Wings Over Scotland

Very good stuff.

On the same lines

link to thenational.scot

ONE of the favoured weapons of Unionist politicians is to dismiss Scottish nationalism as essentially tribal. It only flourishes in division and is fuelled merely by grievance, they aver. There is barely any attempt to examine why a specific criticism of the British state might lead to a sense of grievance. And when an argument in favour of independence looks like prevailing they rely on the Unionist catch-all: that when adversity arises our interests are best protected by the broad shoulders of the UK.

Class as alway!

A really good wee show, smashin!

Now I might be wrong but –

If Wingers can plainly see that the unionist government funded and/or controlled media is so obviously attempting to belittle Scotland to the level of an English Carry on film then it must be obvious to all, but the mist extreme Yoonatics, that the Westminster Establishment are, like old Carry On films, rather dated and worn out. Much like the British/English Empire their time has passed.

Tome now for a new Scottish beginning and the final end to the United Kingdom.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.”

Love it.

Sorry was that satire or was it actually the BBC?

Do we need a new carry-on film?

Carry on up the Union, Carry on to Independence, Carry on to the WTO, Carry on Prime Minister?

Aye, it must be quite an operation, getting the dear tory leader in and out of occupied but hostile territory without any mishap.

I wonder, when Mrs May does emerge for the cameras, if the proud wee beard-snacking, butt-licker emerges for a photo op. You now, the one who hasn’t resigned yet. 🙂

Hi Robert & Luigi,

How about simply “What a Carry ON?”

Carry On Up the Khyber (without a paddle). 🙂

I’ll get ma coat

Bloody good guys yet again! You’re settling in to the roles nicely. 😀 😀 😀

Proper snorted at Dateline Scotland too.

But hey poor Dalkeith. Not that I’ve ever been there like…

Anyone know why Scotland’s MPs and MSPs can’t dissolve the Act of the Union?

OT

But I did like this article on ‘fake news’ and ‘fake news’ debunkers.

And the neat twist ending.

link to archive.is

And in this wilderness of mirrors I did keep wondering whether it was for ‘real’.

And was aware that I was reading it courtesy of one of the biggest peddlars of ‘fake news’.

Sinky@3.09pm

Don’t know anyone who has had anything but excellent service from the NHS in Scotland.

On the other hand I do know a family member who paid £10k for an operation privately only to find out when it did not fix the problem that the private doctors solution was for him to pay another £10k and get the exact operation done a separate time. Thankfully it was fixed the second time. This is an example of private health care. Pay through the nose with no guarantee of success and then pay again. In what other sector does failure provide more business. In addition the family member was not happy to realise that the NHS probably would have fixed the problem earlier.

Private doctors running around in Ferraris and Maseratis, sometimes both, as a result of all these NHS scare stories. The media in Scotland has a lot to answer for.

Here are some fun things to mull over.

Current WM deficit = around £42bn

Estimated loss of GDP for ‘best scenario’ brexit = 3.9% down.

Post crash of 2008, GDP was reduced by, what was it,around 2.6% (happy to be corrected) , which led to a WM Deficit of £103bn at the high point (2012 was it?)

1.3% lower is around another 50% added to that post crash deficit, so around £52bn added to the 2.6% means the post brexit (best scenario) WM deficit could jump to over £155 bn (granted that figure is over 15 years estimate)

Now, bearing in mind Scottish independence will remove nearly £100bn from WM treasury, from things like.. GENERAL TAXATION/VAT/OIL/GAS/FISHING/FARMING/FOOD/ AND DRINK/FORESTRY/CORPORATION TAX etc….

That is £100bn added IMMEDIATELY to the WM deficit post Indy.

So…

Around £42bn NOW

Around £100bn added by Scottish independence.

Best scenario of around £155bn added by brexit.

Which begs the obvious Question: WHERE will WM post brexit and post Scots indy, find around £300bn in ANNUAL savings to clear the deficit ?

Even to stand still under current fiscal conditions, WM will need to pull out a couple of hundred BILLION quid in fiscal savings.

English welsh and N.I. voters really do have a bloody great shock coming.

Also, without SCOTTISH oil dollars, anyone daft enough to lend WM money will be charging WONGA style interest rates.
……..

If these figures are not 100% accurate, or wildly out, feel free to correct them for me. Thabks in advance.

If fairly accurate…just WOW!!

Been worrying. Is May’s hair wet cos the rain. Surely bbc scotchland can send a investigative journalist.

Naturally the BBC have not opened HYS comments for May’s flying visit to Scotland – might not like what they get.

No problem when it’s about Sturgeon or SNP, comments are opened immediately so that they can be slagged off from all over the UK.

By the very nature of a Treaty, if it is broken by ANY ONE of the TWO EQUAL partners, it is OVER.

We constantly focus on Sovereign Scots needing to produce a Majority in favour of Dissolving the Treaty of Union.

But hold on a second, if WM breach the express terms of the Treaty of Union THEY signed up to, then that treaty is OVER by THEIR HAND.

