Wings Over Scotland

chossy
I’d suggest the rule-of-law is a positive and beneficial force, which doesn’t work if folk choose when to support it or a 60% ‘gold standard’. It’s an all or nothing kind of deal, as with human rights, which are inter-related and belong to the individual. Brexit denies Scots have a legally defensible identity, so Westminster does not consider those living in Scotland have a legal right to legal rights. I’m just not happy with that in the slightest.

-Chossy-

With all due respect you have missed the point of the article.

The SNP leadership insist that we can only gain our independence via a referendum authorised by Westminster.

No Tory PM has anything to gain from granting an indyref. The only outcome would be that they would lose the support of the third or so of the Scottish population who vote for them solely to stop independence.

How does the percentage in favour of Indy change this? It doesn’t. “They simply couldn’t ignore that”- why couldn’t they?

@Ros at6.21pm

South Korea managed to hold an election ok.

link to web.archive.org

Joseph O luain 3.13pm. Well I hold an Irish passport and I agree with your Iraqi barber

I have never known an independence Party to be so quite on the subject of Independence.

Why should a virus shut down all debate on Scottish Independence?

Why can’t Sturgeon get herself in front of a camera (queen Lizzie style) and broadcast a speech on how an independent Scotland can manage her own way out of this economic crisis which would involve applying for membership of the EU.

About how England will hold us back and actually destroy our economy.

Anything will do, but at least keep the subject of Independence relevant.

I don’t know why we’re at this stage of proceedings, yet still unsure about where we stand constitutionally. It’s inexcusable really. I say it repeatedly, we are putting off til last the things we ought to have done first.

I know it’s the “big one”, and a Constitutional death of the Union might be unpalatable to some, but a Nations Constitution stands for something, or it doesn’t.

People shy away from the Courts, but Joanna Cherry has twice steered a Scots Law Action through UK Legislation, sidestepped the UK Supreme Court, and had Westminster bound to respect the jurisdiction of Scots Law.

That doesn’t happen by random chance. It happens because Scotland has a Constitution which is extant and retains potency in law even if that potency is doubted by ‘adopted convention’. Isn’t that the very essence of the Union Treaty itself?

Ask yourself a question. Why does the Union offer protection to Scots Law and Religion? Because it has to, or else articulate how the sovereignty of Scotland was subjugated. It cannot do that because it never was subjugated, but instead was mired in sophistry and shored up by bribery and corruption and expedient ad-hoc conventions made up to negotiate the awkward details.

The provisions made in the Articles are no different in essence from the ‘convention’ of Westminster Parliamentary Sovereignty. They are necessary “workarounds” which enable the Union to function while avoiding the nitty-gritty Constitutional Absolutes which are not compatible with Union but which cannot be done away with because they are Constitutional Absolutes that cannot be undone.

My faith in Joanna Cherry stems from the fact she has successfully steered these two ‘pilot’ actions through the Courts, and won both of them. Perhaps the reason she hasn’t gone further is because she’s been told not to… I don’t know. In fairness, it’s not for the faint hearted because it would be a big scary court case too… Especially if you’re surrounded by doubters and naysayers.

But for the life of me, I cannot fathom what the SNP is playing at. Catalonia would give their eye teeth to have a famous and internationally respected written Constitution like the Declaration of Arbroath and the provenance and celebrity of a Nation like Scotland, yet here in Scotland we regard it as an irrelevant curiosity we’re not even prepared to test. It’s ludicrous.

Breeks: “I. ‘That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain,” (My emphasis)

That form of enforcement is null nd void I today’s world, Breeks, and our case would be based o the breaching of the Treaty terms themselves by England and, then. by England-as-the-UK. We would also have the backing of the UN Charter on self-determination an on human rights. International law is also, to a vast extent, on our side in relation to resources within our territorial waters and on our land area.

Let’s think about it like this: had the EU suddenly and without warning decided that the UK should have no voice whatsoever on any agreement reached with the other members, then I’d like to bet that you’d call that onerous, as would I, and most reasonable people. But that is not what Brexit is about, is it? The EU has never done to the UK what England-as-the-UK does to us on a tediously regular basis. Yet, you don’t believe the Treaty can be overturned.

