Wings Over Scotland

A picture paints a thousand words right enough.

Neat image, Chris.

I like that.

Only the can is real all else is fantasy.

Kennedy says:
9 February, 2019 at 9:40 am
Time to shit or get off the pot””
……

I think the problem may be that a lot of them were on (the) pot, and much else, when they had the brilliant idea of holding the EU referendum.

Another “clever solution” by May.
…another Union dividend.

Another good one Chris, but I think the Eu will be kicking the can from now till 29 March.

Her role in Britain’s history will be that of a useful idiot to dark forces beyond her control. IMHO, the government’s lack of preparedness for Brexit indicates an ideological malfeasance of intent. The Tories do not represent Britain, they represent the zombie ideology of neo-liberalism, racialist authoritarianism and English cultural purity. They are a true “blood-and-soil” party.

Macroprudential Risk Management Problems in Brexit
link to archive.intereconomics.eu

Does she have a Scottish grand-parent?

Thelma and Louise moment ahead – with us in the back seat 🙁

mumsyhugs says:
9 February, 2019 at 10:37 am
Thelma and Louise moment ahead – with us in the back seat

Aye, but we have parachutes. All we have to do is press the ejector button. 🙂

Scottish ‘papers’ in.
All bar one buckled.

link to bbc.co.uk

And that looks like a cliff edge on the other side of the canvas.

Defo , most of them aren’t Scottish and the ones that are are ‘pretend’ Scottish.

Good to see Cameron Brodie posting again, missed his contributions of late.

Usual nail on the head cartoon Chris, punching her way through fantasy land – but no doubt financially great for herself and husband, who will so enjoy the fruits of his investments – free of EU regulation.

Just us poor mugs who’ll carry the can – usual for the Tories!

Just when we think the can cannot be kicked any further, treeza invests money in roadbuilding, just the one road, mind you, to be completed on March 29th at 11pm.

Remember, Brexit means Brexit ?

It is all that matters to them, ANY brexit will do, as long as they take us out by 29th march.

What i find quite humorous is the notion that if Treeza somehow gets her Norwegian Blue brexit deal past the WM menagerie, that somehow she has saved the day, is hilariously dumb.

ANY brexit deal which removes Scotland against our expressed will, means an indyref/dissolution of the Treaty of Union.

All a brexit deal does is change the REASON we are leaving from subjugation of Scots Law to Subjugation of the legally Sovereign Scots People.

NO Brexit of any form involving Scotland leaving, is acceptable.

It is no surprise that none of our media outlets reproduce you incisively cruel ‘toons, Chris.
if you were a Brit Nat lampooning the BadEssEnnPee, you’d have had a book deal by now.
Don’t even think about it, Cairns.
While in the real world, where the EU 27 are done listening to England’s Empire, back in fantasy land, the dead Tree Scrolls and BBC Billy Bigot report Corbyn’s Customs Union, some sort of Trade Deal, and protecting workers’ jobs and employment rights as the Breakthrough, that somehow the EU will back yet more cherry picking nonsense, that stops Freedom of Movement and the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and allow England to do deals with countries outside the EU in competition with the EU.
They are all stark staring bonkers.
No deal will happen now.
I’m planting dock leaves this spring; we’ll run out of toilet paper by the end of April.

labour will be the saviour for May”s plan.

Who but a fool would believe May on workers rights?

It’s time for media in Scotland to start covering brexit from a Scottish perspective not a uk perspective!

If May is hellbent on honouring the result of the Brexit referendum result then the Scottish Government has every right to do the same for the result in Scotland.
You can’t cherry pick with Scotland’s future Mrs May.

Arrgghhh!
Corner not comet

Chris its been ah long long road with many,s ah winding turn & ah few more winding turns to go before we get to that straight bit .

Inevitable ending Chris weil done .

@Colin Alexander 10.55.

Carefully crafted distortion of facts to sow depression and conflict in the Independence movement.

The EU reality is that after Independence they will be beating a path to our door. Brexit will be a reality so they will have no needto pretend to be nice to rUK. We will be treated as helpfully asIreland is currently.

You know Colin as a British NAtionalist your duty is to divide and rule but the occasional visitor to this site may mistake your classic concern trolling as a sicere point of view. You are a fraud and beneath contempt.

Poverty in America used to be blamed on poor white people then they freed the black people from slavery and blamed poverty on poor black people now they blame poverty on Mexicans, Colombians and anybody else who’s not wealthy white people and all the while the poor uneducated white people are in the same position they always were but look up to the wealthy white people as figures to aspire to be, so they vote for the wealthy white people thus perpetrating upon themselves the very thing they think they’re voting against, and the wealthy white people smile at their own continuing success

If there’s one thing wealthy white people don’t like it’s education (except for themselves) because education will enlighten the poor white people as to the reason the wealthy white people are wealthy and the answer is, the International trade in stupidity, because you can’t subjugate a country without it, you can’t tell an educated person they have democracy when they’re educated enough to know they don’t, so how do the wealthy white people cope with more poor people educating themselves, well they create even more anger in the uneducated people by telling them the educated people are looking down on them as if they’re stupid (which they know they are) but are offended at being told that’s what others think of them by the wealthy white people who they believe are looking after them (by making damn sure they never are educated)

People who are uneducated angry and afraid are the fodder of the wealthy white people dictator government

The UK Government employs this tactic and always has done right back to when the Americans learned it from them

@geeo says: 9 February, 2019 at 11:08 am:

” … Remember, Brexit means Brexit?”

