THE ROUTE IS THERE…IF THE SNP USE IT!

SCOTLAND HAS BEEN DE JURE INDEPENDENT SINCE A MAJORITY OF NATIONALISTS WERE FIRST ELECTED IN 2015: SOMEBODY TELL THE SNP!

Alf Baird

Browsing, as you do, through the Westminster Privileges Committee’s second report from October 1999 reveals some quite astounding realities surrounding the constitution of the UK parliament and Scotland’s position in that regard. This also seems relevant given ongoing questions as to why none of Scotland’s three elected majorities of MPs since 2015 have pulled the plug on the mankit Union. 

The Privileges Committee report confirms that the UK parliament primarily exists only so long as Scotland’s representatives turn up there. In other words Scotland has been de jure independent since the first of three majorities of SNP MPs were elected in 2015, as many in Scotland believed. Don’t the SNP know anything about the Articles of Union, or are they just another ‘parcel o rogues’, heavily infiltrated? Ignoring the Articles of Union, its conditions, and Scottish sovereignty, whilst playing fast and loose with Scotland’s liberation cause, suggests the latter. 

Let’s consider in more detail what a Westminster committee and its legal advice is on Scotland’s status and how the Anglo-Scottish Alliance may be ended:

The treaty included Scotland’s right to representation, viz:

“7.  (ii)  The Parliament of Scotland did impose conditions when in 1707 it transferred power to the Parliament of Great Britain;

(iii)  One condition imposed by the Parliament of Scotland was the right provided by Article XXII for Scotland to be represented in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons;

(iv)  That right expresses a principle of representative Government that has the same force today that it had in 1707″

There is also confirmation, if needed, that this is an international treaty:

“8.  The Acts give effect to the international Treaty of Union”

The Scottish Parliament limited the powers of the new (UK) parliament, confirming that supreme sovereignty over Scotland remains with the Scottish people and their representatives, viz:

“15.  The Parliament of Scotland did qualify the authority that it was giving to the Parliament of Great Britain. This can be clearly discerned to have been the legislative intention of the Parliament of Scotland. It can be found in the Articles of Union. It has been acknowledged in the Parliament of Great Britain, and has been the subject of judicial and extra-judicial recognition.”

This is also confirmed by the following remarks, and that: 

“16.  The Articles disclose an intention that some provisions should be alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain, and that some provisions should not be alterable by the new Parliament”

That the UK parliament as a creature of the union remains subject to the two sovereign powers – the kingdoms of Scotland and England – who ratified the treaty creating it, viz:

“20.  That the British Parliament were absolutely bound up by the stipulations of this treaty; that they being a subsequent power to the two respective Parliaments of either kingdom, had no other or farther power to act than was limited to them by the stipulations of both kingdoms . . . That the Parliament of Britain, being the creature of the Union, formed by express stipulations between the two separate Parliaments of England and Scotland, cannot but be unalterably bound by the conditions so stipulated, and upon which it received its being, name and authority.”

That the joint UK parliament only has power limited by the Treaty and is not therefore superior to the signatory parties who agreed to its creation:

” 25.  affirmed by the House of Lords, 20 May, 1808 (Connell, Vol II, pages 122-123)), a Court of Thirteen Judges, sitting as the Court of Teinds, was satisfied that there were certain fundamental provisions of the Articles of Union which were not alterable by Parliament.”

That any breach to the Treaty would lead to fundamental consequences for the UK parliament, of which there is given numerous examples, and here is two, e.g.:

“25. (iii)  In Earl of Kinnoull v Presbytery of Auchterarder (The Auchterarder Case) (1838) 16 S 661 Lord Moncrieff said that a breach of the ecclesiastical provisions of the Union would be a direct breach of what was fundamental and essential in the political state of the United Kingdom.”

“(v)  In the case of MacCormick v Lord Advocate, 1953 SC 396 (First Division), the Lord Advocate, Lord Clyde, on behalf of the Crown expressly acknowledged that there were fundamental and unalterable provisions of the Articles of Union which Parliament could not legally repeal.”

That the legislative power of the UK parliament is therefore restricted by the articles in the Treaty:

“27.  The Union of Scotland and England was founded upon the agreement expressed in the Articles of Union. The agreement qualified the legislative power of the Parliament of Great Britain with respect to the Articles of Union.”

And a fundamental condition of the Treaty is that Scotland must be represented within the UK parliament:

“29.  Article III of the Articles of Union transferred authority to legislate for Scotland from the Parliament of Scotland to the Parliament of Great Britain. Article XXII provided that, in the new Parliament, Scotland would be represented in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords.”

In order for the UK parliament to legislate and function it must therefore include Scottish representation:

“30.  It is apparent from the purpose of Article XXII that the Parliament of Scotland did not intend the Parliament of Great Britain to be able to alter it so as to remove Scotland’s representation.”

“31.  Article XXII had and has unique importance. That is because a continuing right to representation in the Parliaments of Great Britain and the United Kingdom is the sole guarantee that representatives of Scotland may participate in the passage of legislation on all of the matters over which Parliament has, by virtue of Article III, authority to legislate for Scotland.

That the kingdoms of Scotland and England remain as distinct legal entities constituting their ‘creature’, the UK parliament, the latter’s power limited and conditioned by the Articles of Union:

” 36.  Applying the foregoing to Article XXII, (a) the Kingdoms of Scotland and England continue to be acknowledged by the law to be distinct entities”

And, that representation of both kingdoms is necessary for the UK parliament created by them to function on their behalf:

“40.  that as long as the Union endures, Scotland has an interest in a guarantee of representation in both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament.”

“41.  Article XXII can straightforwardly be construed to have the flexibility needed for the development of constitutional government, while also securing its central purpose; it requires that Scotland has the right to representation.. “

The UK parliament is thus conditional on the Articles of the Union, and would cease to have effect if the Union were to be ended by either signatory party to it:

” 45.  The Articles of Union are the conditions of the Anglo-Scottish Union. They were referred to as such at the time of their enactment. They are not a perpetual restraint on Parliament. They are the conditions of the present Union, which was created by Article I. If the Union is dissolved, the conditions in the Articles cease to have effect.”

And, that the UK parliament may be dissolved following withdrawal by either or both kingdoms from the Anglo-Scottish Union:

”  46.  The United Kingdom Parliament can dissolve the Union. Article I is not entrenched. That is apparent (1) because the Articles only bind Parliament as conditions of the Union established by Article I; and (2) because it would be contrary to common sense to argue that the English and Scottish peoples could never by a lawful route democratically decide upon independence from one another.”

Just as member states may withdraw from the EU treaty, so the UK’s ‘member states’ may do likewise insofar as the Treaty of Union is concerned:

“47.  Comparison with membership of the European Union is apt. The effect of European Union law is that Parliament cannot legislate inconsistently with the EC treaty, short of the United Kingdom leaving the Union by Act of Parliament.

There is nothing in the Union Act that prevents its repeal:

“51.  Article I of the Union of England and Scotland, and the conditions attached thereto, can both be repealed. In enacting such a repeal, Parliament would inevitably make provision for the constitutional position thereafter. This could involve the independence of the two countries or the settlement of the terms of a new Union of the two countries.”

The UK parliament cannot exclude or function without Scottish representation, which means that without such representation it would be unlawful for the joint UK parliament to legislate for Scotland:

” 54.  1.  when the Parliament of Scotland transferred power to the Parliament of Great Britain it was possible for it to impose restrictions on that power as a condition of Union.

  2.  Because the Parliament of Scotland did not intend the Parliament of Great Britain to be free to exclude the representation granted to Scotland by Article XXII.”

In summary, the Articles of Union limit the power of the UK parliament as condition of the Treaty; the right to representation at Westminster from Scotland remains a fundamental condition of the Treaty; the UK parliament therefore remains subject to the superior (i.e. sovereign) power of the Treaty’s signatory parties, that is the sovereign kingdoms of Scotland and England; either of whom may permanently withdraw their representatives from the UK parliament, following which the Union Act would be repealed.

House of Lords – Privileges – Second Report (parliament.uk)

MY COMMENTS

Alf Baird spells out how the Union with England can be ended if the Scottish Government so wish. As David Cameron sets out to ridicule Scotland’s First Minister for daring to speak to another foreign leader without the presence of a British Embassy Official to regulate what might be discussed, and to take notes, surely it is time to get this process underway?

We will never win Independence playing by their rules. It is time to battle on the International stage rather than sit helpless after another “ruling” from the domestic. “Supreme” Court, itself a flagrant breach of the Treaty of Union and an invention of Labour’s Tony Blair (see note below)

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland.

