THE ROAD TO LIBERATION

Posted byiainlawson27Posted inUncategorized

The Road to Liberation Expanded from a reply on YFS 17.3.24
S. Salyers
Alf Baird began explaining Scotland’s colonial status more than a decade ago. He was almost completely ignored and so, therefore, were the implications for Scotland’s struggle for self-determination – disastrously as we can now see. Independence is either a matter of negotiation between two parties or it is a struggle for decolonisation. It cannot be both.
In the latter case, the coloniser will offer the colonised no legitimate exit, indeed, will block every possible route by every means available to it. If, therefore, Scotland is a colony rather than a partner then every effort expended by politicians to ‘force’ the colonising state to negotiate, to compromise, to recognise a democratic mandate, and every popular strategy, every demonstration, march or petition to that end, is futile. It becomes an exercise in exhaustion, consuming the time, energy, resources, hope, motivation and very life of an independence movement in vain. And here we are today, our movement exhausted, divided and demoralised, testimony to the inevitable outcome of a nation trying to bargain, demand or petition its way out of a colonial prison.
When some of us grasped Alf’s analysis and responded by launching a Liberation Movement we were also, largely, ignored. The proposition underpinning Liberation Scotland, however, that Scotland is not a partner in a union but a colony, met with derision, dismissal, even fury … from our own political establishment. (Colonised minds reject the evidence of their own subjugation, as we know.) These days, which is to say just over a year later, recognition of Scotland’s colonial position is widespread and spreading wider. And the lofty, sometimes savage rejection of our ‘wiser and betters’ in the political arena is noticeably muted. A case, I suspect, not of any true course correction but of the potential vote-loss factor in offending a significant number of voters by continuing to say publicly what is thought in private. But why do they continue to hold to a view so easily confirmed or contradicted by scrutiny of the arguments and evidence, especially When the implications for our route to independence are so crucial?


Alf explains it best but my own summary is this: Frist, colonised establishments unconsciously and, intrinsically, measure their own validity and authority by the standards of the coloniser. To brand the coloniser as a coloniser is, therefore, to devalue the colonised establishment Then, there is the unacknowledged awareness that if the political system is one of colonisation then the members of the establishment have been part of a colonial administration: if our democracy is fatally compromised by an ongoing colonisation, so are they. Decolonisation also undermines the status quo, threatening the comfortable privilege of the political elite. In place of decolonisation, therefore, the colonised, political mind imagines independence only as a freer and more extensive version of the present system. Theirs is an independence involving the same power structure with the difference that it is no longer limited and controlled by the larger, British state.

The freedom of the political elite becomes Scotland’s freedom. The right of elected representatives to do what is best for Scotland, as they see it, becomes synonymous with the right of Scots to decide what is best for Scotland. It would not occur to such colonised minds that their own independence from Westminster is not synonymous with the freedom of Scotland or that their own power to decide what is right for Scotland is not synonymous with the right of Scotland’s people to make their own choices.


Power in this future Scotland would remain, just as it is now, the power of state apparatus over the people – certainly not of the people over the apparatus of the state. With a minimum of semantic sleight of hand, the popular sovereignty to which most Scottish politicians pay lip service elides into parliamentary sovereignty to be satisfied by the current, electoral system. No need for greater public participation and democracy or for accountability in place of protected privilege.


Thus our own political establishment is an obstacle to independence not only because it will insist, is insisting, on trying to negotiate an escape from a kidnapper but because it is waiting in the wings to colonise Scotland all over again. We will have a new, English style constitution authorizing all that has gone before: Special Economic Zones, the Hate Crime Act, a Gender Recognition Act, jury-less trials, government corruption, unaccountable ministers, quangos and committees, corporate decision making, all without any mechanism by which to object, let alone mount a challenge. And we will be offered, again, the pretence that the choice of a different flavour of autocrat every five years means that the people are sovereign, at least for 24 hours.


If independence is to make any meaningful difference to the ordinary people of Scotland it must be true decolonisation. It must deliver us from the political power structures and conventions of the coloniser. It must reinstate the political and territorial sovereignty of the people and restore the core values of the Scottish constitution. And it must do this in the teeth of opposition from a Scottish political establishment which will defend its power base against the gears and levers of practical, popular sovereignty as ferociously as the British English state defends its grip on the colonial cash cow of Scotland.


