Fictional Kingdom, Fraudulent State

This is an exceptional article from Sara Salyers. It is a long read, Sara suggested in might need to be presented, for that reason, in two separate articles. I considered that but reading it through I think something would be lost if it was divided, with a delay in between. This is powerful stuff, as readers read it through it spells out EXACTLY why the Union is so vulnerable to the Salvo/ LIBERATION attacks. They are backed up with documented FACT. It is those who maintain the fraud who are left exposed to defend their undocumented case which is revealed for the huge lie it is.

Fictional Kingdom, Fraudulent State

S. Salyers

Introduction – Restoring Scotland’s True Status

There is a fallacy known as an ‘ad hominem’ argument. It means that instead of answering the facts or reasoning of an argument, an opponent argues that the person presenting them is untrustworthy: ‘If he says, it can’t be true.’ It works just as well in reverse. For example, doctors advocating tobacco for health, as when the tobacco industry co-opted doctors in the 1930’s to promote its products, are far more convincing than a tiny number of ‘alarmists’ claiming that smoking kills. For years, the research – irrefutable evidence proving that the dissidents were right about the dangers of smoking – could not break through the solid wall of ’trust me I’m a doctor’ propaganda. Until, of course, real medical opinion did.

Suppose that Scotland’s right to self-determination depended on breaking the hold of a similarly solid and even more well-established wall of expert opinion? But not merely a wall of credible opinion, an impregnable fortress of propaganda-as-truth from which the message goes out that Scotland is the beneficiary of a fair and honourable Union, in a partnership we agreed to. This is the narrative of the union as voluntary partnership – ‘the Official Narrative’. 

The strength of the Official Narrative is twofold. First, is its apparent foundation on historical and legal ‘fact’. Second, its building blocks are enormous – parliamentary statutes, official commentaries, legal opinions, court rulings, articles by historians and jurists and, most of all, the unquestioning public acceptance of the Official Narrative.

There is one weakness in the edifice, however; the entire foundation, the historical and legal fact that supports it, is a fiction. Most importantly, it is a fiction that disguises a crime, something classed in international law as ‘the wrongful act of a state’. And this is not merely a wrongful act committed 300 years ago but a crime that is being committed at this very moment and whose exposure has the potential to demolish the foundations of the UK state. 

The Architecture of the Official Narrative

Almost any source on the subject will provide the Official Narrative. This is from the National Library of Scotland and tells us that after the Treaty of Union in 1707:

Scotland kept its independence with respect to its legal and religious systems, but coinage, taxation, sovereignty, trade, parliament and flag became one. The red cross of St. George combined with the blue cross of St. Andrew resulting in the ‘old’ union flag. (National Library of Scotland, ‘Documenting the Union of Parliaments, retrieved Oct 2023.)

The important word here is ‘sovereignty’. The transfer of the sovereignty of the nation of Scotland to the newly created United Kingdom did not happen because a Queen decided she would like it, had it put into a treaty and got it ratified by two Parliaments. Only an absolute ruler could have done so and Anne was not an absolute ruler in either England or Scotland. Nor, in Scotland, was the Parliament. There had to be a precise and lawful mechanism for transferring national sovereignty to the new ‘kingdom’, so allowing the primary purpose of the Treaty of Union to be realised:

That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain, and that the Ensigns Armorial of the said united Kingdom, be such as her Majesty shall appoint; and the Crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such a manner as her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards, and Ensigns, both at Sea and Land.

(Act ratifying and approving the treaty of union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England, Article 1) 

But what, exactly was that mechanism? In October of 2022, the Scottish Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, (arguing on behalf of the Scottish government on the right to conduct an opinion poll on independence), repeated the Official Narrative of the ‘United Kingdom’ to the UK Supreme Court:

The Kingdoms of Scotland and England ceased to exist following the Union and were replaced by the Kingdom of Great Britain. (Lord Advocate’s submission to the Supreme Court October 2022 pp 35)

“It is a peculiarity that the Scotland Act refers to the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. Those states no longer exist, having been replaced by the United Kingdom… Nothing turns on the peculiarity. The union is a full political and economic union between what were two previously independent countries.” (Lord Advocate’s oral submission to the Supreme Court of the UK)

How this was accomplished, beyond the wording of the Treaty and Acts of Union, she did not say and no one asked. Why would they when everyone ‘knows’ how the United Kingdom is constituted? In any case, why does it matter? Bain, we understand, was merely supplying a bit of historical context, even if it’s one that favours the powers of the Anglo-British state over the rights of the nation of Scotland. It matters because the definition of the UK as ‘one kingdom’, is much more than a bit of context. It is pivotal to the locus of sovereignty in the ‘United Kingdom’, to the constitutional and political rights of the Scottish people and to the legitimacy, the authority of the British state in Scotland. To understand this is to understand the scope and nature of the crime that was and is being committed against Scotland. 