The late Professor David Walker, constitutional expert, said that England’s MPs had totally misinterpreted the spirit and rules of the Treaty itself by claiming that the Acts (translating the Treaty into domestic law) superseded the Treaty. Any lawyer will tell you that primary legislation (Treaty) cannot be superseded by secondary legislation (Acts). Even devolution, according to the Treaty terms is null and void because, as a partner and original authority to the Treaty and Union, Scotland cannot devolve itself from itself. David Cameron let the cat out of the bag on the partnership aspect of the Treaty by commissioning the Crawford and Boyle Report.

No extant Treaty, no commission possible. No subsumption of Scotland by a Greater England, the Treaty remains as is. The Treaty remains as is, Scotland is a full partner with England. Scotland is a full partner with England, England cannot force through Brexit – at least, not for us, nor can we be voiceless, nor can we be denied a referendum, if we choose. Hold a ratifying/confirmatory one AFTER independence, after the Treaty has beeb resiled on the grounds of England’s outrageous breaching and totally ultra vires behaviour for over 300 years.

Don’t listen to the siren voices. They are mistaken and credulous at best, lying through their ivories, at worst. Me, I’d plump for the second. They are lying now, and they have always lied about the reality of both the Union and the Treaty. Have the Treaty ‘sound’ in law, and you will find out just how much you have been duped and for how long. One thing is certain, however we get independence, England-as-the-UK will try to use that Treaty against us in order to get its sticky paws on every resource we have. So, move on it now or we will regret it as we have never regretted anything, not even that fckng NO vote of 2014. Excuse my French.

And the same to Lorna Campbell?

What’s your thoughts?

But, but, but, hang on a second, Pete Wishart has assured us all, that London WILL grant a section 30, sometime…soon. And let’s face it, Pete Wishart is right, and ALWAYS right. Indeed, so RIGHT is Pete Wishart, that if anybody dares to question his nonsense on twitter, no matter how nicely worded, he immediately blocks them. That’s how very right, Pete is.

And THAT is the freaking problem. The SNP’s longest serving MP, simply refuses to even consider re-examining his own ‘logic’ or bizarre beliefs.

So, next week the polls could show 60 or 70% in favour of independence, and we still could NEVER be independent according to Pete Wishart, unless we have a section 30. And NOBODY in Scotland, apart from Pete Wishart thinks that will ever happen.

So, tell me then, just what would be the point in voting SNP next year. If they win a majority of seats, then we are exactly where we are now, waiting for a section 30, which will never arrive. According to the SNP leadership, their is no other way. So, voting SNP next year is pointless, unless you happen to like some of their other policies.

Until the SNP leadership change their stance and look at other democratic means to assert Scotland’s sovereignty, we are quite literally stuck. Following the SNP’s and Pete Wishart’s own ‘logic’, even if every single Scot demands independence, it cannot happen because London says no to a section 30. That is how stupid their current position is.

It is patent nonsense, of the very highest order. In reality, this p*sh about needing a section 30, is just a tawdry excuse for the SNP to do nothing for independence, until a time of their own choosing. What the people of Scotland want matters not one jot, and in that light, they are no better than the Tories in London.

Can the SNP even see the stupidity of their position? Meanwhile, the Tories just laugh at them, knowing they need to simply do nothing.

Joseph at 303pm,

Either Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t care about indy supporters or she, as leader of the SNP, is beyond incompetent.

The anger will continue to grow. In my opinion, her position as leader of the SNP is simply untenable. She is now a hindrance to independence. Six years, and she has done not one thing to move independence forward.

red sunset says:
21 June, 2020 at 1:08 pm
Hi Red,

I’m English, lived and brought up my family in rural Scotland for around 20 years.

Worked paid my taxes, my children and other ‘settlers’ helped keep the local primary school and pub open, (both closed now).

I would vote Yes for Scottish Independence given the chance.

We are not all from the Shires pockets stuffed with money.

Im back across the Border for now, for work, needs must.

Agree with breeks and others. A treaty between two countries is just that, an agreement. It can be ended by either party. Thnking that somehow Scotland cannot do so, is part of the unionist mindset, that somehow Scotland is subservient to England;s wishes.