In such a circumstance, why would Sovereign Scots need to ratify such a clear breach by the OTHER partner?

We focus so much on OUR responsibilities to end the union, we forget that ENGLAND, by the actions of English MP’s can also End the Treaties of Union.

And THEY do not require a majority of Sovereign Scots to do so.

If WM subjugate Scots Law, then THEY have ended the Treaty of Union.

If WM subjugate the Expressed will of Sovereign Scots, (brexiting us against our will) then again, THEY have ended the Treaty of Union.

So, with that in mind, why would WE require a referendum to End a Treaty of Union ALREADY BREACHED by WM and therefore, is LEGALLY OVER ?

A formal Holyrood vote to declare agreement that indeed the Treaty of Union is breached and as such,over, is mere paperwork formalities.

Hence why I mention calling it a Protective Political dissolution motion.

Our politicians represent us at Holyrood to protect us from blatant breaches of such things as the Treaty of Union.

Otherwise, WM would simply break and end the treaty, and just carry on regardless. (As they have done previously).

Holyroods job is to protect us from that.

England can end the Treaty of Union for us as well.

Worth remembering that.

Welsh Sion’s link archived.

link to archive.is

O/T and pure speculation on my part but something I’ve been considering lately.

It’s that I think almost everyone expects May to lose the “meaningful vote” on Dec 11th and that there will then be a second “meaningful vote” at some point and this is expected to be much closer and that May might possibly win that second vote.

That is a possibility of course but something will have to have changed in the meantime between the first vote and the second. I posted yesterday that the government must come back within 21 days with a statement as to how they intend to proceed but the Xmas recess in reality means that this statement must be given by the 20th Dec.

The only opportunity to get change before the 20th Dec is at the last EU Council meeting of the year on 13/14th Dec and any change agreed with the EU will not be to the Withdrawal Agreement and it can only be with the “political declaration”. It is this that has me thinking aloud.

Much talk now of some kind of “Norway Plus” deal gaining support and being acceptable to a majority in parliament, as I see it this means remaining in the SM and the plus part is some kind of ad hoc customs arrangement specific to the UK.

Of course if we remain in the SM that requires Freedom of Movement but what happens if the political declaration is changed to imply that the UK’s intention will be negotiating a special deal on that too specific to the UK?

If the political declaration could be so worded that it appears that the UK could remain in the SM and CU provided all future negotiations go to plan then would that satisfy enough MP’s to back this “new” deal in a second vote?

Specifically I’m thinking of the SNP and whether they could support a political declaration whose declared goal is to remain in both the SM and CU with conditions attached to freedom of movement and a customs union arrangement.

This is what worries me because the political declaration is a wish list with no legal basis, it’s just more of having your cake and eating it if it includes special deals over part of it. Surely it would almost certainly be doomed to failure.

With SNP support and enough Labour support though it would likely get through and May would have her deal.

We would then be left with May as Prime Minister, no possibility of a GE or second EU referendum and extremely doubtful chances of an Indyref2 being held anytime in the near future with years of negotiation ahead that would likely ultimately fail.

Would enough MP’s fall for promises in the “political declaration” that are not worth the paper they are written on? It’s a scary thought that they just might do that and be enough of a carrot to get her deal through at the second attempt.

Cubbyby 4.pm. last august my wife and drove from dorset to visit family in ayr. On the way my wife acquired a urine infection. Being in some distress and with no over the counter medication available for her problem ,and being 25/30 miles from ayr, we carried on and i drove straight to ayr A+E. After booking in to reception my wife was seen and discharged within the hour. She was absolutely gobsmacked (she’s english) and had expected to wait for hours. Well done the SNHS.

frogesque says:
28 November, 2018 at 4:28 pm
@Brian Powell:3.27, 3.35

Scottish people are Sovereign. The guide fowk of Scotland have not, so far, given a majority of MPs their consent to dissolve the Union. Unless and until that happens either through a very specific GE mandate or popular plebescite (referendum) the SG would be acting illegally in international eyes. Basically a UDI situation….

That’s borderline conjecture I think. You’re not entirely wrong, but make an assumption that Scotland would initiate the dissolution of the Union.

Suppose instead the UN or ECJ was required to make a neutral and disinterested determination over an issue of sovereignty, and made a determination which recognised Scottish Sovereignty as the superior sovereignty over Westminster. Such a ruling would make claims of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty untenable, and the Union would be in its death throws.

Similarly, if Westminster was to subjugate Scottish interests, the act of subjugation breaks the Treaty between equals, and the Union is over as a direct consequence of Westminster’s actions alone. Scotland wouldn’t need to act at all.

Once the Treaty is formally breached, it ceases to exist and cannot be resurrected, nor kept in part. It is over. Even if circumstances arose where there was demand to resurrect a breached Union with England, it would require a whole new Union to be agreed.

