Let Justice Be Done
You should probably watch the whole of this speech by Sir David Davis this evening, even if you saw the trailer three and a quarter years ago.
It’s both a comprehensive refresher of events surrounding the Scottish Government’s conspiracy to convict Alex Salmond on false charges, and a sharp reminder of why Scotland is, in truth, not yet a country in a fit administrative state for independence.
But one part in particular ought to be the headline news tonight.
Those 63 seconds mark the first time that anyone of standing has publicly named Liz Lloyd, formerly Nicola Sturgeon’s chief of staff (and current media pundit), as the source of the illegal leak to Davie Clegg, then editor of the Daily Record, which led to the newspaper’s publication of the allegations against Salmond.
Davis did so under Parliamentary privilege, because aspects of the Salmond case are still the subject of a live criminal inquiry, and have now been so for more than two years without any action resulting from it.
That continuing inquiry frustrates Salmond’s attempts to bring a long-awaited civil prosecution against the Scottish Government, formally initiated last November but which cannot (in practical terms) continue until the criminal inquiry is concluded.
(Operation Newbiggin, the inquiry into the actual leak itself, was closed down earlier this year because while Police Scotland established criminality, they didn’t have a sufficient degree of evidence about the culprit to be confident of conviction. However, the Crown Office inquiry into perjury continues. Also, the standard of proof in a civil case is lower, so the failure of Newbiggin does not necessarily mean that Salmond’s civil prosecution would fail.)
The illegal leak of the allegations to the press took place in August 2018, so it will soon be six years since Salmond was accused, and yet the matter remains a festering sore upon public life. The Scottish Government, and the current First Minister, have both obstructed and interfered with justice at every possible turn in an attempt to keep the truth from coming to light, as Davis painstakingly detailed.
His statement to the Commons came in the context of the King’s Speech, in which the Labour government announced some welcome steps to strengthen the Scottish Parliament – a duty of candour, the extension of Parliamentary privilege (currently only applicable to Westminster) to Holyrood, and the separation of the powers of the Lord Advocate, all matters on which Wings readers have been well informed.
All three will help make Scotland a more just and accountable country, something at which the Salmond fiasco exposed grave shortcomings. No nation in which the judicial system appears to be under the significant control/influence of the government (and is answerable to no-one), and in which the chief prosecutor also serves as a minister in government, can ever be truly said to be worthy of self-rule.
Davis revealed that there is an indisputable prima facie case to answer in terms of perjury around the Salmond inquiry. (Neither he nor this site makes any assertion of any individual’s guilt, only of a stateable case.)
Unlike in the far more complex case of Operation Branchform, whose progress is also now measured in years but which has at least resulted in one person (so far) being charged, it is hard to see what could remain to be investigated. There are very few players in the matter. Who could be left to ask?
So it’s time, as Sir David says, for the Crown Office to resolve the matter one way or the other – either by a prosecution which establishes guilt or innocence, or by officially dropping the matter and enabling Salmond’s civil claim to proceed.
The truth cannot be forever delayed. Justice must take its course and be seen to be done. Though the heavens fall.
Watch the few remaining SNP ("Tractor" - Ed) MPs leave at the start of the speech! Shame on every one of them!
Well reported and now await the ensuing outcome if prosecutions against said named individuals.
As long as we have the premise of guilty until proven innocent, masquerading as so-called corroboration, we will never have justice. Its a system open to abuse and injustice, all in the name of spending less on the police. God forbid they do real police work. The legal system is an arse
Collusion between the crown office and SNP government to convict a political opponent never more evident. Welcome the Scotland under the SNP.
The walls are closing in
Good lord!
That’s put the cat very much amongst the pigeons. There now has to be a case that establishes who did what, though I suspect right now there’s a lot of people crapping themselves. Obviously one needs to be careful what’s said as we don’t have the same parliamentary privilege as Davis, but it’s good this is now in the open.
Let the games begin. I can’t wait to see who breaks the walls of silence first.
Den
Ignored says:
18 July, 2024 at 8:36 pm
Collusion..
Probably worth bearing in mind Salmond, Murray and Hirst were all SNP members at the time.
No! It wisnae the “not remotely Scottish” yank-politics-spouting English woman! “Big girl did it run away!” Betty Lloyd and Sturgeon laughed like hell when they shat oan Salmond, the stinking sleekit shite slices thit they ur.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24072289.liz-lloyd-gives-evidence-covid-inquiry/#comments-anchor
The cracks are appearing. The pressure will build. The dam will burst.
And who is the wee fanny looking on?
Pathetic well we’ll see.
Can’t see it going to the wire.
Weird how some get off with real serious shit
David Davies is a good man of integrity.