To begin with, it is important to understand what is meant by the two words: ‘kingdom’ and ‘Crown’ and the relationship between them:

The word kingdom comes from the Anglo-Saxon, ‘cyningdom’. This is a composite of the words, cyning, (king or ruler), and dom, (judgment or statute). ‘Dom’ came to mean an area of jurisdiction or a realm. A ‘cyningdom’ or kingdom, then, is the area of jurisdiction, or the realm, of a ruler. 

Crown: This is not just a ceremonial headdress worn by the monarch.From the Roman ‘corona’, (a garland for a victor in sports or war), it symbolises not just the head, but what sits above it, over the entire body. It represents the constitutional institution of the Crown wherein lies the sovereignty, the authority, legislative, judicial and territorial, of the ruler. The Crown as an institution, (varying in character from nation to nation), continues while monarchs change – die, abdicate or are replaced. It continues even without a monarch, even with ‘an empty throne’.

The Crown, therefore, is the sovereign jurisdiction of the ruler; the kingdom is the realm over which the ruler has jurisdiction. And here is what is most important for the ‘Official Narrative’ of the Union: There cannot be one without the other.

Annexation and the Union that Never Was

In England, from 1066 the Crown was the monarch, (the person who was crowned), and the monarch was sovereign, the ruler. In 1689, the sovereignty of the English Crown was largely transferred from the monarch to the Parliament through the Bill of Rights. At that point, the sovereign authority of England became ‘the Crown in Parliament’, with the confusing ambiguity that, to this day, the monarch continues to embody and represent the sovereignty of the state. Essentially, however, Westminster rules in England and this is what is meant by parliamentary sovereignty.

In Scotland, the final and absolute authority was and remains the people. The right of the people to choose a monarch, first recorded in 1310 in the Declaration of the Clergy and People, and to remove one, as recorded in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, locates the final authority of this nation in the people. The Scottish Crown, the institution which sits above the nation, as a crown sits on the head of a king, means the whole community of the realm. 

In Scotland, any ruling monarch – or government – is ‘licensed’ by the consent of the people and represents rather than embodies the Crown. This is why the Scottish Coronation Oath, or Oath of Accession requires the would-be monarch to swear an oath of fealty to the Crown. This distinct, collective character of our Crown is the root source of Scottish popular sovereignty and the foundation of the entire Scottish constitution. 

To return to the Official Narrative, when, and if, the Scottish Crown was superseded by the UK Crown, (‘one Crown one kingdom’), then the constitutional rights, the ‘Crown rights’, of the Scottish people could no longer apply unconditionally. The old rules for an old Crown and kingdom must be replaced by the new. This is what we have been conditioned to believe took place, the creation of a central and combined locus of sovereignty in the new, single Kingdom of Great Britain. 

Deference to the authority of a UK Crown and Parliament, created by treaty in 1707 and superseding the authority of the former Scottish Crown and Parliament, was the Scottish Lord Advocate’s ‘starting position’, affirming the locus of supreme, political authority in Scotland as defined by the Treaty of Union. But this is where the entire legal structure of the Union wobbles and creaks. Because, notwithstanding the wording of the Treaty and Acts or the official narrative so confidently rehearsed by Dorothy Bain, what the Treaty and Acts say is not what took place. 

The sovereignty of the Scottish Crown, the Scottish people, was – and is -territorial as well as governmental because a kingdom is the property, or jurisdictional territory, of a Crown. Thus the Crown in Scotland ‘owned’ the kingdom of Scotland just as the Crown in England ‘owned’ the kingdom of England. But in England, the Crown meant the monarch while in Scotland, it meant the Community of the Realm, the people. And on this rock the new, unitary kingdom foundered.

Conventional feudal theory and practice was based (in England and elsewhere) on the premise that a kingdom was first and foremost a feudal entity and, in that sense, the property of its king or queen. In Scotland’s feudal system, this situation was radically tempered by the Crown’s status as representative of the Community of the Realm which vested that ‘ownership’ in the sovereignty of the people.

The new, unitary kingdom which would have created the single, state territory of the ‘Kingdom of Great Britain’, as envisaged by the treaty, required the creation of a new and unitary Crown. No territorial union was possible without it. What follows is not intended as an argument against the legitimacy of the ‘UK Crown’. It is not an argument for what should have happened or what could have happened.  It is an explanation of what did happen, or more precisely, what did not happen.

