Bleak House
Posted on
December 09, 2023 by
Chris Cairns
The world's most-read Scottish politics website
-
About
Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)
-
Recent Posts
- 04-29
- 04-29
- 04-29
- 04-28
- 04-27
- 04-27
- 04-26
- 04-26
- 04-25
- 04-25
- 04-25
- 04-24
- 04-24
- 04-22
- 04-20
- 04-20
- 04-18
- 04-18
- 04-17
- 04-15
Wings Over ScotlandA tall tale
Wee Books
Video
Probably a robbery
Transphobia
Good stuff!
Topper Chris. Summed up perfectly.
Spot on again Chris. I sometimes worry about our fellow Scots.
Bleak House, very aptly named. Because that’s how the future has looked under the current SNP ever since Sturgeon’s appointment.
Well ain’t that the truth!
*chef’s kiss*
Perfect.
Wi’ aw yon windae’s ye widnae hae thocht transparency wid huv been ony bother in seein whit wis gaun oan in therr! Braw stuff, gie’s mair!
https://archive.ph/HFKTz
SNP hiding info again
From Charles Dickens ‘Bleak House’ –
“The plain rule is to do nothing in the dark, to be a party to nothing underhanded or mysterious…”
Oh, wait…
As mentioned by Colin Dawson in previous thread, this legal ruling could make an even bigger black hole in the Scottish budget as they cold be open to compensation claims for illegally operating practices that allows self-ID.
Details of comment for those who haven’t seen it is here:
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-devil-and-the-pastel-pink-sea/#comment-2808927
It has a balcony for that Ceausescu moment, just lacks a crowd baying for blood of double-dealing politicians and the rumble of approaching tanks of the National Liberation Front.
Geoff Anderson. Surely this practice would be illegal now in the light of recent events. No?
And we recall how Jarndyce v Jarndyce turned out.
Following the Beeb’s ‘analysis’ piece of the FOI judgement, today we see another critical article leading on their site http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67648200
Is this a change in policy or have they just left the tea-boy alone in the newsroom?
Aye, all those extortionate, unnecessary legal fees paid out would have covered 100 miles of dual carriageway and at least one of the new ferries. Not to forget the incredible time, effort and other resources wasted. Sigh.
@ rogueslr at 10.03
I found that summary of the government’s court cases interesting, so here it is archived:
https://archive.ph/PCTSc
Chris knows all about perspective, in more ways than one.
Brilliant, yet again, Chris.
I wonder if Sturgeon was at the meeting ? Or did she just phone in her orders ? Bet they haven’t taken minutes.
Really, looking forward to that Caeusescu moment.
Even Sturgeon’s most die-hard fans must be wondering what the hell they’ve been supporting for the last few years ? And on many of them it’s dawning that they’ve been tricked into supporting the union.
I don’t know Auld Reekie well enough to tell if that’s Bute House, but if it is, can anybody expand the image to see if the locks have been changed?
Thanks.
That was a good laugh on a dreich Saturday morning. Fair cheered me up no end, and so true.
TURABDIN 9:46
Whose tanks? That’s a serious question BTW.
We Scots are allowed our sgian dhus but usually only when kilted up for ceremonial purposes.
PacMan @ 9:41 am
“this legal ruling could make an even bigger black hole in the Scottish budget as they cold be open to compensation claims for illegally operating practices that allows self-ID.”
Yes, as in the case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, which was only finally over because “the costs of litigation have entirely consumed the estate”.
Other compensation claims may be expected, not least for ferries. And Humza’s wee chat with Erdogan was perhaps to delay the 4 new ferries/payments to Turkey? Some local authorities are already close to bankruptcy. Its nae wunner Humza’s gang are worried aboot the budget, an fundin aw thair special freends.
But what does anyone expect from a deceitfu colonial administration, liberation? A return to direct rule seems more likely.
Superb penmanship from Chris as always but he ain’t gonna win the Turner prize!
Ah! the Turner Prize! They seem to have been as successful at brainwashing people as Stonewall.
I feel very sorry for young creative people who decide to study ‘art’ although it could be a laugh trying to win the Turner Prize! ‘Taking the piss’ could be considered a prize winning work of Art! Hey that could be highly reflective of what’s going on in the world today. The sad thing is our politicians aren’t ‘taking the piss’ or at least they don’t think they are but if they decided to tell us they were only ‘taking the piss’ at some future time I would believe them and congratulate them for one amazing piss take!
Sorry Chris great cartoon & drawing skills but you ain’t gonna win the Turner Prize.
When will my PMT be over?
Christmas?
PMT = Pre-Moderation Time!
Chris cairns,
Detailed drawing 🙂
For the, what, 375th time in a row, the politicians took over a “movement” and ran it for their own benefit, not the movement’s.
They played independence supporters for suckers. That includes Stuart Campbell (who proclaimed Sturgeon “trusted” and “capable”). That also includes most of the pro-Indy commenters here–who supported the SNP and put the grifters in power.
Yes, blame Sturgeon and Yousaf, but part of the blame goes to St. Alex (who promoted the grifters to party leadership) and at least part to those voters who were so easily deceived.
@ Alf Baird 9 December, 2023 at 11:53 am
The particular ruling about Self-ID will not only possibly affect the Scottish devolved administration but everywhere else in the UK that has unlawfully implemented similar policies in regard to Self-ID.
Yousaf may take it to the UK supreme court and they rule it in favour of him due to the potential cost to the UK government over these potential compensation claims.
I’m cynical at the moment which was the reason for my rant last night in the previous thread about the corruptness of the whole UK system where we have changed from a democracy to a corporatocracy where the law of the land and political decision making is based on corporate profit and not the rule of law or the benefit of the people. The only thing we can do is be positive and hope for the best.
John Main says: 9 December, 2023 at 11:36 am
Is that you going into NPC mode again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPC_(meme)
For those who don’t know what Bute House looks like I’ve Googled and found this informative photo.
https://tinyurl.com/bdea8954
Note the blue door in the left hand corner.
You’ll have to do the next bit yourself I’m afraid.
Compare photo to Chris’ drawing.
Helpful hint: Bute House doesn’t have a blue door it has a black door.
No need for thanks just try harder next time!
The evidence that Englands Westminster “needs” Scotland.
More than Scotland needs England
Westminster discussing (Cheating) Scotland over the treaty of union articles, on how to hold Scotland without their permission and how to reform the fallacious 1707 articles of union. So Englands Westminster can continue robbing Scotland land, taxes and resources.
Manual Link to information,
http://WWW.Parliament. UK
Parliamentary Business
Records & Publications
Select Committee on Privileges
Second report
Appendix 2
Title: Case for Lord Grey.
The only CREDIT Sturgeon has to her name is the mess she left Indy and the SNP in, the continuity candidate has never left to follow its all been defeated in the courts! Sorry I’ve made a mistake he’s still to destroy the SNP and the dream of Independence.
People keep advocating the Alba Party is going to replace the SNP, sorry folks not any time soon until Alex steps down and Ash Regan replaces Alex as leader. I really don’t believe Salmond knows exactly how much damage Nicola and the SNP has done to his career. I Really do hope that Salmond realizes before the next Holyrood what he needs to do but I suppose this will be told to him next year at the Westminster election what he will have to do
The people will never forgive this. The people Will never forget this insult. This affront to the sacred principles of life.
What now for the Muslim boy.
@Alf Baird says:
“A return to direct rule seems more likely.”
Indeed, and with all the evidence available, making a case for direct rule, based on the charge of amateurish and reckless, governmental incompetence, would be a walk-in-the-park. That even nationalists wouldn’t know, in good conscience, where to begin to dispute such a charge, should concentrate minds.
There won’t be any claims made against the Scottish govt over self-id because they would have to show some kind of harm and/or distress and there would have to be some kind of contemporaneous proof of the latter so that causation could be established. There is also in some of the examples given no straightforward way to make claims against the Scottish govt when the organisations made their own decisions to allow transwomen into ‘female spaces’. There are also time-bar issues.
I don’t see a single claim arising from this.
@John Main 11:24pm
Yeah that’s a good representation of the Bute House and it’s Georgian facade. But a building 50 metres away, 7 Charlotte Square run by the National Trust of Scotland is a better experience. A museum that really captures Georgian life in Edinburgh. Well worth a visit if you are in Edinburgh.
The current shower meeting in Bute House are only there and in the position to make a mess of things because the majority voted No – this is the result of not being independent – if we were then grown-ups would be running the show.
That is a beautiful cartoon, Mr Cairns. The level of detail in it is impressive and the message is precisely the kind of contemptible attitude we all have come to expect from those controlling and enabling the SNP.
The titanic efforts displayed by Yousaf’s government, Sturgeon’s government, their advisers, the UK civil service and the crown office to suppress information from the public is so blatant, that it is leaving the Scottish public in no doubt every institution of government, parliament and legal establishment in Scotland appears corrupted to the core and run by crooks, all working in cooperation against the interests of the people of Scotland.
I am absolutely amazed these people in the SGov and civil servants have not been laughed at and publicly ridiculised like utter fools when claiming they had so many meetings without taking formal minutes (I am referring to the information kindly provided by the Rev in his article “Walking on Glass”). This is so ludicrous it is simply not credible. Not when the Scottish Government has in place a Record Management Policy.
These quotes have been extracted from it:
“Scottish Government Directors have overall responsibility for the management of records generated by their divisions’ activities. They are responsible for ensuring that
a complete record of the business undertaken by their area is captured, and that systems (electronic or otherwise) and procedures are used appropriately”
“All Scottish Government staff receive training so they are aware of their responsibilities as individuals with respect to record keeping and management and to ensure they are competent to carry out their designated duties”
In other words, there was no credible excuse to hold those meetings without minute taking because doing so might have violated the Government’s own Record Management Policy.
If despite the Record Management Policy in place those meetings were ever allowed to continue without minute taking, considering the government is a democratic institution subjected to continuous scrutiny from parliament and FOI requests from the public, the only possible conclusion from such action is that it was with the purpose of suppressing information from either parliament, the public, or both.
I am afraid I do not believe it. There has to have been some form of recording, even if it was just drafted action notes scribbled down on a piece of paper. Otherwise, how on earth could they have ever followed up and measure progress against the actions agreed at those meetings?
A claim by the government of holding meetings without minute taking opens the door to speculation over potential use of meetings as a front cover for something else. Surely these people are not that stupid.
For instance, without minutes, how do we know these meetings were not used to instigate some form of criminality or to devise actions to hide criminality from the public?
We cannot.
So I do not believe minutes were not taken. I think it is much more credible that notes were taken but were subsequently disposed of or hidden to claim they do not exist.
The Government’s Record Management Policy states:
“All employees of the Scottish Government (permanent and temporary), contractors, consultants and secondees must ensure that the records for which they are responsible are complete and accurate. They must also ensure that records are
maintained and disposed of in accordance with the Scottish Government’s records management principles”
The immediate question to ask is what the retention schedule for the minutes/action notes of those meetings is.
Those meetings took place in 2022. If those minutes were already disposed of, did they respect retention schedules included in the Government’s Record Management Policy? And if not, who and why authorised disposal outwith the retention schedule stated in their official policy?
Why haven’t the opposition parties and the press been all over this departure of standard operating procedure like a rash?
What kind of rubbish advice have the civil service and government’s legal team been offering when something as fundamental for the democratic process as it is information governance, record keeping and management, and retention policies might have not been followed?
In my above post, once you have read you House of Lords select committees on privileges report, any intelligent Scot realises immediately how important it is to Westminster in its need to hold on to Scotland in its nail clawing, willing to cheat in altering the treaty of union articles to save the other half of Britain,
If you think for one minute a referendum or any election vote in Scotland would free Scotland from Westminsters clutches through democracy or the right to self determination, you need your head examined,
London and Westminster needs Scotland, so much, that they are willing to deceive, lie, cheat and alter the treaty of union articles and the people of Scotland without a Scottish vote taken place in Scotland.
The Westminster house of lords “jim will fix it team”.
Are attempting to (fix) the tail end of that hoax treaty of union, by inventing a new treaty of union for Scotland, a
And I call it a hoax for many reasons.
While they try fiddle the articles of union at the tail end of that union,
People in Scotland should educate themselves better on the beginning and the many errors, as that is ( Scotlands legal fiddle ) to release themselves from the treaty of union.
And there are many “errors” that the parliament of Westminster made in 1706/ 1707. In their anxiety and effort to capture Scotland.
The treaty of union beginnings is on a far more precarious footing than any vote allowed by Westminster on a Scottish referendum could do.
But it is up to Salvo, Alba and us the people of Scotland to take up the baton to educate ourselves on the errors and failings of Westminster,
Because the sure as hell aren’t gonna advertise the flaws and errors in Westminster to Scots.
Alf Baird @ 11.53am.
Jarndyce v Jarndyce. Nice link to the Bleak House caption. Great book.
Reminded me of the old joke: “Do you like Dickens?”
“Don’t know. Never been to one. I’m not in the Green Party”
Alf Baird.
Mia,
Have you read the.”Case for Lord Grey” report? That I manually gave a link to, previously for a new proposed treaty of union for Scotland by dissolving Westminster parliament and the old articles of the treaty of union,
To keep Scotland captured whilst having no representatives.
In other words, Englands parliament of Westminster fully owning Scotland as part of England.
And is this what Boris johnson attempted to do?
LOL at that cartoon.
Excellent!
Mia
Excellent points.
Alf Baird @ 11.53am.
Erdogan is likely to wring every penny out of the Scottish government, and likely up the bill for breach of contract, etc., etc. If Yousaf was hoping for some empathy, brother to brother, so to speak, Erdogan is probably the last place on earth he’s likely to find it.
Apart from Jarndyce v Jarndyce, I’m reminded of another reference from another Dickens book, namely Little Dorrit, with the Office of Circumlocution where Dickens – with his customary black humour – satirized a government department where the establishment is shown to be run ‘purely for the benefit of its incompetent and obstructive officials.’ That description could apply to the present state of governance in Scotland.
Alf Baird.
Mia,
It appears that I am not alone in Maintaining that the parliament of England is the only parliament in the treaty of union.
Having just read a blog on “Yours for Scotland” by Alex Thorburn giving a good explanation.
Alf Baird.
Mia.
Queen Anne was never queen of Scots under the Act of Settlement, or made a queen of Scots by the ” further Act of limitation” passed in the Westminster parliament of England.
Both these Acts were for securing the line of descent to the throne of England.
It was extended to include Scotland after the treaty of union.
JGedd @ 2.05.
I remember making the same comparison in an exchange with the captain of the sinking school a couple of years ago.