ANAGRAM OF TONY BLAIR MP. “I’m Tory Plan B”

BEAT THE CENSORS

Unfortunately there are some sites where extensive blocking takes place against bloggers who do not slavishly follow the dictates of one political party. This is a direct threat to freedom of speech and I unhesitatingly condemn such action. To overcome this problem I rely on my readers to share Yours for Scotland articles as widely as possible. My thanks to those who help overcome censorship.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

The most reliable way to get articles from this site is by taking out a free subscription which are available on the Home and Blog pages of the Yours for Scotland website. Given that I often seem to face other problems with both Twitter and Facebook this guarantees that my content is freely available.

SALVO

Salvo continues to do valuable work and an ever increasing number of people are involved. They are now running strong campaigns on several key issues and as the campaigning arm of Liberation.Scot they are the key to success. If you would like to make a donation to further Salvo and Liberation’s campaigning here are the details. All donations large or small greatly helps our work.

Bank RBS

ACCOUNT SALVOSCOT Ltd.

Ac number 00779437

Sort Code 83-22-26

LIBERATION.SCOT

If you have not already joined please visit the above website and join now. We are looking to achieve a membership larger than any other political organisation in Scotland to approach the UN to achieve the official status as Scotland’s Liberation Movement intent of removing the colonising forces from our nation. Be part of it.

90 thoughts on “THE ROUTE IS THERE…IF THE SNP USE IT!

  1. However, the people being sovereign, not their representatives – surely a popular majority is required to empower withdrawal. Possible to argue otherwise ofc, but rather flies in the face of common sense.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Withdrawal of course subject to confirmation in preferably a VOTE organised by the UN Decolonisation system. Without our MP’s withdrawing Westminster they can keep us trapped, as they do by simply stating “Now is not the time”.. we should use Cameron’s latest attempted bullying as the reason we demand freedom of speech and choice.

      Liked by 27 people

    2. I don’t think it does fly in the face of common sense. Au contraire. The prime duty of a government is to ensure the country is not harmed. And there is no doubt that tory England is harming Scotland! Over and over again! Thus, it behooves the Scottish government to declare Independence FIRST, stop the harm & then hold a confirmatory ref/election after that, at a time of their choosing, ie once the independent services are set up so that the country does not, meanwhile, grind to a bankrupt halt.

      That would also mean Scots would see for themselves how an Indy Scotland would work, with currency, trade, etc. questions answered – a realistic picture of what Indy would mean, how it would affect them and if all the new systems & services were desirable. Having said that, in the new Indy state, they’d have a chance to change things so they WERE desirable. But my point…

      Stop the harm NOW & give people their say later.

      Liked by 11 people

  2. A clear summary of where we are.

    The route to independence is indeed there, is expressed, is mandated, but the SNP deny our rights.

    Treaty deniers, mandate deniers, democracy deniers, the SNP are our in truth our jailers and part of an occupying force.

    Liked by 26 people

    1. Can we push for action by Yousaf on the grounds of the British/English Parliament trying to constrain Scottish diplomacy to other countries on the grounds that Scotland does not agree with the international policies of the said British/English government, which we were not consulted over and which many of them are illgal under international Law, which we in Scotland uphold.
      This would be a more convincing argument Internationally than Yousaf’s attempt to challenge the ‘Supreme Court’ on the GRR question. Surely that action is conttrary to the Treaty of Union as we were not consulted and our views not represented.
      We are not short of breaches of the 1707 Treaty by our neighbours!

      Liked by 13 people

  3. One question:

    If we withdraw our representatives can Westminster not say:

    1. You are still represented by those elected from the British parties in Scotland

    and/or

    2. It is your choice to be abstentionist but the UK/British parliament have not withrawn or are withholding your RIGHT to representation.

    Therefore Article XXII of the ToU has not been breached?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yes – thats clearly the response to be anticipated. And on that basis, a simple refusal to participate fails.

      Like

    2. Duncanio, you’ve beaten me to it, that would have been what I’ve would have asked. Refusing to attend is not the same as denying the right to representation. Therefore the Treaty isn’t breached especially if the BritNat parties turn up which the will, with bells on and especially if they form a majority or substantial minority as they might given the nuSNP’s travails!

      Liked by 5 people

    3. 1. Consider Scotland’s MPs as the adjourned ‘Scottish Parliament’ representing Scotland within the UK Parliament and where a majority decision by a sovereign Scotland’s MPs to withdraw Scotland from the Union is lawful, also as far as a sovereign power’s withdrawal from any international Treaty is concerned;

      2. The majority of Scotland’s MPs by rejecting their right to representation in the UK Parliament thus ending the latter’s power to legislate for Scotland, would inevitably be followed by their re-convening a Scottish Parliament which would legislate for Scotland.

      Liked by 14 people

      1. I get the point about ‘Scotland’s Parliament’ being represented by the Scottish MPs.

        However, when the report says

        “30. It is apparent from the purpose of Article XXII that the Parliament of Scotland did not intend the Parliament of Great Britain to be able to alter it so as to remove Scotland’s representation.”

        that is surely not the same as Scottish MPs “rejecting their right to representation in the UK Parliament”?

        I guess, Alf, you’ve taken legal opinion on this aspect which supports what you are postulating?

        Like

      2. Scotland’s ‘representation’ in the UK Parliament is a condition of the transfer of power as set out by the Articles of Union. No matter how representation is ended this means this condition is violated and the UK Parliament may no longer lawfully legislate for Scotland. The agreement therefore qualified the legislative power of the Parliament of Great Britain with respect to the Articles of Union.

        The report goes on to state that: “The singular importance of Article XXII is that its absence from the Articles would have reduced Scotland to the position of a dependent territory.” In other words, without majority national representation Scotland would be rendered, more or less, a colony. And in addition: “To attribute to the Scottish legislators and the words of Article XXII such a statutory intention is, to say the least, highly improbable.”

        Liked by 13 people

      3. “No matter how representation is ended this means this condition is violated and the UK Parliament may no longer lawfully legislate for Scotland.”

        I am not a legal expert at all but I can see the arguments that they – the enemy – will make i.e. in all likelihood they will attempt to take the words of the articles literally.

        But much law is about interpretation of the wording and its intent. I imagine that you have taken opinion on this and an argument can be made regarding the ‘spirit’ of the articles along the lines you have laid out.

        I sincerely hope that you are correct Alf.

        Thanks for your efforts.

        Liked by 2 people

    4. Thing is… we aren’t ‘represented’ by those unionist parties. They were not elected to represent us. The SNP were. THEY were elected on their policies, & the people mandated them to Independence (No, I realise they haven’t done it). And thus, I’d say it is the GOVT representatives that should be there, not unelected/list parliamentarians.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. You refer to ‘list parliamentarians’. That relates to Holyrood. The conversation is about Scotland’s representation at Westminster and the implications of withdrawing them from that place.

        Also, I don’t like it but the fact is that these Unionists were elected (to Westminster) by (in my, and maybe your, opinion) misguided constituents. But there it is.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I take your point, Duncanio and it is well made. I did understand it was about Reps in WM & not HR, but my choice & use of those words could & did, well… confuse. What I was thinking did not come out in what I was writing! I wish to goodness I could teach myself to READ BACK WHAT I’VE WRITTEN! :-O

        What I meant was if, for example, only 2/3 representatives of unionist parties were elected in any particular election, as opposed to 56 MPs from an indy party, I don’t think those 2/3 unionist MPs could be seen as representing Scots as a whole, with any validity. Tories haven’t been elected in Scotland for 70 years. That’s a pretty constant electoral position (last!) and the voting pattern for Scots electing an Independence party has become pretty much the norm now for a good number of years. So given the numbers of MPS walking out of WM & taking the voting pattern into consideration, I’d say 2/3 unionists could hardly be considered indicative of the Scots voting psyche. And thus I can’t see how anyone could say with any real conviction that Scotland would be represented in such a scenario.

        That’s how I’d see it. But that could well just be my interpretation. That’s the trouble with all of this… so much of it has not been tested. Having said that – it means any of our theories are as possible & valid as anyone else’s.

        Liked by 3 people

  4. The evidence of history is clear. When you follow the “Rules” dictating by the Imperial Masters you are simply reinforcing their authority. You are telling the World that THEY have control over you.
    It is not simply MPs not turning up at Westminster though. It is Political Parties in Scotland standing on the ticket that the WILL NOT sit in Westminster. We then need Political Parties who say their MSPs will not swear allegiance to the Crown. When we start to ACT as a Nation instead of a Colony we may see some progress.