The poignant irony about that is that Scotland subscribing to a new Union which resembled Westminster’s twisted version of the current Union, especially where Scotland surrendered its sovereignty, would actually be a worse and more dangerous deal for Scotland than Theresa May’s deal with Europe represents for the UK.

@Breeks: 5.36

Yep a lot of conjecture, from us both I think!

My main point is that unless the majority of Scotland want to end the Union, short of being thrown out by England ( we wish!) then no outside interference of our Sovereignty would not be tolerated.

It’s up to us to convince the majority!

Above, sorry for double negative. Dog stuck his nose in my lug! Lost the plot.

Thepnr Ah dont encourage people tae drink but open anither can , your depressing me wie they scenarios LoL.

just seen May on bbc scotchland. whurs the actors fae yesterday? Got the boot?

@ronnie anderson

I’m depressing myself with all this, might take your advice 🙂

ITV “News” going in hard on No Deal Brexit. Theresa’s Deal is bad, but no Deal is really bad, which means Theresa May’s deal is good. Propaganda in action.

@Brian Powell says: 28 November, 2018 at 3:27 pm:

” … Anyone know why Scotland’s MPs and MSPs can’t dissolve the Act of the Union?”

Yes Brian, and if they don’t know it they should for it has been explained to them here on Wings often enough.

The independent, “Rule of Law”, in the Kingdom of Scotland, (as agreed in the Treaty of Union, 1706/7), when the two kingdoms agreed to join together in union differs somewhat from that of their partner kingdom in that Treaty of Union as regards legal sovereignty.

In the 3 country Kingdom of England the Queen of England remains legally sovereign and that means she owns the entire 3 country Kingdom of England and that includes everyone in that 3 country Kingdom of England who are Her Majesty’s Subjects.

However, during the English kingdom’s, “Glorious Revolution”, of 1688, the Parliament of England rebelled against their monarch and deposed that monarch.

Obviously this could not legally affect the monarchy of the Kingdom of Scotland as it was still an independent kingdom in 1688 but by marriage and descent the two kingdoms crowns were worn by the same person but there was no legal United Kingdom except personally to the Monarch.

However, the Kingdom of England assumed illegally that because the English monarch was deposed it had also removed the monarch of Scotland and Westminster claimed that the Scots who then fought to retain their own monarch were rebelling against the monarchy that Westminster invited to replace their deposed monarchy, (William & Mary). Thus began what they deemed to be, “The Jacobite Rebellions but they also changed the Rule of Law of the Kingdom of England by forcing William & Mary to legally delegate their royal Sovereignty to the Parliament of England. Thus the 3 country Kingdom of England became, “A Constitutional Monarchy”, and it remains thus today.

However, in the Kingdom of Scotland the Rule of Law was internationally recognised to have changed from, “The Divine Right of Kings”, (a.k.a. sovereignty), to legally making the People of Scotland, and thus not either the monarchy or the parliament, legally sovereign by the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. This remains the Scottish Rule of Law until the present day.

This difference in the two rules of law is recorded in the Treaty of Union as having to remain forever independent of each other.

This is why Scottish elected members cannot legally do what they want without the express authority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland. To date the Holyrood parliament has obtained just such a mandate from the legally sovereign people of Scotland to hold a second independence referendum but that is the extent of what the people have authorised them to do.

They just cannot unilaterally act without an express mandate from the sovereign people of Scotland.

This explanation not only explains why they cannot just declare Scotland independent but why the Scottish government must act for ALL the people of Scotland even if they are unionists who wish the union to continue.

It is not thus either Nicola Sturgeon, nor the SNP, nor even the Holyrood Government that is preventing a simple legal declaration that the Union is over. It is there is not a recognised majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland demanding independence.

Without that legal majority such a declaration would be an illegal, “Unilateral Declaration of Independence”, and would not be acceptable by World Powers and that acceptance is essential if an independent Kingdom of Scotland becomes legally recognised by World Powers such as the EU, UN, NATO and all World powers.

The STV 6.00 pm news actually tried to interview mayhem May, they gave her a hard time as she desperately tried to avoid answering the f-ing questions.

The BBC instead gave May a completely free hand to say whatever she wanted with no interview or questions.

No bloody surprise there then.

Some thinking ahead here…

Remain-voting Gibraltar is accommodated in Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

Remain-Voting N.I.is accommodated in Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

Surely there is a deep injustice here that the wishes of the largest Remain-Voting country (Scotland) of the UK is not accommodated.

We may think we know WM’s reason but, as we know, with WM there are always ulterior motives, hidden agendas at play. So, perhaps there’s another reason why Scotland has not been accommodated in the Brexit WA.

May knows she can’t hold off IndyRef2 forever and that it must happen some time in the not too distant. She needs a major card she can play and that card may be that when the polls show YES infront she will play VOW2 – Yes, Scotland can remain in the SM & CU if they vote NO.

Same way as Cameron played the ‘Devo-Max’ card when YES went ahead in the polls.

Is that their game?

