Stirling Directive full text.

EMBARGOED UNTIL 22ND JULY
on behalf of the Scottish electorate

  1. Directive
  2. AppendixI–Sovereignty,BackgroundBriefingDocument 3. Appendix II – Requirements of a Constitutional Referendum 4. AppendixIII–Self-DeterminationinInternationalLaw
    Committee
    Peter A Bell
    John Brown
    Geoff Bush
    Bill Cruickshank David Hood
    Julie McNulty Gordon Ross
    Sara Salyers Marjorie Thompson Alex Thorburn Colette Walker

Stirling Directive 22.7.23
Directive
The Sovereignty of the People of Scotland over their government, whether at Westminster or Holyrood, is a fact of the Constitutional Settlement of the Union. (See Appendix I.) The right of a people to self-determination is both a fact of international law and a human right.
The Scottish Government was elected by the People of Scotland no less than seven times on the mandate of an independence referendum. This is a clear expression of the will of the People.
The Westminster Government has legitimate authority over its executive arm in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament. It has no such lawful authority over the Scottish People. The Scottish Government, however, has wrongfully deferred to Westminster sovereignty over the expressed will of the People of Scotland.
We the People now expect and direct the Scottish Government and all our representatives to honour the law of Scotland and the Constitutional Settlement, agreed as a condition of the Union, by:

  1. Informing the Westminster Government that its asserted sovereignty in Scotland is unlawful and all supporting interpretations, rulings and statutes, (including the Internal Market Act 2020), are null and void.
  2. Complying with the pre-eminent law of the Constitutional Settlement by either:
  • announcing a referendum on Scottish Independence, as specified and only as specified in Appendix II, and passing the relevant legislation at the beginning of the next parliamentary session
    or
  • Taking immediate steps for a plebiscitary election on independence, beginning with a National Convention, of elected representatives and the wider civic community, with the task of building a coalition of single issue, independence candidates
    We seek and expect the restoration of our sovereign and human rights under both domestic and international law. To this end, we shall continue to take whatever action is required including, if necessary, referring the matter to the European Court of Human Rights
    2

Stirling Directive 22.7.23
I: Sovereignty, the Law and the People of Scotland Part 1: What is Popular Sovereignty
Scottish popular sovereignty is first recorded in the Declaration of the Clergy and People of 1309/10 and then the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320. It is demonstrated by the practice of Salvo (1592) and the Act of Salvo in 1663, which made Parliament answerable to the people.
Scottish popular sovereignty is not social contract sovereignty, first developed in the 17th century. (The principle that the governed are sovereign but surrender that sovereignty to their government in return for law and security.)
Modern, social contract sovereignty means that the elected representatives in England, Wales and N. Ireland assume the sovereignty of the People as the ‘custodians’ of that sovereignty. But they cannot do so in Scotland. As Canon Kenyon Wright remarked:
“Either the Parliament … is sovereign or the people of Scotland are sovereign. It cannot be both.”
This is because the sovereignty of the Scottish people is derived from the institution of our Scottish Crown, vested in the whole Community of the Realm, the nation and people of Scotland, and not, like that of England, the monarch.
The Scottish Crown remains, replaced by England’s in practice but not in fact or law. The sovereignty of the People of Scotland, therefore, is the supreme authority of this nation. It cannot be transferred, loaned or devolved just as the Crown cannot be transferred, loaned or devolved. (Only the power to govern is transferred, loaned or devolved from the People.)
The sovereignty of the People of Scotland is made explicit in the Claim of Right Act which ensures that it remains the constitutional prerogative of the People:
to remove and replace a government
to assert their rights over the authority of government or court and to seek redress for legitimate grievances under their own authority.
3

Stirling Directive 22.7.23
Item 2: The Permanence and Scope of Scottish Popular Sovereignty
The United Kingdoms of Great Britain were established by Treaty in 1706, ratified in the Acts of Union in 1706 and 1707 by the Parliaments of the independent nations of England and Scotland.
The Treaty of Union, as ratified, is the international agreement which:
a. Created the United Kingdoms of Great Britain as a legal and political entity
b. Established the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdoms
The constitutional settlement includes clear distinctions in the limits and jurisdiction of the civil power in the nations of England and Scotland within the state of the United Kingdoms.
Specifically, the distinction between the locus of political and legal sovereignty in each of these nations, the Parliament in England and the Community of the Realm, the People, in Scotland, is secured by the ratification of the Scottish Claim of Right Act of 1689 as a binding and permanent condition of the Treaty and Union.
The Claim of Right Act affirms the sovereignty of the People of Scotland as the supreme authority of that nation. It asserts their right to remove bad governments, to annul bad rulings – even those of the highest court in the land – and to choose the form of government best suited to their needs. (As reaffirmed by Scotland’s Claim of Right in 1989.) And it remains a permanent provision in the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdoms. This means that:

  • It may not be revoked
  • No Court, even the Supreme Court of the United Kingdoms, is competent to change or remove the requirements it imposes on government
  • Any violation represents a breach of the constitutional basis of the Union potentially invalidating and annulling the Union itself. (This is certainly why the parliamentary debate of 2018, which asserted the sovereignty of the Scottish people, passed without division.)
    On this basis only is power lawfully devolved by the People of Scotland to any government.
    4