    The People will decide as the Irish did. A Party refusing to take their seat at Westminster will get my vote.

    It is unfortunate that Sturgeon failed to do this and instead chose to enrich her own life and CV.

    When will the penny drop…..London will never agree to Scottish Independence without a fight.

    At this very moment OUR SG is putting more and more money and time into challenging the GRR ruling compared to the zero challenge regarding the Supreme Court Ruling on our Right to hold a Referendum.

    Liked by 19 people

  5. My question is why has it taken so long to uncover that there has always been a route out of the Treaty?

    The answer lies in Alf’s book, Doun-Hauden that is an illustration of how to colonise a people and keep them oppressed and subjugated for over 300 years.

    Our “elite establishment” is largely made up of non-Scots and wannabee-English! How that has happened – read the book! Unfortunately the vast majority of the People of Scotland don’t know it exists and it is up to the aforementioned “elite establishment” to dictate what is read by our children, thereby providing them with a false history of Scotland that influences them as future adults.

    The SNP government is now collaborating with their superiors at Westminster with the introduction of freeports just the latest example. That is active collaboration but we have seen this past 9 years passive collaboration which is just as dangerous, if not more so, because our own pretend government has refused to act when there have been a number of mandates and other opportunities to walk away from this Toxic Treaty.

    Liked by 21 people

    1. The SNP is not just collaborating with Westminster, it is actively acting against indrpendence.

      It is an occupying entity acting on behalf of the establishment whilst masquerading as an independent party.

      Bought and sold for English gold or turned by kompromat these last nine years since Sturgeon took command and dark forces tried to criminal conspire to destroy Alex Salmond and the Yes movement, tells you exactly what the SNP now are.

      They called it a Dirty War in Northern Ireland as the dark state and it’s security services and spooks, together with the police and judiciary did the darkest of deeds.

      It would be utterly foolish for anyone in Scotland to not realise what is going on here. The fact that there is no violence does not detract from the fact that the establishment is fighting a covert war against independence.

      That is what the British state does, and more, and has done in its colonies around the world.

      Liked by 24 people

    2. How much is Alf’s book? We could do a fundraiser to get them out to people. It’s a wee bit late for Christmas however there’s nothing stopping us from putting free gifts through doors.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Also inside the book could be a link to liberation or paper copy for signing up with details of who to email it to orQR code whichever.

        Liked by 8 people

      2. Or leaflets which would be cheaper but with crowdfunding… , with specific paragraphs & quotes out of Alf’s book (with his permission OF COURSE!) but with a notation of the details of the book & where it can be purchased. Perhaps that little ‘window’ of what is happening to their country, might be enough to have them search for more info, find the book and have a darn good read!

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Aye, part of the process of collaborating to come up with ideas for getting vital information to folk because as we all should know by now that we can’t rely upon the media and others.

        Liked by 3 people

      4. Thing with leaflets is that they have to speak to the person so they don’t go directly into the recycling bin. I was thinking book on the basis that perhaps someone is less likely to bin a book. It’s probably expensive Alf do ye dae discounts for bulk buy? 🤣 What does everyone else suggest?

        Liked by 1 person

  6. “And, that the UK parliament may be dissolved following withdrawal by either or both kingdoms from the Anglo-Scottish Union:”

    To me this is the phrase. Concise and short. It’s not just our MSP’s and MP’s that ignore this but the judiciary as well. We must copy Alf’s words as far as possible.

    Will the National do an article on this? Probably not. I have written to them a few times to look at and do an article on Salvo without any luck.

    Liked by 20 people

  7. Thanks Alf ( yet again) for all the work and effort you put into articles like this, no mean feat either.

    Our SNP government is no longer fit for purpose, it has been that way since the “Murrells” took over. Yet fools still support them, well, having moved to support Salvo.scot and Liberation.scot I feel we are now moving the right way.
    Never the SNP again they are a waste of time in regards to Independence, despite all their talk, and that is all it is, they have no real intentions of going down any route to free our people.

    Alf, has shown how it could be done, who now, can bring this forward. I do believe there is a majority for Independence. We need to go down all avenues to make it happen.

    Liked by 16 people

  8. that was exactly my point in trying somewhat unsuccessful to persuade the SNP conference on how the Union could be dissolved.

    Sadly when challenged Stephen Flynn was unaware of the right MPs had to dissolve, not had he seen any legal advice on the matter.

    If the tittle tattle that Farage and Boris are going to create a Tory “ dream ticket “ to fight the next GE, then there is even greater incentive for the SNP leadership to embrace and promote the dissolution of the Union.

    Liked by 16 people

  9. What an interesting and heartening article, Alf, and so digestible. Well done.

    My takeaways, with my interpretation in [ ];

    1. “The UK parliament primarily exists only so long as Scotland’s representatives turn up there.”

    England’s MPs cannot pass legislation in the Union’s parliament on their own! This is because they don’t represent the Union on their own.

    2. “The Scottish Parliament limited the powers of the new (UK) parliament, confirming that supreme sovereignty over Scotland remains with the Scottish people and their representatives.”

    Scotland’s representation is NOT subject to majority votes by England’s representation.

    Corollary- Scotland’s MPs represent a full half of the Union’s two sovereignties, despite their smaller numbers. Thus the Parliament’s voting system is deeply inappropriate, and must be amended, or we end the Union. I much prefer the latter.

    3. “The Treaty of Union Acts is an INTERNATIONAL treaty.”

    Well, of course it is.

    4. “The UK parliament as a creature of the union remains subject to the two sovereign powers – the kingdoms of Scotland and England – who ratified the treaty creating it.”

    UK Parliament is NOT sovereign, and England’s MPs have no authority over Scotland or her MPs, and don’t have any authority over England on their own, because of point 1.

    5. “That the joint UK parliament only has power limited by the Treaty and is not therefore superior to the signatory parties who agreed to its creation.”

    UK Parliament is NOT sovereign.

    6. “The UK parliament cannot exclude or function without Scottish representation, which means that without such representation it would be unlawful for the joint UK parliament to legislate for Scotland…”

    England’s MPs cannot pass legislation in the Union’s parliament on their own!

    Corollary- When Scotland’s MPs vote against a matter it cannot be passed anyway by England’s MPs.

    7. “Article XXII had and has unique importance. That is because a continuing right to representation in the Parliaments of Great Britain and the United Kingdom is the sole guarantee that representatives of Scotland may participate in the passage of legislation on all of the matters over which Parliament has, by virtue of Article III, authority to legislate for Scotland.”

    The UKP’s authority to govern Scotland is Scotland’s own delegated authority, and that delegation is in the form of Scotland’s MPs.

    Corollary- Scotland’s MPs represent a full half of the Union’s authority.

    Corollary- All UK Parliament governance decisions must be jointly agreed by majorities from both sets of MPs, except for ending the Union. That can be ended by one or both parties.

    Liked by 16 people

  10. Well there it is, in writing from the Westminster Privileges Committee’s second report from October 1999.
    Along side all other material being presented by Liberation Scot., Salvo and Sara S. not forgetting the many blatant breaches of the ToU., the way forward is perfectly clear.

    Any normal, competent independence seeking government would already be planing and carrying the steps required to achieve that goal.

    NO referendum is necessary, the majorities and mandates are there to be used. It only requires the the will and courage to do it.

    What do we have? Humza, Pishfeet, Nikla, Harvie, the dregs of the barrel…

    Liked by 15 people

  11. Time our representatives at wastemonster walked out on our behalf.but I suppose the shilling is too much for them to lose.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Yes… I agree with you… and I have given up trying to understand why they still sit there being ignored whilst making pretty wee speeches that actually achieve nothing…given that my standard of living has gone down due to this colonisation intent on robbing us….. I can not understand why they never compare the wealth of Norway and other Oil rich countries in comparison to the pathetic infrastructure that Scotland has. … and why they do not weave these facts into their pretty wee speeches …

      Liked by 9 people

  12. Thanks to Alf for these important UK parliamentary documents, adding substantially to Sara’s constitutional research. Our cause for Scottish Independence is strengthened by both your efforts forming one important part of our SALVO strategy.

    An Independence strategy, for any colonised nation requires additional elements that collectively, and will eventually, trigger a successful and binding solution with their coloniser. For Scotland, these elements must involve the endogenous element of the Scottish People and the other is the exogenous element of Westminster’s political failure to manage the UK economy for the benefit of the people. In the UK, there is no alternative economic and political ideology that is acting as an antagonist to the current economic policies of ‘Radical Monetarism’. Scotland has to leave this corrupt playground.

