes place after we are independent will be available to those who were born here of Scottish born parents, if you like you can search through the record of the old Scottish Parliament and you will find the definition to be of Scottish born grandparents.The western parliamentary system has never served us its time to change. We are never considered first, always thought of last, or never even taken in to any consideration.
    Its time for the indigenous people

    Liked by 1 person

  17. I think if we go down the rabbit hole of “indigenous Scots” we are signing our country’s death warrant. We have the lowest birth figures in Scotland since the Victorian era and it falls year on year. There are more deaths than births by quite some margin in Scotland every year. Our country and economy benefit enormously from migrants coming to live here. My view is that if you are here you belong. If you go down the rabbit hole of needing to prove your Scottishness by blood where are we different to the Nazi’s or the English? You are a Scot if you choose to live in this country. My great great grandparents, and great grandparents were Irish people who came to the UK and married Scots and English people. My DNA tells me I am about 48% Scot,48% Irish, 2% English and Welsh, and 2% Scandinavian. My heart and my head tells me I am 100% for the liberation of Scotland and I will do everything I can to see this in my lifetime.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you for that, I was unfortunate to be born just the wrong side of the border and moved here 23 years ago hoping for an independant Scotland, I fear I may run out of time now before it happens but good luck to the younger folk.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I was born to Scottish born parents, but my dad was in the British Army so I was born in Germany, however I have been here since I was 18months old, and was registered within the 30 days so am not a German national, but I have lived here man and boy ever since.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. I would disagree. Although I would also be in favour of a residency-based criterion of, say, ten years, I would consider Scottish sovereignty to be conferred by birthright. Therefore anyone born in Scotland is a Scot. This has nothing to do with “needing to prove your Scottishness by blood”. Someone born to Indian parents in Scotland, for example, would have the same sovereign rights as someone born to Scottish parents stretching back generations.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. My starter for ten on franchises;

        For certain matters, and especially constitutional matters as Scottish independence is, you must own Scottish sovereignty to vote on them, and you must live here to exercise it. If you don’t live here, and don’t pay taxes here, you don’t have a real stake in the outcome, and shouldn’t be allowed to muddy the waters for those who do have a stake in it.

        Scottish sovereignty is normally acquired by merely being born here, but it should also be capable of being earned by moving here and living here for long enough. I think ten years should be the minimum residency requirement, or perhaps even fifteen years. If you were born here but moved outside Scotland, then your sovereignty is irrelevant while you are away, so you must return to Scotland to exercise it, and it may be reasonable that it not be a fleeting visit just for the vote, but an actual return to living here, so a residency requirement should also apply, say five years for a returnee.

        For a matter like a vote on independence some ex-pat Scots, that is those who already are sovereign, might wish to return specifically to vote on it with the intention to stay if the vote went the right way, so perhaps giving a legal commitment to remain for five or more years on arrival so that you could vote might be one way to accommodate this, and other scenarios may exist that a similar flexibility might be useful for.

        The numbers of years I’ve used above are arbitrary to some extent but in what I consider the right range, so some adjustment can be made, but it is necessary to understand that Scottish sovereignty is an important power and privilege, and should only be given to others after some serious consideration.

        I don’t think sovereignty is applicable for local council elections, and may or may not be relevant for general elections either, but that is for another day.

        Discuss. 🙂

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Having lived in this country for 10 years will never make you a Scot. It simply makes you a Resident.
        We do not need any time requirements for Native Scots. Proof of birth and residence and you get a votr. This time nonsence only applies to foreigners in some peoples misguided view that the current sustem is ok. It is not Ok.
        Mr Poo talks a lot of Sh*t.
        Graeme McCormick stated his views very well about the SNP ticket. Funnily enough thats where I thought we were currently with our MPs but I am obviously mistaken. We have had a clear mandate for how many elections?? What have BLACKFORD ROBERTSON HOSIE RUSSELL and now FLYNN done about It???. STURGEON too going to the English high court!!
        We now have the self proclaimed leader og the YES groups and Believe in Scotland furtjer dividing and Splintering the Freedom Movement organising un-necessary rallies and Marches.
        Saturday”s shitshow in Dundee is conveniently on the Same Day as the All under one Banner meeting and march in Stirling!! surprise surprise!!