This is why the route to decolonisation/independence matters so much. By using our inalienable, constitutional rights to build a route to independence, Liberation Scotland hopes to ensure that the act of achieving independence also restores our constitutional identity, setting the people of Scotland above their governments and setting their interests and welfare at the heart of public policy and above the profit margins of corporations. Because if real restoration of our rights and liberties, if a Scottish political revolution does not underpin the route to liberation for Scotland, there will be no true liberation at all.

MY COMMENTS

This is an expanded article by Sara to her earlier comment which I have already posted.

I am, as always

YOURS FOR SCOTLAND

21 thoughts on “THE ROAD TO LIBERATION”

  1. Which route will revive our independence? Begging for another

    referendum? Like the last one where voting forms were manipulated?

    I do not think so. The only feasible route is to elect independent independents to Westminster, and not political party hacks who will find continuing salary, expenses and perks too comforting to give up. If there are enough they then don’t go to Westminster but to our Parliament Hall. They then vote to secede.

    Liked by 10 people

    1. Well we have some thoughts on that potentially feasible route but it all comes back to our status in international law. Once that’s clearly established there are options on the table again, including electing a majority of MP’s who will withdraw from Westminster. That said, let’s make sure the ‘form of government’ we chose is one that genuinely suits our needs and not one we are stuck with. Post independence, if we have not put in the mechanisms for popular sovereignty there will be *no* mechanisms with which to demand it – just as there are no mechanisms right now.

      Liked by 19 people

      1. What about when Salvo shows Scots that England has broken the Treaty of Union on multiple occasions and we dissolve the union at our end, I’m sure even the international community would be sympathetic once its shown that England has deceived Scots for a long time, in my opinion we should then be able to just dissolve the union without a nationwide vote which would surely be open to widespread abuse.

        The problems I foresee are informing enough Scots that England has broken the Treaty to amke a big difference and our very own Holyrood parliament which is stuffed to the gunnels with unionists.

        Liked by 11 people

  2. Surely if the MPs withdrew, they could re-constitute the Parliament of Scotland somewhere in Edinburgh? Since AFAIK it was never abolished.

    Now if those MPs want a symbolic trigger event, one should watch what happens with the “Safety of Rwanda” Bill.

    If it comes back to the Commons with the ouster clause still present, so affective the rights and privileges of the Court of Session, that (if it was to be passed) could be viewed as a major violation of the Treaty of Union.

    Hence justification to act. A that point (re-establishing PoS) the cat would be well and truly out of the bag, and we’d have to see what would develop.

    However, the SNP MPs enjoy their gravy too much, so they’d not so act, and would consent to the Session being reduced to an English Crown Court.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. If you want your post to appear on this site you must temper your language. Calling people liars and charlatans is unacceptable language, anymore of it and you will be blocked and denied access to the site. We are adults and we debate in a polite and respectful manner or not at all.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. What happened to the other two comments?

    There is a count to 5 comments recorded, but only two displayed.

    One of the missing ones being the bloke referring to Sara in disparaging terms.

    The other mine where I mentioned that the current batch of MPs could use the pending passage of the “Safety of Rwanda” Bill to justify withdrawing from Westminster before it is passed, and reestablishing the Parliament of Scotland. Since AFAIK it was never abolished, just it hasn’t sat.

    Like

  5. @RepublicanScotland The task is to show the UN that Scotland is not a voluntary partner in the creation of a state, (a state which now enjoys the right to protect its sovereign interests), but an annexed nation, a dependency whose rights to self-determination supersede the claims of the annexing state and whose rights to reparations for the plunder of our resources remain to be addressed. Under those conditions, a democratic event will remain necessary but it will be have to be one that terminates the ‘partnership agreement’, Treaty and Act of Union, as void under its own terms and conditions.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Thank You Sarah for the reply, but what if the UN doesn’t rule what you want them to, I mean the UN is fickle look at Gaza and Assange there’s much reticence to do anything meaningful with both in mind, and lets not forget that realpolitik is at play here, Westminster has much power within the UN, we have very little if any.

      So a Plan B might be a wise move, my plan in my comment to you might be seen as radical but it might come down to that if you get no satisfaction from the UN, which I hope you do.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Luckily it is not a matter of a ruling – that comes with the case for reparations and rights. But it is certainly possible the C-24 Committee will not agree to list Scotland for decolonisation. In that case it will be a matter of gathering support from countries who agree that we are clearly a dependency and are entitled to exercise our right to self-determination under the UN Charter. With that in place we can do a great deal at home if there is any political will at all and much more if, say, a bloc of independent MSP’s can force a referendum, not on independence but on the right to binding referendums (an expression of popular sovereignty) in Scotland. Shift the locus of power to the people, as it is supposed to be under the terms of this fraudulent union, get international recognition for that shift, (not hard), and you open the door to a constitutional referendum under international supervisions and according to international standards, including the New Caledonia franchise. Easy? Hardly. Possible, absolutely and we are getting started now.