    This two elements combined will light the tougher-paper for organised social anger to emerge on the streets. Financial poverty and inequality are two of the major reasons that will galvanise our cause.

    We have to be prepared and ready for all eventualities, including our potential Scottish Political vacuum. This may require a venue meeting of all SALVO members.
    Neil🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

    Liked by 11 people

  13. Great research, very interesting and it certainly chimes with me. It obviously didn’t chime with our six SNP MPs in 1999 – Andrew Welsh Alex Salmond Aliasdair Morgan Margaret Ewing John Swinney & Roseanna Cunningham, Did they, or their researchers, even caatch sight of it, I wonder..

    It would be interesting to read the full Standards and Privileges report to get more of the context and any commentary on it at the time, but I can’t seem to find a link on the Commons website.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. When I found it, it wasn’t a single document, which was annoying, but a series of linked pages, so I just selected each block of text and pasted them in sequence into a text document. It also references other relevant documents including the texts of the Treaty and the two Acts of Union, as well as several others.

      Below is the first useable page; it kept bouncing me between two intro pages when I went back to it a minute or so ago, but I had already saved this first page link;

      Select Committee on Privileges Second Report October 1999

      Liked by 14 people

    1. Tony I don’t mean to be disrespectful to my fellow independence supporters but if you go on to any independence blog you will see that people are doing the same thing to ALBA as they did to the FAKE snp , they are putting them up on pedestals and engaging in another wheesht for indy mantra , they are once again putting all their faith in politicians , politicians who have done nothing but betray voters and Scots

      What Alf Baird has written shows that if politicians of ALL parties including ALBA and the snp were really serious about independence they would have found this information out and acted upon it and we would NOW be free , but we keep getting promise after promise and politicians being self serving have been in no hurry to fight for independence , why would they RISK anything, the salary and perks are astronomical

      Sara Salyers made an incredible speech at the ALBA conference which won her great approval and kudos YET nothing , I may be wrong but apparently Alex Salmond disagreed or took exception to Sara’s claim that a convention of the estates should comprise of the PEOPLE , his view was that it should be the great and good of the establishment , lawyers , judges , politicians , business people and suchlike , the very people who benefit most from the current situation of colonisation and who have colluded with the WM parliament to retain the current position

      TBQH I don’t know about my fellow independence supporters but I am sick of politicians TELLING US this is what will happen , they are OUR EMPLOYEES they are only there by OUR GRACE and votes, it is time voters realised that they are the ones who have THE POWER
      Prior to the 21 election I advocated on WOS ,YFS, BB, for a pro forma declaration to be available on the various indy blogs , where voters can inform their MP’s and MSP’s of the snp that the individual will NOT vote snp until and unless sturgeon removes the GRRB and the HCB and gets on with a referendum , unfortunately the bloggers didn’t want to participate , instead we had Alex Salmond asking voters to give the snp their second vote which very many did which resulted in the absolute clusterbourach which we have today, the SC debacle , Branchform , Seabed gift giveaway , Energy company lies, and Useless

      SALVO, SSRG, AND LIBERATION.SCOT are our people’s voices YET our politicians IGNORE THEM , not only ignore them but openly deride and denigrate them , I was engaged in a disagreement BTL with Roddy of BB , please don’t get me wrong I am a great admirer of Roddy and his excellent PRISM but he was openly ridiculing commenters who raised the issue of the SSRG,SALVO & Liberation.Scot , his denigration resorted to calling them fringe groups who were only offering magic bullets , TBQH is that not where the snp started out
      If politicians believed in the SOVEREIGNTY of Scots they would have utilised the information that Alf Baird has unearthed , not only that they would be clambering to have SALVO on board instead of keeping them at arms length and insulting them
      I truly believe that we MUST use Liberation.Scot as the people’s VOICE to instruct ALL of our politicians to do what WE want and we must continue to do so via a proper PEOPLE’S ASSEMBLY

      Liked by 8 people

      1. That’s what I was trying to say,alba are just the SNP,in a different coloured kilt.As much as I like Alex salmond, he is just another Scottish politician brought up the British way,plus his hubris blinds him to alternative options.Not always a good leadership quality IMO.
        If we Scots are dumb enough to put our faith in ANOTHER POlITICAL claiming to fight for independence then expect the same betrayal.
        Our only hope is either salvo/liberation, or picking up the Claymore.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. YES Tony you also witnessed the ridicule and denigration heaped on supporters of SALVO,SSRG,and Liberation.Scot by Roddy who was an official within ALBA , it makes you wonder if it is a general opinion within the officials of ALBA

        Liked by 2 people

    1. I agree, great article giving us hope for the future, I have been dreading the New Year, fearful of a returned Tory Government, with a reduced majority and wanting revenge on any parties or persons who have tried to thwart its underhand and illegal policies, or a Red Tory Labour government under Scotland hating Starmer also wanting revenge if enough Scots do not vote for him!
      Thanks for the work of Salvo and Alf in showing the route wqe must take.
      We need to persuade Yousaf and Flynn to stand up for Scotland or else elect enough ALBA and ISP members to force the issue.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Or re-convene the Convention of the Estates, declare SALVO & sack both of them – along with a few others. Well… MANY others. Okay – ALL OF THEM. Let’s get rid of the ALL of them – the whole party & have the CoE re-elect a whole new set of Representatives then declare our intentions to dissolve the union.

        Liked by 7 people

  14. Surely these facts should be presented to all our independence-supporting MPs today together with the demand that they withdraw from the Treaty immediately? Just think what a boost this would give to our economy as cross-border businesses set up offices in Scotland and new Scottish businesses were set up to utilise our assets and develop new opportunities. Not to mention foreign countries opening embassies!

    Liked by 9 people

    1. I am inclined to designate the SNP MPs as ‘independence supporting’ since they are not actually doing anything to further our independence and in many instances are actively colluding with the British govenment by supporting polices such as free ports, which will damage our country,
      It is time to call them out and to step aside if they are not doing what is says in the aims of the party. We need to tell our SNP representaives to STEP UP, or STEP DOWN! If they are not prepared to stand up for our country against an oppressive government intent on stealing our assets and our land, they are not fit fot purpose.

      Liked by 7 people

  15. The other option of course is just to start issuing our own tax credits. Tax credits = our own currency. Italy has thought about this deeply regarding away to leave the EU.

    The Scottish government issues a tax credit, and uses it to pay a citizen in exchange for the citizen’s services to the government. The government could even make this arrangement more formal by printing the tax credits on pieces of paper called “Alba’s” (or something like that).

    The Scottish citizen who’s earned the “Alba’s” has the option of using them as payment to another citizen (who’d also like a tax-cut) for, say, a bag of potatoes. So, the first citizen provides a service to the Scottish citizen, gets paid in “cash” and then uses the “cash” to buy her dinner. If you think about it, you could possibly run an entire economy in this fashion.

    An hour’s worth of public service is set at 15 Alba’s worth of extinguished taxes. The Scottish government could issue paper tax-credits and pay them to the citizens for their public services. To be specific, this would be a piece of “official” paper, signed with an important signature, on which was printed something like the following:

    The Sovereign Scottish Government promises the bearer of this paper ONE Alva of credit on taxes owed to the Sovereign Scottish Government.

    We now have set in motion a curious set of subsequent economic actions and are now in charge of our own fiscal policy and monetary policy.

    The Scottish citizen can choose to do the following:

    Put the Alba’s ( tax credits) under the mattress for safekeeping until the day her taxes must be paid.

    Or she can use the Alba’s to purchase a dinner at her neighborhood cafe.

    The owner of the cafe is willing to accept the Alba’s in exchange for the lasagna, garlic bread, and wine because he, too, has to pay taxes to the Scittish government. So, for all practical purposes, receiving the tax creduts is just the same as receiving pounds for him as well.

    Now we have to ask an important question: Is the amount of goods and services Scotland can obtain by issuing and “spending” its paper tax-credits still directly limited by the amount of tax liabilities it can impose on its own Scottish citizens?

    In other words, if every Scottish citizen theoretically has received enough tax credits to pay their taxes with—either having received them directly from the government for providing public services, or having received them from other citizens in exchange for lasagna dinners—will the citizens’ willingness to exchange real goods and services in exchange for the tax credits come to a halt?