JGedd @ 14.05
Not to mention the vast collection of “Tite Barnacles clinging immovably to the ship of state.
Nowadays we just usuallycall them special advisors; although Mr D Mackay, former Minister of Finance, deserves a special plaudit for having managed to remain on full salary and expenses for over 12 months without ever going into Holyrood.
SNP has gone rogue and must be removed from office at all costs else the cause of Indy will, if it hasn’t already, be put back a generation or be damaged beyond all credibility.
No wonder the Yoon MSM don’t touch them – a case of “Never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake” (Sun Tsu) and Sturgeon’s continuity SNP are just a never ending catalogue of mistakes.
Indy for Scotland!
SNP OUT!
Continuing with the Dickens theme, how will Humza Wilkins Micawber Yousaf dig himself out of his financial woes? Will something turn up for him – is there a Tommy Traddles in the background who can save the SNP Government?
The Kings Bench debtors’ prison in Southwark is long gone.It would have been the perfect place for the whole lot of the useless shower who have run us into the ground.
James Che @ 1:39 pm
“To keep Scotland captured whilst having no representatives.”
Independence is there for the taking, according to this Westminster report, which Scotland’s daeless and still to be deployed third elected majority of ‘nationalist’ MPs might ponder, e.g.:
“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.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10810.htm
James Che at 2:06 pm
“It appears that I am not alone in Maintaining that the parliament of England is the only parliament in the treaty of union.”
There are Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish representatives in that UK Parliament, and uniquely no separate English Parliament.
Everyone will be amazed someone actually tried it but I have to report that the link you posted doesn’t work.
KT Lorimer at 1:15 pm
“The current shower meeting in Bute House are only there and in the position to make a mess of things because the majority voted No – this is the result of not being independent – if we were then grown-ups would be running the show.”
What makes you think these same people wouldn’t have been governing an independent Scotland?
@Sven 2:43pm
There is about 20 structural, process and procedural changes I would like to make to the Scottish Parliament. The first one would be a power of recall for constituents to prevent a Derek MacKay situation. The second one would be the concept of Parliamentary Privilege. Where an elected politician can call out corruption in the chamber without fear of legal redress. We shouldn’t have to rely on David Davies for the naming of the Alphabetties albeit he is a mate of oor Eck. The third one would be Committee reform to prevent the disgrace of a the Fabiani Inquiry. I have given the others over the years. It’s our Parliament and past and present incumbents have used it as their Play Doh. Before we take back control from Westminster, we have to first take back control of Holyrood. They are not fit for purpose.
SNP are re-inventing the circumlocution office.
Beautiful drawing Mr Cairns
Contra to the claims of some commenters here, and as a historical note, Queen Anne WAS Queen of Scotland 1702-14.
To give but one proof of many, the 1689 Claim of Right Act (cited by many here as the Scottish Constitution) explicitly states:
“The said Estates of the Kingdome of Scotland Doe resolve that William and Mary King and Queen of England France and Ireland Be and be Declared King and Queen of Scotland To hold the Crowne and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdome of Scotland To them the said King and Queen dureing ther lives and the longest liver of them and that the sole and full exercise of the regall power be only in and Exercised by him the said King in the names of the said King and Queen Dureing ther joynt lives And after ther decease The said Croune and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdome to be to the heirs of the body of the said Queen which failing to the Princess Ann of Denmark…”
Under this Act Anne, as Mary’s sister and heir, was authorized by the Estates to be Queen of Scotland, as well as England, upon William and Mary’s death.
George @ 3.23.
The structural change which would be most effective would be the phenomenon which occurred to one of the characters in Bleak House: that of spontaneous combustion. Interestingly, he was a Krook too.
100%Yes says:
“I really don’t believe Salmond knows exactly how much damage Nicola and the SNP has done to his career. I Really do hope that Salmond realizes before the next Holyrood what he needs to do ….”
Indeed!
And, let’s hope this also includes him urgently tendering his resignation as a member of King Charles III’s Privy Council.
How can someone who has sworn an oath of allegiance to the English monarch & his jurisdictions, including an oath of secrecy, possibly expect to have any credibility as leading our country to independence from the Crown?
James Joyce; Troll. Don’t feed it.
@Merganser 3:47pm
Thanks for the reference to Bleak House. Strange things have happened in Bute House but I excluded metaphysical phenomenon thinking the required changes were straight forward. Implementing the changes are another matter. Trying to get Turkeys to vote for Christmas would be easier. But we have reached a saturation point of incompetence and a self serving Parliament. Take back control of Holyrood and Bleak House.
MAYBE REPLACE WITH AI CYBORGS.
These «smart» guys are there to help.
https://www.cogxfestival.com/
Creepy!
The future is ?????
Aunty Flo 4:14
Because they are different unions.
The Act of Union.
The Act of Crowns.
Chucky is here by consent of the Scots.
That’s a different referendum.
Holyrood seating arrangements need an overhaul.
Endless list seats (yoons) collecting a salary for doing sweet fck all but playing at Wasps at a picnic.
Don’t forget, those eejits have endless committees to scrutinise the shit out of stuff at least 5 times before approval & royal assent – so they’re equally as culpable & useless as the SNP along with a whole host of advisors & supposed legal experts.
Not just on this case. They’ve had a long list end up in the bucket. Their policy seems to be the Bain Principle… we’ll fck everything up cause we’re in a strop we’re not in charge.
Maybe due a contemporary rewrite set in modern Scotland and titled Boak House.
James Che said;
“It appears that I am not alone in Maintaining that the parliament of England is the only parliament in the treaty of union.”
James, nobody who’s read the Treaty and its associated Acts ever thought anything else. There’s SUPPOSED to be only a single parliament in the Union under the Treaty, but critically, and which you keep ignoring, it was and actually is a SHARED parliament, containing TWO distinct sets of MPs, not one. Each set represents one and only one of the two separate and equally sovereign kingdoms that founded both the Union AND its parliament, as the two, and only two, sovereign Principals of the Treaty.
The issue of the Union is not its single shared parliament, it is the assertion of the English establishment, and in particular its unwarranted imposition, that England’s MPs can ‘democratically outvote’ Scotland’s MPs on any matter of the joint governance of the Union’s two territories. That assertion is utterly bogus on several levels, and means that the Union’s governance doesn’t possess the formal constitutional authority it requires and falsely claims to have.
Serious consequences flow from that, and Westminster will not want those to come under any scrutiny at all, from inside or outside the Union. But we do want that scrutiny, especially from the UN, because it will shatter the Union when it happens.
@Mia 1:23
Has it occurred to you that no minutes or written records may have been kept at the meetings you refer to because the attendees are illiterate?
You have to admit that it’s no more implausible than many of the other explanations regularly bandied about.
And then there’s corroborating evidence. Take those in government office who don’t know what a woman is. Are you really going to argue that these people have any education at all?
Salmond, during indyref, said Scots could vote to retain the monarchy as Head of State if that’s what they voted for in a referendum..
Cries fae England Vine, Farage & Hopkins *oh look, the Scots want to keep *our* monarchy after they’re independent*
Furrrrrck orfff! Like hell we do LMAO!
Scotland has to gather School weans, yank tourists & empty nursing homes for a day of flag waving when a royal is arriving.
Twas separate referendum. Chucky won’t be missed.
@Xaracen 5:54
Credit where due, you’ve convinced me that the original Union parliament might have been supposed to work the way you claim.
I haven’t convinced you that 300+ years of established precedent matters. The precedent being, of course, that UK national parties form governments that enact legislation based on their ability to command a simple majority in the HoC.
No hard feelings from me. Hopefully we will both be spared to see what happens over the next 30 years or so. I expect the established precedent to take, well, precedence.
But I really do have to have a wee laugh at your certainty the UN is going to ride to our rescue. Honestly, Xaracen, do you not follow current affairs at all?
The UN now is like the League Of Nations in 1938.
“Has it occurred to you that no minutes or written records may have been kept at the meetings you refer to because the attendees are illiterate?”
No, sorry, John Main. That possibility hasn’t ever crossed my mind because I believe it to be completely implausible and in any case it would not make an ounce of a difference to the note taking.
In the same way that in a court case the accused or the witnesses are not expected to take minutes during the session, external attendees to government meetings, illiterate or not, would never be expected to take minutes for the purpose of keeping Government records. They might take notes for their very own records, but it would be a dereliction of duty from the part of the Scot Government and the civil servants in government to leave the note taking to a third party. It would be, in my opinion, a clear breach of their own record management policy.
In every senior meeting I have ever attended at work (I do not work in government), there has always been an allocated note/minute taker. I expect the same, even with more reason, to apply to any government meeting.
I suspect a low ranking civil servant would be instructed to take the notes in government meetings or the least senior of the government attendees would have been tasked with taking the notes.
Nobody expects the First Minister of the Permanent Secretary to take notes. However, it is the duty of the chair of the meeting to ensure notes are being taken during the meeting and the Record Management Policy is followed.
As I said in my previous comment above, the Government’s Record Management policy states:
“Scottish Government Directors have overall responsibility for the management of records generated by their divisions’ activities. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT A COMPLETE RECORD OF THE BUSINESS UNDERTAKEN BY THEIR AREA IS CAPTURED (my capitals) and that systems (electronic or otherwise) and procedures are used appropriately”
The chances that civil servants appointed to the senior position of “Government Director” could be illiterate are zero.
With regards to government staff, the Government Records Management policy states:
“All Scottish Government staff receive training so they are aware of their responsibilities as individuals with respect to record keeping and management and to ensure they are competent to carry out their designated duties”
There we go. Chances of civil servants using illiteracy as an excuse to overrule their Government Record Management Policy to avoid taking minutes is also zero.
With that Record Management policy in place, I do not believe for even a second minutes were not taken at those meetings. I find much more credible that notes were taken but were either destroyed or hidden for the purpose of avoiding the inconvenience of having to make them public.
@Geri 5:58
Nae referendum permitted on the monarchy, nae referendum permitted on EU membership – sometimes I wonder just who it is that is really denying us a referendum on Indy.
After all, if everybody in the Indy movement is as dead set against Scottish democracy as you, weel, it maks you think, eh?
Here’s the thing about the monarchy though. An iScotland will need a head of state, so in the absence of a monarch (Scotland’s national and cultural norm for over a millennium), who will we all be swearing allegiance to?
Hell will freeze over afore I doff my cap to Yousaf or any of his ilk. Bet there’s plenty Sovereign Scots with me on that.
So fine, Geri, as always, you know what you are agin, but how about telling us what your alternative is. I know you don’t believe we Sovereign Scots should get a say, but you’re on a collision course with yet another massive personal disappointment there. Soz.
Mia
Good post and compelling reasoning.
Your original assessment: corrupt, crooked and cooperating against the interests of the Scottish people, stands unchallenged.
John Main said;
“Credit where due, you’ve convinced me that the original Union parliament might have been supposed to work the way you claim.”
Thank you, John.
“I haven’t convinced you that 300+ years of established precedent matters. The precedent being, of course, that UK national parties form governments that enact legislation based on their ability to command a simple majority in the HoC.”
No, you haven’t convinced me, John, because precedent cannot matter if it isn’t soundly based on formal constitutional and legal bases, and on a properly-founded democratic basis. It is that very ‘ability to command a simple majority in the HoC’ that is the key problem, as I’ve been pointing out all along, because it only effectively applies to English-MP-based parties of government.
Geoff Anderson sayshttps://archive.ph/HFKTz SNP hiding info again.
Since when have prisoners been given the benefit of anonymity if they happen to identify as ‘trans’, but not if they are not identifying as ‘trans’? The special ones again. If they are housed in the female estate, they will be recognized by the women, in any case, and, since no men will be there, what are they scared of by identifying them? It all smacks of special treatment not available to any other group in society. In any case, just because they have not beaten any females to a pulp, but have beaten another man to a pulp, doesn’t that still show a propensity for violence? What about a GRC? No man can enter female spaces without one, and, even then, can be excluded if the action is proportionate. So, where do they get off with self-ID by the back prison door? Do they really think we are all as thick as they are?
@Xaracen says
“precedent cannot matter”
And that’s where we diverge. If generations have accepted a precedent, one after the other, then it matters.
Go back far enough and every power structure is illegal, because every power structure in history has been imposed over the one that preceded it. But then time passes, and it becomes how things are.
Sure, our current structure may well have been dodgy at one time, but 300 years is considerably longer than most such structures endure, so it’s gonna be a hell of a fight to get acceptance that the whole shebang is illegal after all this time.
Not to mention the awkward fact that if just about every rule, law and custom we’ve been following all our lives is void, the effects are incalculable.
Far, far simpler and easier to make the economic case for Indy and consequently win power through the ballot box within the existing structure.
Hmmm this is very true.
twitter.com/FatEmperor/status/1655837460503355392
Anything presented as a global problem is a globalist scam. They invent these fake global problems to bring about their sinister global solutions.
Sturgeon, Trudeau, Ardern… Globalists to the core, the antithesis of nationalists, i.e. people who believe in the future globe of nations, not a globe devoid of nations with only these vile fucks in charge endlessly with no alternative.
twitter.com/FatEmperor/status/1655837460503355392
@John Main 8:27pm
The existing Scottish Parliament structure has failed us on multiple occasions. How many times has leglisation borne out of Holyrood been dumped?. Named person and so on the list is embarrassingly long. For example we have a Lord Advocate with an inseparable Government Minsterial role in Cabinet. Is it any wonder we have had malicious prosecutions. And multiple Court failures. Absolutely it’s the structure, processes and procedures of Holyrood that is enabled corruption. We deal with that first before policies of financial competence and the betterment of the Scottish people.
John Main said;
” “precedent cannot matter”
And that’s where we diverge. If generations have accepted a precedent, one after the other, then it matters.”
Then we diverge; if the precedent accepts illegality what it is accepting is still illegal. Convenience doesn’t make illegality legal. Also, I suspect that much of what you mean by precedent is really just giving in because the system is designed to make it virtually impossible to get justice. Acceptance should not be confused with precedent just because efforts to get justice failed.
“Not to mention the awkward fact that if just about every rule, law and custom we’ve been following all our lives is void, the effects are incalculable.
Far, far simpler and easier to make the economic case for Indy and consequently win power through the ballot box within the existing structure.”
Inconvenience is no justification for ignoring illegality, especially when the illegality is ongoing and causing great harm. Given what I just said about acceptance as precedent, your ballot box option ‘within the existing structure’ is very likely to fail for exactly the same reasons.