Early tonight I heard on some news or another that a fish processing factory in Dingwall was to close I saw no such item on either STV or BBC’s so called Scottish news, does anyone else know more about this Dingwall factory.

@Brian Powell says: 28 November, 2018 at 3:35 pm:

” … I mean English MPs weren’t elected on the basis of maintaining the Union so why specifically must Scottsh MPs be elected on the basis of dissolving it, though in fact the majority of Scottish MPs are stated supporters of Independence?
Added to this the majority of MSPs in Holyrood are stated Independence supporters.”

I know what you mean, Brian and I’ve given you the long and detailed explanation already. To answer these specific questions refer to the previous long explanation but here is the simple answer to those specific questions.

When the legally sovereign people of Scotland elect anyone for anything those who ate elected are delegated to do what the legally sovereign people elected them to do.

In The Kingdom of England it is a different set-up as the Queen of England is legally sovereign and it is her sovereignty that the elected person is delegated to act for. An English, Welsh or N.I. elected person acts for the Crown/Parliament but the elected person from the Kingdom of Scotland acts for the legally sovereign people of Scotland.

Put another way, we Scots elect our representatives but the English, Welsh and N.I. voters elect the Queen’s/Parliament’s representative. Their problem is that there has not been an elected Parliament of England since the last day of April 1707.

Westminster, though, has since the union always acted as if it were the Parliament of England but it never has been it has since 1 May 1707 always legally been the bipartite Parliament of the United Kingdom and that is a united kingdom – not a unified country.

d

@starlaw

I think I posted this a few weeks ago

link to fishfarmingexpert.com

The Scottish visit by the PM – I wonder how long the media searched fo find May supporting members of the public to ensure “balance” in their reports?

Robert Peffers,

I fully understand your posts regarding the people’s sovereignty in Scotland. However, I do have a question in relation to that. You say, the elected politicians of Scotland cannot end the union, without a clear mandate from the people, however, I don’t think that quite holds true.

You see, when MP’s or MSP’s are elected they are elected to form a government, and during their term (if in government) they may choose to enact policies that could not have been predicted when elected. So, with brexit, whilst it migh be nice to get a referendum, I do not think their is any reason for the Scottish government not doing it. They are elected to act in the best interests of Scotland and its people, and clearly brexit will be bad for Scotland. Therefore they would be acting in the best interests of Scotland to end the union in order to stay in the EU – something for which they have a very clear specific democratic mandate to do.

You see Scots have clearly expressed their desire to stay in the EU already, so it not just an option but a DUTY of the Scottish government to ensure that happens. Surely ending the 1707 union to ensure membership of the EU is retained is a perfectly valid course of action.

1. It is supported by the claim of right (that scots are free to choose the nature of their government – so that would include EU membership).

2. Their is a very clear democratic mandate for Scotland to stay in the EU (62% in favour).

3. It is the duty of the elected representatives to do whatever is in the best interests of Scotland, and if that means they have to end the union treaty in order to carry out the wishes of the people of Scotland to stay in the EU, then surely it is their DUTY to do so.

If the above is not the case, then surely what is being argued is that, their is a democratic mandate to keep Scots in the EU, but that cannot be done, because their isn’t a specific mandate to end the treaty of union of 1707. These are two major constitutional changes, so why is the mandate of the people to stay in the EU being ignored?

You see, you cannpt argue that the Scottish government can only do something if it has a democratic specific mandate (stay in the EU) since the people are sovereign, but it cannot do another thing (and the union), because it doesn’t have a specific mandate.

Incidentally, I do not agree that ANY government MUST have a specific mandate for a course of action, especially in dire situations such as England forcing Scotland out of the EU against its wishes. Surely, the mandate by being elected in the first place, is a delegation of people’s sovereignty, to act in the best interests of Scotland. You cannot argue that the people’s sovereignty is delegated, then in the same breath argue that they cannot act on important matters.

Starlaw

Been on the bbc since mid afternoon

link to bbc.co.uk

Brian taylor’s interview was toe curling embarrassing.

What a little creep – clearly the man has lost all spine.

Come indy he can expect a P45 and his London masters will drop him as a failure

Shame really for a while I thought he had potential to be a journalist

Confession time.

I have always voted SNP. I have always wanted an Independent Scotland. I believe I am passionate about politics in Scotland, the UK, Europe and less so, abroad.

I was bricking it when I X’d the Yes box in 2014.

There, I said it.

Now though – I am itching at the bit to vote Yes (again) in IndyRef2.

Let that be a barometer, if nothing else, for anyone considering their options.

To quote Outlaw King – Wallace was an ‘idea’…..well, so was 2014.

Time to get serious.

Abracadabra. Now you see her, now you don’t.

BBC and STV news still reporting on Big T’s visit to Glasgow. Trying to make out that she’s brave enough to visit the No Mean City (like Nicola) when in fact she scuttled in and out of a factory in a fairly remote (easy to protect) residential area of Renfrewshire.