Matter of fact Brexit actually doesn’t mean Brexit, geeo.

It is not true because Britain isn’t in the European Union. There is no European Union member state called Britain.

In fact there is no country in the entire World called Britain.

Both Britain and Great Britain are geographic terms.

The first is the entire British Archipelago but also includes the Channel Islands which, strictly speaking are European Continent off shore islands.

The second refers only to the greatest, (i.e. greatest in size), island of the British archipelago. It contains only the countries of Scotland, England and Wales and thus excludes both the politically partitioned island of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the two Channel Island Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey.

Man & the Channel Bailiwicks are Crown, not Westminster, dependencies and Southern Ireland is a republic and republics cannot be part of a kingdom. So part of the country of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom.

So Britain won’t be exiting anything as it is a figment of the Britnat/English imagination. There is no such nation as Britain and no such parliament as the Parliament of Britain.

Nice one Chris, this one reminds of the 2014 Better Together campaign which featured a stretch of German road passed off as a great British one.

When the truth came out BT was ridiculed.

Jack , when I first came to Glasgow from Press and Journal land I was very impressed with the Glasgow Herald and up until the SMG took it over and there was a change of direction which promoted one view as opposed to the many, I thought it an excellent paper. Then Newsquest and the indy ref when only Ian Bell was talking for me opened my eyes to deliberate spin and mislead. Since then it has plumbed the depths and become an unfunny comic .

When it no longer ‘graces’ the shelves of newsagents I will not miss it and I imagine few will shed tears.

@CameronB Brodie says: 9 February, 2019 at 12:09 pm:

” … I tend to favour universal human rights and sovereignty of the individual, instead (see contemporary international law). I dream of a written constitution which gives legal protection to Scotland from the political extremism of another nation (i.e. England).”

But! But! But”, CameronB, there has been one of those written constitution thingies in the law of both the Kingdom of Scotland and her only legal partner kingdom in the United Kingdom since the 1 May 1707.

Its a legally signed international treaty called, “The Treaty of Union”, and it is the written document that actually constituted the United Kingdom partnership between two, equally sovereign, (they had to be equally sovereign in order to sign up to an international treaty), so where on Earth did you get this quaint idea the United Kingdom doesn’t have a written constitution?

Correct me if I’m wrong but if a written document, “constitutes”, a united kingdom is that not the legal definition of, “A written Constitution of The United Kingdom”?

Now I have, many, many times, read both the preamble and all 25 , “Articles of Union”, and again correct me if I am wrong, but does not each individual, “Article”, on a written agreement constitute a legal requirement in its own right?

Now the first strange thing I noted, all those years ago when I first read the Treaty of Union was there was not a single use of the words country or countries in the entire document. Does that not signify that the Treaty of union formed a bipartite united kingdom and not a quadratic united country called The United Kingdom?

They cant blame the chaos at the racecourse because Brexit stopes the horses coming to the UK, Move to the next question, nothing to answer here. What about squirrel racing meantime. Good question.

Robert Peffers says:
9 February, 2019 at 12:31 pm

“…..All the EU needs to do is to point out the so obvious point that The United Kingdom is exactly that – a union of two only kingdoms formed by an international treaty of union, which, believe it or not is actually titled, “The United Kingdom””….

But they didn’t do that Robert. They had the chance. The EU was complicit in excluding Scotland from Brexit negotiations, but not because of their agenda, but because Westminster is the recognised sovereign voice of the UK, and as such, the only interface the EU can hold dialogue with. Why didn’t the SNP pile in with a Constitutional challenge right there and then???

Scotland MUST test the legitimacy of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty, because until it does, then the prevailing view will remain. You are correct about Scotland’s Constitutional heritage, but it is worthless to us unless and until we formally dispute UK Parliamentary Sovereignty and insist that the International Community recognises the veracity of Scotland’s claim to be sovereign.

This does NOT require a democratic mandate or majority. All it requires is one Constitutional Lawyer asking the right question of another Constitutional Lawyer, and letting the potency of Scots Law and Scotland’s Constitution do all the heavy lifting.

We do not have to prove Sovereignty, (though we can), it will suffice for Scotland to stay in Europe merely to dispute UK Parliamentary Sovereignty and require Westminster to prove it’s claim, and occasion Westminster to clearly articulate the mechanism whereby it removes the sovereign birthright of every Scottish citizen. If some amongst us are too wet and queasy to stand up for Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty, then at the very least we can surely pull the wheels off Westminster’s faux Sovereignty.

This “know it all but do nothing” approach is insufferable. It causes everybody to wonder just what exactly the SNP is playing at. It’s a minute to midnight and we are running out of time.

The way folk keep discussing the various ‘possibilities’ of the fuck up that is any form pf Brexit shows just how easily the right control the argument, even when they don’t know what they are doing.

Politicians of all parties are scurrying around trying to find some little way they can make it a bit less bad.

Now, four years after the IndRef and 2.5 years after BrexitRef, we get Angus Robertson starting a campaign etc, but only now.

We gave the leadership 125,000 members, 56MPs, initially, and more Councillors than ever before.