    Crucially, the answer is No. This is because the act of “embodying” the tax-credits in exchangeable pieces of paper has given the Alba’s a usefulness in addition to their usefulness as tax payments: This additional usefulness, of course, is the ability to use them to buy goods and services from other Scottish citizens and businesses. Thus, the number of paper tax-credits in “circulation” could vastly exceed, at any given time, the total actual tax liabilities of the Scottish citizenry. The Alba’s would continue to be accepted for lasagna dinners, because the cafe owners know they can use the tax credits they receive to subsequently buy shoes and motorcycles or any good and service— in addition to using them to pay their taxes.

    It will no doubt have dawned on most every reader that what we’ve just created is “money.” Specifically, we’ve created what is called “fiat money”—which happens to be the kind of money the world has been using now for the past half century (ever since the U.S. formally abandoned the gold-standard in 1971). We have just created a new independent Scottish currency by proxy.

    Having thus conjured a rudimentary image of fiat-money to life we should quickly make some important (and perhaps startling) observations about it.

    Observation 1: How does the Alba “currency” come into existence? The sovereign Scottish government creates it from thin air. Paper tax-credits are not created by Scottish banks, nor are they borrowed from China—or even the EU Central Bank. They are printed by the Scottish government. Note: Alba’s could also be created by the Scottish government digitally—that is, with keystrokes that enter numbers in an electronic ledger of account. In either case, the point is ONLY the Scottish government has the legal right to create them. Why? Because that is the prerogative of sovereignty and the definition of fiat money.

    Observation 2: How many Alba’s can the Scottish government create and spend? Or, to rephrase the question more precisely, how many times can the Scottish government promise to accept one of its paper tax-credits in exchange for a pound’s worth of taxes owed? The answer is simple: as many times as it wants! It doesn’t matter if all the taxes have been paid in full—it can still issue and spend the Alba. The citizens will continue to accept the promise in exchange for real goods and services for two reasons: first, they know other Scottish citizens and businesses will accept the promise as payment for lasagna dinners and, second, they know for sure that taxes due will come around again—and soon. So the Scottish government will run deficits spending more Alba’s than they collect as taxes. This allows Scottish citizens to net save in Alba’s.

    Observation 3: If (as observation 2 suggests is possible) the Scottish government just keeps issuing and spending its paper tax-credits (fiat money) to buy goods and services from its citizens, won’t the number of Alba’s in circulation keep growing until, inevitably, the price of things in the Scottish economy begins to skyrocket? A lasagna dinner that used to cost 15 Alba’s suddenly costs 150 Alba’s In other words: Inflation. The answer, of course, maybe. So what can the Scottish government do to keep a lid on the inflationary pressure created by its continued issuing and spending of Alba’s ? Two things:

    The Scottish government can continue to collect taxes from the citizens (or, if necessary, even increase the taxes in collects). Taxes will remove Alba’s from circulation, reducing the number of them available in the market-place to buy goods and services. Taxes, then, have a dual virtue in a fiat money system: they continuously reinforce the citizens’ desire to earn the government’s paper tax-credits—and they drain the paper tax-credits out of the market place, helping to keep prices stable.

    The government can also create special savings accounts that Scottish citizens can put their excess Alba’s in. The accounts would earn interest (paid by the government with new Alba’s)—but the agreement would be that the citizen would leave their “old” PTCs in the account, untouched, for a period of time—say 10 years. Granny bonds – see link below

    https://new-wayland.com/blog/the-only-bonds-we-need-are-granny-bonds/

    This means a large number of Alba’s which would otherwise be competing to pay for lasagna dinners would be replaced with a much smaller number of PTCs (the interest payments). The net result will be fewer Alba’s buying goods and services in the market-place. If you want, you could call these special savings accounts ” Tartan bonds.”

    And the Scottish government could just reduce spending of the Alba’s.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. And so we now await a prompt response from the SNP. And no bullshit SNP about not having received a formal approach — from whoever, you read the blogs, we await your response.

    This researched article calls the SNP out. Working for independence, or contently working at their Westminster day jobs?

    Liked by 9 people

  17. Having made these observations, the Scottish government has provided an actual solution to the “austerity” it has been forced to impose on itself by the UK. Except we must now confront the fact that The treaty of union might say we are not allowed to issue our own money.

    But we have them over a barrel in 2 ways.

    Scotland has decided to pay its citizens with paper tax-credits – Alba’s. And then, presumably, the UK says, “Whoa, hold on here! It looks like you are printing your own money, which is not allowed by our rules!”

    We could then proceed to an International Court in which Scotland claims it isn’t breaking the UK rules because it isn’t printing “money” but is simply issuing tax-credits. The UK would then have to argue that “tax-credits” are, in fact, what “money” is! In making that argument, it would be forced to explain everything we’ve just explained which would, in turn, reveal and establish not only the absurdity of the UK monetary system, but also that the whole world (including the U.S.) is misunderstanding and mismanaging its money system—and unnecessarily making a vast majority of the world’s citizenry miserable in the process.

    It immediately exposes the tax payer money myth, the deficit myth and the debt myth and all of the lies they have told about money since Thatcher. That is the truth that the £ is nothing more than a tax credit and they would have to admit that fact after lying about it for 2 generations. Will they be willing to do that ?

    Of course there are some golden rules you have to apply when first issuing the Alba tax credit and they are very straight forward. So that it stays quite strong and stable and not to fall into the neoliberal mistakes other countries have made when launching a currency – see video below.

    I don’t think there will be anything in the treaty of the Union regarding not being allowed to issue our own money ( tax credit ). We have Scottish notes already for example.

    So we have just become independent by proxy by simply issuing Alba tax credits, so let’s get on with it.

    Liked by 4 people

  18. This is very interesting. Playing devils advocate… ‘must have representation in both house of commons and house of lords’…. it doesn’t say how much representation.

    If the Independent MP’s walk out, leaving a handful of Scottish unionist MP’s sitting, along with the Scottish unionists within the House of Lords (the number of which would increase overnight)… then would the British state not argue that this would meet the legal criteria, and that those who had ‘walked out’ had abandoned their posts.

    After all, this is the same state that if they can’t elect an MP suitably able to be Foreign Secretary, falls back on getting one from the House of Lords. So they sort of have form.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes… you are in some ways correct… but basically westminster do this now… they treat all Indy Mp’s with open contempt… so they might as well not be there… and being in westminster they give strength to the fake appearance of it all… and of course the unionist quislings would make huge claims about democracy being denied.. with is ironic when you take the EU voting in Scotland and the removal of Scots EU citizenship… and I’m all for a night of the long knives as nothing is changing for the better in any way… as we Scots live under the rule of a government that we haven’t voted for in decades.. who take what they want.. override some of the proposals that our elected MSp’s make .. and doll out a percentage of what any other OIL rich country takes in revenue… and of course there would be the usual dictate of our international standing being rubbished by our so called unbiased media…. we would become a pariah with all sorts of accusations… BUT… as someone else said… FOLLOW THE MONEY… and Scotland has wealth that is openly being funnelled South… which if the power lines and Oil flow was cut and all taxes gathered in Scotland from ALL the international players who skim off Scotlands wealth …. we Scots would suffer a backlash that wouldn’t last that long once the lights starting going out in Surrey..
      I can see they arrogance daily in this colony region of D & G… where Southern Incomers control the housing market… where over 100 properties in this village are owned & rented out by this privileged group… yet point me to a comparable village in the South where over a hundred properties are owned by Scots…

      Liked by 7 people

      1. “Scotland has wealth that is openly being funnelled South… which if the power lines and Oil flow was cut and all taxes gathered in Scotland from ALL the international players who skim off Scotlands wealth ….”

        All income taxes collected do not fund anything – they end up in the UK Consolidated fund where they are destroyed.

        You have to get passed the tax payer money myth it is propaganda.