A good speech, well done that man! Bringing grubby things out into the fresh air and daylight is the best way to get rid of the stench and stains. The court actions are getting interesting now, maybe soon we will see and hear some long awaited revelations. And hopefully certain capital letters and their handlers have many sleepless nights to come.
Lorna Campbell
Ignored says:
18 July, 2024 at 9:19 pm
The cracks are appearing. The pressure will build. The dam will burst.
Hope so Lorna. COPFS, Polis, Civil Service, Press. All guilty,
All have reasons to not let justice to be done. The police are the only one of these institutions I would rate as likely to do their jobs honestly in the absence of political interference. The Crown office have all the evidence they need why aren’t they prosecuting?
Just needs the first one to burst and take the deal now. Then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
One does hope that a few persons’ bots are touching cloth now.
It’s a start, I notice there’s a total media blackout on this though. They managed to keep it out the media long enough that people don’t care. I absolutely believe there’s been some favours from the police and prosecution service to protect the leak. Why else would things drag on so long.
If Davis is covered by parliamentary privilege he should name the main accuser in the Salmond trial, that might get some peoples attention.
Liz Lloyd. Fanny washer.
Well done nicoliar. Pervert extra. You’ve shafted us.
Not me. I got your drift before most. You’re a fecking pervert.
So far the Times and the National have covered this story.
The Herald? Nope.
The Daily Retard? Nae chance.
Gotta love that David Davis dude.
“My comment is awaiting moderation” and I don’t know why.
Why is that Stu?
I don’t really know enough to comment however I will anyway.
As bad as it is, the leaking of information to the press goes back since kingdom come. A former FM accused and charged with sex crimes is always going to be a story in the public interest. Is it really going to be seen as much more than a misdemeanor even in the unlikely event it was taken forward? What was the chain of events if she hadn’t (allegedly) leaked it? It would always have come out anyway, surely?
Well, the source of the Daily Wrecker leak has now been named in The Times.
One less bit of information that can be redacted
It’s a pity he didn’t mention the names of the alphabet women.
P.S
David Davis also stated:
“However, I have personally met with a witness who has made the statement that he was told by the then political editor of the Daily Record that the story was in fact leaked to them by Liz Lloyd.”
Sorry did I hear the freudian “Leslie Evidence”?
I am torn between wondering if the gormless Scots squad are capable of investigating anything and if the scottish press and the BBC can be any more culpable in their framing and or ignoring the obvious given they involvement in the cover up.
Still piece by piece those protecting Nicola are stepping back. Westminster is notorious for back tabbing their little puppets so I guess jail awaits.
I wonder how many of the vietnam group will end up in jail.
“make Scotland a more just and accountable country”
Highly doubtful in a colonial society where the purpose of state institutions is to protect the interest of the colonial power. ‘Self-rule’ in a colony is a mirage; what we see is Lord Lugard’s ‘indirect rule’.
I strongly believe that, when Woman H is revealed as a perjurer, and who her husband is, the Scottish MSM, ie The Scottish Sun and The Daily Record, going by what is read by workers in my establishment, will be unable to ignore the ramifications.
That’s when the politically-uninterested will finally see what’s been going on for the past ten years, orchestrated by Sturgeon and her lackeys in the SNP.
I hope you are right, BDTT, but the comments on The National’s facebook post aren’t encouraging.
Mind you The National managed to make it look like a “Tory” attack on Scotland – “A former Tory Minister has called for Holyrood to be given tougher powers to look into the unlawful investigation of Alex Salmond” so many of the comments are all about Tories and that Davis is a friend of Salmond.
https://tinyurl.com/ycxm2sf2
David Davis names Nicola Sturgeon’s aide as Salmond leak source
Colleagues of Lloyd have said that Davis is not correct and David Clegg, the former political editor of the Daily Record who broke the story, said: “I have never and would never reveal the identity of a confidential source.”</i
Is it legal for David Clegg to lie to the police or not to answer their questions?
Is that not a bit weird?
How would colleagues of Lloyd Know were they the ones who leaked the document to Clegg? Colleagues? Would one of them be called Nicola?
I could never warm to Alex Salmond, and while it is unfair to judge someone you have never met, I thought him a smug and rather oily character. However, he is obviously a clever man, and an agile and effective politician.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, if the political machinery of Scotland has the ability to effect what appears to have been an entirely contrived criminal prosecution against someone of his stature, then none of us are safe.
When churches were rather more popular and significant to people than they seem now to be, the Church of Scotland could, (and still can) demonstrate a distinct division between Church and State, relative to the situation which obtains elsewhere.