Nothing happened. We didn’t do that just to get good MPS, MSPs and Councillors, the purpose went beyond that. The leadership didn’t appear to understand that.

I was and am willing to sacrifice getting an Independent Scotland, I’m not willing to just sit in a Brexit prison hoping for some turning point in how people think some time in the future, while our powers and assets are stripped and our own Government goes through the process of making it happen, because it is their ‘legal duty.

The 20 year old Devolution settlement had the democratic mandate: ripped up by the undemocratic Lords in 2018.

Devolved powers grabbed to UK Parliament by the Lords.

Remain in the EU vote: ignored.

The Indyref No vote meant a democratic mandate for maximum home rule for Scotland. That Mandate never delivered.

By the above breaches of trust UK Parliament has lost the right to rule over Scotland with sovereign power.

The UK state has broken its covenant of trust to use the power loaned to it by the sovereign people of Scotland.

The people must now take back their sovereign power to Scotland.

Holyrood should be declared the supreme parliament for Scotland.
Not ending the Union, as there is not a democratic mandate for that yet.

There is a democratic mandate for remain in the EU.

Time for Scotland’s politicians to deliver those democratic mandates via the Scottish Parliament by declaring it the supreme Parliament of Scotland, within the UK Union, with the Lords no longer recognised at all, due to its perverse use of the power loaned it.

Respect democracy. Respect the democratic mandates of the sovereign people. Declare Holyrood supreme.

When the majority of the sovereign people vote for independence is when that independence mandate should also be delivered by Holyrood.

Robert Peffers
Stop pulling my leg Robert.

The Union and the Constitution

Executive Summary

The Scottish National Party’s (SNP’s) independence referendum raises the importance of the Anglo-Scottish Union underpinning the UK’s multi-national state.

Traditionally, on both sides of the border, a consensus prevailed in constitutional law that parliament was supreme and untrammelled. However, within Scotland there has been a growing awareness of the neglected significance of the Union agreement of 1707 in the British constitution.

The double-layering of the British constitution is under-appreciated. The Union of 1707, a hasty measure devised to confront short-term problems, scarcely dented the well-established contours of the existing English constitution, despite the fact that the Union was supposedly constitutive of a new British state.

Devolution has brought into focus the incoherence at the heart of the constitution, one of whose most obvious current defects is popularly referred to as the West Lothian Question.

The British constitution is in a state of transition between an unwritten constitution – with a very wide measure of parliamentary discretion- and a more codified kind of constitution. The question of the Anglo-Scottish Union provides another critical wedge into this debate.

Thus the current squabble over the nature and timing of the Scottish referendum derives in some measure from two competing notions about the location of sovereignty. Many Scottish intellectuals and politicians – Labour and Liberal, as well as SNP – believe that Scotland has a tradition of popular sovereignty which can be traced back to the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. The British constitution, by contrast, rests on the idea of the sovereignty of parliament.

Regardless of the outcome of the Scottish referendum, it seems likely that the British constitution will need to be reframed to take account of the fact that the UK is already a ‘state of unions’. If Scotland remains in the Union then the British constitution will need to be clarified. Alternatively, even if Scotland withdraws from the Union, then the surviving state will be an odd ensemble of England, Wales and Northern Ireland whose underpinning principles of unity will be a succession of Acts of union (and disunion) between the sixteenth century and the present. Either scenario presents a pressing need for constitutional reframing.

link to historyandpolicy.org

Well, you couldn’t put a zigzag between Scotland and Ireland. Last week England made no mistakes against Ireland, Scotland made 2, and that’s about it. But 22 or 24 phases from Scotland against 100% defence shows the quality Scotland has now.

Do I hear the cry: ‘Nicola … Where are you?’

Or maybe it’s this: ‘Nicola … Come Home!’

Or am I dreaming?

Ever improving Scotland just not quite good enough today. Some of the best Scottish rugby I’ve seen for years in the first half though.
Ireland have peaked imo. They’ll be beaten again in this championship.

The camera zoomed in on the crowd at Murrayfield with the fans sporting their painted Saltire faces and every single one of them will be a dyed in the wool Unionist.

Weez were robbed. Three loose passes, three breakaway tries. 🙁

jezza

Please elucidate us all why you assert that the Scottish rugby team and all Scottish rugby fans at Murrayfield are all unionists? Just out of interest.

@Breeks says: 9 February, 2019 at 2:12 pm:

” … The EU was complicit in excluding Scotland from Brexit negotiations, but not because of their agenda, but because Westminster is the recognised sovereign voice of the UK, and as such, the only interface the EU can hold dialogue with. Why didn’t the SNP pile in with a Constitutional challenge right there and then???”

You gave the answer yourself, Breeks.

The United Kingdom are the member state and the EU will continue to treat them as such until they cease to be the official member state. Diplomacy has strict protocols and it is very exceptional for any state to break such protocols. Even dictatorships are treated under such protocols. Just about the most severe reports you get before war is actually declared by one state against another is a news report that, “The Ambassador to *****onia has written to the Head of ****many to protest about the incident on the borders between opposing armies”.

So the EU will treat Westminster with outward respect, That doesn’t mean they are not doing otherwise in practice. There has indeed been signs of a much harder stance coming from the EU and EC negotiators over the last few weeks. You quite simply will not find out what is actually happening from the UK media.