Stirling Directive 22.7.23
Summary
Popular sovereignty is much more than the right to vote. It means that a people can act on their own authority because they are that authority.
The sovereignty of the people of Scotland is made explicit in the Claim of Right Act which ensures that it remains the constitutional prerogative of the People:
to remove and replace a government
to assert their rights over the authority of government or court and to seek redress for legitimate grievances
under their own authority. This is sovereignty
In Scotland, this means that by acting on the authority that is lawfully ours, we empower our representatives to respect and obey a higher power than Westminster.
The controlling principle is that the people are automatically authorised to act politically and constitutionally because they are the authorising authority.
This not only opens the door to independence but necessitates the kind of political reform which will enable Scotland to reflect its own political values and constitutional provisions rather than those presently in place, which are those of England.
SS
5

Stirling Directive 22.7.23
6
Appendix II: A True, Constitutional Referendum

  • A proper constitutional referendum must be binary. There can be only two options.
  • The options must be discrete, defined and deliverable. That is to say, they must be two quite different options and not merely two variations on the same thing. Both options must be tightly defined at the outset and may not change in the course of the referendum campaign. What is voted on must be what has initially been proposed.
  • Both options must be deliverable in the sense that the winning option and the actions which ensue from it must be implementable immediately and without further process.
  • To satisfy the previous criteria, the referendum must be on the question of whether to end the Union with England-as-Britain.
  • The legislation authorising and regulating the referendum must be determinative and self-executing
  • The outcome must be acknowledged by all involved as an expression of the democratic will of the sovereign people of Scotland and therefore binding on all parties.
  • It should also be understood and acknowledged that the outcome of one constitutional referendum cannot preclude future campaigning for other constitutional change even where such change would alter or obviate the prior choice.
  • The referendum process must be impeccably democratic. The franchise must be as wide as possible and based on strict criteria for residency within Scotland. Registering a vote must be made as easy as possible but with due regard for security and confidentiality.
  • The referendum must be held under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament with oversight and services provided exclusively by Scottish institutions and agencies. Every effort must be made to eliminate or at least minimise external interference.
  • For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the question of the Union, the British state shall be classified as an external (foreign) power.
  • For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the question of the Union, political parties registered as such and headquartered other than in Scotland shall be regarded as agencies of the country where they are registered and headquartered.
    PAB

Stirling Directive 22.7.23
7
Appendix III: Self Determination and International Law
Self-determination under international law is the right of a people to make their own decisions about their future within the international community and is one of modern international law’s core binding principles.
Self-determination is also recognised as a general principle of law and is enshrined in several international treaties. For example, self-determination is protected within the United Nations Charter and in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.”
Likewise, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states:
Article 1
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
It is also protected as part of the UN decolonisation process by the General Assembly in 1960 adopting the Declaration on the Granting on Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
Interpretation
Generally, the term “self-determination can also refer to the free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion.
Nowadays, the term has evolved to be seen as either internal or external self- determination.
Internal self-determination
This can refer to various political and social rights within a state.
External self-determination
This refers to full legal independence / secession for the given ‘people’ from the larger politico-legal state.
AT

15 thoughts on “Stirling Directive full text.

  1. Existing commitments mean I cannot be there today but thank you for posting this and I’ll look up the Salvo site later too. I did sign up with salvo btw, though with early technical issues. Interesting to see what if any mainstream channels report this in any way at all. Thanks and best wishes.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. The question has been re-framed: the Union is in dispute, Independence is not the controversy.

    The people are the ultimate authority, not politicians, bureaucrats, governments, parliaments or monarchs.

    A Scottish process with neither room for, nor right of, British involvement.

    All ticked off.

    Great effort!

    Liked by 10 people

    1. Actually, it is there, it’s just not obvious as the word Appendix is missing, and is also missing in the PDF.

      2
      Stirling Directive 22.7.23

      (Appendix) I: Sovereignty, the Law and the People of Scotland
      Part 1: What is Popular Sovereignty

      Liked by 4 people

  3. Can we trust a Scottish Judiciary that has allowed the House of Lords (subsequently, the Supreme Court) to become the court of appeal (from the Court of Sessions) in civil cases?

    Liked by 4 people

  4. From Peter Bells’ section, “The referendum process must be impeccably democratic. The franchise must be as wide as possible and based on strict criteria for residency within Scotland. “

    Given that this matter is fundamentally a constitutional one, and Scotland’s sovereignty is a critical factor in it, then the franchise for the referendum must prioritise the votes of those members of the Scottish electorate who possess that sovereignty. However that possession is defined, it cannot be right that a majority vote by the sovereigns of Scotland could be overturned by a larger majority vote by non-sovereign voters. We have suffered very badly for centuries by a parallel situation in Westminster’s House of Commons where our MPs, who alone speak on behalf of the sovereign Scottish Principal of the Treaty of Union, are routinely overruled by the rest of the MPs, who speak only on behalf of the sovereign English Principal of the Treaty of Union, thus denying the sovereignty of the Scottish partner in the very place it is supposed to count!