If we know what the root problem is, it is better to tackle it there, because it may take a hell of a lot longer to tackle all the branches as separate problems, and the root is still likely to generate more branches in the meantime.
If they hadn’t spent so much trying to wipe out an innocent Alex Salmond.
If they hadn’t screwed up the Ferries Contracts.
If they hadn’t thrown money at the disastrous bottle return scheme.
If they hadn’t wasted so much in trying to allow Trans men into female only areas.
Most of all they should have taken action against Westminster and for in dependance.
I see Westminster corruption is making aspects of it open by handing out awards to Civil Servants who broke their code of office by being directly biased in producing propaganda against Scottish independence.
https://x.com/StFilansDream/status/1733555020128256140?t=fEu4_9ptbqybim-lxjI8Lw&s=08
Alba really need to stand in more than 12 Constituencies. I am not getting any younger and the Tories are plotting to raid our miserly Pensions.
The Indy horizon looks to be getting further away.
Perhaps Scotland should grow some serious politicians, and develop some serious policies, if it wants to be taken seriously. At the moment, Holyrood is like a kindergarten for proper idiots.
@JGedd 2.05: re-read Little Dorrit last summer in my sitootery and immediately thought of How Not To Do It with regard to our useless government.
With a pinch of Kafka.
And a smidgen of Orwell.
@A Scot Abroad 10:29pm
In terms of polling I don’t think Independence in principle is getting further away. Holyrood is getting further away from reality and the aspirations of the Scottish people. The Scottish Parliament is largely unchecked by the Scottish MSM, Judiciary, Police Scotland and most of our frightened Institutions. Only Institutions like the ICO get any credit. And they of course through The Scotsman flushed out the original FOI that led to the Supreme Court decision on the folly of Sturgeons claim of being in control of IndyRef2. A blessing in disguise. Because it ended her tenure.
Dundee Scot,
To hold the crown, ie but not wear it as monarch, and never coronated as monarchs of Scots, big difference.
James Jones,
There are no Scots representatives in the parliament of Great-Britain, as the Scottish parliament was dissolved prior to the westminster parliament of Great Britain sat,
A dissolved parliament has no members,
It cannot represent its constituent,
You will find this information in the Institute of Governance.UK.
And if you read my post correct above it is not a direct link, it explains where you will find the information if you are willing to educate yourself with a bit of homework instead of expecting knowledges to easily fall in your lap from the sky,
Dumb old me found it, are you offering volunteering yourself up to be illiterate and unable to mentally act for yourself,
It is impossible to join a union with a dissolved Scottish parliament, that was dissolved and published as dissolved on the 28th April 1707.
The dissolved parliament of Scotland still in a in a separate kingdom at the time of dissolution no longer had members or members that could represent Scotland in the (yet to be created parliament of Great Britain by time date) on the 1st may 1707.
In the separate kingdom of England the second parliament of Queen Anne was summoned on the 2nd of May 1705, it assembled on the 14th June 1705,
It was then dissolved on the 15th April 1708,
Fulfilling the Triennial Act of the parliament of England,
There were no Elections in the Westminster parliament of England between 1705 and 1708,
The joining of two separate kingdom parliaments did not happen, others here that are better mathematics will be able to ( count the timeline) in which the two parliaments missed each other as joined parliaments.
It was supposed to be a shared parliament.
That never happened, but critically and which is the point you keep ignoring.
A dissolved parliament no longer has any members and therefore cannot represent its constituents as members of a Scottish parliament of Scotland in the westminster parliament of England as soon as ithe Scottish parliament was dissolved by Queen Anne on the 28th April 1707.
The Scottish parliament was never again reopened to provide parliament members to represent the people of Scotland from its parliament
xaracen.
The time line between the Scottish parliament being dissolved by Proclamation, published in 1707 and no longer having any members of a Scottish parliament, to represent its constituents in Westminster,
And the timeline between the parliament of England dissolving in 15th April 1708 but still continuing under the new Westminster elections that took place in 1808.
I would strongly suggest there was no Union of parliaments between Scotland and England parliaments happened, as there is almost one complete year between the two dissolutions.
And you cannot hold a parliamentary Union with a parliament that was dissolved the year before.
@ James Che,
Why do you think Scotland elects representatives and sends them to the UK Parliament in Westminster?
As to your web link, I was being helpful by pointing out that it was broken and you might like to fix it. No need for the personal abuse. Calm yourself down.
With all the cover ups, conspiracies and corruption started under Sturgeon, Bute House should not just be known as Bleak House, but also Sleekit house.
Xaracen at 1005pm,
Exactly. The ridiculous notion that just because the unfairness and undemocratic nature of this unwanted so-called ‘union’ with England has existed for over 300 years means that Scots somehow ‘accept it’ is baloney.
Scots do not accept it. This is why England bombards Scotland with pro ‘britishy’ propaganda 24/7, via the likes of the English controlled BBC propaganda channels, or the English controlled newspapers or Radio stations. It is why they actively encourage manufacturers to slap the butcher’s apron over every damn thing in shops.
Importantly, it is why ENGLAND directly interfered in the Scottish referendum on independence in 2014. Remember the silly non-factual threats, or the endless stream of anti Scottish propaganda by England? ALL from England.
Perfidious Albion, England, a country which has lied all through its history to keep colonies under its jackboot. England, the country that on the one hand cannot help itself from ridiculing everything truly Scottish, including our wealth, culture, natural prosperity and natural resources, yet on the other hand does everything and ANYTHING* to keep Scotland in its vice-like grip.
Now, their pathetic sock puppets on here try to insist that merely because Scots have had to tolerate this unjust, undemocratic so-called ‘union with England for over three hundred years, that means we accept it. No, it just proves we have had no means of ridding ourselves of English rule, propaganda and aggression.
* Like murdering independence campaigner Willie McRae.
Dundee Scot.
Legislation.Gov.UK.
Coronation Oath Act 1688.
01 / 02 / 1991
Changes over time, Section 111.
There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Coronation Act 1689. 111.
Form of Oath and Administration,
Will you solemnly sweare to governe the people of this kingdom of England and its dominions thereto belonging according to the Statues in Parlyament agreed on the laws and customs of the same:
The statues and Oath taken are from the parliament of England 1688,
As you can see the monarch of people of the kingdom of England still takes this Oath, as a separate monarch from the kingdom of Scotland,
When the monarch of England arrives at a later date into the kingdom of Scotland for a partial ceremony, the crown an regalia are displayed on a cushion in front of Englands monarch, but the monarch of England is never coronated with the crown of Scotland.
As with Queen Anne, whom set the template, of not proceeding or conforming to complete the coronation requirement of Scotland, neither has any other monarch of England since the offer of the Scottish crown was made, and not fully enthroned, never worn or been coronated as king or Queen of Scots or Scotland, in the kingdom of Scotland, like they are in England,
Check any video past and present, even the BBC, you will not find the monarch of The people of England and its kingdom ever wearing the crown of Scotland.
One of the MSM down south stated that the Scottish Crown it would not fit Charles head so ha could not wear it, but failed to explain why his mother Elizabeth did not wear it, or Charles’s grandfather , nor any monarch of England for the past 300 years.
John Main.
Except when the original ” Precedent ” was based on deceit with the intention to fraud by given misleading information.
James jones,
I was able to access the same information I quoted yesterday before 7 am this morning.
Alf Baird managed to quote the first paragraph to every one here in response.
Keep trying,
Robert Louis says:
10 December, 2023 at 7:18 am
Xaracen at 1005pm,
Exactly. The ridiculous notion that just because the unfairness and undemocratic nature of this unwanted so-called ‘union’ with England has existed for over 300 years means that Scots somehow ‘accept it’ is baloney.
If Scots had accepted it, then BritNat Unionists wouldn’t be subverting democracy, attempting to rewrite the treaty, and violating Scotland’s sovereign Constitution by preventing Scotland from holding a referendum. The only way they can be sure to win a referendum is by never having one.
Furthermore, we wouldn’t be witnessing the plundering of Scotland’s assets, the asset stripping of our industrial capacity, and the social engineering enforced upon our population demographics by the Anglicisation of attitudes towards property and greed, and a great influx of NO voting attitudes. Of course they’ll have a vote you undemocratic savage!
I cannot make direct accusations about the farcical agenda Sturgeon pursued, when full Independence was right there in the palm of our hands, but the absurdity of Sturgeon’s deluded time in office will only seem even more deluded and suspicious with the passage of time. One day, we will know.
In the context of “knowing your enemy”, I truly would struggle to present a remotely positive argument along the lines of if it didn’t exist, why would you create it? (The Union that is). However I do believe a more enlightened attitude towards Scotland mixed with a degree of respect for our culture would stave off catastrophe for the Union for a decade or so more.
That said, I believe Westminster understands that doesn’t work. It requires a patience and sophistication they do not possess. To keep Scotland in the Union by its own free will is undeliverable, while turning the emphasis towards assimilation and cultural appropriation promises better results. Scotland’s capacity to thrive must be deconstructed and our people dispossessed of a stake in their own nation.
Happily for us, if happy is the word, the case for Unionism is the same paranoid and insulting blunt instrument it always was. Witness the tireless sneering disposition of our resident house-jocks, because it’s all they’ve got to sell. They’re the mini Lord Haw-Haws of our time. Ever stop to consider why the real William Joyce adopted the plummy accent when delivering his propaganda?
There’s a crushingly accurate metaphor that Scotland is the unfortunate wife trapped in an abusive marriage, forever told she’s clumsy and ugly, and kept in rags and penury, and there to serve her drunken belligerent master. Why doesn’t she walk out? Because the prolonged abuse eroded her self belief and confidence. That’s the corrosive Wolf which the Union feeds perpetually.
The good wolf, the celebration of self, kindness, achievement and good character, cannot be allowed to flourish into confidence. That narrative must be poisoned and destroyed by propaganda, isolation, and indoctrination… and so it is.
If you want to “thrive” or get on as a Scot, you’ve got to be the right kind of Scot; obedient , subservient, the kind of creature Samuel Adams wrote about, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Aye. That.
The intertwined correlation between one monarch of two separate Countries, the Oath to England , royal assent, kingdoms and exact dissolution dates of the parliaments.
This Is not information that has been easy accessible or forwarded to many Scots in the past,
It becomes priority to hold onto this information as a collection gathered records to complete the history of Scotland.
How easily the Scottish history is forgotten and buried, being whitewashed out of nations that made Britain not so long ago, along with our languages and culture.,
Alf Baird.
thank you for providing the link for others yesterday re ” Case for Lord Gray” much appreciated.
Old technological equipment combined with old pensioner, ha, not always compatible.
Breeks.
Robert Louis,
Are we not the unfortunate wife trapped in a abusive marriage that was dissolved a long time ago,
But the husband withheld the documents of that divorce and kept lying to the ex wife so the abuse could continue,
With self confidence eroded so far the wife now looks at the dissolution of her marriage as some sort of joke not to be believed,
Surely her ex husband would be beyond playing such a abusive lie her all these years, so she ignores the documentation and discards it to one side and carries on the relationship that is destroying her and her surroundings piece by piece..
So Nicolas man buys a £110k campervan and registers it in his 92 year old mothers name , he then buys a £95k Jag and sells it to we buy any car !!!! I aint no detective but ffs anyone who has used that company knows the money from the sale goes to a bank account ,if you find out we’re the money came from to buy and then went to from the sale you will know if it’s a dodgy deal , it should not take nearly 2 fuckin years. The polis are booting the arse out of this.
James Che at 8:04 am
“James jones, I was able to access the same information I quoted yesterday before 7 am this morning. Alf Baird managed to quote the first paragraph to every one here in response.
Keep trying,”
James Che at 9:02 am
“Alf Baird, thank you for providing the link for others yesterday re ” Case for Lord Gray” much appreciated. Old technological equipment combined with old pensioner, ha, not always compatible.”
Yes, well done Alf Baird for finding and posting the correct link, which is what I’d suggested would improve James Che’s point and just got abuse for. You’d think he didn’t want anyone to read it.
Scotland does not elect parliament members of a Scottish parliament to send to Westminster parliament as Scotland has not been able to send representatives of any of its constituent since it was dissolved in 1707,
The Scottish parliament has never been re opened by Scotland or in England for that matter,since that dissolution,
The devolved parliament in Scotland at present has its roots in Westminster parliament as debates, bills, acts and Statues of Westminster in England,
The same Westminster parliament that garners its Sovereignty from the monarchs swearing of the Oath to (govern); the people of the kingdom of England. Which includes the ” Bill of rights” pre dodgy union as it is also enshrined in the constitution of England,
This leaves the People of Scotland with a “Claim of right” passed in Scotland pre dodgy union as a Sovereign nation and kingdom separate from England,
And the right to govern itself,
Seriously Breeks, WTF is wrong with you?
The lengthy diatribe of ancient wrongs, tears streaming down the face and into the dram, was never a good look at the best of times. In current times, when our screens are hoaching with ghastly images of real fecking tragedy night after night, your pathetic bleating inspires scorn and nothing more.
There’s a democratic, practical, coherent, mature, lawful route to Indy, the plebiscitary election route. Instead of whining about unfairness, abusive wives and chains (FFS), make the case, publicise, and build up pressure and support for that.
Den 9.42am.
Money laundering ?
PhilM says: 9 December, 2023 at 1:05 pm
There might not be a tsunami of claims but I’m not sure about there being no single claim arising from this.
From this article:
https://archive.is/penMV
How many times has this happened to NHS medical patients and possibly even NHS staff but they were ‘persuaded’ that there was no crime as the culprit was a woman and wouldn’t be able to commit the offence?
I will agree the biggest hurdle is woman having a problem claiming they have been affected under the unlawful practices regardless Trans.
This really is squarely down to the Tories in Westminster who have made big noises about protecting woman rights and to make biological sex a protected right under Equality laws but fail to do so even though they are in power and have the number to pass such legislation.
Disgusting JohnMain
‘ In current times, when our screens are hoaching with ghastly images of real fecking tragedy night after night, ‘
Is that a reference to the people you refer to as Pallys?
Johnlmao
Naw, it’s a reference tae yer posts oan ma iPad.
Aw richt if ah award yous a wee promotion? Ah’m thinking ye rate Johnlmfao frae noo oan.
Haw haw, dinna fash, ah’m busy, ye’ll be grand.
@john H , it absolutely is ,it’s (page 10 of Rodger the dodgers juke book) the oldest trick in the book buying and selling commodities.
Trans spokethingy on with guisler this am bleating on about scotgov smashing in court
It said they should consult with lawyers before proceeding further
DUH
I have never used the we buy any car lot etc just because the returns are likely to be poor. The auto equivalent of cash converters etc. Not the type of place to be selling high value cars….unless it’s not your money you are losing on the transaction. Was the motor home to be next?