Until it can be established that, in Scotland, there is an equal separation between national governance and the application of the law, this will continue to.be a very uncomfortable environment in which to live.
All that toxic wee bastard Sturgeon and her cohorts including Swinney have achieved in nigh ten years is to turn this country into a banana republic without the bananas.
If wishes could come true I’d wish every one of these oxygen thieves the vilest of terminal conditions, because whatever Hell might have in store for them isn’t enough.
Other than The Times, not a single MSM outlet makes mention of D Davis, nor was any SNP bench warmer present in the House to listen.
Tells you all you need know about the SNP and the British Establishment. A relationship most eloquently summarised by George Orwell – “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Alex and I were both elected to Westminster in 1987. I’m happy to say that we remained friends throughout our time there and since, despite the fact that we represented different parties, though he knew that I supported independence (and still do).
It never crossed my mind when this sorry affair was raised publicly that he would have committed these offences.
I was delighted when a Scottish jury took the same view.
David Davis, another friend from the same intake has finally exposed the actions that led to his trial, and rightly named those responsible.
It’s time for them to face justice themselves.
Sturgeon and the Lesbian conspiracy to make Scotland the first gay state in the world.
Hi Lewis Moonie.
Good to see you commenting BTL at WOS! Any more?
robertkknight @ 11:41
Other than The Times, not a single MSM outlet makes mention of D Davis…
Here’s The Independent:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/davis-calls-for-holyrood-to-have-tougher-powers-to-investigate-salmond-case/ar-BB1qe5JD?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=d9e306c2995d441594a0fc138aff79ef&ei=54
… and The Express:
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/demands-made-police-properly-investigate-33276569
It’s likely The Telegraph will follow suit, not least because they hold the Scottish Government in no special regard and frequently employ Davis to write guest columns for them.
In other words, some papers will go with this while others (probably) won’t. Not sure what this says about the evil British “Establishment”. Likely absolutely nothing.
Hi Lewis Moonie @ 11.42pm
Thank you for your post.
Very much appreciated.
Would this surfaced if Scotland was independent and the curtains closed
spill the beans, i’m in Germany I can say things that you can’t.
Lord Moonie @ 11.42pm:
I echo the appreciation expressed by others earlier.
Does not the House of Lords also enjoy parliamentary privilege? If so, may I suggest you might use it from your seat on the red benches – subject to the constraints of ongoing criminal investigations?
Mr Davis in the Commons before now has suggested extending privilege to the Scottish Parliament. An amendment to the Scotland Act proposing this, initiated in the Lords, would be difficult for the Holyrood régime to resist.
I leave that thought with you.
The full statement is blistering to watch. I’ve never been so enthralled by a political speech ever. These characters need to be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and/or perjury immediately. The SNP are dead to me as are any remaining supporters.
The two ALBA MPs should have had the perfect opportunity to reveal the identities of Salmond’s accusers at Westminster.
But I understand they were instructed by the clerks that due to the ongoing police investigations they would not be legally protected by normal Parliamentary privilege.
The much tauted Parliamentary privilege at the Westminster parliament is not as freely available as one would have thought.
It would be fantastic if David Davis can do what the ALBA MPs could not.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
They will do their utmost to prevent Alex Salmond from getting the justice he deserves, and to save the conspirators from going to jail.
What a coincidence, I was talking about this stuff just a couple of days ago…
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
I’ve discovered the little speaker button on Google translate and with it the wonders of having a posh English female voice read out assorted swear words and other terrible things.
Anyway, didn’t Tommy get two or three years for perjury? I think he did. Don’t quote me on that.
Okay, time to explore lewd with the posh Google translate woman…
Back in about three weeks.
charlie says:
19 July, 2024 at 1:18 am
“spill the beans, i’m in Germany I can say things that you can’t.”
Under the Scottish dictatorship’s draconian laws, what you say/write in Germany becomes said/written in Scotland the moment someone in Scotland hears/reads it.
You would become liable to arrest the moment you arrived in the UK.
That is how bad the situation has become in this banana colony, where, as the Rev. Stuart Campbell found out, no one can be held accountable.
Note: Davis also said he had spoken to a witness who attributed the leak to Liz Lloyd. That’s potentially interesting as the witness might be willing to stand up and be counted…
I wonder who he is. A disgruntled politician who lost his seat perhaps? That doesn’t it narrow it down much but it might explain the timing.
HAL-9000 : What is going to happen?
Dave : Something wonderful.
HAL-9000 : I’m afraid.
Dave : Don’t be. We’ll be together.
Nothing to see here – move along.
The State, skilled in the arts of obfuscation and deception, will protect its own.