Queen Anne could not, in her constitutional role, put the kingdom of Scotland on the negotiating table to form a new kingdom with that of England. She was, in fact, explicitly prohibited from doing so. Her authority, as Queen of Scots, to negotiate the Treaty of Union depended on her legitimacy as monarch and that was conferred by the oath of Accession:

Wheras King James the Seventh … did assume the Regall power and acted as King without ever taking the oath required by law wherby the King at his access to the government is obliged to swear (Claim of Right Act 1689)

This oath “required by law” simultaneously invested Anne as Queen of Scots and protected the Scottish Crown, preventing her from altering or undermining it in any way:

the Rights and Rents, with all just privileges of the Crown of Scotland, I shall preserve and keep inviolate, neither shall I transfer nor alienate the same

(from the Scottish Oath of Accession 1689)

It is worth noting that, because it is stipulated in the Claim of Right Act, ratified as a condition of the Union itself, the oath of Accession continues to be “required by law” for any legitimate monarch of Scots. This ensures that no monarch had or has the authority to alter or undermine (alienate) the Scottish Crown in which are vested the sovereign rights of the people, the Community of the Realm of Scotland. This is why we can be certain that Queen Anne had no power, (nor had the Scottish Parliament ever pretended to any power),to change the institution passed down from Kenneth McAlpine, to “transfer” the Scottish Crown by merging it with that of another nation, to alter its character or undermine its rights in any way. And if the Crown of Scotland could not merge with that of England, then the kingdoms of England and Scotland could not merge into a single kingdom. Thus, while a single, political and economic state governed by a single, unified Parliament was entirely feasible, what the Treaty of Union envisaged was simply impossible.

No Treaty, No Acts – No Voluntary Partnership

The Treaty says, ‘the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May … for ever after, be united into one Kingdom’. A single kingdom comprises a single territory under a single Crown. The incorporation of the territory Scotland into the territory of a newly created United Kingdom of Great Britain should thus have been automatic. The Official Narrative says, ‘Of course it was automatic!’ and this is what has been represented as constitutional fact, relying on the assertion that what the treaty says is what took place. This is what both the Supreme Court and the Scottish Lord Advocate assumed as ‘given’ in the hearing of October 2022. It is, however, a legal fiction. In fact, the Treaty of Union, ratified by the Acts of Union and which is the sole basis for the creation of the UK state, has never come into effect. 

What took place instead was that Scotland was added to the domains of the English Crown, or as the House of Commons Library has it, the English Coronation Oath was “extended to Scotland.” The English Crown was renamed the Crown of Great Britain, later, (1800), styling itself the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and, finally, the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But no matter what name it has adopted, this is precisely the same English Crown institution as it has been from 1066.

So what happened to the Scottish Crown? Along with the sovereignty it vests in the people of the nation, it remains in place.

Under the articles of Union, Scotland surrendered its independent statehood but continued to be a sovereign nation. The status of Scotland as a stateless nation is fairly unusual internationally and has attracted particular sociological and political study…

Constitutionally, the ultimate ownership of the territory of Scotland as a sovereign nation is vested in the Crown. The territory is synonymous with the Realm of Scotland, while the Crown itself represents the Community of the Realm.

Today, and as they have been for more than 300 years, Scotland’s rights of sovereignty over its territory, vested in our Crown, are arrogated by its self-appointed ‘overlord’, the Crown of England.  Nonetheless, though subordinated to that of England, as the Scottish Crown remains in place so, therefore, does the Scottish kingdom, its territorial borders and its territorial rights. 

Scotland’s rights of sovereignty over its territory are vested in the Crown with its distinct constitutional and legal identity in Scotland under Scots law, compared to the Crown in the rest of the United Kingdom under English law… 

This distinct identity was not affected by the Union of Crowns in 1603 and has continued since the Treaty of Union in 1707, when Scotland ceased to be an independent state but continued to be a sovereign territorial nation

This constitutional ‘reality’ is as important for the territorial rights of the Anglo-British state as for its political authority within Scotland. Without a single kingdom, without the single Crown that would create that ‘one Kingdom’ there was no territorial union. Thus it continues to be the case that:

Crown property rights in Scots law, which are an important part of Scotland’s system of land ownership, are also distinct from Crown property rights in the rest of the UK and belong to Scotland as a sovereign territorial nation.