I’ve several times posted links to clips showing actual EU support for Scotland but you won’t find out and out stuff although one clip did show Farage getting a real going over even being asked why the hell he was there as he had opposed the EU negotiators. This was on the same clip as the standing ovation for Alyn Smyth when he said, “Scotland didn’t you down – don’t let Scotland down now”, and the entire chamber rose to its feet and gave him a standing ovation.

So there you saw massive EU support for Scotland and a skelpit earse for Nigel Farage in the same clip. However, there will be no official moves until Westminster is no longer the UK official leadership.

Why ever would the EU want to hinder Scotland as a member state? The whole ethos of the EU is to unite Europe – not to fragment it. Scotland has already been told that she will be welcome in other European international organisations but the EU has only two options – Scotland in or out and why would they want Scotland out? Why would they want Scotland to go elsewhere and Scotland not being in would risk the EU losing Scotland?

Note the reaction of Spain – Spain says they will not veto Scotland. Why would Spain risk being excluded from the Scottish fishing grounds if Scotland is not in the EU and Spain is the EU’s biggest fishing fleet. In the UK media they reported that Spain were to veto Scotland but the Spanish PM immediately denied the claims. No UK media reported the Spanish denial.

What Scotland has everyone wants – and that is especially true of England.

” … Scotland MUST test the legitimacy of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty”

No Scotland does not. In the first place Scottish law states that the people of Scotland are sovereign. Secondly the Treaty of Union agrees. There is absolutely no legal evidence, other than Westminster claims to be sovereign but in the event of the union splitting up Westminster legally ceases to exist . It is the UK parliament – and without Scotland there is no UK and neither is there, an elected as such, Parliament of England.

I first argued that point in a school debating society in the late 1940s. To date no one has yet come up with any evidence to prove my argument wrong. Thing is I’ve taken on former Prime Ministers, former Secretaries of State for defence and for Scotland and former Chancellors. What evidence did they produce?

None!

What evidence did I have? Current Scots Law going back to 1320 and still current. Also the Treaty of Union of 1706/7 that upholds that particular tenet of Scots law. Not to mention the simple little fact that if that evidence in the Treaty of Union is not correct then the Treaty of Union must be void and no longer apply. In which case there is no legal United Kingdom to implement it.

So there you go – Westminster cannot go to a court – any court- and produce evidence that shows the Treaty of Union or current Scottish Law, doesn’t apply.

Because, if they did so they would be attempting to prove there was no valid Treaty of Union in force and the Treaty of Union, like the GFA, is the property of the international courts as are all international treaties. It simple isn’t Westminster’s to nullify. When a biparty treaty is agreed the two parties must both freely accept it but either one of them can reject it at any time. The Treaty of Union either is acceptable to both kingdoms or it applies to neither.

Now either bring proof of your argument or the argument has been won.

Tom Bonzo

It is just my opinion.

Are opinions cancelled on Wings???

Loving this mass defiance of the ‘hard line nationalist stasi’ that has broken out on Wings today. Feels like the wall is about to come down.
Hopefully, they’ll all bugger off to South America to live under aliases!

Gavin and Scott Hastings sum up Scottish Rugby quite nicely.

Or are they the minority.

Have I got it all wrong?

@Brian Powell says: 9 February, 2019 at 2:38 pm:

I’m not even going to argue with that load of utter pish.

In the first place it doesn’t matter what the reasons individuals have for voting for the SNP at any level – no one – and I do mean no one – has any information that everyone who voted SNP voted for them on only the little matter of Independence. In fact all evidence points the other way.

Secondly nothing that has so far happened has returned an overall majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland to end the United Kingdom. The best there is on offer is a mandate to hold a referendum on the matter and simply going by this current thread on Wings it is very evident there are many, who invariably claim to be indy supporters who jusy haven’t got a grip on reality.

Do I really need to post these facts on every bloody thread?

The Treaty of Union legally constituted the United Kingdom. It is thus undoubtedly, in spite of what Westminster claims, a 25 Article of Union Written constitution of the United Kingdom.

One of those Articles of Union states that the two kingdoms individual Rules of Law are forever to remain independent of each other and the law of Scotland states that the people. not the crown or the parliament, are legally sovereign. To date that has never been changed but Westminster claims, without offering evidence, that under English law The Monarchy of the Kingdom of England are legally sovereign and that in 1688 the parliament of the Kingdom of England rebelled and deposed their monarch and upon replacing the monarchy of England ruled that the monarchy of England had to legally delegate their royal powers to the parliament of England but Scotland was still an independent kingdom until the agreement of the Treaty of Union of 1706/7.

So Westminster is delegated the sovereignty of the Kingdom of England but Scots law is unchanged and under Scots law the people remain still legally sovereign.

All stone cold facts – anyone care to prove them wrong?

O/K. So we have established the fact that the United Kingdom was constituted by The Treaty of Union and that Treaty says the two rules of Law remain independent and thus the people of Scotland remain legally sovereign.

If you need proof modern law states that all Scots have legal right to roam with a few exceptions that are down to safety, (like on railway lines or MOD property). Also there are restrictions due to personal privacy in the immediate environs of private dwellings. An example of modern law is that no private company or person can clamp or tow away a vehicle parked upon private property and demand money to release it back to the owner. The private person doing so is guilty of demanding money with menace or coercion. Threat used to obtain money or other gain and that includes threat of legal action.