STV news: Bernard Ponsonby gave her a hard time. Wouldn’t let up on trying to force her to answer his question about the country being worse off with her deal. The look on her face spoke volumes.

Channel 4 news: A wee Tory lackey went knocking on doors close to the Bridge of Weir factory. At the first house he asked the man who answered the door, if Big T visited would he talk to her. The resident said, “No.”

In all they broadcast interviewing five people (I would love to see what they edited out). One supported Treeza and the other four didn’t hold back …. “The deal is detrimental for Scotland.” – “She’s made a dogs breakfast of it.” – “Going to make us all poorer.” – “I don’t trust her.” – “I don’t trust the Chancellor.” – “I don’t trust politicians.” – “They’re all too busy stabbing each other in the back”, etc, etc.

All in all I doubt she converted anyone in Scotland. A flying visit, following 30 months of ignoring the Scots, won’t wash up here. I doubt she’s aware either of the fact that the Scots seem to be more politically astute than the folks down south. It might also please some to know that the factory and immediate environment stinks to high heaven. Good enough for her.

………..

And the Sun newspaper reporting that Nicola Sturgeon is being excluded from the debate, as she’d “wipe the floor with May.”

Q for Robert Peffers.
Sorry if this sounds stupid, I get your point about the Kingdom of Scotland, and Of the kingdom of England being made up of three countries. But, can you pls explain the difference between a kingdom and a country. Thanks!

Robert Louis @ 8.18
Well ….. Yes on matters of policy I’d agree.
And I don’t presume to speak for Robert Peffers… I’m sure he will give you his take soon.
But in the meantime… If ye don’t mind… here’s what I think!!
When it comes to Our Sovereignty… I’d argue that even Holyrood dare not presume, to act!
They did THAT in 1707 and never again should we stand for it!
The Sovereignty is ours and only we can answer such a question.
I’m actually hoping to have some such clause in our Constitution as never again should Holyrood be able to sign us up to a Union… any Union that lasts 300 odd years!
300 years for fucks sake is this a political decision or a fairytale!!!
Now we and not a bunch of Nobles are in charge.. we need to make dam sure they never get to do that again.
EG…. Ask me to vote for EU membership right now and I’ll probably do it..
Tell me it’s going to be for 300yrs and they will even then try to stop future Scots leaving… then Naw, I cannot commit CENTURIES of Union from Scotland
That would be Insane.
And MY Scottish Sanity has nay price either…
Jist Sayin Robert L

The big problem is the actual question of the EU Referendum:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

with the responses to the question to be (to be marked with a single (X)):

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union”

It says nothing about Scotland remaining in the EU, and considering the Miller Appeal, wording is legally important.

Looks like Brexit has been called by the media as falling under EVEL, Scots are not allowed to be present at any debates or on the media. Just wonder when the HoC speaker will realise this.

Intriguing as the idea is, I don’t really think breaches of the Treaty, legal declarations at Holyrood or other technicalities will bring de-facto Independence. The howls from Unionists will ensure the need for a defining or at least confirming referendum.
There might well come a point when Scotland does find itself “Not in the Union” and with a default “Independent Status”, whether that lends itself to reinforcing a YES in a referendum, or whether it would be all hands to the pumps by Unionist voters to swing it back to NO, remains to be seen.
A referendum will very probably have to occur though one way or another.
Of course, the SNP could try and stand their ground in such a technical scenario for the duration of their term and try and weather the onslaught; it would take some fast international manouvering with quick treaties (especially from the EU) to nail it on. If they could manage that and if they could hold out, its possible people could be a year or so “Independent” without the sky falling in and so come to terms with it – its a bit of a long shot though.

Iain mhor.

Just for clarity.

You are stating that EVEN IF Scots Law is ILLEGALLY SUBJUGATED, EVEN IF Scots People’s SOVEREIGN WILL is ILLEGALLY SUBJUGATED, the Treaty of Union STILL EXISTS ???

That gives WM a blank cheque to abuse and demean Scotland ANY TIME THEY LIKE.

And here you are, defending their right to do so.

In effect, you are stating that only Scots can dissolve the treaties of Union.

Are you actually serious ?

I’m sure most reading Wings have heard of the UN Charter on Political and Cultural Rights where paragraph 1 states:

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.

The important part here is “All peoples” in other words even No voters are entitled to a voice when it comes to self-determination.

I am not doubting that charter nor the facts you highlight, Thepnr.

My point is, if Scots Sovereign will and Scots Law are illegally subjugated by WM, do the Treaties of Union still apply at the point of obviously being breached by WM actions, or are they set aside by the illegal actions as a matter of simple fact ?

I would be amazed if, legally, any treaty still existed at that point !

Would the GFA be left wholly intact if there is No deal, and nobody allowed to end it no matter how much WM decided to treat it with absolute contempt, breaching its terms time after time ?

Somehow doubt it.

@Robert Louis says: 28 November, 2018 at 8:18 pm:

” … You see, when MP’s or MSP’s are elected they are elected to form a government, and during their term (if in government) they may choose to enact policies that could not have been predicted when elected.”