And there you have it. As recorded on many spoilt ballot papers of the day – Corrupt as fuck. An ugly, ugly stain that won’t wash away until justice can be done. But that day can never come because government can never be seen to be corrupt and let all the pension collectors collect their pensions.
It was solely the weight of guilty embarrassment that forced those SNP MPs to hurriedly vacate the Chamber. Starmer’s Scottish branch office might be expected to capitalise on this, but will the anonymous players in this cack-handed plot allow such a thing?
https://tinyurl.com/33td7whc
Lewis Moonie
You are a good man! Thank you so much for campaigning for women.
I hope you keep posting. Most of the men on here aren’t into that sort of thing.
One if the biggest disappointments for me is Joanna Cherry saying well done to DD and she knew stuff as well but couldn’t say for fear of her safety because she’s a woman.
I mean, WTAF
All of them had parliamentary privilege and not one single coward spoke up, not one
I wonder if the person who told David Davis was indeed the person running to take over the Scottish Tories Russell Findlay because he knew. I find it strange that he could have brought down Sturgeons government but didn’t .
Wait, what?
The man who jailed Assange is going to gift Holyrood a duty of candour, the right to defame journalists, and delegate a new master for the Lord’s advocate (presumably in order to relieve them from any current or future duties of candour under the new regime)
Fascinating!
As Hatuey partially observed @3:56am though, whilst parliamentary privilege certainly extends to defamation, there’s probably a line somewhere between murder (aka Julius Caeser on senate floor) and intentional disrespect of a court order (with or without malice).
Furthermore, as Joanna Cherry admirably demonstrated previously, Westminster conventions are subordinate to Scots Law IN ANY EVENT so could* yet be encouraging if COPFS turn out to be as determined to seek a two year imprisonment of Mr Davies as they were in the case of Craig Murray.
* Failing which Mr Davies’ interpretation of the current rules would presumably allow John Swinney to order his arrest (via the Lord Advocate) or, perhaps better yet, let Nicola Sturgeon ask Holyrood to defend her reputation (and enhance it’s own) by voting for it
🙂
David Harvie ( now sheriff in Inverness ) accused by Davis of not telling the whole truth under oath . Isn’t that perjury ?
What do you suppose that lot at Holyrood will do with parliamentary privilege?
None of them seem all that interested.
Don’t forget ‘The Hate Monster’ Charlie.
Anything published in Scotland is a hate crime in Scotland.
The Hate Monster Cops police the entire internet.
You could be arrested as soon as you get off the plane in Scotland and they may even be able to have you extradited.
I love that man David Davis. Set the truth free. God bless him and his family. The right honourable David Davis indeed.
Leaky Liz – not enough plumbers in the entirety of Scotland to stop the drip drip stench of corruption.
We know leaky liz and the alphabetties are going to hell. Via Corton Vale.
LEAKY LIZ. Corrupt to the core!!! Take her away boys! Her deeds would shame all the devils in hell!!!
I want to echo Liz and say what a disappointment it is that we have to rely on an English Tory MP to defend our rights as Scots to justice.
I had long ago given up on the SNP of working for us, but we did have a couple of Alba MPs who could easily have raised this matter (perhaps even in a slightly annoying manner).
This disgusting episode, and the criminals who perpetrated it, needs dealt with, before we can proceed.
It wouldn’t matter if the Stooge stood in front of a TV camera and said ..” I wiz me whit dunnit , aw it , the plot tae chib Salmond , that wiz ma idea “… the Cult would still not believe their guru is anything other than a divine fusion of Mother Teresa n Joan D’Arc , possessed of the strategic genius of Sun Tzu & the wisdom of Solomon , natch .
The disembodied spectres who flutter , moth-like , around the dim , guttering candlelight provided by paid apologist sites like , eg WGD , wailing pitifully for their Golden Age when the Tories were still around to blame everything on and provide an all-engulfing smokescreen for the consistent failures of the Stusafinney Caliphate of Clowns ; people who screamed ” Conspiracy Theory ” at any departure from the * Covid * Hysteria group-think dogma are now declaring that Sturgeon is the victim of a plot by WM because – wait for it – I actually read this – they considered her the greatest threat to the * Union * – no , really , some people actually believe that ludicrous fantasy .
Yes , according to them the victim here is Sturgeon .
” Ladies & Gentlemen we are floating in Space ” .
Untethered from any recognisable reality , hopelessly adrift in a political vacuum , moving inexorably towards a Black Hole of Utter Folly : a Wormhole leading to a bizarre universe where an outlandish mutant species formed by the merging of BLiS & BiS rule over a race of castrated sheep-like creatures , fed on a diet of green carrots and pecked-at incessantly by strange wingless birds they call Wishart’s Tits .