So if Scots are legally sovereign then Westminster/Queen cannot also be legally sovereign in Scotland.

If the people of Scotland are legally sovereign and Westminster isn’t and neither is Holyrood then if the people of Scotland, not the SNP or the SG, then if/when a recognised majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland say the United Kingdom is over then the United Kingdom is legally over.

Thing is that neither the SG or SNP yet have a proven majority of the people of Scotland in order to declare the union has ended. This is where the mandate that the SG/SNP has to hold an indyref2 is vital. Without it they cannot claim the right of the sovereign people to end the union and no other organisation in Scotland has a hope in hell of getting such a majority of the Legally sovereign people of Scotland.

It really is as simple as that – if/when there is a majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland ready to give that mandate to the SG and or the SNP even if they are not in power at Holyrood, we will not get independence.

So anyone care to venture a thought as to why there are so many here on Wings who spend most of their time on Wings attempting to undermine the SNP?

Yet no one stops them from contacting the FM, the SG or the SNP directly with their complaints. Why would they choose to do so on an open forum that everyone with an interest in Scottish independence knows is NOT affiliated to the SNP?

Who is it these people want to discourage and who is they aim to encourage?

I could name at least 4 of the current rugby squad who are obviously blatantly YES voters, but couldn’t name one single NO voter.

That pop up pass from the floor by Finn Russell had every Unionist shouting ‘Yes!’

May and her government getting telt:

“She has acted with her eyes wide open in absolute bad faith. We regard the position adopted by Mrs May and her govt as one of hostility to Irish interests.”

Sinn Féin press conference:

link to twitter.com

galamcennalath

I’m sure T May is tempted.

I’ve heard that if she can get her deal across she will call a GE for May 6th – (t)Ruthless back on May 4th – hope to increase her majority, lose some of the rebels, and ditch the DUP then she can basically shaft N. Ireland with any deal she wants.

Only snag is that a custom’s union means she can’t negotiate free trade deals I believe.

@Meg merrilees

I’ve seen a few other things today, and I’m beginning to wonder if this what May will do – get Corbyn’s ideas into the future trade document, dump the DUP and her own far right, and get most of Labour on board to support the WA as it stands.

Then it get sold as a deal in ‘national unity’. The SNP will oppose, and of course should do so.

This is not all bad. As you say there will be a GE in June. We need to work hard to get some Tory seat back because they will be working for the opposite!

The outcome is still too hard for Scotland so we should go with IndyRef2 after the GE.

@K1

Thanks for posting that link.

No Irish mincing around there! 🙂

Telt indeed.

As you say all going well.

Robert Peffers

As you say, we can’t dissolve the Union without the mandate of the sovereign people of Scotland (spS).

There is the democratic mandate already from the sPS for maximum home rule. It was given in 2014.

Holyrood should be declared the supreme or premier parliament for Scotland by a National Convention of MPs and MSPs.

A supreme parliament can hold constitutionally binding indyrefs or do whatever it wants – including cancelling Scotland’s exit from the EU.

The UK Govt may be the UK’s representative, but it can’t have a Scottish Brexit that it has no power to do, if Scotland has removed that power from it.

This would take time. Time is running out.

Scottish MPs etc should apply for an Interim Interdict on Brexit while Scotland’s sovereignty is being asserted to effect maximum home rule.

@CameronB Brodie says: 9 February, 2019 at 2:48 pm:

” … Stop pulling my leg Robert.”

Nah! I’m not pulling your leg – or anyother bit of you either.
;-))

” … The Union and the Constitution
Executive Summary”

Aye! Well there is a wee, but important flaw it that Executive Summery, CameronB.

” … Many Scottish intellectuals and politicians – Labour and Liberal, as well as SNP – believe that Scotland has a tradition of popular sovereignty which can be traced back to the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320.”

Now I’m neither an intellectual or a politician but that wee claim above is quite untrue. The claim stretches back long before the declaration of Arbroath. The Declaration of Arbroath was brought about by the efforts of the English crown to take over the Kingdom of Scotland. The English crown had held the ear of the Holy Roman See and had for centuries been trying to absorb, (under Divine Right of Kings that was generally the rule of law throughout Christendom).

Other evidence of this English and Holy Roman See influence was that the Pope was worried about the Irish Cristian Church that had deviated somewhat from the Christian church teachings.

To counter the Irish Christian influence the Pope appointed the King of the Kingdom of England as Lord of Ireland:-

“The Gaelic kingdoms of Ireland ended with the Norman invasion of Ireland, when the kingdom became a fief of the Holy See under the Lordship of the King of England. This lasted until the Parliament of Ireland conferred the crown of Ireland upon King Henry VIII of England during the English Reformation.”

And:-

“The English Reformation was a series of events in 16th-century England by which the Church of England broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.”

In any event the Declaration of Arbroath was a plan to get Robert Bruce off the hook after the papacy, influenced by the English king, had excommunicated the Bruce for the killing of the Red Comyn on the alter steps of Dumfries High Kirk.