Aye! That’s how it works under English law – which is what Westminster operates under but assumes that it also applies to Holyrood because they assume Holyrood is a devolved bit of Westminster and that Westminster hold sovereignty.

Thing is Westminster doesn’t actually have legal sovereignty over Scotland and never has had it. It says so in the Treaty of Union.

As, under Scots law the people are sovereign, then when they elect someone it is the legally sovereign people the elected person is delegated to represent.

In England the legally sovereign person is the Queen of England and even if the people elect them it is the monarch’s sovereignty they are delegated.

However, English Law, decided that as from William & Mary the monarchy had to legally delegate their sovereignty to the Parliament of England. The apparent reasoning being that the sovereignty actually belonged to the kingdom and not to the king.

Which is highlighted by how they announce the death of the English Monarch, “The King is dead – long live the King”.

Sovereignty remains with the kingdom and instantly passes to the next in line. Previously the Monarch named their successor in their will. Elizabeth I of England caused problems because she refused to name a successor.

The woman was full of fears and doubts. Probably because Mary, Queen of Scots had, arguably, a better claim to the English throne than Elizabeth. Hence the execution. It is suspected Elizabeth feared naming a successor as doing so would provide her successor a great motive for a royal murder. Just such a motive as had Elizabeth see off Mary Queen of Scots.

Anyway, the essential difference is that the Queen of England is legally sovereign but must delegate the Parliament of England to exercise the Royal sovereignty. Factually Westminster is NOT the elected parliament of England it is the parliament of the bipartite United Kingdom.

There is no actual parliament of England to delegate sovereignty to. Which means they are delegating sovereignty to the Members chosen by the people of England but the people of England are not legally sovereign so the people get to select them but the sovereignty is that of the English Crown and Westminster presumes it hold sovereignty over everyone – including Scotland.

@geeo

I don’t have a clue either, maybe it would be possible for the Scottish government to take a case to a higher court accusing Westminster of breaching the Treaty of Union/

There might be many reasons for doing that such as the refusal to hand back powers from the EU that should rightfully come to Scotland and not return to Westminster.

As I say, I’ve no idea but there is surely a difference between breeching the treaty and facing penalties than there is in ending it?

I think to end it then that is a decision for the people of Scotland and not for the courts. Of course England would have the same choice if they wanted to do so.

@Robert Peffers.

I think its important to emphasise that the Queen has 2 crowns, one Scots and the other England. One is not superior to the other. When the Queen lends her Sovereignty over England, she does so ,only for her English crown. She has no authority to lend or delegate Scotland’s Sovereignty. The people of Scotland’s sovereignty is not subject to Parliament.

@Jockanese Wind Talker

Thanks for that. Excellent.

Commentators and interviewers eh! What are they like. 🙂

Aye buts! Independence!

The FM plays a straight bat & tells the truth.

(We do have cricket teams in Scotland)

I Note that the British legal system is now ‘doing a hatchet job’ on Carwyn Jones’ reputation following the death of Carl Sergeant.
Is this a forerunner of how they intend to trash Alex’s reputation?

Brilliant front page from The National tomorrow.

Look forward to BBC and Sky Newspaper Reviews to feature it.

Aye Right… its North of Watford so doesn’t count when we can promote The Star front pages..

Thepnr

But again, that is to say that a Treaty can be partially breached, which as far as i gather, is a legal impossibility.

Its a treaty (agreed by ALL signatories) or it is not a Treaty.

How it becomes NOT a treaty, is when either or both signatories, breaks an explicitly agreed term within said treaty against the direct wishes of the other party or parties involved.

To become a treaty again, there must be a NEW agreement and THAT becomes the Treaty.

Which is why i would maintain that if WM subjugate Scots Law and / or Scots Sovereign will, the current Treaty of Union is indeed,over.

Now, WM acting as defacto English Parliament, are clearly never going to declare THEY are dissolving the Treaty of Union, so it falls to SCOTTISH politicians, to announce they shall be puting a PROTECTIVE motion to Holyrood to declare the Treaty as being over due to actions by WM, namely illegal subjugation as outlined earlier.

If Holyrood then wish to forward a plebiscite to ask Sovereign Scots if they wish to instruct their representatives to enter into negotiations to re enter into Treaty with WM, or affirm they are happy to resort to the pre 1707 treaty status of being independent, that helps satisfy the Sovereign will criteria, but if WM cannot live up to nor agree to Scotlands NEW treaty terms, then the Treaty of Union stays dissolved, as caused by WM’s illegal actions (subjugation).

Thats my take on it, if i signed a contract for a five bedroom house and the builder built just 3 bedrooms, who ended the contract ?

A. The builder.

I might decide feck it, 3 rooms will do, but that would involve a new contract to keep it all legal as the old agreement is ended by the dispute.