Future to the Back 🙂
Got me thinking… thinking out loud… Maybe I should mull it over for a bit…
But while David Davis is refreshingly clear and succinct in his speech, it becomes clear that to a huge extent, the rehabilitation of Alex Salmond’s political career relies upon UK Parliamentary process and protocol. Do away with that option, and you’d deny yourself access to a wide variety of useful tools and unstruments.
Without putting words into Alex Salmond’s mouth, if I was in his shoes, I might be very reluctant to, say, impeach the Holyrood Government and the colonial Scotland Act while those very same “institutions” represented the most plausible route to justice and vindication.
It’s a bit like dodgy Police Officers resigning before they can be properly investigated. Were Salmond to collapse the institutons, those implicated in wrongdoing would be let off the hook. (Maybe not the best metaphor to use in the circumstances).
Again, thinking out loud, I wonder whether this is a factor in Salmond’s thinking, and goes some way to expain why Salmond’s defence seems pedestrian and lacklustre, while many believe he is being weak when he should be tearing down the house and gettin’ intae them!
While I find these delays insufferable, I imagine it’s equally so for Mr Salmond. And while I’m champing at the bit to take a match to the Scotland Act, the Salmond stitch-up is one of the very small number of issues which need to be dealt with, first, because the implications could be profound, and their effect on the political landscape of Scotland absolutely seismic.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-07-18/debates/4DC08467-BEE4-414B-B9F5-D99EB190B0AA/details
Here’s a written transcript of DD’s speech from Hansard. Always handy if you want to quote something he said.
It says:
He is currently suing the Scottish Government in a civil action. That has been assisted as some of those involved in constructing the case against Mr Salmond are now themselves under police investigation.
Should that not be sisted?
I’ve just recently learned what ‘sisted’ means although I’m still struggling to understand what’s going on with all these court cases.
There was some confusion earlier this week about Herald articles which appeared to be old articles. I’m wondering if they were updated because the case had been sisted.
It’s all quite confusing. I wonder why it wasn’t published elsewhere & why Tom Gordon didn’t make it clearer in his ‘updated’ articles.
Those involved in constructing the case against Mr Salmond are now themselves under police investigation
Is that not big news?
It’s all very weird!
I’m away!
Got this sinking feeling that by the time I get back this thread will be filled with post about Moonhowlers.
Liz Lloyd’s “council of war whatsapp group.”
She sickens me.
Ruby,
Why would the Herald protect them and who would have the power to tell tom gordon what not to write.
Think on that.
Sturgeon KNEW. She orchestrated the entire conspiracy! Her henchwoman and her. Orange is the new black. Leslie Evans. Disgrace to Scotland.
Salmond’s coming for the 3 million Nicola. The motorhome and the showroom.
Cough it up Nicola. You’re going down! Your corruption we will not tolerate a second longer.
God bless David Davis. A hero. We’ve waited 3 years. Set the truth free. The Wings Over Scotland.
Can someone enlighten me why a Scottish MP couldn’t have done this in parliament?
Is it only English MPs that have parliamentary privileges?
I listened to it all. Damning in the extreme.
One contradictory phrase stood out. The rule of law in Scotland?
Aye, right.
I notice Davis referenced a whistleblower in regards to WhatsApp messages;
“A whistleblower revealed communications from Sue Ruddick, the SNP’s chief operating officer that in their words point to
““to collusion, perjury, up to criminal conspiracy.””
Does anyone know who that whistleblower is?
Good to hear this come out formally, so to speak, even though it’s no surprise to anyone following Scottish social media over the last few years. This whole sordid affair stinks, particularly when viewed in the specific context which Dani Garavelli inadvertently revealed in her infamous article (which can’t be mentioned here). I hope Alex Salmond gets justice.
When you hear this you realise that it is a jungle in which we live.
Police, prosecution, civil servants and police utterly corrupt and in truth no different from the Nazi’s of the 1930s.
In America the second amendment was introduced to allow people to resist bad government because where do people go when they have governments that are wesponised against them.
Sadly guns have proved, for different reasons, to be an absolute tragedy in the US. But the principal of defence against bad government and it’s apparatus of state is sound because where do you go
when there is no rule of law.
But to maybe conclude here is a thought. Governments like Sturgeon and their apparatus of state can illegally brutalise innocent law abiding folks but if it was a Glasgow gangster would they do it. Of course they wouldn’t. And maybe that is the hard reality.
And when that genie is out of the bottle, and folks are accountable how does one think behaviours will change.
But going back to Sir David Davis he is a good man for raising the absolutely corrupt rule of law here in Scotland
If SNP insiders can deny LL’s involvement, does that mean they know who did it?
A Big Boy who ran away?
