Wings Over Scotland

Aye, a lot of Scots indy supporters also voted for Farage who offered a sensible manifesto on raising VAT threshold, stopping immigration, and binning the gender nonsense etc. Hence a world of difference from the woke parties. But Reform’s main ‘market’ here seems to be Tory/Labour voters.

Ah, BritNat central.

Just what we need, more fcucking Tories.

Reform stood a candidate in every constituency, Alba in a minority of the constituencies.

I will certainly vote ALBA in the next Scottish election if i am alive.

Yes, Farage would seem an unlikely liberator of Scots. However, if given the choice I suspect he would not be dissatisfied with an independent England.

And yes, his cultural-political ideology is essentially one of private ownership/profit driven, i.e. Anglo Saxon; but this is the dominant ideology that has been forced upon Scotland, the latter being mair a common good, public ownership, equality focused culture, as per Claim of Right. It is these two cultures that are incompatible in the UK ‘Union’ hoax, much as we saw in the different policy approaches taken in Holyrood during the Salmond era in particular.

Fanon indicated that whilst ‘the colonizer on the left may be sympathetic’ to the cause of an oppressed native group, he also maintained that: ‘his independence is a matter only for the colonized’. It is also well established that people coming from rest-UK have the highest propensity of all ethnic groups to vote against Scottish independence, i.e. almost twice as high as that of Scots. Hence Hechter’s statement that ‘an independence movement depends on the solidarity of the oppressed ethnic group’.

We know of the sovereignty in England of Westminster and hence its MPs due to various legal decisions, not least the Cherry case.

We know, from previous legal decisions and from parliamentary debates that, in Scotland, sovereignty rests with the people.

We know from Scotland’s enforced EU exit, from successive referendum mandates being ignored, from the forgotten ‘Vow’ promises made in 2014, and from numerous other instances, that the sovereignty of the Scottish people is never respected by Westminster and its MPs.

And we know from postcolonial theory that, in a colony, it is ‘only the values of the colonizer that are sovereign’ (Memmi), and the colonized are ‘out of the game’.

History indicates what the colonizer may do whenever the colonized assert their right to self-determination/independence. Which is why postcolonial theory considers ‘the root of colonialism to be fascism’ (Cesaire).

Can you provide me with a link to a single judicial decision to support your assertion that in Scotland “sovereignty lies with the people”, and not with the U.K. parliament? Or that post the act of union, sovereignty has a different form north and south of the England/Scotland border.

Okay, so firstly the Scottish Independence Bill of 2014 wasn’t passed, so isn’t law. Secondly, nowhere in MacCormick is there a positive statement that sovereignty lies with the people, there is just a question over whether unlimited sovereignty can apply into Scotlands constitutional law. Even if we agreed that point, it doesn’t mean that sovereignty rests with the people. That’s putting aside the normal issues raised, that the statement was made obiter (and therefore is not authoritative) without specific submissions being made on that point, and also that the Lord Advocate by his own admission had no power to determine that issue.

If we want a conclusive answer to this question, the UNCRC Bill Reference case provides the following at paragraph 7: “And Parliament has an unlimited power to make laws for Scotland”

Have you read the Claim of Right Act 1689?

And here’s another yin.

It was voted on by the Convention of Estates—NOT parliament.
The “Conventione” [sic] was not, BTW, an elected body.
It’s this kind of deliberate historical ignorance (lying?) that makes people laugh at the two dozen moonhowlers who proclaim themselves “Liberation Scotland.”

Sure – happy to, I think I can say two things;

Firstly, in law more recent legislation takes precedence over older legislation as a general rule, so whilst judges might summarise the history of an area of law to aid an understanding of a significant judgement, legal precedent does get set by the interpretation or reinterpretation of statutes that are 300+ years at the expense of the intervening jurisprudence.

Secondly, judges do not like to create huge changes in legal understanding in a single blow. So even if they had sympathy with arguments around the Claim of Right and the qualifications to the Treaty of Union, senior judges will not upend hundreds of years of constitutional law upon which our democratic structures rest, even if they believe that the foundational law isn’t perhaps sounds.

I don’t see why that makes me a ‘Yoon’. This whole Salvo thing is a complete dead end, for reasons that I’ve set out at length and for which there hasn’t been any kind of serious answer to. Surely people who are serious about Scottish independence want serious and robust discussion about the route for achieving it, and want to avoid the kind of diversions that so often derail campaigns like this. Whilst I’m sure Alf and others are perfectly nice people, the sense I get is that this is a hobby for the mad and the bored, not a serious political objective.

Welcome to Unionism kidz, embrace and support the fuckers that ran down and sold off so many of our industries (both in England and Scotland). The free at point of need health service will go the same way.
NB. It isn’t free, you pay for it through your taxes. But good luck paying for private health care or health insurance premiums for your family on shitey UK wages.
Anyone still promoting the supposed benefits of the Union to Scots is a totes wanker.

link to youtube.com

James,
Surely, “For a reason. Go figure” is not going to work as legal arguement, is it? We need to know how to separate the 2 legal systems.

If you are a lawyer then you might be able to advise on the matter of separation. It may be that political action as well as legal arguement is needed to achieve the Constitutional objective.

If political action is needed then the terms of your reply are an object lesson for what NOT to do. All I have read of Alex Salmond implies that he would show a completely different manner.

I hope that you are capable of taking good advice.