Now the facts are that no one could know what happened in Dumfries Kirk as the two men were there alone. It may well have been self defence. Anyhow, one of the Bruce contingent returned to the Comyn after Bruce said he thought he had killed the Comyn, saying that he, “Wad mak siccar”, (he would make sure). So the Comyn may have been still alive.

However, the Pope assumed Scots Law was the same, “Divine right of Kings”, as the rest of Europe and excommunicated the Bruce. That meant the excommunication applied to the entire kingdom and every one of the people in it as under Dib=vine Right the king owned everything and everyone. Scotland could not trade with anyone. No one wanted to know.

The declaration not only claimed Scotland an independent kingdom but declared the King was not sovereign under, “Traditional Scots Law”. Now it must be assumed that the pope wasn’t daft and that the declaration was not enough to convince him. There must have been provided some proofs that this was indeed the laws of Scotland and now a new invented excuse.

Whatever, the papacy ruled that Scotland was an independent Kingdom and the excommunication was lifted because the King was not sovereign and thus the people were innocent.

Furthermore, the English claimed Union of the Crowns fizzled out and England was threatened by war with France and they feared The Auld Alliance would result in a French/Scottish invasion.

The scam of the Darien Expedition and the proven involvement of the London Scot, William Paterson and English Spy, Danial Defoe was the prelude for the bribery, blackmail and threats that brought about the Treaty of Union.

Never forget either that the crown army was still slaughtering anything that moved at and after the Battle of Culloden nearly 40 years after the Treaty was signed.

Regarding the constitution, I wonder if anybody here is up to speed with this;

link to publications.parliament.uk

Interestingly, this sets out those PARTS OF LEGISLATION WHICH SHOULD NOT BE MODIFIED, since the are regarded a forming the fundamental backbone of the pretendy UK ‘constitution’.

In the introduction at the start of the document, it says,

“13. The list of possible constitutional issues raised by the draft Bill is extensive. Clause 21(3)(j) allows regulations to disapply or modify any Act of Parliament. In the wrong hands, this could be used to remove all past legislation which makes up the statutory patchwork of the British constitution. We believe that the Bill should list a number of fundamental parts of constitutional law that should be exempt from modification or disapplication. We suggest that regulations under Part 2 should be published from time to time and be subject to the same safeguards as primary legislation.”

Does anybody know the current legal status of this document, since it explicitly rules out changes to the Scotland Act of 1998, and the two acts of union (one from Scotland, one from England). These are in paragraphs 183-186

How does that document, relate to the undemocratic theft of Scotland’s devolved powers by the House of Lords??

O/T JUst for info

The Amanpour programme on CNN yesterday screened an interview with Nicola Sturgeon while she was in NYC in which (among other things) she was asked about the timing of indyref2. She was mentioned more than once as “head of state”, so she got full respect.

What a change from the state broadcaster.

It’s not on the website, yet anyway.

There is another article of some interest there, though, entitled “UK pulls plug on no-deal Brexit ferry company with no ferries”

link to edition.cnn.com

Looks like the takeway business wasn’t the right template for that plan after all. =roll eyes=

Another fine mess…

@Robert J. Sutherland

I posted the interview with Nicola on the previous thread at 2.23 this afternoon.

galamcennalath @ 13:40,
Meg merrilees @ 18:03,
(and following)

(Just catching up again)

This is a possible scenario that has worried me somewhat before, since Corbyn is a closet Leaver, and it’s an outcome that looks more likely after Corbyn’s lone conference-unsanctioned initiative to collaborate with May.

However, as Labour gets more involved in Brexit, it is increasingly threatened by a split in its own ranks just like the Tories.

What a guddle of shady actors. They are sowing what soon enough they will have to reap, and it will be a harvest of pain.

It may still not be obvious to some folks while we’re enmeshed in the fog of it all, but this business is going into the history books and the annals of ignominy as an utter humiliation of the UK, the like of which has never before been seen. We need to get as wise as Ireland and get out before we’re implicated. A far brighter future awaits.

@ K1 – I saw it a couple of days ago. I forget who posted the link. Still. It’s a powerful statement and well worth posting on this thread.

Following on from tail end of Robert Peffers post @ 18.49

Link to article by Stuart McHardy in the National from September last year which includes a map showing occupation of Scotland between 1746-55.

link to archive.is

One ponders that with the Union side requiring such extensive oversight and control of Scotland by military force, “Better Together” probably wasn’t a term many Scots would have chosen to describe the Union.

I played rugby as a left-wing-threequarter, in the 1st year Kirkton High School team in 1964/65. Even scored a try or three.

Kirkton High’s catchment area was predominantly working class, covering the schemes of Kirkton, West Kirkton, Blackshade/Ardler and St Mary’s, along with the more refined village of Downfield.

The perception of rugby being for “toffs” is just that – a perception.

@Robert J. Sutherland as per Nana

link to pbs.org

Iain mhor
Brexit might be about finance and tax but it’s also about the integrity of English culture. Those who support a hard Brexit tend to be non-practicing Anglicans who identify as English only. Brexit is as much about cultural chauvinism as it is about filthy lucre.

Brian Powell says:
9 February, 2019 at 2:38 pm

“We gave the leadership 125,000 members, 56MPs, initially, and more Councillors than ever before.

Nothing happened. We didn’t do that just to get good MPS, MSPs and Councillors, the purpose went beyond that. The leadership didn’t appear to understand that.”

Well said.