        Liked by 3 people

  6. “No body has the right or interest to intervene on what is an internal UK matter.” Well now, let’s see where to begin. I’ll ignore all the childish vitriol against Sara for the purposes of this reply and in any case she is more than a match for you, if she even chooses to respond but it really is not worth her valuable time to do so.. 

    That comment would perhaps be true if there were such a body as the “United Kingdom”, but as that is purely wishful thinking that found voice as far back as James VI and a fictional creation reinforced over the past 3 centuries it is easy to prove its non-existence.

    Now, to the “internal UK matter! Even the Westminster government cannot deny that what they portray as the glue that holds together the UK is the Act of Union 1707. However, it may surprise you to learn that there were actually 2 Acts of Union. These 2 Acts were merely ratifications of The Treaty of Union and that is what is important. The Treaty of Union is an international treaty that both parties agreed to for very different reasons.

    Therefore, the “internal UK matter” is no longer for the so-called UK parliament to resolve. Scotland joined England, as we are so often told, as an “equal and voluntary partner”. The Treaty was neither equal, nor was it ever voluntary. For example, at no point since 1707 have our Scots MPs had a Parliamentary Deficit of less than 10 to 1. However, I’ll continue to play the game.

    So, being an “equal and voluntary partner”, we have the equal right to dissolve the “partnership”. However, strange to say, there is no mechanism to allow this to happen that is not under the complete control of the other equal partner in this partnership. Are you getting there yet?

    Oh dear, what can we do? It has been proven a number of times that there nothing we can do that comes within Westminster law that would allow the dissolution of this “equal partnership” without the interference of the much larger “equal partner”. That raises the question “why does our equal partner deserve any say whatsoever in what Scotland decides to do to as far as its constitutional future is concerned?”

    No matter how many times we ask (some would say ‘beg’) for another referendum, we know that will never be allowed by our “equal partner”. You must surely be getting there by now!

    OK, so continuing to play the game, if we concede that Scotland is an “equal and voluntary partner” (which I do not) that has no equal rights and that there is no route to the restoration of self-determination or our independence that is not under the total control of the larger partner, where else can we go to realise those rights to self-determination and independence? Or perhaps you believe that Scotland is the only nation in the world that does not have those rights.

    Let’s see what the UN has to say on the matter. From both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Both of these International Covenants have been signed and ratified by the “United Kingdom and Northern Ireland”.

    Article 1

    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. 
    2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence. 

    “All peoples”, I would assume, (correct me if I’m wrong here) would include Scots.

    Ah, I think I’ve got it now. As we cannot use internal Westminster law, then the only other democratic option would be to use a mechanism not controlled by the Westminster parliament.

    However much you dislike or despise the UN and the ICJ, they are the only other options available to us.

    Our political parties can keep battering their collective heads against the doors of Westminster but the answer will always be the same. In the meantime, the people of Scotland are now learning the truth that shows the annexation of Scotland into an unequal and involuntary union.

    It is people like Sara and so many others in Salvo that are leading in the re-education of our people and that will open their eyes to the truth about our toxic relationship with England masquerading as the UK.

    As so eloquently stated by Wolfgang Danspeckgruber the concept of self-determination is a very powerful one.

    “No other concept is as powerful, visceral, emotional, unruly, as steeped in creating aspirations and hopes as self-determination.”

    I hope that the above helps you understand the true situation – but I hae ma doots!

    Liked by 7 people

  8. The Treaty of Union is an International Treaty between two sovereign nations. There is no future for Independence if it is reliant on UK Domestic law or as it really is English law.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I notice you make no attempt to explain the UN decolonisation Committee if they can never assist decolonisation. You may also recall Winnie Ewing’s words when she opened the Scottish Parliament when she stated “the Scottish Parliament adjourned in 1707 is hereby reconvened”

    Like

  10. You are not privy to our plan and while I understand why you think the way you do I think our expected plan has the ability to create considerable progress for Scotland. Only time will prove who is correct in this matter.