If you watch BBC Reporting Scotland and consider how many reporters they have it is no wonder they built such a massive building at Propaganda Quay. Each reporter must work a 7 hour week to produce their share of the propaganda. A crap propaganda program prepared by a bunch of lazy Britnats having an easy life on taxpayers money. No wonder they want to keep the gravy train running.

If it was privatised they would probably sack about half of the staff and tell the rest to work a normal week.

BBC Scotland = A bunch of parasites working for a foreign country.

Sinky,,,,Sky News paper review actually ran with the National front page story and the guests in the studio backed the stance the National took.

@geeo

The subject of violation of treaties after a quick google appears to be very complex and far too complex for me to make any sense of in an hour or two.

So I’ll come back to what common sense tells me and that is treaty or not without majority support for Independence in Scotland itself then it is not possible to become Independent.

The EU or the UN are not going to raise a finger in support of an Independent Scotland that England crushes by force without the Scottish people having given majority support in the first place.

My question to you is why wouldn’t you fight first for majority support? Do you fear that we cannot ever gain that, why when we are so close are you against asking Scots if they have changed their mind since 2014?

This is what I fail to get, we’re nearly there anyway and if we can’t bring the majority of Scots with us then any other kind of “Independence” is not worth having in my opinion.

Either Scotland votes for Independence and gets it or it doesn’t.

All questions answered and nobody need die in the process. Only persuasion of those that voted No or were undecided in 2014 will win the day, anything other way is fanciful thinking.

Good god !!

If Scottish political representatives cannot make a COMPLAINT on OUR behalf, to ENABLE a plebiscite to see “if enough of us indeed do object” then how the fuck do we ever address breaches of the treaty ?

We gave a mandate in 2016 did we not ?

Was that not clear instruction for our politicias to hold an indyref from Sovereign Scots ?

Yet here we are saying if WM says fuck off, we contantly breach the treaty terms and just do not care, there is fuck all we can do as we are trapped in a paradox where we have no means of instructing our politicians by proving a majority want something, and actually facillitating those politicians to give us what we instruct.

May as well just pack up and go home.

Fucks sake !!

I never ever said no to indyref2.

My point is what can be done if WM simply says feck off not happening.

All i read is nothing can be done.

So..tell me, what CAN be done if WM simply says gtf no indyref ?

All ears where the leverage comes from.

geeo says:
28 November, 2018 at 11:08 pm

“So..tell me, what CAN be done if WM simply says gtf no indyref ?”

Easy.

Establishment lawyer Nicola informs the Scottish public that she cannot call an independence referendum without a Section 30 order from Westminster.

But she says that Westminster has assured her one will definitely be granted in 2640 AD.

Just a bit more patience folks.

@Boudicca says: 28 November, 2018 at 8:39 pm:

” … can you pls explain the difference between a kingdom and a country. Thanks!”

Well, besides the point that kingdom’s are all monarchies and all monarchies are diametrically opposites of democracies. You cannot have a democracy when the monarchy is sovereign.

A country is a geographic term and, for example the country of England was once composer of many smaller kingdoms.

For example Wessex, Essex, Cumberland, Northumberland and so on were once all smaller kingdoms. Furthermore, Ireland was a country but there were many kings and kingdoms but they had a High King as the supreme leader and monarchs all claimed to have the divine right of Kings – that is they claimed they were chosen by God.

However the real natural order has always been that the people were ultimately sovereign in that no monarch could survive unless, for any reason including fear, the people allowed them to rule. Think of the French and Russian revolutions and the American War of independence.

The Kingdom of Scotland was an anomaly in that the monarch was deemed to be NOT sovereign but was the protector of the people’s sovereignty and that is still Scots law.

England, three countries, is also an anomaly in that the parliament forced their monarchy to legally delegate the Divine Right to Rule to the Parliament of England but, that was not the people’s parliament it was the aristocracy who took power from the monarchy. (Hence a House of Lords still exists).

Robert Peffers says:
28 November, 2018 at 11:20 pm

“Well, besides the point that kingdom’s are all monarchies and all monarchies are diametrically opposites of democracies. You cannot have a democracy when the monarchy is sovereign.”

Where did you learn that shite from?

Is the Kingdom of Norway not a democracy?

Won’t be long now I would think before the Union collapses under a stinking pile of it’s own incompetence.

I can be patient, good things come to those that wait 🙂

Thepnr 11.20pm.

Ok, so far so good, but how do we express to our politicians that we WANT THEM to enable such a referendum ?

A. They act on our behalf, they make the call, that is what we want as a result of WM refusal to play ball.

So, how is that different from Holyrood making a PROTECTIVE decision on our behalf and then caveating that protective action by then turning it over to US to decide ?

@geeo

That’s simple you join in the marches, get active, send them an email. You decide, you know better than me how YOU can let them know.

Tobias Elwood Tory MP Minister for Defence on newsnight tonight making a big noise re Britain having to get back to good old fashioned British values. That we would be invading countries, killing people and stealing their resources in nearly every part of the globe. He says kids need to know right from wrong. It’s simple – voting Tory is wrong because they are monsters. Invading and colonising countries is wrong.