Mary-Lou McDonald speech:

@ Shinty says 7 February, 2019 at 8:05 am ….

link to twitter.com

……………..

@ Petra says 7 February, 2019 at 9:21 am ….

@ Shinty at 8:05am …….. “Mary-Lou MacDonald.”

A MUST listen to. That’s Big T telt. A great speech from Mary-Lou. If she, May, carries on the way she’s doing they”ll be calling for a referendum to unite Ireland. The days of Westminster calling the shots for Ireland are over. Next up Nicola.

……………………………….

@ Petra says 7 February, 2019 at 8:21 pm

Ha ha ha, Sarah! Who knows how this will all pan out?

Meanwhile, if you haven’t heard it already, it’s well worth listening to Mary-Lou MacDonald, Leader of Sinn Fein, telling Big T where to go. Great scriptless speech.

link to mobile.twitter.com

…………………………..

@ Petra says 8 February, 2019 at 12:30 pm …..

“We see you” here in Scotland and in Ireland, north and south, too no doubt.

We see that the BBC has been doing a wee bit of “editing” AGAIN. This time of the Mary-Lou McDonald speech. Note no mention of them planning to crash out of the UK. Don’t want to upset the good folks of Engerland now do we? Give the Scots ideas?

Phantom Power giving the BBC a right showing up! Does anyone have any idea of how many people are actually involved in running Phantom Power?

………………………..

BBC ……. 42 seconds.

link to bbc.co.uk

……………..

Phantom Power ……. 2 minutes 16 seconds.

link to mobile.twitter.com

CameronB Brodie @ 19:57:

that doesn’t undo the fact that the British constitution and the Treaty of Union are separate items.

Intruding on this one, I couldn’t disagree more, Cam. The “UK Constitution” may be a largely unwritten ramshackle affair, but the Treaty of Union 1707 is the founding document of the current United Kingdom. Its non-transient provisions, eg. in matters of Law, continue to inform the conduct of the UK to this day, and the UKGov has to tread very warily in that respect, despite all its typical bluff. (Hence eg. May’s “now is not the time” dodge; she cannot issue a blank refusal.)

So you just cannot separate these two things, the one is fundamentally bound up with the other. If we had a proper US-style UK Supreme Court instead of this miserable simulacrum, the Treaty would be referenced as a fundamental source on every question relating to the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Article IV, for example, explicitly forbids any differential in trade within the Union. May’s proposed NI backstop is “special treatment”, so if it ever had to be invoked, it would immediately violate the 1707 Treaty, and unlike in the past, it is very likely to be challenged in now. CU+SM is OK, Remain is OK, no-deal is OK (but violates the GFA) and otherwise the Treaty is null-and-void and we are off.

Art.50 prohibits leaving under unconstitutional terms, so the Treaty matters for Brexit.

So it really does matter. It’s a potential ticking constitutional timebomb.

link
link to scottishconstitutionalfutures.org

@BDTT
Indeed, it seems to be a perception of those who go around with their eyes shut and don’t see rugby posts in school playing fields. But more than that there are “Schools of Rugby”, meaning every school has access to rugby for those who want, and these get cashback from the Scottish Government (SNP) proceeds of crime. There are also “conferences” with a fair few levels.

It’s another myth – rugby for the rich. Not so at all.

Here’s one off-hand:

link to scottishrugby.org

here’s another link also off-hand

link to scrummagazine.com

hate to be the bearer of bad news about this threat to the Scottish Whisky Industry

link to theguardian.com?

Liz g
You appear better informed then myself. Nice one. 😉

Jesus, the Scottish Cringe is strong in this one. From The National:

“Six Nations: Scotland out-smarted and out-played by Ireland”.

What a load of cobblers, it was handling errors the difference.

@ Liz g
I am no expert but I agree with your interpretation from the link CBB gave. After the Union the English establishment, in line with its empire building past, considered that it had ‘caught’ Scotland and would hold her fast. They did this through economic means and partly by their army at times. Therefore they have often acted as if the Treaty of Union did not exist as there has not been any serious challenge to how they were treating Scotland.

However, just because they have got away with it for so long does not mean that it is the LAW. The Scottish Government recently using Scottish Law in the EU and it being respected in the ECJ has blown a big hole in their Scottish ‘pretendy law’ theme. They had assumed they could easily overturn any threat. Now there is panic or the House of Lords would not be trying to write and NEW Treaty of Union that would be accepted.

When I was less than double figures of age, my siblings and myself were addressed by my very serious grandfather who told us that if we ever had the chance for Independence in our lifetimes that we should look to the Law Courts for that was where it could be won.

CameronB Brodie @ 21:22,

It’s undoubtedly true that through the years since 1707 the English Establishment has frequently made the careless assumption that it is “sole proprietor” of the UK Constitution, and Scotland has too often lamely deferred for the sake of peace-and-quiet, but there have always been limits and the UKGov has always taken care, while carefully keeping schtum, not to push its luck too far, since it could ultimately provoke the latent crisis that has always been there, lying in wait.

It just needs a dash of arrogance too far by UKGov, some critical tripwire blundered through, to expose the old fix, rip open the crack heretofore hidden under its ancient papering, and bingo!

I can’t think of anything more likely to do so than the truly historic shambolic f-up that is Brexit. We just have to be ready and willing for once to stand up for ourselves and use it.