    Like

  11. Please quote me the part of the Treaty that creates a territorial union. We are told we joined a political and economic union, not a territorial one. Witness that Scotland has its own Crown Office. We would not need such an arrangement if we were in a territorial union. Neither are we in a voluntary union, the English army were on the border and an English fleet were in the Forth. And of course it is well recorded that widespread bribery was in operation and the ordinary Scots rioted in opposition to the Treaty across the land.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. They also moved the English army in Ireland to be in readiness to cross over to Scotland if required. 

      Scotland’s 45 MPs did not join the 2nd English Parliament of Queen Anne as full members – they were co-opted into that parliament until the English had their elections in 1708 and the first elected parliament of “Great Britain” did not sit until 8 July 1708.

      That was because the English MPs did not want to go to the inconvenience of an election, so they used the English Triennial Act to avoid the nuisance of having to seek re-election until the following year.

      We are constantly being told that we are in an “Equal and Voluntary Partnership”. It has never been either equal nor was it voluntary. At no time have the Scottish MPs ever had a Parliamentary Deficit of less than 10 to 1.

      As Iain has mentioned, nowhere does it state that Scotland entered a territorial partnership and the proof lies in the fact that the 2 Crowns of both Scotland and England still exist in law. The Crown Estate that covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, sends its annual profits to the UK Treasury and they allocate the amount they give to the monarch (The Sovereign Grant).

      However, Crown Estate Scotland is quite different because the annual profits go to the Scottish Government. As proof, here is a direct quote from Crown Estate Scotland website “Crown Estate Scotland’s net profit from managing the Scottish Crown Estate is not linked to the Monarch or the Sovereign Grant.

      All net profit generated by Crown Estate Scotland is passed to the Scottish Government for public spending.

      This is different to The Crown Estate which returns all its net profit to HM Treasury.”

      It cannot make it more plain than that. The Sovereign in Scotland is NOT the monarch, the profits from the Crown Estate here goes to the Scottish Government for the benefit of the people – The Community of the Realm.

      This proves the lie that there is such a title as the UK Crown – the 2 Crowns that have very different functions are still recognised in law, because much as every King or Queen since James VI wanted a joining of the Crowns it is impossible to reconcile the two because they don’t own the Scottish Crown. The 2 Crowns have been vested in the same individual since 1603 but King or Queen of Great Britain and later of the United Kingdom is a fiction that has been thrust down the throats of generations of Scots until they actually believe it is true.

      The farce that was played out in St. Giles Cathedral on 5th July 2023 where Charles Windsor and his wife were “presented with the Honours of Scotland” was not a coronation and could not have been as he has not taken the Scottish Coronation Oath in full. ”The Palace” was very wary of having the “presentation” look anything like a coronation as that would have confirmed the fact that the 2 Crowns still exist and are completely separate entities.

      Whoever was sitting on the throne in London from 1603 could make as many proclamations as they wished but they did not have the authority to transfer the Scottish Crown (The Community of the Realm) to either England or whatever they called it after 1st May 1707.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. My first observation is that you are repeating typical English unionist tropes, suggesting that you have bought into England’s self-serving view of the Union, a view that simply doesn’t reflect the formal constitutional basis of the Union. The UK’s English establishment isn’t remotely interested in the rule of law when it doesn’t suit it, and there are centuries of evidence to back that up all across the world.

    In relation to Scotland as a sovereign kingdom in its own right as a full half of the UK’s two sovereign kingdoms, that doesn’t suit the UK’s English establishment at all. It has never bothered to respect Scotland’s sovereignty as represented exclusively by Scotland’s MPs, nor its territorial integrity, nor has it bothered to respect the Treaty obligation that guarantees the continuing authority of Scotland’s constitution.

    But there is no such guarantee for England’s constitution, so your ‘UK constitutional law’ is, well, what, exactly? It certainly can’t stand on its legal or moral authority if it doesn’t bother to live up to its own legal and constitutional obligations, now, can it?

    As for ‘(The Treaty) is a mechanism by which two sovereign states were merged into one’, that is simply English establishment bollocks, excuse my Klatchian.
    The two sovereign kingdoms are still distinct entities in law. The sole actual merger was the joining together of the MPs of the two parliaments, implemented simply by putting both bodies into one shared parliament to negotiate jointly the daily governance of their two kingdoms for their mutual benefit. And even that merger was badly flawed because of English establishment arrogance and malice.