Many international treaties have been ended. Of course, sometimes, one or more of the interested parties is unhappy, but that does NOT mean they can BLOCK one partner from leaving. It doesn’t matter what a treaty says. Of course some treaties might say, just like in business agreements, that early termination means charges are due, but luckily for Scotland, their are no such terms in the union with England treaty.

Once you understand that, and stop thinking Scotland is magically the only country in the world that signed a treaty, which it can never, ever, ever end, then independence becomes straightforward. In other words, stop thinking like unionists. Scotland OR indeed England could end the union treaty whenever it wanted, and if it were England doing so, it most certainly would not spend six freaking years begging Scotland’s permission.

bipod says:
21 June, 2020 at 7:38 pm
We had a heat wave in may that saw thousands flock outdoors and to the beaches and massive BLM protests earlier this month, if the second wave doomsday fanatics are to be believed you would think we would seen the second wave by now,

———

Seems you still don’t understand what the term second wave means.

To prevent a second wave is not the same as a surge in first wave.We’re still in the first wave,it hasn’t gone away.
You must suppress the first wave down as far as you can so if a second wave does appear you have systems in place to control it.

America ,Brazil are prime examples of countries that haven’t got a grip of first wave yet and cases are exploding again at same time as their relaxing restrictions too early.

A balance needs to be found between economy and health. The two are interlinked,its not a competition.

I think NS is well aware of the economic damage ,but values health of the nation just as much as economy.

Patience is a virtue,treasure it ,or you will have no people to run a economy. An economy needs healthy people, not dead and sick people.

I can’t understand the endless sophistry by some trying to make a pseudo-legal argument about the Treaty being violated, or Scots sovereignty being violated because of the act of Brexit.

Scotland didn’t cast a vote on staying in the EU as Scotland. The populace of the entity known as the UK (which includes Scitland) was asked if the *UNITED KINGDOM* should remain or leave. The vote was cast, the result is that the UK leaves. All legitimate even if we disagree in our particular part of the island.

It would indeed be a democratic outrage if we’d been asked if Scotland wanted to be in the EU rather than the UK and Westminster had gone ‘nah’. But that didn’t happen – so where is the violation?

And beware trying to make the argument that Acts of the Westminster Parliament aren’t enforceable in any way because the treaty comes first – that’s how we lose Holyrood, which in its current form exists only because of the Scotland Act. And if the Treaty is above that, well…the Treaty is pretty clear that there’s o Scottish Parliament, right?

Surely now, I mean Now, an SNP leader, and SNP SG Fm would be shouting Independence from the rooftops. ??

People need to understand. Sturgeon was helped to where she is by the brit secret service. She was young and passionate, then ruthless in pursuit of power.

The brit secret service saw this and groomed her for the role so they could own her.

Be under no.illusions, the brit secret service infiltrated and influences All its threats and enemies.

Look at the irish struggle from independence from British rule.

Powerful.people working for or owned by the british state are at work within the SNP.

Ask yourself how it could possibly be the case with 9 mandates of staggeringly large proportions, an EU remain mandate in Scotland, an consistently high pulling for independence not be seized upon and advanced by an SNP FM???

The way Alex has beed treated and the stranglehold sturgeaonists have control of local branches mean that removing her will be very hard.

Nature deniers and careerists pollute a noble independence cause and must be removed from influencing policy.

The first casualty of the current strategy is Independence!!

It’s no surprise we are where we are, but the brit secret service own sturgeon and many others in the SG

Sturgeon is the darling of the brit media because they know she is the unions safest bet!!

Time to wake the troops, our biggest enemy is Within!

Breeks says:
21 June, 2020 at 8:08 pm

robbo says:
21 June, 2020 at 7:19 pm
@ Breeks 6.52

So what is your thoughts on the Forward As One case currently going through the courts

—————

Thanks for the reply.It certainly will expose the positions of both Scot Gov and UK gov(albeit we already know UK’s position)

Interesting times.I don’t care what route we go down,everyone is fraught with danger. The more pincer moves we have on the go the better.They need to be worn into the ground. The Irish never gave in.

They the rUK can can have their English brexit,we’ll have our Independence, thanks very much.