Aidan maybe is a Unionist (at present, I have no idea)but to ignore him, and/or what he writes, could be counter-productive for Scottish Independence.

a complicit native elite in Scotland, including elected Scottish representatives

I’m very happy indeed to concede you have that right, Alf.

But then you have to concede that ordinary Scots, knowing of the “great many violations which should have brought an end to the Union arrangement”, including many of the regulars on here, are also complicit.

There’s nothing in the world stopping these ordinary Scots from arising from aff their flabby erses, standing for office, becoming our new elected Scottish representatives, and thus taking the complicit native elite out of the equation, once and for all.

Is there?

Aidan, Alf’s blathering on the “Claim of Right” alleged constitutional “conditions” to the Act/Treaty of Union is just that–blathering.

Even a cursory reading of the Acts of Union sees the text only mention the “Claim of Right” in the context of religion. Nowhere in the Acts does it say that the UK, under the Treaty, is obligated under any other provisions of the CofR.

Alf and the other moonhowlers are wrong on the history, wrong on what the CofR actually says, wrong on how the CofR relates to the Union, and wrong on the law. They’re probably wrong on other things as well, but this will do for the moment.

They’ll accuse the “judges” not just of corruption but also of being a part of one of their tin-foil hat conspiracies.

I don’t even get what the substance of your argument is here, you quote the same passages and lines about colonialism daily (sometimes more than daily) in response to a whole range of subjects, so I highly doubt they provide us with much insight here.

Let’s be clear, your assertions that the judgements of the Supreme Court are not law, but that a diatribe on the Salvo website is authority on law, is a denial of reality. This Salvo doctrine (if we can call it that) is not used anywhere by anybody to define the relationship between the individual and the state, to govern the operation of the state, to resolve civil disputes, or to support any other function that the law carry’s out. It is not therefore law, and has no more authority than me writing on here that everyone who reads this owes me £10. Even if you viewed the U.K. legal system as colonial and illegitimate, that still wouldn’t entitle you, as a private citizen, to invent and assert your own legal doctrines and principles.

Salvo has been going for apparently two years now, perhaps you could provide an update on what has been achieved in that time, other than an encyclopaedia of comments on this blog. I was personally amazed when 30 people reading out the “Edinburgh Declaration” in a square somewhere didn’t magically bring the union to an end, perhaps someone pronounced one of the words incorrectly?

You wish, Tory Boy.

Correction: Dunning Motion not Resolution

Aidan,
Thank you for your reply. It confirms my concern that Salvo, Alf, and others, all must adjust their course. It is to be hoped that Alf and others will take heed of your comments rather than dismiss them as ‘yoon troll’ attack. I regard your comments as being akin to first rate pro bono advice, not an attack.

I hope that youwill not be deterred from making comments in future. Any of us are at risk of not knowing how lucky we are.

Your earlier reference to ‘succession’ in legislation strengthens my hope for a victory for common sense at the UK Supreme Court, later this month. The matter itself is not germane, here, so it would be preferable to make no further comment.

best regards

“the broad framework and parameters that guide that autonomous expression will always be defined by a Parliament in which the majority of MP’s are elected outwith Scotland.”

And there’s the entire problem with the Union’s parliament and its governance!

The Westminster Parliament contains TWO bodies of MPs, not one. They are not identical in numbers, and they are not identical in who and what they formally represent. Treating them as identical for the purposes of a flat vote to determine the outcome of debates between the two bodies -in effect between the two sovereign kingdoms because that is precisely why they are there in the first place- is NOT a formally agreed requirement of the Treaty of Union, nor of its two ratifying Acts.

One of those bodies are the sole formal representatives of the entire English sovereign half of the Union, while the other body are the sole formal representatives of the entire Scottish sovereign half of the Union.

Despite the vast difference in their numbers, the authorities those two bodies wield on behalf of their respective parent kingdoms are exactly equal, because both bodies stand in loco parentis for the two equally sovereign kingdoms that negotiated, agreed, signed and ratified the Treaty of Union. Both being sovereign in their own territories, neither can be obliged to defer to the other on any matter of governance of their territories from their SHARED UNION parliament, and that applies to their MP representatives, too.

There is literally nothing in any of the formal founding documents of the Union that obliges Scotland and her formal representatives to defer to England on ANY matter of governance. As important, there is nothing in those documents that obliges the use of a flat voting system within the new Union parliament for determining outcomes of debates on any matter of the joint governance of the Union.

England’s MPs thus have NO legitimate authority to overrule Scotland’s MPs on any matter of Union governance, because neither Scotland nor the Treaty and/or Acts of Union gave them any.

If you wish to argue otherwise, then please quote the relevant formal agreements from those founding documents that set out Scotland’s obligation to subjugate itself to England and her MPs. It is only Scotland’s MPs who provide Westminster with any governance authority over Scotland at all, and absent them, Westminster’s authority over Scotland and the Union vanishes completely.

As for Scotland’s constitution, its 1689 Claim of Right did not create Scotland’s constitution any more than the 1309 Declaration of the Clergy at St. Andrews did, nor the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath. It merely cited a number of its already existing elements, doing so for the sole purpose of demonstrating the validity of its authority to depose King James VII for heinously breaching many of those elements. And he was neither the first monarch nor the last to feel its teeth on his arse.

Hello James.
I admire your skepticism of the works of that Blair but it is almost guaranteed that dismissing comments from Aidan is a major mistake, counter-productive for Scotland’s cause.