Yet clearly the ‘UK’ state exercises territorial control over Scotland. It does so while Scotland retains its Crown, remains a separate kingdom and continues to be a ‘sovereign territorial nation’. It does so by right not of a Treaty and not of the Acts of ratification, the Acts of Union, but by the unilateral annexation of Scotland by the English Crown. A voluntary merger of two nations into a new and entirely unified state, is an entirely different proposition from the seizure of one nation by another, as different as a marriage is from a kidnapping. And its implications for Scotland’s rights to self-determination are profound.

Presenting a kidnapping as a marriage ….

In recent history, (though not in the early days of this ‘Union’), Scotland’s status within the Union has been represented both at home and internationally as that of a willing partner in the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain:

Scotland is a nation and voluntarily entered into union with England as a partner and not as a dependency. (Balfour Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs Report 1952-1954, Chapter One, presented to Parliament, July 1954.)

This was a lie in 1952 and it is a lie today. There is no partnership, voluntary or otherwise, without an agreement. There is no agreement between Scotland and England, for abandoning the aim and function of the Treaty and Acts of Union and adopting an alternative course of action: leaving both Crowns and both kingdoms in place and only‘uniting’ them, (in a manner of speaking and in precisely the same way that the other British colonies were ‘united’ with the English Crown), by adding Scotland to the domains listed in the English coronation oath so that England became ‘Crown overlord’ of Scotland.

Annexation is not voluntary. A discarded treaty is not a partnership agreement. ‘A people subject to a foreign sovereignty’ is among the definitions of a dependency, or colony.

The ‘United Kingdom’, as described by the Treaty and Acts of Union and by Scotland’s own Lord Advocate so recently, is a fraud contrived by the Anglo-British state. It was contrived to deflect international attention from Scotland’s position within the UK and to establish the precedence of the rights of the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain over those of the component nation of Scotland. Its most important implication for Scottish independence is that the state created ‘voluntarily’ and by international agreement (Treaty) between England and Scotland represents the expression of Scotland’s self-determination, now realised in a United Kingdom which has a longstanding legal identity and the same rights to security and integrity as any sovereign state.

Under these constitutional constraints and as the co-creator of such a state, Scotland cannot, lawfully, dismantle its own ’voluntary’ creation unilaterally in the same way that parents cannot abandon the child or violate the rights of the child they have co-created. This is the single greatest barrier to Scotland’s exercise of its right to self-determination as guaranteed by the United Nations Charter. But it is a paper barrier constructed from a lie, a lie that represents a fatal weakness in the fortress of the Official Narrative and a lie which has continued to defend that fortress simply because it has never been exposed. 

Knowledge is power. Scots have been kept intentionally ignorant of the legal framework on which the United Kingdom is founded, have been rendered powerless through that ignorance. They have been ‘captured’ by centuries old propaganda which has convinced a nation that it is only with the Westminster government and the UK courts that any remedy exists. Today, however, international laws and agreements which did not exist when Westminster attempted to reclassify Scotland as ‘North Britain’ (1950’s), hold governments to the terms of their treaties and uphold the sovereign rights of nations and peoples.

The truth about Scotland’s annexation, the truth that we are ‘subject to a foreign sovereignty’, the truth that the ‘Crown in Parliament’ is the English Crown in the English Parliament, with an English constitution and a history of colonisation, genocide and plunder in Scotland, the truth that there exists no legal foundation for the state styling itself the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that this state is, in fact, a legal fiction, can set us free today. 

Holding a nation and a people as a dependency, (colony) subject to a foreign sovereignty has become a crime in international law. The rights of a state to its integrity and security take second place to the rights of a people to exercise their self-determination and free themselves from colonisation. Westminster and the Anglo-British state have no say in the processes by which a colonised people may determine their own future, no rights to grant or refuse permission and no part to play in any democratic event Scotland may adopt to end the misery and injustice of our colonised condition. 

Thus the truth of our colonised status is, as they say, the game changer. It cannot automatically free Scotland from this ‘mankitunion’ but it can remove the chains Westminster has forged out of lies that keep us dependent on state permission, something that will never be granted, as a condition of international recognition. And international recognition is what defines any independent state.

It also offers something more than independence. It holds out the hope of restoration for our own, Scottish constitution, the rights and interests of the people-as-Crown, the political, judicial and territorial sovereign, rulers, of this nation. These have been stolen just as disastrously as our physical assets and our people. It also holds out the right to reparations.