“Does anyone know who that whistleblower is?”
Thereby ending the career of said whistlblower?
I’ve lived 50 years in Scotland — and never want to live anywhere else. But I will never understand Scottish politics: and I begin to think that few, if any, of the commenters on this site understand it either. It is now more than 3 years since David Davis’s first adjournment debate speech put on quotable public record the intimate involvement of the Scottish judicial system, the Scottish police, the Scottish Government and its civil servants, the Scottish press, SNP MPs and MSPs and SNP staff in the conspiracy to destroy Alex Salmond. And still, apparently, it seems to many commenters here that now at last the dam will burst, all will be revealed, the guilty will be named and shamed, and justice will be done.
I’m in favour of Scottish independence; but any unionist who asks me whether I want to live in a country ruled and run as Scotland is ruled and run, will find me shamed into silencce.
I just watched the David Davis speech via the link. The people who were attempting to ruin Alex Salmond were at the same time packing out the SNP and the public sector with people who actually were guilty of the types of crimes which AS had been falsely accused of.
This is not unique to Scotland, yesterday I posted about an extremely powerful kabal of lawyers, media and special interest groups within the EU forcing trans ideology onto unwilling countries and cultures, see The Denton Files. MI5/England/Westminster does not have that extent of reach.
Davis’s contribution is valuable and reminds us that the same stinking corruption and tainted leadership are still in place in Scotland.
But in 2021, in the Scottish election, the Sturgeon cabal still got re-elected; the electorate just did not care.
Will a Labour UK government now and likely 2026 Labour Scottish government take any concrete actions to improve things e.g. parliamentary immunity, separation of prosecutorial service from government, impartiality of civil service?
I have no doubt that every SNP MP/MSP/staffer knows exactly who handed over the documents.
Lloyd Quinan on Through a Scottish Prism said that a civil servant gave it to a senior staffer who gave it to a more junior staffer who gave it to David Clegg. Lloyd said that the junior staffer later became a junior minister.
So Liz Lloyd can deny that she gave the documents to David Clegg because she made sure that someone else made the final handover.
I looked at the junior ministers who came into office after the leak and one name stands out to me as very likely. But as I say, there are plenty of people who know exactly what happened. And so none of the SNP MP/MSP/staff can be trusted because they are ALL complicit.
Well reported as before when you first highlighted this and you covered the whole case really well. But nothing happened, Will something happen?. I noticed this reported in The National and the Scottish Daily Express as well as on here but haven’t been able to find it on BBC or the Scottish papers. Not saying it hasn’t been reported but that’s all I could find.
The «not remotely Scottish» Liz Lloyd from NE England, the ancestral homeland of Sturgeon.
Small wonder the nationalist word always stuck in Sturgeon’s throat.
Frank Waring
Ignored
says:
19 July, 2024 at 11:41 am
I’m in favour of Scottish independence; but any unionist who asks me whether I want to live in a country ruled and run as Scotland is ruled and run, will find me shamed into silencce.
With respect, you’re not paying attention Frank.
Salmond’s Government was well run on the whole, given the powers it had; not perfect but good enough to put the fear of God into Westminster and unionists at large. For the first time in decades, hope of a better life was beginning to blossom.
That’s the whole point of getting to the truth of Sturgeon’s grubby conspiracy to destroy that hope; destroy Alex Salmond, YES, the SNP, Scottish Independence and Scotland’s sovereign Constitution, and the free rein she was given to do so by the corrupt Establishment and media. She’s burned it all to the ground.
Before you rush to judgement, Cui bono Frank? Cui bono, and who had the means and influence to do this? Sturgeon’s creeps and delinquent imbeciles? Don’t make me laugh…
For Scotland to build an administration, a government, fit to manage her affairs as an independent nation…she must first become an independent nation.
It would be a logical error in thinking to assert that Scotland must be in a fit administrative state before she can be independent while effectively colonised and bound to a ‘Union’ where such a state is by design almost an impossibility.
Scotland is ultimately administered by a foreign power whose seat is Westminster, despite any illusion to the contrary, and all blame for her current sorry state must lie with that power alone – the Scots as a people are out-of-the-game, as Alf Baird tells us.
Westminster doesn’t want a well-managed Scotland – beyond the efficient extraction of Scotland’s wealth for the benefit of another people and to the detriment of her own.
God forbid the Scots should start believing they can run their own country efficiently and for their own benefit; that way lies a people who might get uppity and think they can do better for themselves free from the constraints of colonial rule.
Meanwhile
Nothing on BBC website and Leeds riots hidden under England site.
The questions remain:
The interests of what entity is the “Crown Office” really serving? Purposely delay cases to leave criminals out of the hook does not serve the public of Scotland at all.