The PRESS currently fondles the dream ticket Johnson-Farage.
Shysters flocking together around the rotting cadavre of Ukania.
Popular democracy is by no means perfect but the emerging alternatives are so much worse. BLEAK? maybe, but for those in Scotland with political flair, pregnant with potential and opportunity.
Opportunity, a word that ought to be at the top of any nationalist vocabulary.
This COLLECTIVE knows the value of opportunity. Covid 19 and all that chicanery.
https://www.cogxfestival.com/
Check out the «participants», MI6, Nato, Google, WEF, what a collection of elitist, anti-democratic agencies.
Now that is BLEAK….or maybe another golden opportunity.
@pipinghot loosing money in the Launder (up to 50% of value ) is seen as the cost of doing business when your running a dodgy enterprise
James jones,
The point is that two people were able to access that information and maybe others that do not all comment,
But Alf managed to look it up, on the information I suggested.
Oh dear. The information suppression must be such a contagious phenomena when it comes to Scotland’s information.
Until recently, you could search through the minutes and other records of the Parliament of Scotland up to the last session of parliament in 1706 through the website rps.ac.uk. But, for some reason, it has been out of action since the 27 November 2023.
Imagine something like the Netflix or Amazon websites being out of action for 2 weeks, huh?
@James Che
You say “The time line between the Scottish parliament being dissolved by Proclamation, published in 1707 and no longer having any members of a Scottish parliament, to represent its constituents in Westminster,
And the timeline between the parliament of England dissolving in 15th April 1708 but still continuing under the new Westminster elections that took place in 1808”
I am pretty sure we already debated this in previous threads, James Che, and I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree in the interpretation of the records.
I looked long and hard for those Scottish Parliamentary records that allegedly claim the Scottish Parliament was permanently dissolved as we have been fed time and time again by colonialists. I couldn’t find them.
The very last record that was included in the website that is now mysteriously out of action (rps.co.uk), did not state anything at all about a permanent dissolution of Scotland’s parliament. It stated very clearly that parliament was ADJOURNED.
I have two books in front of me which are compilations of the Acts passed by the parliament of Scotland up to the time it was adjourned [Alexander, W (1841) “An abridgement of the Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland”, and Leopold Classic Library (1908) “The Scots Statutes Revised: The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, 1424-1707]. The last act in both books is the “ACT for preserving the Game”. There is no act declaring the permanent dissolution of the parliament of Scotland anywhere I can see in any of the two books, written over 60 years apart.
As I suggested previously in another thread of this blog, it is, in my view, not possible, or credible, that Scotland’s parliament dissolved itself. The same applies to England’s parliament.
Just think logically about it for a second. What happens when the UK parliament is dissolved? An general election is called.
If you look at the records of the parliament of Scotland (whenever the gremlins decide it is safe for the people of Scotland to look at the records again), there NEVER was a general election in 1707, nor there was ever an intention for one to take place.
Why? Because the crown tools (and I suggest the crown itself) were terrified all the hard work done by crown commissioners and bribers would be gone to waste if they invited the people of Scotland and the people of England to an election where they knew a majority of anti-union representatives would be elected trashing the union on its first parliament sitting.
Something that is not being talked very much about is that the people of England was against the union as much as the people of Scotland was. The union was always a self-serving (English?) crown affair to secure the same line of succession in both countries. The union was forced by the (English?) crown (through bribes and one wonders if blackmail too), on both countries.
To circumvent this huge risk to the union and at least give it a chance to take off the ground, somebody/something, I presume the English crown, decided that no general election would take place neither in Scotland nor England until the union parliament started functioning. Instead, the members of the last sessions of the current parliaments in 1707 would transfer directly to the new parliament of “Great Britain”.
And if you read the Act of the Parliament of Scotland named “ACT settling the manner of Electing the sixteen Peers and Forty Five Commoners to Represent Scotland in the Parliament of Great Britain”, you will see very clearly that this is exactly what happened.
this is a quote from that act:
“It is agreed That if her Majesty shall on or before the first day of May next Declare That it is expedient the Lords and Commons of the present Parliament of England should be the members of the respective houses of the first Parliament of Great Britain for and on the part of England they shall accordingly be the members of the said respective Houses for and on the part of England HER MAJESTY WITH ADVICE AND CONSENT FORESAID IN THAT CASE ONLY (my capitals) Doth hereby Statute and Ordain That the Sixteen Peers and Fourty five Commissioners for Shires and Burghs who shall be chosen by the Peers Barrons and Burghs respectively in this present Session of Parliament and out of the Members thereof in the same manner as Committees of Parliament are usually now chosen shall be the members of the respective Houses of the said first Parliament of Great Britain for and on the part of Scotland Which Nomination and Election being certified by a Writ under the Lord Clerk Registers hand the persons so Nominated and Elected shall have right to sit and vote in the House of Lords and in the HOuse of Commons of the said first Parliament of Great Britain.”
In other words, the first parliament of “Great Britain” was, in fact and by design, the continuation of the last session of both, the parliaments of Scotland and England. One mimicked the other.
The only two differences between what happened to the parliament of England and what happened to the parliament of Scotland are:
1. The members of the parliament of Scotland had to move to a England
2. while all MPs and Lords from England moved into the parliament of Great Britain, only a fraction of the representatives of Scotland sitting in the last parliament of Scotland session were transferred.
Scotland’s peers to seat in the new parliament of Great Britain were elected by peers themselves (peers were always stooges of the crown, so the crown had no fear there they would elect anti-union peers). However, the “commoners” were selected by the commoners already sitting in the last session of parliament, ensuring only pro-union MPs were selected.
Please note above the section I highlighted in capitals:
“HER MAJESTY WITH ADVICE AND CONSENT FORESAID IN THAT CASE ONLY”.
“In that case only” This means, the parliament of Scotland only agreed to send members from its last session to the parliament of Great Britain if the parliament of England did the same. In other words, IF a new parliament of England was not started by calling a general election in England.
My interpretation of this is that the members of Scotland’s parliament were only prepared to agree to this fudge (and it was a fudge) of sending members of the last session of Scotland’s Parliament if the members of the parliament of England did the same thing, ensuring that the last session of both parliaments would end at the exact same time, which is when the first session of the parliament of Great Britain ended.
From this you can infer that the members of the parliament of Scotland would have demanded a general election should the crown have allowed the parliament of England to call one to start a brand new parliamentary session of the parliament of England with new MPs.
This is to me another clear sign the members of the parliament of Scotland did not expect Scotland’s parliament to continue as a subordinate of the parliament of England or to be incorporated by the parliament of England as colonialists claim. They saw it as its equal and expected it to be its equal.
I think the only scenario where you could ever say the Scottish parliament was incorporated into England’s parliament is if Scotland’s members from the last session were sent to a brand new session of the parliament of England elected by a general election AFTER the union was agreed.
But this never happened. The last session as independent parliaments of Scotland and England ended exactly at the same time for both, which is when the first session of the parliament of Great Britain ended. The first general election after the treaty of union was ratified by both parliaments, was to elect members for the parliament of Great Britain, not for England.
Unless you prove me wrong by providing records of the parliament of Scotland which demonstrated the parliament was permanently dissolved, I would not believe it was ever permanently dissolved as I do not believe England’s parliament was permanently dissolved either.
I sustain this could have never been the case, because if the parliament of Scotland had been permanently dissolved before the opening of the first parliamentary session of the parliament of Great Britain took place, there is no way the same sitting MPs in the last session of Scotland’s parliament could simply be transferred to the new one without a general election. The exact same applies to England’s parliament.
If Scotland’s parliament was dissolved, it was only after the first Parliament of Great Britain was dissolved, and the exact same applies to the Parliament of England.
Looking at the records I have had access to so far, it is clear to me that neither of the parliaments of Scotland and England were ever dissolved. They were only adjourned.
It is also clear to me that the parliaments of Scotland and England still live on today in the form of the MPs representing each Kingdom in the parliament of the UK. It is my opinion this will remain to be the case until Scotland’s MSPs grow a spine and ditch the Scotland Act.
Only at that point, and unless before that happens our amoebas sitting in Westminster voluntarily transfer ALL their powers to Holyrood, Holyrood will gain full legislative and executive power.
At that point, the scope of Scotland’s MPs will be just like the scope of Scotland’s MPs in the European Parliament was: only extended to union matters.
Only at that point, the farce that has lasted for over 300 years of England MPs exercising their self-awarded chunk of Scotland’s sovereignty, will end.
I agree 100% with Xaracen. Any policy and law which was passed only with the agreement of a majority of the representatives from the Kingdom of England is not union policy or law. It is England’s policy and law.
But because we have a majority of spineless amoebas representing us in Westminter who are not representing Scotland at all, but rather themselves, England and the crown, those policies and laws have been made extensive to Scotland and forced on us by stealth.
When you realise of the above, it becomes crystal clear why the colonial forces in the union (and I include here the present SNP crop) are so desperate to make us believe Scotland ceased to exist when the union started. It also explains why they are so terrified and manufacture all sort of obstacles every time somebody mentions the idea of Scotland unilaterally ending that treaty of Union.
Westminster can end the treaty of union because it still represents both parliaments of Scotland and England. Both, England and Scotland have the legitimate right to end that treaty unilaterally.
But because we have crown tools representing us in Westminster rather than Scotland MPs, Westminster will never end that treaty on behalf of Scotland. In other words, it will only end it when it is convenient for England (and its crown).
The only way Scotland can end that treaty is by:
1. Holyrood ditching the Scotland Act and recovering the powers
2. A majority of Scotland’s MP removing themselves from Westminster, recalling the old Scotland’s Parliament and ending the treaty
3. A majority of Scotland’s MP representatives removing themselves from Westminster and voting to transfer all their powers to Holyrood, effectively overruling the Scotland Act.
I would go even further. “UK” legislation only applies to Scotland for as long as the Treaty of Union remains extant and for as long as Scotland has MPs in Westminster retaining all executive and legislative powers (power devolved is power retained).
If Scotland ditches that treaty, “UK” legislation will no longer apply to Scotland, just like EU legislation does no longer apply to the UK after Brexit.
And that is precisely why I do not agree with a referendum on “secession” from the UK, which is what the political frauds Sturgeon and Yousaf appear to seek.
In such scenario, the amoebas who claim to represent us in Westminster would not lift a finger to stop England law to be forced on Scotland so we will be treated in the negotiations as a region seceding from the kingdom of England rather than as England’s equal partner. And the only way you can ditch that UK law and stop it applying during the negotiations is if Scotland ends that treaty.
James Jones.
How about you commenting on the link you so wanted to read and search for?
I see pete wishart has just worked out the current indyref 2 policy is not working
Mia, at 11:50am; great post! Copied and saved for digestion, there’s a lot in it!
@ Mia at 11.50: rps.ac.uk has an archived version – interestingly none of the Scottish Parliaments records in Anne’s reign are available whereas the previous reign, William, is available!!!
Den, the only way you would want to use there type of websites is because it’s easy if you don’t mind taking the financial hit. Surely selling it back to the dealership would get you a better return. Perhaps this was tried but for some other reason they were not interested.
What a great piece of work that post is. Superb! But I doubt it will quieten the ramblings of poor old James Che.
@ James Che,
Thank you. I read that The House of Lords Act of 1999 ended the 700-year-old right of all hereditary peers (then numbering 750) to sit on and vote from the red benches. Holding a hereditary title does not now give you the automatic right, but a chance to be eligible to take one of the 92 reserved places (-elected by all the previous hereditary peers in the House grouped by party affiliation). Scottish hereditary peer Lord Gray objected based on an argument which was ultimately unconvincing. All fair and nothing to be concerned about.
The article from the Electoral Reform Society added,
“History and tradition are a hallmark of our political culture. But traditions are not always positive and can hinder progress, and sometimes things need to change to keep up with modern standards.
One such hindrance is most certainly the presence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords.”
Mac says:
9 December, 2023 at 9:23 pm
Hmmm this is very true.
He then links to a guy (dinky ponytail, neat beard not that there is anything wrong with that) who says that anything identified as a global problem is definitely a scam – saying covid and climate being the obvious examples.
Well, does that not mean that the global corporations claiming enhanced oil pumping is the only way we can safeguard civilisation, globally, (shame about the wars) is also a scam? I’m with him on that. Not often I agree with a purple (red-blue alliance) pumper!
Mia,
I have spent roughly five years gathering all my information from various sources and records and as soon as I heard something new or got a related link I wrote it down,
I have volumes of note books, on the sources not in order,
Your best bet and my advice how I got around the information restrictions in to type into google, something like,
The first parliament of Great Britain,
Click wikipedia, after a long explanation which in itself can be interesting, the blue links are the most important, as one bit of blue linked information links to another,
Navigate the links that you may be of further interest or help.
That is a important lesson I learned early on to obtain info usually hidden, or old,
Other than that, ask me for a particular reference topic source and I will try to provide it to you,
It will take a day or two to go through my volumes of notes but I will get back to you,
If I have time, tomorrow I will post all the (Heading titles) I have researched relating to Scotland, England, Ireland , over the past five years
This may give you a head start on your searches,
As at first I did not know what was available, or exactly what I was looking for until I found it and then the links kept growing, some useless and some amazing information we would never dream of inquiring.
Mia
Thanks for that. Very informative.
Don’t be so hard on amoebas. They are, at least, sovereign, unlike the rest of us.
Mia, good stuff. Thanks..
Para 22 ends on, ´parliament of Great Britain ended.´
Should that read? parliament of Great Britain began?
Para 26 same point,´parliament of Great Britain ended´?
In addition to ´The only way Scotland can end that treaty is by´ perhaps add 4.
4. Word for Word use the exact same text the UK used in its Brexit withdrawal letter to the EU and have an elected or appointed representative of Scottish (or FM) deliver the letter by hand to the UK PM at 10 Downing Street.
The point being, if the UK´s drafted Brexit text was sufficient legitimate for the UK in Activating Brexit and the end of its Union with the EU (and in addition all the Treaty agreements that then followed). Then that UK drafted Brexit text by precedent must be sufficient for Scotland’s withdrawal from:
Two Acts of Parliament: the Union with Scotland Act 1706 passed by the Parliament of England, and the Union with England Act 1707 passed by the Parliament of Scotland.
Because, The Union of Scotland with England is no different to the Union of the UK with the EU. Including that those 1706 and 1707 Acts were also ensuring free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the UK “four freedoms”.