    The territories couldn’t merge because of their different sovereign ownerships.
    The monarchies couldn’t merge beyond the familial heritances of 1603 because of irreconcilable differences in the sovereignties and constitutions they are bound by.
    The constitutions couldn’t merge because of Scotland’s Treaty guarantee of its constitutional distinctiveness, not to mention their own inherent irreconcilable incompatibilities.
    The legal and justice systems couldn’t merge either for similar reasons.
    The populations remain distinct, too, as Scotland’s owns the sovereignty of their kingdom, while England’s owns no sovereignty at all.

    The UK only looks like one nation from the perspective of the rest of the world, but that is only a face of convenience, stemming from the fact that they can only deal with the UK’s government and its institutions. Internally, its unitary nature has no provenance at all.

    The ‘UK constitution’ cannot justify on any constitutional, legal, or legitimate democratic grounds the subjugation of Scotland’s sovereignty to that of England as exerted by England’s MPs, who literally own no formal authority over Scotland or her MPs at all, because nothing in the Treaty provided it to them. Thus England’s MPs are not entitled to outvote overrule Scotland’s MPs on any matter in the Union’s parliament.

    “The entity that signed it on Scotland’s behalf ceased to exist upon signature.”

    As did the entity that signed it on England’s behalf. So what?

    Arguably, neither former parliament ceased to exist, since the key working elements of both continued to work jointly in Westminster, doing together exactly what they had already been doing separately for centuries. Also, from Appendix 2 Case for the Lord Gray, re whether restricting hereditary lords from attending Parliament would breach the Treaty of Union;

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

    And as long as they are, so are their distinct sovereignties and constitutions!

    So, it appears that no entity ceased to exist on signing the Treaty.

    More than that, though, it is a nonsense that however badly the English half of the Union breaches its founding Treaty’s terms, Scotland is to be bound to it in a way that England is obviously not. There can be no formal justification for this stance. You are simply wrong, and we won’t accept it. Treaties broken by one party lose their authority over other parties, becoming null and void. You should know this already.

    Nothing legally or constitutionally justifies England’s selfish and abusive domination over Scotland. Don’t bother trying to pretend that democracy mandates it, it doesn’t in the slightest, both because sovereignty precludes it, and the Westminster system is doing its voting all wrong anyway, for no better reason than that it monstrously leverages England’s sovereignty to the severe detriment of Scotland’s.

    The UN Security Council is itself an abomination in the ‘democratic’ sense of the community of nations the UN is supposed to represent. It operates solely on ‘might is right’, because, just like the English establishment that helped create it, it doesn’t tolerate challenges to its power, legitimate or otherwise. It therefore doesn’t deserve the respect it demands, just like the English establishment.

    You are claiming that Scotland’s independence has to be resolved internally through UK constitutional law as any other route is, by your definition, illegal. Wrong, the UK’s ‘constitutional law’ was constructed to protect and enhance England’s dominance in its Union, so is itself a major part of the problem.

    But legality is not an official requirement for a declaration of independence to be accepted by the rest of the world, including by the UN’s own ICJ. It was the UK government itself that submitted that little titbit. Maybe you should look that up.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You are a conceited arrogant man with an insulting and intolerant manner. Your “superiority” limits your ability to debate because statements like “I am tired making arguments” “ trying to educate Sara” are intentionally combative and rude. It has no place on this blog.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. You have got one thing right – New Caledonia is not an independent country.

    What you did not mention was that within the space of 4 years (2018, 2020 and 2021) New Caledonia had 3 referendums on the matter of their independence. So much for “once in a generation”.

    The final referendum was run with a UN designed franchise that removed 17% of the previous electorate mainly because they had no real connection to New Caledonia other than being a recent resident. 

    However, what you don’t say is why France won that referendum. The turnout was just over 40% because the indigenous Kanaks and the Socialist Liberation Front called for a Boycott. The reason why is because the COVID pandemic had disproportionally impacted on the indigenous Kanak and Pasifika communities and the vote would be artificially skewed in favour of France.

    However, the fact that the UN franchise was used proves that the UN does have authority over independence referendums. Of course, France could just ignore the UN, just as the Westminster government is ignoring Scotland’s right to self-determination. However, Scotland’s return to self-determination and independence was always going to be bitterly opposed by our oppressors because England as Britain simply cannot afford Scottish independence.

    If you saw the news at 6.00pm you will have seen a map produced by the National Grid that illustrated how much Westminster government relies on Scotland’s natural energy resources to keep the lights on and how much cabling will be required to take that energy south in the coming years.

    Had England been able to afford Scottish independence, we would not be talking about this now because they would have cut us loose decades ago.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.