In which way exactly does this unjustifiable delay in progressing these cases in a timely manner and seemingly deliberately leave criminals out of the hook of justice, is benefiting that entity?
What role did that entity have in bringing forward the fabricated case against Mr Salmond?
What relation, if any, do the potential perjurers and leaker have with that entity?
Isn’t it about time we knew?
For how long is that self-serving entity going to continue taking the people of Scotland for utter fools?
Dear Mrs Robertson Im singing your song I hope you get your just deserts .
Re the ability of Scottish people to «run their affairs», take a second to observe the world around you. Only requires a second because the total balls up made by the select elect is stunning in its hubris.
Scotland could never match it.
Fair point, Northcode, and I essentially agree.
But look at the mess Sturgeon made, the lies, the redactions, the attempt to frame Salmond, the general corruption, not to mention her deplorable incompetence across every aspect of Government, and it’s hard to argue that she lacked freedom of movement.
Certainly it’s hard to argue she was deprived of the power required to govern honestly and well when her predecessor managed it and made it look so easy.
That all said, I think the easy ride the Scottish MSM gave Sturgeon essentially enabled and encouraged her, leading her to believe she could get away with anything.
BBC Scotland in particular played a pivotal part in enabling Sturgeon and covering up for her. From what I can gather, they are still doing that.
Frank Waring @ 11:41 am
“I will never understand Scottish politics”
A colonized people exist in a Manichean, calcified society (Fanon) where the assimilated and pensioned-off native elites work only to protect the colonizer’s interest.
The politics of a colonial regime should not therefore be mis-misunderstood as being anything like the politics in an independent country.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/03/03/the-colonial-mindset/
Just a matter of time till She/her is shown to be involved in serious legal malfeasance ? IF proven, then the consequences will bite.
Is She/her currently shtting herself ?
Excellent! I wish he had included the “I know a way …”(we can make allegations and remain anonymous- because sexual assault (alleged) victims have protected anonimity). I forget which of the evil women said that.
I wish I could share some of the optimism here re the outcome of this however Scotland is a small country and its civic society is even smaller.There isnt a serious journo in Scotland who doesnt know the guts of this story and the fact that Lloyd is able to appear on TV with complete impunity speaks volumes.The Scottish media silence around this speech is also very telling.Perhaps I’m wrong.I hope so.
No nation in which the judicial system appears to be under the significant control/influence of the government (and is answerable to no-one), and in which the chief prosecutor also serves as a minister in government, can ever be truly said to be worthy of self-rule.
Rev, Scotland has been governed like this since the eighteenth century. It has little to do with being worthy of self-rule and everything to do with control by the colonising power which is why minimal action has been taken since Mr Davis first raised the issue over three years ago.
One witness interviewed was Sturgeon’s Private Secretary, the one who got her interested in trans ‘rights’. He was moved to head up the police division in the SG as Branchform kicked off, and then got promoted to head up equalities earlier this year. And walks Liz Lloyd’s dog still.
Here’s my take on events.
There are two periods in recent times – pre-2014 and post-2014.
Scotland’s administration pre-2014 was given some leeway by her coloniser when it felt sure that its cunning ‘devolved government’ plan had succeeded and that the Scots were safely contained in blissful and relatively comfortable ignorance; content in the false knowledge they now managed their own nation’s affairs.
But Salmond came along and burst England’s colonial bubble…almost. How terrifying 2014 must have been for Westminster.
“Phew! That was a close call, your Majesty – thanks for your help in quelling the ‘rebellion’. Luckily we managed to avert disaster using every dirty trick our glorious empire could muster and defeated the Scots in their ungrateful bid for independence…dirty, sweaty dogs.
That’ll be the last time we let things get so close to the edge – we’ll make sure of it.” said Westminster to itself.
And so a new strategy was designed for Scotland’s devolved government; make it look so incompetent and corrupt that the Scots will beg Westminster to look after their people and their nation’s resources.
“Now, where can we find easily manipulated and corrupt idiots to front our colonial operation in Scotland?” Westminster asked itself.
Enter the Sturgeon Scottish Theatrical Company from stage left (the traditional direction of entrance onto a stage in theatre for the villains in a play).
“Your Majesty. We have managed to find a group of Scottish player types who will do our bidding unquestioningly.”
“Well done, Carruthers! Here…have some gongs. Can your little troupe of Scottish players do a good Macbeth?”
“Hahahah…very witty, your Majesty. Very witty indeed.”
“Out, damned Scots! out, I say! ”
“Hawhawhaw…really, your Majesty. Sometimes you are just too witty.”