And for the grammar police, yes I know, you don´t start a sentence with because.
James Che is the gift that keeps on giving. I’m still chuckling at his latest reply. His one-track mind sums up so many of the posters here. Isn’t that right, Geri?
What budget black hole ?
The budget is balanced at all times with people’s savings on the asset side of the balance sheet.
https://www.businessinsider.com/goldmans-jan-hatzius-on-sectoral-balances-2012-12?op=1&r=US&IR=T
ayemacrihanish…
It’s a pity the Articles of the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England didn’t have an equivalent to the EU Treaty’s Article 50. But I’d wager that if it did, the Devo-Max troughers in the SNP would still be wriggling like a worm on a hook to avoid triggering what would’ve been Article 26 -“XXVI Either kingdom may decide to withdraw from the union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”.
If only…
Mia @ 11.50
“The only way Scotland can end that treaty”
Yes, Scotland is already de jure independent with its third elected nationalist majority; all that is required is for the majority of Scotland’s representatives to withdraw from Westminster and the union is ended.
Even the Westminster committee on privileges is telling us this:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10810.htm
ayemachrihanish at 1:37 pm
“-if the UK´s drafted Brexit text was sufficient legitimate for the UK in Activating Brexit and the end of its Union with the EU (and in addition all the Treaty agreements that then followed). Then that UK drafted Brexit text by precedent must be sufficient for Scotland’s withdrawal (from the UK).”
Not so. Britain legally invoked Article 50, an existing and agreed clause for the voluntary and unilateral withdrawal of a Member State from the EU. There is no parallel.
Besides, none of the deliberately favourable reinterpretations of The Act of Union matter if the independence movement can’t demonstrate a significant majority in the polls. What you’re all proposing is that a Scots minority pulls the plug. Not a great way for a supposedly democratic country to enter the international stage.
“For those who don’t know what Bute House looks like I’ve Googled and found this informative photo.
https://tinyurl.com/bdea8954
Note the blue door in the left hand corner.
You’ll have to do the next bit yourself I’m afraid.
Compare photo to Chris’ drawing.
Helpful hint: Bute House doesn’t have a blue door it has a black door.
No need for thanks just try harder next time!”
He’s drawn it exactly like the photo.
A Scots minority pulled the plug in 1707. goose and gander
“When will my PMT be over?
Christmas?
PMT = Pre-Moderation Time!”
The clock resets every time you mention it.
alf baird at 2:53 pm
“- all that is required is for the majority of Scotland’s representatives to withdraw from Westminster and the union is ended. Even the Westminster committee on privileges is telling us this: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10810.htm”
Specifically which bit?
Mia,
I have sourced this record for you.
Scottish Archives for Schools .org
This provides the time line of events that you need from achives.
I sourced this on google by asking.
What is the text queen Anne dissolving Scottish parliament.
Missing words were deliberate,
Scroll down until you come to heading above,
wullie says at 3:23 pm
“A Scots minority pulled the plug in 1707. goose and gander.”
Good point. Let’s hear it for suffrage.
Mia,
In this Archive timeline I note on quick search that there is no reference to dissolving the parliament of England, however it provides the date that the parliament of Great Britain opened
Wrong James, the reason there is no Article 50 in the 1706 or 1707 Union Treaty is simply down to poor drafting on the part of the UK not Scotland.
The point is Scotland has NO exit treaty to invoke. The wording drafted and used by the UK is therefore, by precedent, sufficient for Scotland’s withdrawal. The is no Article to retain them
On the gaslighting point. The Brexit referendum resulted was 51.9% of the votes cast being in favour of the UK leaving the EU.
Therefore in Scotland’s case, and again by precedent, 50.1% of the votes cast being in favour of Scotland leaving the UK would of course be sufficient.
Now go away.
Looking through my Christmas list, I appear to have lost Brigadier Alastair Aitken’s address.
Could I perhaps ask that those of you close to him pass on my Best?
@ayemachrihanish
You ask if Paragraph 22 in my previous comment, which ends on “parliament of Great Britain ended”, should read “parliament of Great Britain began”
The response is no, sorry. It should read as it is written, “the FIRST session of the parliament of Great Britain ENDED”.
This is because by sending MPs from the live last sessions of the parliaments of Scotland and England, instead of electing new ones through a general election, they were effectively ensuring the first session of the parliament of Great Britain was in fact a continuation of the last session of the parliaments of Scotland and England.
The last session of the parliaments of Scotland and England, therefore, only really ended when the first session of the parliament of Great Britain ENDED and a new GE was called.
This ensured the last session of the parliaments of Scotland and England ended at the exact same time.
The same applies to your query regarding paragraph 26.
With regards to your suggested point 4:
(“Word for Word use the exact same text the UK used in its Brexit withdrawal letter to the EU and have an elected or appointed representative of Scottish (or FM) deliver the letter by hand to the UK PM at 10 Downing Street”)
I would say that would be the best and most obvious route for Scotland to take should it be an independent state.
But for Scotland to act as an independent state, the first thing we need is Scotland’s parliament and government to recover, in full and respectively, their legislative and executive powers.
In my opinion, this can only come, politically, from points 1, 2 or 3.
Besides those 3 I think there might be also an apolitical route. In my view this might be the most likely to succeed because it does not involve career politicians. This route would be where the people of Scotland find a way to overrule Holyrood and Scotland MPs. This could be, for example, by reconvening the convention of estates.
If I am not mistaken, this last route might be close to the route Salvo is pursuing.
The FM is, at present, simply an MSP and therefore bound by the Scotland Act. In my opinion, the Scotland Act and Scotland MPs are what is constraining Holyrood and ScotGov’s powers.
Unless that convention of states overrules Holyrood and the Scotland Act, or Holyrood itself vote to ditch the Scotland Act forcing the return of our powers from Westminster, or Scotland MPs overrule the Scotland Act by voluntarily transferring their powers to Holyrood, or Scotland’s MPs reconvene the parliament of Scotland effectively ending the union of parliaments, I do not believe the FM can, right now, deliver that letter in a credible way.
It is very unlikely Scotland’s MSPs would ever vote to ditch the Scotland Act unless that had been included previously in a manifesto (for example by saying that a vote for the party is a vote for independence), or there is a planned and concerted action between Scotland’s MPs and MSPs to transfer first the powers to Holyrood and then to ditch the Scotland Act.
This kind of concerted action is precisely what I have been expecting to see from the SNP for the last 9 long years.
But for that to happen you need a serious leader committed to independence and you need serious MPs who are elected on a mandate for independence and are determined to deliver independence rather than growing their bank accounts and social network. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of SNP MPs do not fit the profile.
Without the backing of Holyrood or the convention, the only thing the FM can do is, as leader of the political party which currently holds the majority of Scotland’s seats in Westminster and the largest share of the seats in Holyrood, instigate SNP MPs to vacate Scotland’s seats in Westminster and get them to hold a vote on either reconvening the old Scotland’s parliament to repeal the treaty and act of union with England, or to transfer directly their powers to Holyrood for it to do so.
But we know that is not going to happen under this pretend SNP. Yousaf and the majority of the SNP MPs are simply keeping the green seats warm awaiting for that much desired (by the SNP) labour majority so they can finally relax (even more) and continue to do absolutely nothing to progress independence, but at least this time they will have a better excuse for it.
I completely agree with you that the Union of Scotland and England is not very different to the union of the UK with the EU. The only main difference I see is that the UK (or shall we say England acting as the UK) is happily exercising statehood, while Scotland is being denied that opportunity by its very own self-serving representatives in both Holyrood and Westminster.
We are not being betrayed by England or England MPs. They have no mandate to represent our interests. We are being betrayed every single day by our own spineless and self-serving representatives.
Our only representatives who appear to actually want and are prepared to put up a fight for Scotland to recover its statehood are Alba MPs and MSP.
The SNP MPs and MSPs have not lifted a finger in the last 9 years to make that happen. They are quite happy to watch, from the comforts of the green seats and Westminster bars, the ransacking of Scotland’s assets continue at pace.
Unlike Mark (Rents) Renton in Trainspotting, you’ll only need the one bucket in order to watch this…
youtu.be/cb_DvKEcxrM?feature=shared
That’ll be the one for “vomitus”.
James Jones said;
“Britain legally invoked Article 50, an existing and agreed clause for the voluntary and unilateral withdrawal of a Member State from the EU.”
Actually, Britain illegally invoked A50, because A50 obliged the leaving member state to affirm that it did so in conformity with its own constitution. But the UK Govt grievously breached that constitution when it utterly denied the sovereign will of the Scottish half of the Union, and denied its representatives any involvement in the exit negotiations.
England and its MPs do not speak for the UK nor for Scotland, and they certainly didn’t do so on any aspect of Brexit.
“If I have time, tomorrow I will post all the (Heading titles) I have researched relating to Scotland, England, Ireland , over the past five years”
Thank you very much, James Che. That is very kind.
Mia.
Here is more information for you to digest,
That piece of information regarding the Scottish parliament being Adjourned in Scotland but being being dissolved by Queen Anne in Westminster parliament of England is curious as it is prior to the treaty of union commencement date and prior to the parliament of England being dissolved,
Did Queen Anne have legal and territorial control over Scotland?
The succession to crown through queen anne to Scotlands territory and parliament is not quite as if first appears.
Her succession to the Crown of England is not doubted,
However there is a glitch, error as to wether she was monarch of Scotland.
The text of the Act of security, also known as the Regency Act 1707 and given Royal Assent on the
13th Feburary 1708,
EXTENDS the monarch of Englands succession to the crown of Scotland at the above said date1708.
After the treaty of union articles had been ratified,
Queen Anne did not ratify the Scottish side of the treaty of union , it was the duke of Malsbourgh.
The Scottish Royal Seal having been thrown in the Thames river by king James as he fled.
Why the need to extend the succession of the crown to Scotland from England, she was already queen of Scotland according to a letter sent to Scotland. From England.
Did she actually only become queen of Scots and their (territory) in 1708.?
@fruitella 1:00 pm
Re Covid being a scam.
If anybody were to plot the graph of ever increasing world population against time for the century up to today, would the “deadly” Covid pandemic show up at all?
I’m guessing it might as a tiny blip if you zoom in close enough, but the WHO is currently estimating a bit less than 7 million across the entire world for the entire period since the Chinese released the virus. Excess deaths, which probably allow for Covid under reporting and probably also include collateral deaths due to the Covid over-reaction, are just under 15 million.
World population currently grows by something like 83 million per annum.
To recap then, if the scaremongering over Covid can be clearly seen to be, if not a scam, but a great substitute for a scam until a real scam comes along, might that real scam be anthropogenic climate change?
Innarestin question, naw?
Xaracen, at any and every time you post.
You’re a hoot. Continually pretending to yourself that Scotland gets an equal say.
I know some Advocates in Edinburgh. For £1,000 an hour, they’ll happily represent your nonsense all the way up through the courts, right up until you’ve run out of money. And you won’t have won your case in any court.
Great tweet here, a handy cut-out-and-keep to give to any WGDers you may happen across.
Xaracen
Does that mean that technically we are still in the EU?
Do we have redress against those EU negotiators who unconstitutionally chucked us out?
Or is the realpolitik reality that as the UK joined as a unitary state, we had to leave as a unitary state? Precedent again, and precedent can defo be a real bitch.
If you were to claim that our EU membership was unconstitutional because the accession negotiations did not take into account Scotland’s and England’s separate sovereignties, then I might take your arguments seriously.
But right now, you are adopting your usual pick-and-mix approach, where sovereignty doesn’t matter when you get what you want, but kicks in as important when you don’t.
James Jones says:
10 December, 2023 at 3:07 pm
Not so. Britain legally invoked Article 50, an existing and agreed clause for the voluntary and unilateral withdrawal of a Member State from the EU. There is no parallel…
I agree there’s no parallel, but there is a precedent in the Article 50 protocols, and a working framework to adopt so as to minimise the pain and disruption associated with a political Union coming to an end.
There might not be an Article 50 protocol, but logic and expediency would see something very similar agreed very quickly. In many ways, the Lisbon Treaty simply set up an agenda.
While the EU Membership Treaty did have some exit protocols established, these were far from exhaustive, hence all the furore and acrimony about a Hard Brexit, a Cold Brexit, a Soft Brexit etc…
The Lisbon Treaty provided a pre-agreed framework for the discussions and negotiations, but I refuse to believe the absence of any such preambles with the Treaty of Union would be an insurmountable problem, and would in fact be resolved very quickly. You could in fact make an argument that the absence of such protocols is a measure of the Treaty of Union’s
Even at the lowest most primitive end of management and team building, when the team is presented with their team building challenge, the first question asked is typically whether anybody has experience relevant to the challenge. In circumstances where the Treaty of Union was being dissolved, the manner in which the UK exited Europe would help the parties to improvise comparable protocols.
Arguably too, the EU’s agreed protocols were inadequate, because by rights, Michel Barnier was bound to make sure the Brexit protocols were constitutionally sound, but they were not. Scotland’s extant and legitimate Constitutional Sovereignty was ignored. Given the sovereign nature of Scotland’s rejection of Brexit, the Brexit “result” should have been annulled or declared void, because a delivered Brexit represented an unconstitutional outrage suffered upon Scotland.
Had Sturgeon merely contested Scotland’s outrageous subjugation, Brexit was immediately undeliverable, and Scotland’s sovereignty would have secured International Recognition by default.
The EU’s Lisbon Treaty had exit protocols agreed, but they weren’t equal to the job. They had no provision for the dissolution of an existing Member State into two sovereign constitutional equals. Instead of improvising new and fitting protocols, they forced ill-fitting and inadequate protocols upon Scotland, to Scotland’s profound disadvantage.
The same argument reoccurs with Article 46[?] where Scotland would have to leave an re-join the EU. Again, there was no provision for a member state splitting in two but with neither state being Continuer / Seceding State. The EU had no mechanism or precedent to expel the sovereign nation of Scotland. Once again, Sturgeon’s amateurs abandoned Scotland’s rights and interests. Their actions are tantamount to T-rea-son, and Scotland was sold down the river.
“But the UK Govt grievously breached that constitution when it utterly denied the sovereign will of the Scottish half of the Union, and denied its representatives any involvement in the exit negotiations”
Absolutely. Every time England (as the UK) government forces on Scotland legislation voted down by a majority of Scotland’s MPs or rejected by HOlyrood, they are, at all practical effects, forcing absolute rule over Scotland, which is in violation of the Claim of Right.
The Claim of Right is a fundamental condition, that must be respected at all times, for the Treaty of Union to remain valid.