        They ISSUE —– Then COLLECT ——– Then DESTROY

        It is absurd to think they COLLECT —— Then ISSUE.

        https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=38885

        How can they collect anything if they haven’t given it to you first ? It has the sovereign’s head on it. That’s whose money it is. If the tax rates go up next week, you’ll have less of it.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. So do you think this system is fair and above board?.. ALL the Scottish Indy politicians seem to think it is… otherwise surely they as a group would do or say something radical… or do you think they do not know?… I would have thought they would have known more about Scotlands finances than most of us.. and if they did then why has no one stood out?.. as you seem to be suggesting that money raised by taxation is a myth!… yet where else does this source of all spending come from… borrowing from banks?… that were bailed out by… “TAXPAYERS”…
        Having lived & worked in Holland for a number of years … which has no Oil wealth… and where my standard of living was so much better … and where the pensions paid at an earlier age dwarfed the state handout that the Uk has… and where the ‘average’ wage is now 45,000 euros… with roughly three times the population of Scotland… yet where does this wealth for their superior social contract come from?…. from the Tax they perhaps grudge paying… yet ALL Scots Indy politicians go along with this farce by making pretty wee speeches that change NOTHING… that will not help me achieve the same living standards I once enjoyed… only by taxing the International players whose HQ’s are all outside Scotland and who contribute to the English GOP as they are most certainly not taxed in Scotland…

        Liked by 1 person

      3. “So do you think this system is fair and above board?.. ALL the Scottish Indy politicians seem to think it is… otherwise surely they as a group would do or say something radical… or do you think they do not know?… I would have thought they would have known more about Scotlands finances than most of us.. and if they did then why has no one stood out?.. as you seem to be suggesting that money raised by taxation is a myth!… yet where else does this source of all spending come from… borrowing from banks?… that were bailed out by… “TAXPAYERS”…”

        No it wasn’t Sam that was a myth

        Where do you get your £’s from to pay your taxes ? Read the bank note every penny you have received in your life comes from the government. It is written clearly in the front of every note where it came from.

        Government gives YOU the £’s you then use to pay your taxes.

        Take a note out of your pocket right now and read it, take a note out of any business till in the country and read it. Government put it There it is written clearly on the front of the note who issued it .

        This is how it works – we done the work to show you what actually happens.

        https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781802208092/book-part-9781802208092-9.xml

        Some of them know now, as some of the Scottish MP’s read the book – The deficit myth by Stephanie Kelton. So yes some of them now know taxes don’t fund anything. They have lied about it for so long they are scared to tell the truth.

        “Having lived & worked in Holland for a number of years … which has no Oil wealth… and where my standard of living was so much better … and where the pensions paid at an earlier age dwarfed the state handout that the Uk has… and where the ‘average’ wage is now 45,000 euros… with roughly three times the population of Scotland… yet where does this wealth for their superior social contract come from?…. from the Tax they perhaps grudge paying… yet ALL Scots Indy politicians go along with this farce by making pretty wee speeches that change NOTHING… that will not help me achieve the same living standards I once enjoyed… only by taxing the International players whose HQ’s are all outside Scotland and who contribute to the English GOP as they are most certainly not taxed in Scotland…”

        There is your first mistake right there Holland uses the Euro. They gave up their sovereignty and their own currency. So Holland do have to collect taxes or borrow Euros to fund the Dutch government. They can no longer ISSUE their own currency.

        That is the HUGE difference between Holland and the UK, US, Canada , New Zealand, Australia, Japan etc who have their own sovereign currencies. These countries ISSUE their own currencies.

        Any questions Sam ?

        So I can help to clarify it for you ?

        Liked by 1 person

      4. It has worked that way for hundreds of years Sam.

        They used to just burn the taxes that were collected

        https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/debt-free-money-part-4-american-colonial-currency.html

        Now if taxes are paid in cash they shred it. You can actually buy shredded money. Or if taxes are paid electronically they end up in the UK Consolidated fund..Which is reset to zero every night of the week. So digitally shredded.

        As you can see here

        And here

        An Accounting Model of the UK Exchequer – 2nd edition

        I’ve studied, the government accounts, the central bank accounts and commercial bank accounts for 20 years. That is how it works.

        I suggest you read the deficit myth by Stephanie Kelton an international best seller. Puts it in layman terms so a 10 year old can understand it.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. The real issue comes down to what ‘representation in the UK Parliament’ is supposed to mean.

      I see that as the ability of both sets of MPs to promote and defend the interests of their respective kingdoms in their shared parliament. Currently, that obviously only applies to England’s representation, and almost never to Scotland’s.

      England’s ability to overrule Scotland on the merest whim on a numeric basis that has nothing whatsoever to do with sovereignty, constitutions, or even democracy fundamentally destroys the whole point of Scotland being ‘represented’ in the first place.

      Which, if any, of the Lords of the committee mentioned that point? I spent this morning reading all of their speeches; Not a one! And only Lord Hope of Craighead tackled the question of what ‘representation’ meant;

      “In the context of the work of the legislature it is the representation of the people of Scotland as a whole that is in issue —of their rights, interests and aspirations.”

      But his only aim, however, was to decide if peers could be deemed to represent Scotland rather than just Scotland’s peerage, since that was the job in hand. He made it clear that it was only Scotland’s MPs in the Commons that actually represented Scotland in the parliament.

      The word ‘adequate’ in relation to Scotland’s representation appeared a lot in the commentary, and they agreed that it was an essential requirement for the Treaty not to be breached, but no-one questioned whether that ‘adequacy’ was actually achieved in the House of Commons.

      In my view, that adequacy has never been met, and brings only hollow laughter!

      Liked by 6 people

  19. Let’s face it what can they do if we decided to issue our own paper Alba tax credits ? Our own currency ? Become independent by proxy ?

    Send the army in ?

    Well that would be a win, win for us for a thousand different reasons. Exposes the myths and lies they have told regarding a Scottish currency over the last decade. It will turn even more Scots against them.

    It is a complete no brainer, let’s get on with it.

    Liked by 6 people

  20. I think we have to remember though – England has NO sovereignty. Not legally. Remember England gets it’s sovereignty through the crown. ALSO remember – Cromwell declared England a REPUBLIC and the Act that he had put through Parliament has never been repealed. When Cromwell Jr died, English Parliament simply invited Charles II back home & continued as a monarchy, totally ignoring the period of Cromwell. However, if that Act has not been repealed & it seems not, then England is, to all intents & purposes, still a Republic. They have NO monarch. The Right Charlie is a PRETENDER. Soooo… where does the country of England draw its sovereignty from? Where does UK’s WM draw its sovereignty from? From their own heads… from deceiving their colonies into believing they have the RIGHT to tell everyone else what to do. They don’t.

    They underpin those Laws/Bills/Acts they make and sign, through the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta. How did that happen? The BoR & MC underpin ENGLISH laws & policy. They do NOT underpin Scottish laws. Our laws etc are underpinned by the Declaration of Arbroath, the Claim of Right & a few other Bills… The ToU states quite clearly that both Scotland and England have separate law systems & judiciaries. So what on earth happened & why on earth have we found ourselves getting in knots & kow-towing to WM Bills that have no relevance to Scotland?? We would have every right to say, ‘No! We’re not interested in your Internal Market Bill. ON YOUR BIKES!’ and that would be an end of it! So what happened?? At the beginning of devolution, we had unionist parties in power & obviously they did NOT want to rock their boats. So they kept quiet, never questioned. But with SNP going into power, why was all this not checked, worked on and acted on? Well… sometimes really obvious answers to questions are so simple, so in front of us, we miss them altogether. We doubt its as simple as it looks and we do nothing in case we look stupid. WM continues to deceive in such a powerful way, we doubt the answer could be so simple. So it’s never brought to mind or deed & England always wins. WM always wins. The tories always win. And nice, ‘don’t rock the boat, play nice & play fair’ Scotland always loses.

    My point being – if England has no source of sovereignty, how can it make laws & instruct us to accept them? Well it can’t, really, but as Alf so clearly states (THANK YOU, Sir! We’re very obliged to you for power of work you do for Scotland and for us!), we have been subjected & propagandised into believing THEY are sovereign & THEY have the power.

    On the other hand… if England has no source of sovereignty, who IS sovereign? The country with undisputed sovereign power? SCOTLAND?? How would Scots feel about finally being able to turn & say, ‘We’ve come up with this new law & YOU have to accept it. TOUGH BEANS if you don’t like it! Because we are the only country of the two signatories to the ToU that hold any powers. YOU, England, do NOT. And it is OUR time to rule!’ It would be lovely to try that for a change. But I’d be very satisfied if, through Alf’s interpretation of the Articles of the Treaty & thinking about what I’ve said about WM having no sovereign powers to speak of, we could tell WM what to do with their Scotland Act, their ‘reserved powers’ nonsense & their Internal Market Bill. It would be very satisfying to just say, ‘Sorry petal – but as of this moment, the Union is dissolved. Think on’.