There you go again with the dooms day rhetoric robbo. For the vast overwhelming majority of economically active people this virus is no more dangerous than the flu, this was established months ago. It still doesn’t stop the lockdown fanatics from pretending like this is the second coming of the spanish flu though. And you still haven’t acknowledged the substance of my post if the second wave/peak is real then why haven’t we seen it with the increased public activity. Could it be that lockdowns don’t actually suppress the virus.

When can we say that the first wave has ended. We are now well below what is considered epidemic levels of a virus. Second wave, second peak, second peak of the first wave, call it whatever you like it is just made up jargon that nicola is using to extend the lockdown. Nicola doesn’t want to admit that she made a mistake, overreacted and strangled the economy and ruined thousands of lives because that would damage her political image thats why we are being subjected to this glacially slow easing of lockdown and farcical social distancing/”bubbling” rules that almost no one follows.

I don’t think nicola has a clear grasp on the economic damage she is doing to Scotland, she thinks that furlough and extending for as long as possible is the answer to all of our problems. The magic furlough money is being borrowed against all of our futures and there will be a reckoning when it inevitable does end.

Lorna Campbell @ 7;16

For over nine decades there have existed political parties in Scotland who have sought to restore to our country the status of an independent, sovereign State.

In all that time, and despite the relevant documentation being freely available to the best legal minds in the country for over three generations, I’m not aware of a single definitive and widely accepted interpretation of the Articles of the Act of Union in relation to any supposed or actual breech, any proposed dissolution or any proposed repeal.

Where have all the legal experts gone?

Where have all the constitutional lawyers and international treaty specialists disappeared to?

(No offence to anyone here – but they’re not to be found on Wings)

Surely, at some point over the past 92 years, a learned someone would have picked over the bones of the Treaty and identified a concrete means whereby Scotland can walk away and, what is more, would have let all those wanting to know, know.

Q) Where is the route map out of the Treaty that our pro-Indy politicians and sympathetic legal and constitutional experts have had 92 years to plot?

A) It doesn’t exist – because identifying an ‘escape route’ via the Treaty is simply a red-herring.

robertknight
Scotland’s information environment is strictly controlled to support a yoon perspective, so how can you be certain such legal insight has not been arrived at? I had it pretty well worked out over a quarter of a century ago.

The Treaty was agreed between two equal, sovereign, states. Subsequently, a respect for Natural Law indicates that the ‘national law’ of this new state, can not favour either nation while remaining coherent with the obligations of Treaty law. Brexit breaks these obligations and the Treaty.

NATURAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
link to scholarship.law.nd.edu

I don’t know if anyone has already cited this analysis of the various plans A, B C etc. The writer’s conclusion will surprise!

He does not refer in any way to Breek’s ideas (3.40) about resiling from the Treaty by means o , Scotland’s Ultimatum, “Westminster destroys the Union by Brexit, or destroys the Union by recognising Scotland has a sovereign veto. Westminster must toss a double headed coin that favours Scotland. How many of those have we seen in the last 300 years? Carpe Diem”.

Which may mean the idea is not spreading and being discussed, so maybe we should all make an effort to bring it to people’s notice.

link to thecommongreen.scot

Angus MacNeil is becoming more vocal in his criticism of Pete Wishart.

Praying to all known gods that this could be the start of the split which will spark a serious and open leadership debate.

link to twitter.com

Sorry Covid.

CameronB Brodie Wrote on 21 June, 2020 at 5:46 pm:

“re. the Treaty. It is part of international law, so stands above national law, which can not legally be used to remove EU rights from those living in Scotland.”

Firstly, to see if I’m understanding this correctly, what you are teaching us here is that we (Scotland), due to Brexit vote, are currently being held in an illegal position by Westminster?

Secondly, do you have a link where it shows, as fact, that this is indeed the case. A modern one, not one written in nineteen-canteen in a manor most of us can’t understand &/or find off-putting?

And thirdly, are you trained and qualified in matters pertaining to this area of law?