Despite the many assertions of the British establishment to the contrary; despite the imposition of English territorial and judicial sovereignty by fiat; and, above all, despite the co-opting and disposal of Scotland’s territorial assets as though these were the assets of a single, United Kingdom, the ownership of Scotland remains vested,not in the person of the monarch or the state, (which acts on the monarch’s behalf), but in the Crown of Scotland, the Community of the Realm, the people. Since no agreement exists by which to transfer this ownership to the foreign, English Crown, every barrel of oil, every litre of gas, every kilowatt of renewable energy and every penny of profit from the sale of these resources has been an act of theft, or in international law, ‘a wrongful act of a state’.

(a) The right to permanent sovereignty is a right to freely use, control and dispose of natural resources. It is permanent and inalienable, inherent in sovereignty and a basic constituent of the right to self-determination.

(b) The right to permanent sovereignty is a right of both States and peoples. While there may be some confusion in certain passages, this conclusion clearly emerges from the resolutions as a whole. It also necessarily follows from the status of permanent sovereignty as a basic constituent of the right of peoples to self-determination. In resolutions 837 (IX), 1314 (XIII), 1803 (XVII) and 2692 (XXV), the General Assembly refers to “peoples and nations”..

(c) The right to permanent sovereignty includes the right of peoples to regain effective control over their natural resources. In resolution 3171 (XXVIII), the General Assembly: “Supports resolutely the efforts of the developing countries and of the peoples of the territories under colonial and racial domination and foreign occupation in their struggle to regain effective control over their natural resources.”

(d) The right to permanent sovereignty also includes, in case of violation, the right to restitution and full compensation. In resolution 3201 (S-VI), paragraph 4 (f), the General Assembly includes the following principle:

“The right of all States, territories and peoples under foreign occupation, alien and colonial domination or apartheid to restitution and full compensation for the exploitation and depletion of, and damages to, the natural resources and all other resources of those States, territories and peoples.” (See to the same effect article 16 of resolution 3281 (XXIX) and paragraph 33 of theLima Declaration endorsed by the General Assembly in resolution 3362 (S-VII)).

“Restitution and full compensation for the exploitation and depletion of, and damages to, the natural resources and all other resources of those States, territories and peoples”… let that sink in. This is what the Anglo-British state has feared all along. This is why the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs was convened in 1952 to reframe Scotland as voluntary co-creator of a ‘partnership’ based state. And this is why the creation of a Liberation Movement with the ability to organise within the United Nations and to make every representative of every member state aware of the criminal fraud of the ‘United Kingdom’ and the true colonised status of Scotland is the next and most crucial of the steps to freedom. 

It is time for all supporters of Scottish independence to understand that independence is another word for decolonisation. But while the term independence may appear to hang on the ‘gold standard’ of Westminster permission, a negotiated agreement between the state and the component nation, decolonisation does not. 

Decolonisation means taking the fight to the coloniser. It means demanding and fighting for the rights we have been denied. It means restoration and reparation. It means justice at last instead of a begging bowl. It means Liberation.

MY COMMENTS

Sara’s article above is hugely important. How should it be used in this General Election? I would suggest pro Indy candidates, armed with this knowledge should accuse their Unionist opponents, of promoting and continuing a fraud that politicians have illegally robbed generations of Scots of our own assets and allowing our foreign neighbour to exercise colonial control, plundering those assets to the enormous detriment of our people. Warn Scots voting for unionists allows this theft to continue stealing the wealth of Scotland from their own children’s mouths into the future. Hard hitting? You bet it is but it can be backed up by documented evidence. It will be the Unionist having to come up with a story to refute the FACTS. I SUGGEST WE WILL FIND OUT WHICH CANDIDATES REALLY ARE PRO INDY and also those who are masquerading as the real thing. Pay attention folks this will tell you who is worthy of your pro Indy vote and it will also highlight the chancers in our midst! No excuses!

I am, as always

YOURS FOR SCOTLAND

BEAT THE CENSORS

Sadly there are still some sites, fewer in number these days, who are intent in censoring posts from bloggers who do not slavishly follow the policies of one political party. They are opponents of the basic human right of Free Speech. Fortunately my readers can confound the censors by liking and sharing my articles as widely as they can. My sincere thanks to all that do.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

The most reliable way to receive future articles from this site is to take out a free subscription and join the thousands who have already done so. They are available on both the Home and Blog pages of this site. You will be very welcome.

SALVO AND LIBERATION

Both these organisations are doing very valuable work and are carrying out very worthwhile research and building the International case to win our freedom. They are also leading the fight to expose the Freeport’s ruse as the latest method to plunder our country’s resources. Please join at Salvo.Scot and Liberation.Scot and if you can afford a donation that would be very gratefully received.Details are as follows

Bank RBS

ACCOUNT SALVOSCOT.LTD

Ac number 00779437

Sort Code 83-22-26