    Since the purpose of the referendum is to establish what the will is of the sovereign Scots regarding the independence of their country and kingdom, then it is clearly those who own that sovereignty who should be determining the outcome. Note that I am not saying that non-Scots can’t vote, just that there is an issue in deciding who in Scotland ‘really’ owns that sovereignty, and that there should also be a process that allows non-sovereigns to earn honorary sovereignty, though I also believe that gaining such honorary sovereignty should not be a casual achievement.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Perhaps a points system could be considered? Substantial points for being born here, to allow non sovereigns a vote we could increase points as resident term increases? Other factors could contribute or even subtract points as those born here but spending their working life or being educated in another country should not be afforded the same sovereignty of a Scots born person spending their whole life in the country imo..
      I agree with other comments on this initiative as being a good way forward but do feel that some small things like the missing word Appendix mentioned above are not making this easier to understand for a vast majority.
      These things need proof read and FIXED before publishing -otherwise it comes across as unprofessional and (in my mind anyway) when a lack of professionalism is shown, doubts creep in about the arguement being made.
      It is also an easy target for the unionist side.
      Afore we set sail, this ship should be.. WATERTIGHT!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I agree absolutely your latter points about the quality of presentation of materials, if anything looks sloppy or amateurish, it will be held up and used to discount the rest. I was very disappointed, yesterday, by the terrible audio and some of the video quality on the livestreams, reflected in the majority of chat comments I saw. This stuff is as important as the quality of the content.
        Not sure I agree the former, it seems unnecessary additional complexity to administer (by whom?)and a potentially very divisive issue just when we need more feeling of unity and inclusion. I could see that giving a golden opportunity to drive a wedge through the whole campaign and we’ve seen already the problems caused by the different categories of British citizenship.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. It can only be whoever is registered to vote in Scotland no matter where they have come from will be allowed to vote. If you have made Scotland your home then you have a say in what happens here.
        Agree on the presentation of the document and the live streaming yesterday. It has been, to put it politely, quite amateurish. The commitment of the people involved is unquestionable and I’m sure it’s mostly due to funding. Locations, media, advertising, equipment, staff, expertise all cost time and money.

        Like

    2. “It can only be whoever is registered to vote in Scotland no matter where they have come from will be allowed to vote. If you have made Scotland your home then you have a say in what happens here.”

      A voting system needs more nuance than your model allows, and many voting systems outside of Scotland are indeed more nuanced. There are several categories of elections, such as local elections, regional elections, national elections and referendums. Referendums can be on many different topics, and some will have constitutional significance. A single monolithic franchise is not a sensible one for all these variants, and the fact of Scotland’s sovereignty being vested in Scotland’s people rather than in a monarch, parliament or government is a matter that needs proper attention regarding a franchise’s suitability, an attention it has never received to date.

      It needs proper attention simply because any collective decision made by the Scottish electorate can engage the sovereignty they possess. For a local authority election, that sovereignty needn’t have any significance, and perhaps for regional or even national elections it may not be relevant, but for a serious constitutional matter like an independence referendum you’d better believe that our sovereignty is not just significant, it is critical. Sovereignty demands respect because it is legally and constitutionally authoritative, and cannot be legitimately countermanded.

      In electoral terms, if the sovereign part of the Scottish electorate vote in favour of a matter like independence, that vote cannot be reversed by a non-sovereign vote, even if its majority exceeds the sovereign one. That is because the non-sovereign decision hasn’t enough authority to countermand the sovereign decision.

      In other countries, constitutional votes require a tighter franchise than non-constitutional votes for that or similar reasons, and it is an actual abuse of the sovereignty of the Scots to ignore their sovereignty in those matters where it is relevant. We get more than enough of that kind of abuse in Westminster already.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Noting the complaints regarding the sound quality at the press conference, it has to be remembered that everyone is trying to the best of their abilities and were restricted by a short timescale to get that event organised. Even with plenty of time it is still difficult to find an accessible venue anywhere near to a city centre and Edinburgh has that particular problem in spades.

    So, I would surmise that the choices of venue available would be quite limited both in number and in quality – and not forgetting the costs involved, which for a relatively new organisation was also a major factor in play.

    However, the venue should not detract in any way from the message that we, the Sovereign People of Scotland, have simply had enough of politicians and their softly, softly going nowhere approach to our inalienable right to self-determination.

    They have had their multiple opportunities – it is time now for the politicians to step aside and let the People of Scotland achieve what they are either unable or unwilling to do.

    They continually spout that “The People of Scotland are Sovereign” – yes we are, and it is now time for them to “put up or shut up” by either acting upon the Stirling Declaration or getting the hell out of our way.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Great initiative. Are we expecting a reply or any action by the SG? What if they simply ignore it. Timescales and how to chase up and close? Re franchise, surely must have a definite minimum residency qualification, permanent and at least 5 years, plus include 16+ yoa.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.