        Liked by 3 people

      1. I agree totally Ian. ( note, if I try to “like “on here, WordPress does not recogninse my email address when I put it in as requested, just so you know ) Maybe others are having the same issues.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Thanks for your reply Ian, perhaps a glitch in the system. Maybe something more neferious. ( nothing would surprise me…)

        Liked by 2 people

    3. Who Cares about your DNA, All we are saying is only Scots vote on constitutional Scottish issues. The Birth rate is Irrelevant. Once we are Free people can come here to live and work and will be more than welcome. The English are trying to wipe us out and your attitude is aiding and abetting them.
      Once we are free then people can apply for citizenship so our nation will NEVER die.
      The declaration of Arbroath stated something to the effect that whilst 100 of us are alive we will never give up our FREEDOM
      GET A GRIP with your rabbit hole and defeatist attitude.

      Like

  18. Sad news indeed folks with the loss of that exceptional lady and doughty fighter Winnie Ewing. My condolences to her family. A very sad day for Scotland too,

    Liked by 6 people

    1. TOO RIGHT. One wonders where the fighting spirit she displayed has disappeared to in our current crop of political lightweights.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. This struck a nerve and made me angry.

    “ 4: (and phew..) it places no reliance on the CoR…”

    Even supposing the Claim of Right wasn’t as Constitutionally watertight as we think it is, it would STILL have incredible potency due to the fact the Westminster Government has conceded the Claim of Right principle whenever it’s been formally debated in the heart of the beast itself, the House of Commons. The point is conceded, repeatedly and without duress, yet we’re supposed to believe it’s somehow akin to a forced confession?

    Supposing that situation gave us nothing beyond leverage with the International Community, it would STILL be a matter of acute relevance. If Scots Law can adopt the shakiest interpretation of the Moorov Principle to pursue Alex Salmond, and put the man on trial, then surely the history and chronology of Westminster institutions repeatedly conceding that the Claim of Right remains extant despite the Treaty of Union, becomes evidence and corroboration that it properly is.

    Perhaps the Faculty of Advocates needs a new Dean, and Scotland needs a new Lord Advocate, with both positions required to demonstrate some faith in Scotland’s Constitutional Integrity, since surely it’s meant to be their job to defend Scotland’s interests from unconstitutional interference, not lead the charge to destroy and bury them.

    Isn’t Roddy Dunlop doing for the integrity and potency of Scots Law what Nicola Sturgeon did for the integrity and potency of Holyrood?

    While I detest Sturgeon, I don’t mean that as a barbed insult, but an objective reality. Holyrood and it’s Scotland Act have / had innumerable “ambiguities” which could be interpreted to Scotland’s fullest advantage, before the feckless Sturgeon conceded the principles wholesale.

    Perhaps the reason I’m triggered to anger was wondering if she said “phew” when doing so.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Breeks, as Imperial history and postcolonial theory (Albert Memmi) informs us:

      – in a colonial society it is ‘only the values of the colonizer that are sovereign’, and, thus;

      – ‘none of the colonizers institutions are appropriate for the colonized’

      That includes his governments, schools, universities, police, courts, wee pretendy pairlaments an mair nor less awthing else tae.

      We might in addition relate this to Mike Fenwick’s ‘Oath of Allegiance’ below.

      Fowk cannae ser twa maisters – thay aye luve ane an laithe the ither.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. In answer to both Alf and Mike’s comment below, I fully agree about an oath.

        But truth be known, I rather suspect the oath will be a moot point, because the mere act of establishing a Scottish Constitutional Convention in the first place, will have Unionists, and probably SNP Devolutionists, running for the hills or reaching out for their barge poles.

        But an oath there still should be, regardless, because there are wider ramifications.

        Liked by 4 people

  20. Tangent from the discussion over franchise.

    When writing the “Declaration” I set myself a limit that it must fit an A4 sheet of paper – so it involved choices. This was one such – how sure was I that those we elected – as individuals – were both 100% committed to Scotland’s independence and as importantly recognised that they were elected as representatives of the Sovereign people – not least because to serve as either MP or MSP they each would be required to swear an oath which purported to establish to whom they owed their allegiance.

    We have all watched over the years the games that are played to suggest it is not being taken seriously, fists raised, fingers crossed etc etc.