    Liked by 10 people

    1. Wow, so many interesting ideas coming up on this forum – Alba tax credits and the suggestion that England has no King! Great to see so many creative suggestions arising from the initial premise that we can be independent by withdrawing our MPs froim Westminster.
      If only our elected representatives could be so bold, However,, there are more of us than there are of them.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. i think this question of adequacy could only be met if, for a Bill to pass in the HoC, there were majorities for it among both Scottish and English MPs. Though I am not convined that, if it came to the crunch and they would be more exposed, the current SNP contingent would not vote in a manner to harm Scotland. How many of them voted for ‘Free Ports?
        As an example of the Scotland/England majorities, I wonder if Bills only passed by the British Government with the help of Northern Irish votes should be allowed!

        Liked by 4 people

      2. On the day Charles Windsor and his wife came to Edinburgh to view the Honours of Scotland I wrote this:

        “I am left wondering which regnal title Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor is using to attend a ceremony in Edinburgh later this afternoon?

        We know that he is not King of Scotland because there has never been such a title and he cannot be King of Scots as he has not taken the Scottish Coronation Oath or upheld the full Claim of Right as specified in the Claim of Right Act 1689.

        So, with no Scottish Regnal position then he has to fall back on either King of the United Kingdom or King of England – well good luck with that! Just as with “King of Scotland”, King of the United Kingdom does not exist as the 2 Crowns were never joined together but they are invested in the same person. Ask yourself why there is a Crown Office in Edinburgh as well as the one in London? If it were a conjoined Crown there would be no need for one of the two offices.

        When I looked into the House of Commons Library a few weeks ago I followed the link there for “The Coronation Oath” and under a subheading of “Previous Changes to the Coronation Oath” it states:

        ‘Technically, any form of the Coronation Oath which does not match the wording set out in the 1688 Act is contrary to law. In practice, however, several changes have been made without amending the original Act.’

        So, even the English Oath is not “Technically” legal. and as no English monarch since the Act of 1688 has taken the correct English Coronation Oath, then England has been interregnum since that date, and that includes Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor.”

        Therefore, if Charles Windsor and all his predecessors as far back as 1688 have been coronated ‘contrary to law’, that has huge repercussions for everything that has taken place since that date.

        Funny that I found that in the House of Commons Library though!

        Liked by 4 people

    2. Parliaments tend not to make huge mistakes like that. Loopholes, small oversights, yes…but not on this scale.
      The following might be applicable. I can’t remember where I saw this first but it always stuck with me.
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indemnity_and_Oblivion_Act 1660.
      The point of the 1660 act was to make the Interregnum a legal black hole. After the restoration, what was considered an illegitimate parliament was held to have no proper authority, so it could be erased legally by a properly constituted parliament etc. etc. All acts passed without royal assent were legally void.
      So as the republican parliament didn’t pass a single act with royal assent, there was nothing to repeal.

      Like

  21. The contents of the web site is simply a series of 40 related pages, with the same pattern, but only the last two digits of the address varying between 01 and 40. The first page is the table of contents from which the others can be found.

    I had no issue with navigating between the pages, but if you do, then possibly simply “right click” on the links from the first page, and choose “open in a new tab”, then click between tabs.

    I suggest that in part you’re misreading this report, I would not get too excited by the contents of the 10810 page. This whole report is in effect a version of an old style appeal to the House of Lords, before the UKSC existed.

    As such 10810 (Appendix 2) is the plaintiff’s case, 10811 (Appendix 3) is the respondents case, and the Judgement is in pages 10805, 10806, 10807 (Opinions of Slynn, Nicholls, Hope). It is to these pages one should be looking for what the HoL agrees is the present situation, and where they may agree with Keen’s submissions.

    Irrespective of what they may have concluded, there are quite a few interesting attachments in the various appendices.

    Anyway, here are the links, and an archive link for each.

    JB

    01 ToC
    01 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10801.htm
    01 https://archive.is/IvdxD

    02 Orders of Reference
    02 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10802.htm
    02 https://archive.is/zfKe1

    03 Minutes of Proceedings
    03 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10803.htm
    03 https://archive.is/lwTPh

    04 REPORT
    04 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10804.htm
    04 https://archive.is/JXjXd

    05 Opinion – LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY
    05 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10805.htm
    05 https://archive.is/1VLha

    06 Opinion – LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD
    06 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10806.htm
    06 https://archive.is/tK72r

    07 Opinion – LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD
    07 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10807.htm
    07 https://archive.is/8zpg7

    08 Opinions – Nodding agreement
    08 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10808.htm
    08 https://archive.is/HyVjC

    09 Appendix 1: Statement of Issues agreed between the Lord Gray and Her Majesty’s Government
    09 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10809.htm
    09 https://archive.is/hA6mO

    10 Appendix 2: Case for the Lord Gray
    10 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10810.htm
    10 https://archive.is/KNS0C

    11 Appendix 3: Case for Her Majesty’s Government
    11 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10811.htm
    11 https://archive.is/MfI5O

    12 Annex 1 – Part 1: UNION WITH SCOTLAND ACT 1706 – Table of Textual Amendments
    12 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10812.htm
    12 https://archive.is/gapSt

    13 Annex 1 – Part 2: UNION WITH ENGLAND ACT 1707 – Table of Textual Amendments
    13 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10813.htm
    13 https://archive.is/Ts3Ln

    14 Annex 2: NUMBERS OF SCOTTISH MPs
    14 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10814.htm
    14 https://archive.is/8rZQS

    Appendix 4: (Documents Appended to the Cases)

    15 Appendix 4(1): House of Lords Bill as brought from the Commons on 17 March 1999 (HL Bill 38)
    15 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10815.htm
    15 https://archive.is/YTNtU

    16 Appendix 4(2): Explanatory Notes to the House of Lords Bill as brought from the Commons on 17 March 1999 (HL Bill 38-EN)
    16 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10816.htm
    16 https://archive.is/eeZzX

    17 Appendix 4(3): House of Lords Bill as amended on Report, ordered to be printed on 1 July 1999 (HL Bill 76)
    17 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10817.htm
    17 https://archive.is/0bECL

    18 Appendix 4(4): Union with England Act 1707
    18 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10818.htm
    18 https://archive.is/kx82s

    19 Appendix 4(5): Union with Scotland Act 1706
    19 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10819.htm
    19 https://archive.is/jleK2

    19 Appendix 4(6): Peerage Act 1963 (c 48)
    20 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10820.htm
    20 https://archive.is/nEmBr

    21 Schedules:
    21 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10821.htm
    21 https://archive.is/kVOYf

    22 Appendix 4(7): Act for a Treaty with England 1705
    22 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10822.htm
    22 https://archive.is/1V8yQ

    23 Appendix 4(8): Union of England and Scotland Act 1704
    23 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10823.htm
    23 https://archive.is/YDUf2

    24 Appendix 4(9): Articles of Union
    24 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10824.htm
    24 https://archive.is/ayofE

    25 Appendix 4(10): Extract from the Proceedings of the Commissioners appointed to Treat for an Union betwixt the Kingdoms of Scotland and England
    25 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10825.htm
    25 https://archive.is/2lzXJ

    26 Appendix 4(11): Minutes of Proceedings of the Parliament of Scotland for 5 December 1706 and 3 January 1707
    26 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10826.htm
    26 https://archive.is/vfncN

    27 Appendix 4(12): Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707
    27 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10827.htm
    27 https://archive.is/MYCoA

    28 Appendix 4(13): Election Act 1707
    28 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10828.htm
    28 https://archive.is/lHaPP

    29 Appendix 4(14): Union with Scotland (Amendment) Act 1707
    29 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10829.htm
    29 https://archive.is/xUnTN

    30 Appendix 4(15): Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1906 (6 Edw 7, c 38)
    30 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10830.htm
    30 https://archive.is/mzAzN

    31 SCHEDULE
    31 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10831.htm
    31 https://archive.is/chsgu

    32 Appendix (4)16: Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1964 (c. 80)
    32 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10832.htm
    32 https://archive.is/VJlS1

    33 Appendix 4(17): Canada Act 1982 (c 11)
    33 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10833.htm
    33 https://archive.is/JlTyk

    34 SCHEDULE (ANNEXE) A
    34 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10834.htm
    34 https://archive.is/GV4Zu

    35 Appendix 4(18): Hansard’s Report of Proceedings in the House of Lords, vol 210 col 1990 (30 April 1872)
    35 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10835.htm
    35 https://archive.is/UC9V8

    36 Appendix 4(19): Hansard’s Report of Proceedings in the House of Lords, vol 214 cols 1738-9 (11 March 1873)
    36 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10836.htm
    36 https://archive.is/XTCLQ

    37 Appendix 4(20): Hansard’s Official Report of Proceedings in the House of Lords, vol 602 cols 885-6 (22 June 1999)
    37 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10837.htm
    37 https://archive.is/QJtuC

    38 Appendix 4(21): Standing Orders of the House of Lords relating to public business (1994) (HL Paper 15), Nos 74-78
    38 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10838.htm
    38 https://archive.is/67kBm

    39 Appendix 4(22): Extracts from the Companion to the Standing Orders and guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords (1994), pp 3, 204, 215
    39 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10839.htm
    39 https://archive.is/zhbT5

    40 Appendix 5: List of authorities cited during the hearing
    40 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10840.htm
    40 https://archive.is/78d8X

    Liked by 2 people

  22. When, if ever, have we been presented with a quality document such as Alf’s, from any of the pro-independence parties? I believe that little will change in that respect, because they and we, appear to be speaking a completely different language regarding independence. The fact must be acknowledged: if we can’t vote in good conscience in any forthcoming election, what then is the point in voting at all? And, given that we’ll get the unionist government that English voters decide to give us: what is so outrageous in the contemplation of a personal, ballot-box boycott? If there was ever a time to put our full weight behind the non-party political approach of Salvo/Liberation, this is surely it.