It is the UK Constitution, dammit, England is most definitely not the sole owner, and these are changed days.

@Socrates MacSporran
I was thinking of what you might say when I made my posting 🙂

I went to Arran High and we got Rugby there, on Arran we have seven Golf Courses and until fairly recently we had a Rugby team which played on Mainland Leagues, Both sports on Arran are very much working class. Im not sure but I think that the Valleys of Wales with all there Coal Mines would have been working class as well. I used to go to Ireland fairly often on Holiday, went to a few district games, going by the bog irish spoken by most of the players it was a working class game there as well. I am allowed to say bog Irish as I am in the process of applying for an Irish Passport 🙂

At comprehensive schools if you were no good at football you tried for the rugby,

at grammar and fee paying schools if you were no good at the rugby you tried for the hockey,

to say all rugby fans are red trousered white gammons with their range rover,brown/black labrador,blond wife, have a mistress,kids called Archie or Sandy or Isla,addicted to cocaine is a false stereotype,

some of them don`t have red trousers.

Robert J. Sutherland
I knew we were on the same page but perhaps reading different nuance into our interpretations. I agree, England has no legal authority over Scotland but three centuries of acting as if it does has encouraged the very arrogance needed to reach thpnr (see Brexit). 😉

How I dearly wish that Mary Lou MacDonald was speaking for Scotland.

me @ 23:27,

If it’s not banging on about it just a tad too much, it’s self-evident that, legally speaking, by passing its Act of Union, the English Parliament in fact signed away its own exclusive sovereignty. And by its own theory, it had that right!

Now isn’t that a cute re-framing of the situation? (even if I say so myself). =laugh=

I saw this earlier this evening and from a quick look at the posts on this thread it does not seem to have been mentioned so I shall leave it here:
link to thenational.scot

Robert J Sutherland @ 11.27 PM

Very well said about the references to the Act of Union when it should always be The Treaty of Union.

Referring to the Act of Union when it should be The Treaty of Union is very much an English nomenclature which serves not only to reduce the importance of what is a Treaty in International law but to suggest, by the use of the singular ‘Act’, that only one Parliament was involved and that by implication would be the English Parliament.

Interesting points about the Treaty of Union. The very first anti-indy paper by the UK Gov had this from its two professors working to the specific remit to prove the rUK was the CcUK (Continuing UK):

link to assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

Page 75 – “Whether the Treaty of Union sounds in international law”

“40.
Despite its name, it is not obvious that the Treaty of Union did and does sound as a treaty in international law. Certainly there was a negotiation between England and Scotland, and it was subsequently referred to as a ‘treaty’ in both Acts of Union. But the Scottish Parliament, in enacting the Scottish Act of Union, then unilaterally amended its provisions. It is therefore unlikely that it constituted a treaty in itself. ”

So this was going to be their angle of attack, presumably the line their Advocate would take in Court, and I think it was Aileen McHarg on her blog and Scottish Constitutional Future Forum who said it was unusual to publish legal advice, and pretty daft to boot.

So yes, it’s an important distinction.

Constitutional theory was my least favourite subject, back in the day. The British constitution is the preserve of medievalists, England needs a written constitution just as much as Scotland (see homeliness in England, for example).

A codified constitution for the (?Rest of the) United Kingdom

Scotland’s senior judge…
The Treaty [of Union 1707] and associated legislation … contain some clauses which expressly reserve powers of subsequent modification; and other clauses which either contain no such power, or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declaration that the provision shall be fundamental and unalterable in all times coming … I have never been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of [statutory] construction, the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly different types of provision.

link to politics.ox.ac.uk

United Kingdom: Parliamentary sovereignty under pressure
1. the unreality of parlimentary soveriegnty
link to academic.oup.com

ENTRENCHMENT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM:
A written constitution by default?
link to consoc.org.uk

re. the new constitution that the Lords are cooking up, here’s some more on constitutional entrenchment and “unamendability”.

Amending ‘Unamendable’ Provisions
link to constitutional-change.com

Not enough attention was paid to the UK anti-Independence “White Papers”. In them they put their case for why Scotland was shit and couldn’t survive on our poor unprotected lonesome pine kind of thing. But the thing is exactly that, they put things they thought were important. So we should question every single bit of them.

If, for instance, I was in a pub or walking along the street and someone said to me “England invented cricket”, I’d be inclined to say “Oh well then, fine, I expect they did”.

BUT if they put that in an anti-indy white paper I’d wonder WHY they thought it was important. Could it be that our own cricket team was getting some surprising successes and they wanted to cause division “cricket is a stupid game”? Or could it be that some shepherd on the hills above Pitlochry, seeing a dog worrying his (or her) sheep, picked up a stone and bit of wood and scored a perfect six on the dog who ran away with its tail between its legs? Hence it being yet another Scottish invention?

yesindyref2
Reality is normative and defined by narrative. Simple guide, if it comes from Whitehall, it is designed to maintain Scotland’s limited access to democracy. HMG does not respect the doctrine of international law nor support the principle of universal human rights. It’s a cultural ting.

K1
I’m a team player so the principle of not clogging your own teammate runs deep in me. That has a significant influence on my behavioral attitude, so subsequently my perception of events. It’s a bio-cultural ting. 🙂