    For me that fell woefully short, way short – if regaining Scotland’s independence was the critical reason for anyone being chosen by a party – even just as a potential candidate – thus this extract from the “Declaration” – related to Holyrood only because of an earlier part of the “Declaration”:

    ” … and demand that any Oath of Allegiance to be sought from, and given by, a potential Member of the Scottish Parliament recognises the Sovereignty of the Scottish People in the following terms: “By this oath, I acknowledge that IF elected as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, it will be as a result of votes cast by Sovereign Scots, and I do solemnly swear and affirm that my allegiance is, and will remain, to the Sovereign people of Scotland.”

    Set aside party allegiance for a moment – would you vote for someone who would not swear such an oath, and who instead chose to remain wedded to the oath of allegiance as currently required of them?

    No party in support of the Union would swear such an Oath, but what of those opposed to the Union – would they adopt such an Oath and put forward their candidates on the basis of such an Oath being taken?

    Or are we content to let them continue to play games?

    Liked by 4 people

  21. It does assume ofc, Mike, that these future politicians are honourable men and women who can be trusted to keep their oath.

    Trust is in very short supply atm – honorable politicians an even rareer breed.

    We do have to begin somewhere, but the non-political, ground up, work of Salvo is far more likely to embrace and draw in our Nation. We must stop putting power in the hands of just a very small number of people and, if we do, then we need to have very strict time limits on their stay.

    Anyone applying for these positions should, in the first instance, be locked up as a potential nuisance to society. As Tolkien said (paraphrase), “the most improper job of any man, even saints ( who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on ) is to be the boss of other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, least of all those who would seek the opportunity.”

    We need a genuine assembly of the people, local and national. We need credible experts advising them – but not Influencing them. Any decicions reached need only meet 2 criteria:

    1. It must improve the lives of the majority of people (some folk just love to bleat and whine).

    2. It must not be harmful to our environment ( at least not irreparably ).

    You could, ofc, sum this all up another way:

    1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

    2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Well, no offence, Valerie, but it seems to me that keeping God out of it might just be the problem the world has right now. I don’t think anyone in their right mind can truthfully say that the more secular society becomes the better it gets. History seems to be saying just the opposite.

        Religion! Now that’s another whole can of disgusting worms altogether. I’m 100% with you on that one.

        Like

      2. ‘keeping God out of it might just be the problem the world has right now’ If she’s/he’s real she’s/he’s very inefectaual dontcha think?

        Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the app

        Like

  22. In the interests of not derailing the topic any further, I will bow out of the discussion as gracefully as possible. Feel free to DM me if you want to discuss God any further. Dalenz@aol.com.

    Apologies if I caused anyone any offence

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yer fine dinny, We all have our own opinions and beliefs. However, too many wars have been fought over ‘gods’. We have Englands parliament too close to Church. We’ve had undue interference by churches in Scotland too. Keep your gods out of our civic nations parliaments please. We are a diverse nation with many beliefs. Poverty etc is the work of man, gods are a weapon use to keep folk in line and in fear…religion is a man made control method in my opinion. We can agree to disagree and remain united in the indy cause,

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Thanks Graeme. I will now read it.
        I was advised Yestrrday
        by a member of the Scottish Currency Group that Kate Forbes said AGFRR could not be done as it Needs UK Treasury approval!!
        your comments please?

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Offence is not a problem for YOU.
      It’s a problem for the weak minded
      “offended”.
      THE LIGHT by the Proclaimers is worth a listen.

      Liked by 2 people

  23. If I may digress a little I’d like to reproduce a statement from His Majesty’s Treasury.

    It is relevant to the fact that an environmental levy is being reintroduced on top of energy bills from next month.

    Read it an savour like you are a lobster being boiled in a pot.

    TREASURY STATEMENT.

    Treasury source said the Government has not “made an active decision” to saddle consumers with the green levies again.

    “That’s how the Energy Price Guarantee (EPG) works,” the said. “It’s part of the design of the scheme announced in September 2022.”

    Green and social levies make up around £170 per year per household, the department said, and go towards funding cheap renewable energy and home insulation for pensioners and low-income households

    AND THAT’S IT.

    In the midst of a cost of living crisis His Majesty’s government and treasury are increasing tax on people’s energy bills.

    And better still, and it is them that are saying it, but it is a levy ” to fund cheap renewable energy”

    Poor Jocko peasant buying that one.

    Taxed on his already huge energy bills to fund CHEAP renewable ENERGY!

    HM government certainly know how to wipe the shit of their shoes on the poor compliant peasantry.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.