These are genuine questions of interest so please if you answer, Cammy, keep it understandable in basic laypersons terms as I struggle to understand your level of babble. 🙂

Nicola is playing blinder just now
Her aim is not to win over wingers and yessers. Her aim is to win over no and waverers.
If she talks about indy she will be attacked for exploiting the virus so she says nothing and Carlaw does and looks like a diddy!
I hope she crashes the Scottish government before the end of the year and calls an election on Brexit before we exit. If not indy must be on the manifesto page 1 or she is out
Of course she might resign before the end of the year!!

Hi shug at 9:40 pm.

Your comment got me wondering…

Who would come out the winner if Nicola Sturgeon and Rev Stu were playing poker?

Soz for length of post, it eh developed. 🙂

I’ve been doing an inventory check of the tool box. That’s oor all too often ignored and rarely opened dusty Saltired tool box sitting in the corner, not the shiny yin on the table with the Master’s tools in it that folk seem so attracted to and hypnotised by like moths to light n’ flies roon shite.
We’ve certainly got a lot of tools… of that there is no doubt. Some aren’t the sharpest, and some are no longer fit for purpose and are akin to those astutely described in the lesser played Madonna B side – I’m an Imperial Spanner in a Metric World.

For some reason nae individual cunt seems able to lift the mucklest of muckle ‘hings in oor box… So that Humongous Sovereignty Spanner remains firmly embedded doon in the darkest chamber for noo, a wee bity likes when yon Merlin stuck Excalibur to an anvil on boulder with the first prototype tube of Superglue that only Art had a solvent to dissolve and thus lift the sword*.
*Disclaimer 1. I done geography at school so I cannot claim historically this to be 100% accurate fact.
To be honest, the inability of a solitary Scot out of 5.5 million Scots lifting the HSS may in fact be no bad thing, coz you can bet yer hoose that 5.499,999 million other Scots would manage to muster up 5.499,999 million pathetically tedious reasons for the individual not to have the sword.
Sigh, Such a Parcel o’ Muppets in a Nation…

But I digress, where was I goin’ with this… Aye, that’s it, seeing as the “great discussion” a few weeks back re. the seemingly ethereal Regional List Party concept has all but dried up like a drought ravaged desert, or confirmed shags on a covid affected dating site, the impetus to exert leverage on the SNP to wise the fuck up just doesn’t feel like pressure is being maintained.

We know that individuals directing questions to the SNP at various levels will produce the equivalent level of response from them as one can expect from farting at the olfactorily challenged to gain their attention. = >Nadda.
So I again look to people power, but this time rather than trying to herd an entire Nation of Wildcat avec Muppet DNA strands, with all their individual idiosyncrasies, we break it down into more manageable numbers defined by the borders of the Regional List Areas.
In each specific Region, all the YES groups with their bespoke local knowledge and connections could work together to produce the bones of a strategy ready to be implemented behind whatever Pro-Indy Regional List Party best suits their areas.*

*Disclaimer 2. Of course this suggestion only works if the YES Groups aren’t filled with TFM SNP Beigeists who would smother and stifle such a plan, so they could continue to use the magnificently useless campaigning strategy (in most regions) of punting “Both Votes SNP” pens and pissing away based on current polling the best part of a million second votes for just a few seats.

Lorna Campbell says:
21 June, 2020 at 8:40 pm

Thanks for the reply. You do mention one of my biggest worries in that we get our independence in name only, but of a baron wasteland if we let them take anymore assets and tie them up in well i don’t what would call it.

but

Look at the state of this palaver for starters,

link to twitter.com

In recent days the Young Scots for Independence group in Highlands & Islands has appointed two folk who are fully-fledged wokies. Wishart has already met them.

They’re doubling-down on what looks, to a lot of us, like entryism in the face of ever-growing dissent – if they’re not actually trying to provoke a split then they’re certainly behaving affy like they do.

One thing’s for sure – the women/girls groups who’ve organised over the past two years are not going to disappear. They’ve shown themselves to be open, accountable, with reps who are prepared to debate the issues. The TRA lobby within the SNP, by contrast, are averse to any form of discussion which requires them to present spokespeople, especially for ‘live’ debate.

They have – literally – no-one who is prepared to represent them in normal ‘democratic’ discourse. ‘No Debate!’ ??? That’s an untenable position for any senior politician to associate themselves with.