It’s like the Mafia saying they are fed up with crime.

Craig Murray posted a link to this via Twitter.

Powerful stuff about the Guardian, Assange, and a whole lot more.

link to jonathan-cook.net

@Cubby

See when you and exactly 50% of Scots decide the Treaty of Union should be terminated I’ll smile too.

Thepnr 11.01

Only persuasion of those that voted No or were undecided in 2014 will win the day, anything other way is fanciful thinking.

Do not forget the newly enfranchised.

That’s four years of young Scots and counting.

Re my post on the newly enfranchised at 12.21

By pure coincidence

link to archive.is

@Cubby

That’s my point, Scotland allowed others to make that decision for them in 1707 which was a big mistake and “others” shouldn’t get to make that decision now.

Only we the sovereign people of Scotland will make that choice, nobody else.

Herald covering The National’s exclusion:

link to heraldscotland.com

The Herald’s exclusion article archived.

link to archive.is

With friends like that …!

@geeo

Our politicians not only represent “us” they represent all Scots. So get 50%+ of the vote in any election and that is as good as a referendum. I’d go along with that.

@Cubby

When was thepnr mandated to make such a decision and by what authority/process. Did the sovereign Scots vote for you to decide?

And just who gave you authority to decide otherwise? hahaha

Are YOU scared of a referendum?

If so please explain why otherwise I might be tempted to think that you’re just stirring the shit for your own reasons whatever they might be.

Hold on Thepnr…

50% vote share in a WM general election is how you believe the Treaty of Union can end ?

In 2015 the SNP took 95% of seats on just about 50% or the VOTE.

So you are now setting a 95% of WM Scots seats target, as your indy benchmark ?

……….

2017 GE : SNP 35 SEATS = 36.9% vote share.

2015 GE : SNP 56 SEATS = 50.0% vote share.

2010 GE : labour 41 SEATS = 42% vote share.

2005 GE : labour 42 SEATS = 39.5% vote share.

2001 GE : labour 56 SEATS = 43.3% vote share.

1997 GE : labour 56 SEATS = 45.6% vote share.

I could go on but frankly, 50% has NEVER been achieved outside of combined Unionist coalitions pre 1955.

No single party other than the SNP in 2015 has ever won 50% or the vote share.

And THAT is the criteria you want to use ?

You surely want to rethink that idea.

thepnr @1.23am

Sorry but not stirring any shit. No one gave me any authority just the same as you – unless you are an MP or MSP.

The difference between our positions is that you are of the opinion that it must be a referendum. I am not. No I am not scared of referendums- A pretty silly question. Not convinced of the merits of them but if our political representatives decide that is the case then that is what I am arguing for. You are arguing that it has to be a referendum whether or not the political representatives think it should be otherwise.

Does this help clarify my reasons. Just putting my case forward.

@Cubby

“Without majority support independence is not possible”

Why?

I think the answer is obvious, just who would be Independent?

Clue: It wouldn’t be the Scots.

*(sigh)*

Fancy checking how many Scottish GE results since EVER (2015 aside) would have carried indy support over 50% ?

Apart from the utterly freakish 2015 election ?

ZERO.

You are trying to back a horse that, rather than have 3 legs, but was infact stillborn.

Yet again you completely ignore that i never ever claimed the primary choice would/should NOT be a majority plebiscite win.

I merely suggested a protective dissolution caveated by a Holyrood run plebiscite, would be a perfectly ok option, and as such, satisfies Scots Law and our sovereign will.
………

I shall try again.

Scotsgov requests a S.30.

Treeza say : “GTF”

According to you,we say “ok” and sit on our hands until 2021 GE at WM and hope to achieve a repeat of an actually once in a lifetime/history event, namely that 50% vote share.

WM has subjugated Scots Law

WM has subjugated Scots Sovereignty.

WM has told Scotland No S.30.

WM will ruin the Scots economy by brexiting us against our will.

“Wait till 2021” aint going to cut it.

If SNP let the above happen, they will be nearer 15 % of the vote never mind 50%.

C’mon….really ?

@Thepnr
I’m with you, but the 50%+1 vote in an election should be a last resort, if a referendum isn’t “allowed” by Westminster, and if a ScotGov attempt to go ahead anyway is challenged successfully in court. There is no such thing as an illegal referendum, unless the ScotGov attempted to go ahead AFTER it had failed in court – the Court of Sessions that is. The ScotGov is perfectly entitled to try to hold one, same as the EU Withdrawal Bill – even if that does lose out.

A weaker alternative is for an SNP majority of SNP MPs, but without that popular 50%+1 number of votes) to go for UDI on the sole conditiojn it was for an Indy Ref, that having been denied in other ways.

That’s where I see democracy – and self-determination. The only alternative is a signed petition, probably with actual signatures and full verifiable addresses.

Geeo
Apologies geek should have been geeo