The overruling of a majority of Scotland’s MPs should have only been allowed to take place once. Scotland’s MPs should have taken immediate action after that to avoid a repeat.
Our MPs are therefore not free of accountability when it comes to Westminster’s abuse over Scotland.
Firstly, they have done nothing to stop the violations of the Claim of Right by WEstminster and by the crown every time it gives royal assent to legislation voted down by a majority of Scotland’s MPs or Holyrood.
Secondly, they have done absolutely nothing to officially terminate a treaty which has now more violations to its name than the number of holes in a sieve.
We all know how prone to abuse and to undermine Scotland Westminster Parliament and England’s government are. We also know the disproportionate representation of England in Westminster, to the point that it is, at all practical effects, England’s parliament. Because of all this, Scotland’s MPs, particularly the nationalist ones, should always refuse to take part in votes when Holyrood has already voted against or the proposed legislation goes against the will of the people of Scotland. The A50 vote was a clear example of this.
Doing so would send a very strong message that Scotland is not represented in those votes, therefore they cannot be considered “union” votes, only England’s.
As it is, and for as long as our MPs continue to do nothing to stop legislation rejected by a majority of Scotland’s MPs being forced on Scotland, in the eyes of the UK gov and the eyes of the world, even in Scotland’s eyes, taking part in those votes is, at all practical effects, legitimising them and legitimise the abuse over Scotland.
It is my opinion that in such circumstances, taking part in those votes is, at all practical effects, overruling Holyrood and legitimising the overruling of Scotland by England.
Every time our MPs take part in a vote for legislation after Holyrood has already voted against, they are effectively undermining Holyrood.
So the first culprits for Holyrood having so little power and weight on legislation are our very own MPs.
If Scotland was ever dragged out of the EU by England (as the UK) gov, it was only because Sturgeon, the SNP MPs, the Tory MP, the Labour MP and the LibDem MP at the time choose not to stop them and chose, with their participation in the vote, to legitimise it.
@ John MOAN you obviously have an axe to grind with Breeks as much as the obnoxious A SCAB has with Alf Baird , if you were a long time reader of WOS and a genuine independence supporter you would know that Breeks and many more of us were advocating the plebiscitery route for the past 9 years, BUT just like your denigration and disgust at the illegal way Useless was parachuted in as the Scum Nonce Party leader which many of us also agree with you, YOU and WE are unable to do much about it, instead of moaning and belittling posters with ideas, howz about you get up off your arse and DAE SUMFIN
YOU denigrated and ridiculed my suggestion that a convention of the estates should be comprised of ordinary working people because they were too stupid and suchlike, things will NEVER change while politicians have the upper hand and are free to rule as they see fit, if you GENUINELY want change and are not just here for the laffs the ONLY way it will come is through PEOPLE POWER
Breeks says at 5:09 pm
“They had no provision for the dissolution of an existing Member State into two sovereign constitutional equals.”
Water under the bridge now.
https://ideasforeurope.eu/activity/publication/the-internal-enlargement-of-the-european-union/
But Article 48 was fairly appropriate.
“ROADMAP FOR SUCCESSION IN EUROPEAN UNION MEMBERSHIP IN THE CASE OF MEMBER STATE’S SECESSION OR DISSOLUTION
Declaration of independence from a state arising from a member state’s secession or dissolution following a democratic process.
Notification of succession, from a European Union member state by the state emerging from a member state’s secession or dissolution. This act would notify of the new situation as well as the new state’s wish to succeed the predecessor state as a European Union member as a new state complying with the principles and conditions required for being a Union member with a model of market economy and required administrative capacity. The new state would commit the in accepting the entire flow of the European Union, and would want to immediately initiate the process of adaptation intended to ensure that European Union law is brought into line with the new situation, together with the commitment to adopt all acts that allow it to fulfill all the international obligations assumed by states as European Union members.
Act adopted by the European Union to recognise a new state’s succession arising from the secession or dissolution of another European Union member state as a Union member. This would mean the recognition of the predecessor state, if it should continue to exist and of the successor state(s) as members of the European Union and would have to contain the initial provision needed to guarantee the operation of the Union.
Establishment of the transitory arrangement:
— Application of the principle of continuity in acts not requiring changes
or amendment to the acts of secondary law to enable:
— The continuity of uniform application of the material provisions of the
European Union’s legal system throughout the new state’s territory.“
Thanks for the update Mia.
On point 4. My post is asking a slightly different question.
Not independents per-sa. Just leave the Union.
Why Not?
The Scottish parliament has already reconvened. Scotland already is a de facto independent state that happens also to be a founding member of the Union of the United Kingdoms
So, just leave the Union. Vote on invoking a withdrawal from the Union and not per se a referendum on independence. Technically that not needed. Scotland already is a de facto independent state unless someone has evidence of otherwise? Such as when, what year did that referendum take place? What was the question asked? Who voted? Who counted? What was the vote split? etc, etc. That sort of evidence. Where is it?
So, vote to leave the Union. Then do exactly as the Brexit withdrawal process, Start to work out the new relationships and what the former Union relationship treaty terms and conditions will be? The sharing of Assets, Liabilities, Trading relationship, the type of free movement of goods, capital, services, and people (four freedoms) that both parties want to negotiate.
Remember, Brexit withdrawal is both a template and definitive process of steps. As are all the Withdrawal (UKEU) Treaties. They provide a definitive starter for 10 framework of all the issues and draft texts for all the Scotland-UK Withdrawal Treaties required.
As already mentioned, the Brexit referendum resulted in 51.9% of the votes cast being in favour of the UK leaving the EU. And rules were that result was also NOT subject to any second referendum. Also, the result threshold set by the leaving union member UK was 50% + 1 vote. The remaining member EU states played no part in the vote or the result threshold set. The T&C and threshold decisions were all made by the leaving member of the Union.
They 100% decided everything not the remaining state or states.
Therefore, in a Scottish referendum on leaving the Union of UK, and again by UK precedent, 50.% plus 1 vote cast in favour of Scotland leaving the Union of the UK would of course be sufficient. And the T&C and threshold of a Scottish decision would be made by the leaving member of the Union. They, Scotland as a de facto independent state, 100% decided everything not the remaining UK state or states.
Here´s the draft play book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_invocation_of_Article_50_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union
Best take a copy before is disappears….
In summary, I´m asking and arguing a different but 100% legitimate question..
London has far too much to lose in letting Scotland go.
“The book ends with some extremely pertinent observations about ‘personating’ or vote-rigging. Personation involves voting multiple times and was widespread in the north of Ireland under the motto of ‘vote early, vote often’. Carlin’s revelations about the mechanics of ballot-rigging led to a change in the voting laws in the north of Ireland. This was lauded as historic progress, yet, those same laws remain unchanged in the rest of the UK.
This seems inexplicable, since marginal constituencies can easily be swayed by even small voting irregularities of a few hundred ballots. But perhaps this is exactly why the laws have not been changed in rUK, particularly to harmonise with the more strict laws on postal ballots in the British partition. “Living in Scotland,” Carlin writes, “and being an SNP sympathiser, often tempts me to approach some local activists and show them how to achieve this feat.”
Reading this jolted a memory from the 2017 general election. That was the election when many of us were perplexed by First Minister Sturgeon’s underwhelming, uninspired performances during debates. The unexpected loss of so many SNP MPs at the first post-Brexit election did not sit right with me. Scotland was ripe for independence. One poll put support at 60%. European citizens and many No voters were ready to vote Yes. And what did we get? A lacklustre campaign, a disengaged First Minister, and some truly bizarre results. The 56 became 35, still a victory but announced as a defeat by the organs of state propaganda. Not long after, the plot to defame and destroy Alex Salmond gathered momentum. Gender activism came from nowhere and replaced independence as the SNP’s main focus, hardly coincidental at the very moment the break-up of the UK looked inevitable.
Only those who refuse to believe the evidence of their own eyes, dismiss the claim that the SNP has been infiltrated. Perhaps 20 years from now, we’ll get a mea culpa from an informer, an infiltrator who had ‘divided loyalties’. Whether these North Brits work from some sense of monarchial Anglo-Saxon idealism, for financial gain, or due to coercion, is neither here nor there. What we do know, is that within less than a decade the SNP has been neutered, its focus shifted, its electoral prospects diminished, and most of its gerrymandered MPs and MSPs now unfit for public office.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personation
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2023/12/10/chimes/
Could be interesting.
“Police are investigating the purchase of a luxury £95,000 Jaguar as part of a fraud probe into SNP finances.
The top of the range electric I-Pace SUV is alleged to have been bought by Nicola Sturgeon’s husband Peter Murrell from a dealership in Edinburgh.
The revelation heaps pressure on former SNP CEO Murrell and ex-First Minister Sturgeon who have both been arrested and questioned as suspects by Operation Branchform detectives.”
Mia at 6:03 pm.
“Absolutely. Every time England (as the UK) government forces on Scotland legislation voted down by a majority of Scotland’s MPs or rejected by HOlyrood, they are, at all practical effects, forcing absolute rule over Scotland, which is in violation of the Claim of Right.”
It’s called democracy, and since Scotland is effectively a superannuated county it has to take the rough with the smooth like everyone else.
“Does that mean that technically we are still in the EU?”
No. It means the UK gov and the crown (by giving royal assent to legislation which was voted down by the majority of Scotland’s representatives and Holyrood), breached the Claim of Right.
As a fundamental condition of the treaty of Union, this means they also breached their precious treaty of union.
What it also means is that Scotland has no representation in Westminster. Our, so called, representatives, chose to side with the UK gov and the crown and allowed them to impose on Scotland absolute rule by turning a blind eye to the violation of the Claim of Right.
But this also means that, after violating of the Treaty of Union through the Claim of Right, their precious treaty of union only continues because our, so called Scotland representatives, chose not to declare null and void that treaty as they should have done if they were really representing Scotland.
Instead, they preferred to inflict even more abuse and disappointment on Scotland, and to undermine even more Scotland’s constitutional rights and will. People who do that can no longer be called “Scotland’s representatives” because representing Scotland they are not. They are representing somebody/something else.
“Do we have redress against those EU negotiators who unconstitutionally chucked us out?”
It was not the EU negotiators who unconstitutionally chucked us out. It was the useless Scotland FM, SNP, Tory, LibDems and Labour MPs at the time who chose to allow the Uk gov and crown overrule Scotland’s expressed will to remain in the EU.
It is from them who we should demand redress.
“Or is the realpolitik reality that as the UK joined as a unitary state, we had to leave as a unitary state?”
No, I do not think so. The realpolitik is that the EU referendum demonstrated the Kingdoms of England and Scotland have diverged politically and socially to the extent they can no longer be efficiently and fairly governed as a unitary state.
Continuous suppression of Scotland will and interests, and continuous ransacking of Scotland’s assets for the sake of maintaining artificially a unitary state is not “realpolitik”. It is blatant abuse and dictatorship.
Take a look at the Ruthlergen last by-election. We have been bombarded in the press with this earth-shattering resurgence of Labour. Turns out is a lie. When you look at the number of votes, even including the strategic votes from tory and libdem natural voters, labour got even less votes overall in that constituency than in 2019. There is no “earth-shattering” resurgence of labour at all. It is simply a matter that pro-independence supporters felt so disenfranchised that chose not to vote that day, so it is only the share of the vote cast for labour that increased, not the real vote. Realpolitik would have been for Starmer to acknowledge that. He chose not to and instead to disinform people.
In the big picture, if the turnout is well below 50%, can you even consider, from a democratic perspective, such change in the share of the vote for Labour significant? It represents a fraction of the minority who voted. Can you ever realistically consider labour to represent the constituency’s democratic will?
I am not sure how.
The realpolitik is that in the current Uk political model the turnouts are continuously decreasing and more and more people is becoming disenfranchised in Scotland. It is therefore becoming increasingly difficult for the british state to continue selling in Scotland the dichotomy Tory/labour or hard right/faux left as a realistic and credible form of government to maintain the UK as a unitary state. In Scotland, the dichotomy that matters is independence vs union. Accepting THAT is the ultimate realpolitik.
Mandy Rhodes, editor Holyrood Mag, says ..
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,if-all-you-have-is-to-blame-westminster-then-its-time-to-step-aside
ayemachrihanish @ 3:54 pm
“the reason there is no Article 50 in the 1706 or 1707 Union Treaty is simply down to poor drafting on the part of the UK”
You do realise that the ‘UK’ as a joint governing entity came into being only after the treaty that created it was agreed?
Dan says:
10 December, 2023 at 6:16 pm
But Article 48 was fairly appropriate.
I disagree Dan. Scotland was not “seceding” from a Continuer UK State. The UK would have ceased to exist, so UK no more, and step back into the light sovereign entities of England and Scotland, neither Nation Continuer State, neither Nation Seceding State.
Article 48 relates to an act of secession, which the dissolution of the UK is not, and cannot properly be.
There is an issue that the UK was the named Member state on paper, but the argument there is whether Scotland, where our nationals were already EU citizens who had voted emphatically to remain EU citizens, would adequately qualify as a “limited” Continuer state, because the EU had no protocol to expel our Nation or people from Europe.
I’m not disputing what Article 48 says, but simply that Article 48 is simply inappropriate for Scotland’s circumstances.
When the protocol doesn’t fit the circumstance, expediency requires a new precedent to be improvised, and an appendix written in to the Treaty – just like German unification. Why didn’t Germany have to exit and re-join? Why didn’t East Germany have to join the EU and then re-unify? The hammered out a compromise and made it work. That’s what they should have done for Scotland. You don’t simply apply the “best fit” protocol from the list and force Scotland to endure unconstitutional subjugation that is contrary to International law.
Brexit, and Scotland’s rejection of Brexit was without precedent, and should have not had led to Scotland’s subjugation and expulsion. The EU and Barnier SHOULD have recognised the Sovereignty of Scotland, the Continuer State of Scotland’s EU membership after England’s exit by England’s volition.
The EU got it wrong, and Sturgeon’s ignorant cabal just rolled over. There is no denying it happened, and no turning back the clock, but wrong is wrong, and Scotland is owed restoration of its entitlements and/ or justice and compensation.
I don’t believe we will ever see said compensation, but the EU need’s to understand the huge grievance and impropriety it suffered upon Scotland, and then we discuss our relationship moving forward… from a position of strength and righteous indignation.
“You do realise that the ‘UK’ as a joint governing entity came into being only after the treaty that created it was agreed?”
That would’ve been in 1801, seeing as the treaty that was signed by two independent, sovereign states in 1706/7 created a unified Kingdom of Great Britain. The United Kingdom came about in 1801 – the term “united” in the 1706/7 documents being used in form of an adjective, as opposed to in form of a noun, as is the case from 1801.