    Liked by 5 people

  23. One of the things that seems clear to me now. Back in 2014 better together said rUK would still be in EU and Scotland wouldn’t, however reading the findings out forward by Alf it seems that rUK cannot exist without Scotland, once Scotland or England leaves the Union then there is no United Kingdom, where does that leave NI and Wales? If no UK exists how can England continue to exert it’s power over the other devolved nations?

    Liked by 2 people

  24. It all seems so obvious, doesn’t it? Many of us have been saying this for so long now, it seems like a distant, fading echo. Any proper reading of the Treaty of Union, and all the workings around it in 1707, tells you all of this. Eminent Scottish constitutionalists have been saying, too, for ages. Why does no one in the governments actually listen? I don’t know. It can be only that they would lose their privileges if they did listen, if they actually implemented a breaking-away from the Union.

    People in both Scotland and England have been far too ready to believe the nonsense spouted by various Westminster governments, taking for granted that they knew best; then, the same applied to the Holyrood governments. The wee lairdies in the HoL weren’t trying to cook up a new Treaty for no reason, or because, as they said, we need a new, modern constitutional settlement. No, folks, they tried it on because they know perfectly well that we remained, Scotland and England, as two separate states, with the English parliament having been placed into mothballs with our own.

    The UK parliament was only ever going to survive if both parties to the Union (the original one) agreed. Ireland escaped its Union with the UK of GB. Wales was reduced to a principality (but also a nation) that had been conquered. Scotland, although occupied and devoted by wars with England, was never conquered but, also, never tried to break the chains. The time is coming when that is going to change – not because we want to leave the Union, but because we must if Scotland is going to survive till even the middle of this century.

    You can never unknow what you know. The need now is to get all of this, and all of SALVO’s and the other constitutional bodies’ hard work, out there and into the public domain, into every village and town and city. We are not imprisoned in the Chateau D’If. Many of us only think we are and have become institutionalized.

    Liked by 5 people

  25. I have a question .
    When the SNP had 56 of 59 MPs and there were 1 each of Tory Labour and Lib Dem assuming that the SNP had had the balls to withdraw what would stop the UK from saying that Scotland still had 3 MPs across party lines and refusing as Scotland was still represented? The treaty dies not state the representation numerically only that Scotland should be represented .

    Like

    1. The Treaty did state numbers for Scotland’s representation; 45 MPs and 16 lords, but for England’s representation it just said their existing numbers wouldn’t change.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Xaracen, that is correct as far as numbers are concerned, however the point about the representation of England and Wales not having changed creates a problem for historians who continue to state that when the 45 Scots took their places in the House of Commons it was the “First Parliament of Great Britain”.

        The parliament that they joined began in 1705 and at that time English parliaments sat for 3-year terms. The parliament that began in 1705 was The Second English Parliament of Queen Anne, however, as they sat for a 3-year term, there were no elections for the English MPs until 1708. Therefore, rather than a new First Parliament of Great Britain, the 45 MPs from Scotland were simply co-opted into that Second English Parliament of Queen Anne.

        Whatever, that parliament is called, nothing changed for England but everything in Scotland changed. As has always been the case, everything is tailored to the needs of England.

        For example:

        The Scottish currency was changed to English currency.

        Our ancient method of calculating weights and measures were replaced by the English system.

        Despite it being guaranteed by Article 16 of the Treaty, the Scottish Mint was closed in 1709.

        Liked by 3 people

      1. Yes… but why are they not doing this… and why is Hollyrood’s MSP’s not actually suggesting this be the case… as they represent Scotland in Scotland… and yet the failure of the SNP to actually take a stand is a betrayal of those who voted for the SNP thinking they were the best bet to gain Indy…. NOW… not in some blue sky future where all the legalised T’s crossed… . and as simple as I am …. all the legal jargon of ALL the century old treaties amount to less than a hill of beans as the English parliament are NEVER going to agree to Scotland leaving… it would be economic suicide for them and they know this….
        So I am sorry if I am blindly ignoring all the legal entities… all the hand wringing over what money/tax credits would be used… which didn’t seem to be any great hassle when Quantitive Easing was rolled out almost overnight by the English Gov. and that has still not covered the £2.5 TRILLION debt that the Uk now enjoys… but it is a fact that Scots are now suffering a collapse of financial standing… we are getting poorer… our infrastructure is desperate… yet money seems to be widely available south of the border… for the likes of £10 Billion on the Lower Thames Road crossing.. or the £2 Billion for a tunnel adjacent to Stonehenge… or the £227 Million to allow Anglican Water to relocate their perfectly adequate sewage works in Cambs.etc etc etc… with HS2 thrown away at huge cost.. or Millions given in bribes to Rwanda…
        I just am so disappointed in the lack of spirit amongst this crew of phantom Indy aligned MSP’s to actually just walk… and then take a stand on whatever the English gov throws at them… Like did Romania know exactly how to play it when the uprising got rid of their despots?….. did Catalonia MP’s? show the same caution that our Hollywood crew shelter behind.. and England and its appeasers will always try to throw some ancient time delaying legal proclamation in our face… and if the world suddenly decides to make Scotland a leper because we NEED our freedom.. then too bad for them… as all the talk about economic sanctions have not brought Russia or Nth Korea to their knees.. as we Scots have got to take a stand… before it all becomes pointless… and how many countries would actually fail to support a people who are governed by another.
        Rather than legal text… I suggest people read ” The American Declaration of Independence ” as the colonists had wanted laws passed that were usurped by their colonial master in the exact same way as Hollywood is hampered now.

        Liked by 4 people

  26. Great work Alf. At last something to cheer about. We must make the SNP go along with this or as the people are sovereign, we sack them, and install people like Alf, Sara and Iain to take this forward.

    Liked by 5 people

  27. Any talent on here to format a leaflet? Here are a few pointers:

    “Lord’ Cameron is indignant that FM Yousef met foreign politicians without the presence of a UK Foreign Office official.Is this FO attendance applicable to all UK politician and business representatives, all the way to the “Prime” Minister? And, eh,Lady Mone?

    “Lord” Cameron threatens to deny Scottish officials access to UK embassies if there is a recurrence of the this non-chaperoned FO practise by Scottish representatives.Are UK embassies solely funded by England\, such that this “Lord”/England is empowered to impose such a withdrawal of access?

    Why did “Lord” Cameron write to Angus Robertson, who is subordinate to FM Yousef? A receptive ear? An insult?

    FM Yousef in explanation, adds that Scotland has been continuously successful in bringing international investment due to Scot Gov’t efforts in foreign discussions – who knew, SNP – how about communicating your successes.
    And so denial of UK embassies arguably would have a detrimental effect on Scotland’s economic development – so “Lord” Cameron can punish Scotland economically? – if so minded – the terminology of our esteemed Scottish Secretary Mr Jack- our defender – on legal fees being charged to the Scottish gov’t.

    Seems so much like the colonial straight jacket that Alf Baird describes.

    I certainly would chip in to help fund a leaflet to stir our nation’s awareness of the above since I don’t expect the SNP to anything at all.

    Liked by 4 people

  28. Excellent article – thanks for this!
    This does provide an ugly and sinister underbelly to Sturgeon bringing the Scottish legal system into such disrepute there may be popular, sovereign support for getting rid of it – accident or design? The puppet FM or puppet master? Either way, the legal system needs to stand up and show its worth and political independence now more than ever.

    Liked by 6 people

Comments are closed.