Tom
Thanks for the link.
I still mind the days when Scotland’s fiscal black hole was only £1 billion.
According to that article, it’s now £2 billion.
I still mind the £1 billion days cos they were only last week. Ah ken the SNP don’t have much sense of responsibility when it comes to spending us taxpayer’s hard-earned, but surely misplacing £1 billion in a week sets a new record for them.
The 4% GDP hit forecast as a result of the Grangemouth refinery closing won’t help either. Maybes time for pretendy FM Yousaf to accept that if he wants to continue jetting around the world to splurge our cash on his pet projects, he better get aligned with WM plans for oil & gas development.
Might even be a few votes in it!
Mia,
the Claim of Right is meaningless these days.
Mia
I am absolutely convinced that if 51% of those who voted from a 20% turnout did so in favour of Indy you would be claiming loudly that it was a very realistic consideration of the democratic will.
You know that too, which is why your rubbishing of the Rutherglen result rings false.
You’re not the only poster on here displaying the pick-and-mix attitude – accepting questionable results that suit your narrative – rejecting those that don’t. But you really don’t want to be arguing in a way that will give support to the naysayers should a plebiscitary election return a questionable verdict.
If the intention is made crystal clear beforehand that one (or more) parties is treating the election result as a plebiscite, then if the party(s) command a majority of seats, then the result MUST stand.
Anybody who couldn’t be ersed to vote CAN’T be allowed to quibble afterwards.
You do realise that the ‘UK’ as a joint governing entity came into being only after the treaty that created it was agreed?
Of course, My point is it was ´the soon to be UK governing entities´ who were drafting those Articles to suit themselves. Not for the benefit of Scotland.
So, if there is no withdrawal Article – that´s not our problem. It simply means that there is nothing to invoke – and nothing to bind Scotland to the Union of the UK. We simply vote and if the majority decide, invoke to leave.
Let others explain why that is not possible?
Let other explain why Scotland, already a de facto independent state, cant leave a voluntary Union?
Let other provide the evidence of otherwise.
Such as when, what year did that referendum to give up being a de facto independent state take place in Scotland?
What was the question asked?
Who voted? Who counted? What was the vote split? etc, etc. That sort of evidence.
Where is that evidence?
Understand. It is not our problem. Let others explain and present the evidence.
Westminster have provided to Scotland a process of Union Withdrawal Steps and a Set of Legal Precedents. So let them tell the Laws of Scotland and the UN that these Declarations do not apply to Scotland: that,
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
The position is that Scotland would simply be invoking their legitimate right to leave the Union of the UK.
If there is a problem with that – let others explain and present the evidence as to why there is a problem.
We already have a proven process of Union Withdrawal Steps and a Set of Legal Precedents. And all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Why then is there a problem?
ayemachrihanish at 8:01 pm
“My point is it was ´the soon to be UK governing entities´ who were drafting those Articles to suit themselves. Not for the benefit of Scotland.”
So, if there is no withdrawal Article – that´s not our problem. It simply means that there is nothing to invoke – and nothing to bind Scotland to the Union of the UK. We simply vote and if the majority decide, invoke to leave.”
Did Scotland not guide the draft too? It didn’t decide to add a withdrawal article so there is no automatic right to leave without the agreement of the Union. Catalan tried to invoke what you propose and it wasn’t regarded well by the EU, the next Union an independent Scotland pins its hopes on.
Again, you don’t have the majority on your side. Instead of sticking two fingers up to the Union and rushing into the arms of an almost certainly antipathetic international community you should be persuading the ‘No’ voters and the undecided voters, making independence much harder to deny. I don’t see much of that here, I see wild claims and I see abuse of anyone not yet convinced. It’s not the way forward.
Para 3 ´It simply means that there is nothing to invoke´
Should read: It simply means that there is no Article to invoke
Did Scotland not guide the draft too? Don´t know. Were you there?
What has Catalan got to do with anything? Apart from deflection. We are talking about the Union of the UK.
And you say´I don’t see much of that here´. Really. Who gives a toss.
Scotland is a de facto independent state that already have a proven process of Union Withdrawal Steps and a Set of Legal Precedents provide to them as part of the UK itself.
And all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Why then is there a problem?
Deal with that. In Fact. And in Evidence. If not, shuffle along pal.
Let’s assume that Scotland did somehow have a vote to decide to leave the union, and that nobody kicked up a military fuss and allowed it to happen.
So who is Scotland going to trade with? With what currency? Backed by what? Can it defend against its fish being taken away? It’s oil pipes being smashed by deliberately dragged anchors? Can it raise the tax to pay pensions (a systems question, not a financial one)? Can it afford a health service without fish and oil? What’s iScotland going to do when neither the EU nor the U.K. decline to deal with it? Nor the WTO, IMF, or the UN?
People advocating UDI are seriously mental.
“Did Scotland not guide the draft too?”
To tell you the truth, I am not quite sure until what point Scotland actually guided the draft. The draft was created by crown commissioners.
Scotland’s commissioners were tasked by the Scottish parliament to negotiate for a federal union. Yet, as soon as they got to London, the crown commissioners forgot all about it and went through the diametrically opposed route, disregarding the instruction from their own parliament.
So I am not sure how much Scotland, or for that matter England, actually directed the draft. It was the monarch who was desperate for a union between the two kingdoms. The peoples of Scotland and England were not that keen.
“It didn’t decide to add a withdrawal article so there is no automatic right to leave without the agreement of the Union”
Actually that is not true. The fundamental conditions of the treaty act as withdrawal articles themselves. If a partner breaches any of those fundamental conditions, it gives the other partner automatic right to leave.
It is no secret that the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England has been violated multiple times since its inception. It should have therefore been declared null and void one hundred times over by now, if only we had true Scotland representatives in Westminster rather than self-serving crown tools.
In addition to the fundamental conditions of the treaty as exit route, you have the two fundamental principles of international law: “pacta sunt servanda” and “Clausula rebus sic stantibus”.
Scotland could have used any one of those to exit the treaty many times over since 2016, if only we had a real pro-independence FM pursuing independence instead of a political fraud seeking to deceive the yes movement by leading it on and deliberately seeding division to fragment it.
“Catalan tried to invoke what you propose and it wasn’t regarded well by the EU”
Catalan is the name of the language of Catalonia and also the Spanish word for a person from Catalonia. I think the word you meant to use is Catalonia in English or “los catalanes” in Spanish.
I am sure you will know by now that Catalonia is in a completely different constitutional situation to Scotland. Scotland is bound to England simply because of a voluntary international bipartite treaty of union between two independent states. That treaty is subjected to international law.
Scotland happens to be one of the two original signatories of the treaty. Scotland has not changed its geographical boundaries since. Catalonia is an integral part of Spain not bound by any international treaty that it can repeal. The boundaries of Catalonia have changed.
Catalonia attempted to secede from Spain. Scotland is seeking to dissolve and end a bipartite political union of which it is a constitutional signatory.
These are two completely different circumstances and it is very dishonest to knowingly attempt to conflate both to create confusion.
“It’s called democracy”
But in this case is not “democracy”, is it?
A union between countries is only democratic if it uses proportional representation based in population when either the populations of the countries in union are very similar or the political distribution in those countries is the same.
Turns out that none of them apply to Scotland and England. Scotland’s population is less than a 10% of that of England and politically, Scotland and England could not be any more different.
As it is, this political union is always democratic for England, because it always gets what it votes for, and a dictatorship for Scotland, because it only stands a chance of getting what it votes for if it is the same England voted for.
Such disparity is not democracy. It is one country ruling the other by stealth. This union is therefore an excuse to force England’s will over Scotland. That is not democracy.
“Since Scotland is effectively a superannuated county it has to take the rough with the smooth like everyone else”
Who is “everyone else”? Because from where I am standing, England always gets the smooth and never the rough in this union. So why on earth should it be acceptable for Scotland to always get the rough?
So A Scot Abroad says
Let’s assume that Scotland did somehow have a vote to decide to leave the union, and that nobody kicked up a military fuss and allowed it to happen.
Are you deluded pal? Seriously, Kick up a military fuss with who? Who exactly? Which military? Against who exactly?
So, who is Scotland going to trade with? Let’s just say the EU, US, Africa, Canada, Australia, India and China. What´s the problem? What happened with Brexit? Negotiate to roll over existing agreements or create new ones.
With what currency? Whichever one we wish. Is there a problem?
Backed by what? For starters the then distributed assets of the UK plus Scotland’s own territorial resources.
Can it defend against its fish being taken away?
No. Another, are you serious or deluded?
Who´s going to steal all the fish?
They, the fish, would simply be in Scotland’s territorial waters and not the UK´s or the EU´s.
Is that a problem?
Its oil pipes being smashed by deliberately dragged anchors?
By WHO? Another mad deluded comment?
Oil pipes being smashed – seriously, by who?
Can it raise the tax to pay pensions (a systems question, not a financial one)? Hold on a sec pal, raise what tax to pay what pensions? Get your facts straight.
Until the day of effective withdrawal Gov.UK will still be receiving all State Pension contributions from UK member paying citizens. And therefore, Gov.UK will also be making 100% of ALL due payments against all those previously made UK member contributions. We all send our pension contributions to Gov.UK
The future Scotland pension responsibilities ´only begin´ week one after withdrawal. When workers then stop sending contributions Gov.UK and begin sending them to Gov.Scot, again whats the problem with that? Those are the facts.
And so beyond the date of effective withdrawal Scotland can just do what every other resource and asset rich nation does with their population pension contributions. What’s the problem?
Can it afford a health service without fish and oil? Seriously, Where have all the fish and oil gone? Have the fish stolen all those West of Shetland Oil Fields. Has all oil and fish suddenly vanished? The oil and fish would be in Scottish Territorial Waters. Not the UK, Not the EU. Hence, negotiations.
What’s iScotland going to do when neither the EU nor the U.K. decline to deal with it? Seriously, you need to explain why?
Why the EU and the U.K. will decline to deal with Scotland. With facts not bonehead gaslighting.
And Ditto, why the WTO, IMF, or the UN will decline to deal with Scotland? You need to explain why?
Will WTO and IMF believe that all those West of Shetland Oil Fields have suddenly vanished along with the fish?
Also, WTO and IMF related, the fact is iScotland would have no national debt – unless it decides to negotiate otherwise. Or are you as A Scot Abroad suggesting because Scotland leaves the Union of the UK that the UK will then cease to exist?
Is that your suggestion?
Scotland leave and it is the End the UK and the Commonwealth? As if not, then the Debts of the UK stay with the continuing UK entity. They are UK Debts not Sovereign Scottish Debt. Hence there will be agreements and treaties and new and different relationships. That is all
In summary, people still advocating the monster 2014 project fear handbook are bonehead mental. So, get a grip pal. Or you too shuffle along.
´and that nobody kicked up a military fuss´. Fk, that comment of yours really is bonehead mental… just stay abroad. And out the sun.
Mia,
Not in any particular order, but I will try to, but so as to enable your research, here is the list of my extensive researches over the last five years although not inclusive of all my research as some are stored away, you can pick and choose which you consider a niche for your research.
When the word Scotland is in Brackets ( ) this due to the Act passing in parliament of england and I presume are defining what they mean in way of Country.applied to.
The parliament of England Triennial Act/s.
Parliament of England Treason Act 1708.
The Act concerning Tailzies 1685 ( Scotland)
Bill of Rights,
The Crown land Acts 1702.
An Act to ” make further provisions for electing” end in the words to serve in parliament 1707,
An Act settling the precedence of her most excellent Princess Sophia,
An act for appointing laws (Scotland ) the church patronage Act 1718.
The highlands services Act 1715.
The Revenue of Scotland Act 1718
The national Debt Act 1724.
An Act for enabling Judges (Scotland ) the execution of sentences 1729.
An Act, to Explain a clause, Crown of England, the British nationality 1730.
The Jurors ( Scotland ) Act 1745.
The heritable Jurisdictions ( Scotland) Act 1746.
Sale to the Crown ( Scotland ) Act 1747.
The Sherriffs ( Scotland ) Act 1747.
Treason of Out Laries ( Scotland) Act 1747.
The Calendar Act 1751. With explanation, an Act made in the last session of parliament to ( intitled an Act for the regulating the commencement of the year,and for correcting the Calendar now in Use.
The British Subjects Act 1751.
The Bank notes ( Scotland ) act 1765.
The American Colonies Act 1766.
An Act for better regulating the future marriages of the Royal family, The Royal Marriages Act 1772.
The enclosure Act 1756,
The Bill of Exchange ( Scotland ) Act 1772.
The taxation of the Colonies Act 1778.
The Justiciary and Circuit Courts ( Scotland ) Act 1783.
The destrution of property ( Scotland) Act. 1789
The Burghs of Barony ( Scotland ) Act 1795.
The Tranfer of Stock Act 1800,
The Union with Ireland Act 1800,… (my nb) the Irish side of the union states, The union is with the parliament of England.
The Crown private Estates Act 1800 .
The Militia ( Scotland ) Acts 1802 & 1803..
The Acts of Parliament (Expiration ) Act 1808.
The teinds ( Scotland ) act 1808.
The Alien Act 1705.
An Act for Securing the kingdom of England 1704, long title given, and royal assent on the 14th march 1705 by queen Anne,
The Act contained a provision that it would be suspended if the Scots entered into negotiations regarding a proposed Union of the parliament of Scotland and England.
The Act demanded a settlement of Succession or Authorize Union negotiations
Acts of parliament ( commencement) Act 1793.
Representation of the people Act 1983
When we return from our hospital appointment around lunch time, I will list all the Treaties I have researched that relate to England/ Great- Britain- UK.
After that I will provide further reading to you I have researched relating to Scotland/ England under miscellanious headings
From blogs to University material on subjects such as the coronation procedures Scotland/ England,Treaty of union, prorogation and dissolution, extending to territory, declarations and dates, Crown Oaths of Scotland/ England, bills, statues legislation and Ordinance laws relating to parliaments researched and Sovereignty.
Just allow for a bit of time to lapse as per usual in my last years posts due to the many medical appointments for my Spouse.
I hope these researched title headings are helpful in aiding your research, as these many listings are where I required most of my information prior to my knowing what Act had actually been passed,
I hope it is a short cut for your research, I certainly wished someone had provided myself with all information and these Acts, it would have saved me precious time in research.
Ayemacrahanish,
you are clearly quite stupid. You don’t understand how the world works. The world doesn’t trade with countries that do stupid things unilaterally. Look at Zimbabwe and Venezuela.
Scotland doesn’t have any resources the world wants or needs. Oil and gas are easier from elsewhere. Scotland’s on the arse end of Europe, and the French will just help themselves to any fish they want. There ain’t no financial sector without a central bank, and without a financial sector, there ain’t no banks, no credit cards, no loans for cars, no loans to business, no mortgages, and no housing sales. And Scotland doesn’t have the IT systems to raise taxes. It can’t even build ferries properly.
Jesus, you need to understand that Scotland ain’t currently competent to run a bath, let alone a country.
A Scot Abroad says:
11 December, 2023 at 5:26 am
Ayemacrahanish,
…you are clearly quite stupid. You don’t understand how the world works….
Did you miss a line from the Samuel Adam’s quotation?
….go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms.
And stop insulting people, you tedious little nuisance.
A Scot Abroad says Ayemacrahanish, you are clearly quite stupid. You don’t understand how the world works. Really. That right pal.
Tell you what pal even my dog understands the difference in geography and economic reality between Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Scotland.
Scotland doesn’t have any resources the world wants or needs. Really? What because you say the fish stole the oil and ran away.
Oil and gas are easier from elsewhere. Really? Like the EU are not now shipping LNG supplies from North America straight across what would be Scottish Territorial water into LNG terminals in the Netherlands and Germany. That Oil and gas easier from elsewhere. Really?
What about the oil and gas in the 6,000 square miles of Scottish sea transferred to England in 1999, literally the day before the Scottish Parliament came into being? What about the oil and gas there? Ship that to the EU or Sell it to the continuing UK state?
There ain’t no financial sector without a central bank, and without a financial sector, there ain’t no banks, no credit cards, no loans for cars, no loans to business, no mortgages, and no housing sales. Really?
What like Czechoslovakia, Lithuanian, Estonia and Latvia. How in the immediate aftermath of the demise of the USSR it became a necessity for all those countries to have no banks, no credit cards, no loans for cars, no loans to business, no mortgages, and no housing sales. Really? Is that what happened to those 5 countries that left the Union of USSR?
And Scotland doesn’t have the IT systems to raise taxes. Really? What like Czechoslovakia, Lithuanian, Estonia and Latvia. They didn’t even have computers never mind the IT systems to raise taxes.
Scotland can’t even build ferries properly. Really? Like UK Royal Navy warship costing £3 billion to be stripped for parts after yet another mechanical failure. What? That UK kind of can’t even build ships properly?
Jesus, you need to understand that Brexit UK ain’t currently competent to run a bath, let alone a country.
COVID – The UK Test and Trace IT system was set up with a budget of £22 billion. It was then allocated £15 billion more: totaling £37 billion.
And for those “Unimaginable” cost the IT system failed to deliver a single central pledge or promise. It delivered ZERO spend benefit.
Yes, that one UK IT project – lost £37 billion in two years. It is Brexit UK that ain’t currently competent to run a bath, let alone a country.
A Scot Abroad, you are clearly quite stupid. You don’t understand how the world works. Really, you don’t.
James Jones said;
“It’s called democracy, and since Scotland is effectively a superannuated county it has to take the rough with the smooth like everyone else.”
The UK’s democracy doesn’t deserve the name, it’s only called that by those who don’t correctly understand it, or those who dishonestly expect to gain an unfair advantage from an inappropriate version of it. It is the latter that characterises the English establishment at Westminster.
Anyone with more than a shallow understanding of democracy knows that a simple majority vote is not appropriate for all the kinds of scenarios a democratic decision needs to be made in. Fairness is a major requirement if the outcome of a vote is to be accepted by its losers, and a simple vote count is not inherently fair, because it depends greatly on the context.
Simple flat majority voting only works well in the simplest of situations, and the UK’s House of Commons is not one of those, though it’s not that far from it. Its key failure is that it completely ignores the constitutional basis of the Union, and that, coupled with England’s huge MP numbers, effectively denies Scotland its full authority in the Union as an equally sovereign partner with England.
AND LETS NOT HAVE ANY MORE IGNORANT TRIPE ABOUT THE TWO KINGDOMS NOT BEING EQUALLY SOVEREIGN; BOTH KINGDOMS WERE EQUALLY SOVEREIGN ENOUGH TO NEGOTIATE, AGREE, SIGN, AND RATIFY AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY IN THEIR OWN PARLIAMENTS, AND NOTHING ABOUT THE TREATY CHANGED THAT! THEY DIFFER IN ALL SORTS OF WAYS, BUT THEIR SOVEREIGNTIES ARE EXACTLY EQUAL BECAUSE SOVEREIGNTY IS ABSOLUTE; YOU HAVE IT IN FULL, OR YOU DON’T HAVE IT AT ALL.
Both kingdoms agreed to give up independent self-governance for joint self-governance. That’s all! Neither of them agreed to be governed by the other, neither of them agreed to be subjugated by the other, neither of them agreed for their territories to be owned by the other, and neither of them agreed to transfer their sovereignty to the other.
They just agreed formally to coordinate their self-governance via a shared parliament.
Their respective MP numbers never reflected a democratic assessment of the two kingdoms’ authorities in the first place, they were determined on the basis of tax-raising capacity. Democracy never came into it.
The Commons voting system is the same one the old English parliament used, and it was perfectly valid in that context as all MPs represented the same sovereign country, and with nothing to challenge that sovereignty, respect for that sovereignty was automatic. Then the Union happened, and a second sovereignty turned up on the doorstep, and the old context no longer existed. Respect for England’s sovereignty was still almost entirely automatic due to England’s ~10 to 1 MP majority, but there was no such respect for Scotland’s sovereignty. That needed to be engineered into the voting system, but that never happened.
Both of the UK’s sovereignties demand respect in the Union they BOTH own, not just England’s!
A simple change to the HoC voting system would make matters massively fairer for Scotland than the existing abusive dishonest one, and it doesn’t require changing the number of MPs of either kingdom. Their votes just need counted differently from the way they are currently.
It is to the deep shame of both bodies of MPs that this has never been dealt with! Both bodies are therefore complicit in the subjugation of Scotland.
Xaracen, then why not just leave?
Scotland would simply vote and if agreed be invoking their legitimate right to leave the Union of the UK.
If there is a problem with that – let others explain and present the evidence as to why there is a problem.
We already have a proven process of Union Withdrawal Steps and a Set of Legal Precedents. And all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Why then is there a problem?
The answer is not both bodies are therefore complicit in the subjugation of Scotland.
Scotland is not subjugated. Like Plato´s Cave. Scotland is simply watching media too wee, too poor, too stupid shadows on a wall. Stand up and walk out the cave. That is all you have to do.
The Scottish parliament has already reconvened. Scotland already is a de facto independent state that happens also to be a founding member of the Union of the United Kingdoms.
And all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
That is not subjugated situation. That is sitting in a cave and not exercising the right to self-determination situation.
Ayemacrahanish,
Scotland doesn’t have any LNG terminals. It ain’t even going to be able to refine its own oil if Grangemouth shuts down. Despite territorial resources, Scotland would be importing its own oil and gas from England. That’s the reality.
The rest of your comment is uninformed pish.
@ayemachrihanish at 9:16am;
It is a subjugated situation.
One subjugation is at the level of a peoples’ understanding of the legalities and illegalities of their situation. The knowledge they should have of their true rights under their own constitution has been suppressed for centuries, and when enough of them rediscover the truth of their rights and correct their understanding, then we can decide to do something about it.
BUT;
Another subjugation is the imposition of laws that deny us the use of processes like referendums the Scots need to express and exert their true rights within the Union. We are not even allowed to ask ourselves a simple question as to whether we wish to end the Union, because Westminster’s English establishment insist we get their permission first, and that decision appears to be out of our hands. I see no reason why we should put up with that, but until our local authorities accept that they answer to us and not Westminster, a referendum isn’t going to happen because it will be the LAs who run them, and they need the confidence to do so in spite of potential ‘legal’ threats from Westminster.
@ayemachrihanish, I forgot to mention the key subjugation of the Scots, which is the pseudo-democratic subjugation of Scotland’s MPs by England’s MPs on the spurious basis of a numeric superiority that has nothing to do with constitutional OR democratic authority.
🙂 No. This comment is uninformed pish.
‘Despite territorial resources, Scotland would be importing its own oil and gas from England.’
Some of the Oil & Gas fields West of Shetland”
Cambo oil field
Clair oil field
Foinaven oil field
Lancaster oil field
Rosebank oil and gas field
Schiehallion o- .
🙂 This comment is uninformed pish too: Scotland doesn’t have any LNG terminals.
In total there are 29 operational LNG terminals and an additional 33 LNG import terminal projects under construction or in the planning stage in Europe. Grangemouth is one of them. But Scotland does not need LNG. Any Grangemouth LNG capacity would only be built to trade LNG with the EU and or rUK
🙂 This comment is also uninformed pish. That Scotland ain’t even going to be able to refine its own oil if Grangemouth shuts down.
So. The oil from
Cambo oil field
Clair oilfield
Foinaven oilfield
Lancaster oilfield
Rosebank oil and gas field
Schiehallion oilfield
And other fields…
is to be refined where?
Pal, all of your comment are uninformed pish. So best stay Abroad – and out of the Sun!
A Scot Abroad @ 10:45 am
“Scotland doesn’t have any LNG terminals”
The Mossmorran Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) plant is part of the northern North Sea Brent oil and gas field system and is located on the outskirts of Cowdenbeath, Scotland.
Xaracen, then why not just leave?
Scotland would simply vote and if agreed be invoking their legitimate right to leave the Union of the UK.
‘One subjugation is at the level of a peoples.’ No it is not. It is a not exercising the right to a self-determination situation.
‘Another subjugation is the imposition of laws that deny us the use of processes like referendums the Scots need to express and exert their true rights within the Union.’
That is make believe. The Scottish parliament has already reconvened. Scotland already is a a de facto independent state that happens also to be a founding member of the Union of the United Kingdoms – the UK.
Scotland can leave when it wants. You and other can stay in the cave staring at the wall discussing the make believe shadows till the cows come home. But Brexit happened. And Scotland own that UK negotiated Union Withdrawal – in exactly the same way as the other,first and foremost equal kingdom of the UK dose too. That is all.
Alf Baird,
Mossmorran is not an LNG plant. It’s NGL.
The difference is pressure. Or energy density.
Try again.
Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is simply natural gas in a liquid form. And Natural gas liquids, or NGL, are hydrocarbon gases that exist as liquids under pressure. Both LNG and NGL are simply gas in liquid form.
So, your point is caller? Scotland can somehow build and process Natural gas liquids, but not LNG?
That’s your view? Scotland is too wee,too poor and too stupid to build and operate an LNG plant? That it?
Really? No. Thats just more Scot Abroad uninformed pish ?
Ayemacrahanish,
Mossmorran doesn’t have the facilities to liquefy natural gas. It’s a separation plant: it separates liquids from gases that come up from underground.
Liquefied natural gas has around 2,500 times the energy density of natural gas at standard pressures. Which is why LNG plants are complex operations, and not that many about. Scotland doesn’t have one.
You should stick to doing whatever you are good at. If that’s anything.
Yes pal you should stick to doing whatever you are good at. If that’s anything.
The point was – when you go back to your rebuttal adim messenger…
In total there are 29 operational LNG terminals and an additional 33 LNG import terminal projects under construction or in the planning stage in Europe.
Grangemouth is one of them. But Scotland does not need LNG. Any Grangemouth LNG capacity would only be built to trade LNG with the EU and or rUK
Rebut that.
This pish. Liquefied natural gas has around 2,500 times the energy density of natural gas at standard pressures – whats that got to do
additional 33 LNG import terminal projects under construction or in the planning stage in Europe? Or the 29 in use?
Of course the 33 LNG import terminal projects under construction or in the planning stage in Europe will not be going ahead because – A Scot Abroad thinks are a complex operations. What pish.
And he says there are not that many around. Aye only the 29 in use and the 33 underdeveloped.
Seriously, stick to doing whatever you are good at. If that’s anything.
Or at least get a better rebuttal messenger…’the gas has around 2,500 times the energy density of natural gas at bar
1. So 🙂 172 bar 🙂 thats my car washer power pressure pal 🙂 🙂
Never mind the foreign affairs what about the home grown affairs.
We get a big build up about and MSP and an MP having an affair and breaching lock-down then nothing.
This happens quite a lot in Scotland.
The SNP seem to have a way of stopping people finding out about stuff.
What kind of tactics do they use. Did the ‘cuckolding husband’ get home to find a horse’s head in his bed.
Ayemacrahanish,
Scotland ain’t got any LNG terminals.
Grangemouth is closing down.
Scotland is going to be in the unique position where it has oil and gas resources, but it cannot process them itself. It can supply itself with gas but not export it, except a completely fucking stupid Assembly doesn’t want to burn gas. And there’s going to be absolutely no oil refining in Scotland, so what on earth is the point of extracting it? There ain’t even a proper oil terminal that can operate at scale.
I’ve met some stupid people here on WoS, but you are even more dense than Geri. And he/shit’s absolutely fucking wired.
Mia,
This is further heading from my research from the past five years that may help you in your research, these are the title heading, once in, click on any of the blue links for further multiple information.
Obviously I will not print out all this for you on Wings as it covers miles of text and laws over hundreds of years many years, and would take up weeks or months of postings on Stu’s site,
However I do wish for people to learn how Britain, England, Scotland and Ireland are and have been run with knowledge from records, so will keep posting the title headings and where to find them for those people who genuinely want to delve into these articles for research on their own time as I have done.
The follow lists cover hundreds of years, some still in force today, some repealed, or amended, which I also spent time researching, some will overlap or be noticed as parallel responses to each others Countries, and I will provide further links and titles to my research as we go on, happy reading.
WikipediA,
The Chronological table of Statues 1235- 2010.
And
List of parliament Acts Scotland.
More’
Ad hominem,
Ad hominem,
Ad hominem attack: the last refuge of deluded
Abroad..here!
INEOS has received a £230 million infrastructure loan guarantee from the UK government to support the financing of its LNG facility at Grangemouth. The guarantee allows INEOS to raise the money necessary to build a new terminal to import and store ethane for Grangemouth.
In addition:
LNG | NATURAL GAS 29 Aug 2023
Crown LNG makes renewed push for LNG import terminal in Scotland.
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/082923-interview-crown-lng-makes-renewed-push-for-lng-import-terminal-in-scotland
Get a better rebuttal lacky to help and think for you. 🙂
That’s a Bute.