“Indeed, Carruthers, indeed. The benefits of a classical education abound Here, have another gong.”
I know, right? You’d think I was in the room the way I tell it.
Kudos to Sir David Davis.
Though it looks like it won’t have any consequences.
Northcode @ 15.15.
Bearng in mind that Ms Sturgeon was, as far as I understand it, Mr Salmond’s protege from the very first and that it was he who brought her into his closest circle, politically groomed her, worked hand in glove with her and was (apparently) entirely in favour of her as his heir and annointed successor, I’d believe that there was much more to what occurred than your suggested script, Northy.
And, I believe, it was in prospect prior to 2014.
However in this “wilderness of mirrors” which of us could ever be certain of anything except we were not and are not intended to know the truth.
Thank you for this Stu. Copied the video around with your comments. It is also worth reading Iain Lawson’s blog article on his YoursforScotland site. He titles is No to Stalins Scotland
Even if this is true what odds does it really make?
Someone let a journalist in on a public interest story?
What else was going to happen?
I agree,.let the matter lie so Alex can take his case forward.
Hopefully the Scottish police can arrest these motherfuckers otherwise Davis will be back to spill more beans.
She should be going to jail Liz Lloyd. Jail STRURGEON.
Fucking ROT Nicola! FUCKING ROT!
ONE THING to be learnt from today’s global outage is that independence does not protect you from the «Globorg».
You gotta be really smart to be truly independent, countries, infrastructures etc are easy meat to the glitch.
A large dose of skepticism and cynicism helps too.
A learning curve?
Sturgeon the JUDAS.
And Woman H. THE LIAR! THE PERJURER!
WE KNOW!
David Hannah
says:
19 July, 2024 at 3:52 pm
“Sturgeon the JUDAS.
And Woman H. THE LIAR! THE PERJURER!
WE KNOW!”
And we know, thanks to Dani Garavelli who “Woman H” is – and therefore who her husband is and the role that he still, even today, occupies – despite everything.
A Reckoning is coming. And it will be mighty.
(Thanks sister Dani)
Sven @3:30pm
The Empire works in mysterious ways, Sven.
The Sturgeon Scottish Theatre Company might well have been a third-rate outfit, but Sturgeon herself was an accomplished actress(I’m old fashioned that way).
Perhaps the offer of a starring role in a play of such Machiavellian magnitude awakened the Madonna in her and she swiftly fell for the proffered accolades and bouquets – the show must go on, after all; and a true thespian will always follow the script handed them.
And being centre stage can turn the heads of those whose characters are ill-equipped to handle the limelight; those too ready to believe their glorification is deserved. The adoration of the masses often blinds folk to their own limitations – believe me, I know.
I, too, was once adored and then callously cast aside like an overly fingered rag doll (I made that up – I’ve never been a rag doll and I’ve certainly never been overly fingered…and I’m pretty sure I’ve never been adored either).
Yes, the show must go on – especially if there might be the reward of a book deal, a gong, and some hefty cash in the last act.
Think of all of the honest police officers that investigated this. Knowing the truth. Knowing that Liz Lloyd was the leaker in the failed conspiracy. Orders could only have come from Opengrupenfhurer Sturgeon herself – the chief mammy.
So not only does Nicola Sturgeon only have to roll over in bed and give Hubby Murrell – the love of her life a kiss. The kiss of death from Mr Goldfinger!
In the bed of corruption and sin. Her henchwoman is as corrupt and vicious as she is. Her right hand woman.
Yet Sir Ian Livingstone – the self described, “racist mysogynistic police force” couldn’t charge Leaky Liz in all that time. Because he was covering up for Stalin’s Wee Sister.
Now the SNP have given the top police job to Joe Farrell. So she can have her paid police officers at Mardi Gla LGBTQ! Strong and stable leadership of police scotland. And a total insult to all of the honest officers of over 20 years in Scotland.
The police have to look upwards to their crooked bossses. The crooked Dorothy STAIN – Stain and stench of corruption. She deserves the JAIL with Nicola! SEND THEM AWAY BOYS. Their legacy tarnished and tainted.
If only she’d been a better woman? IF only Nicola? IF ONLY! YOU JUDAS!
cirsium @ 3:01 pm
“Rev, Scotland has been governed like this since the eighteenth century. It has little to do with being worthy of self-rule and everything to do with control by the colonising power which is why minimal action has been taken since Mr Davis first raised the issue over three years ago.”
Spot on.
Scotland has long suffered from what is termed ‘a cultural and ethnic division of labour within the internal colonialism model’ (Hechter). Why do we think 4 million Scots were shipped out, and the Scots gentry Anglicised, and an Anglo meritocratic elite brought in, and still? Why do we think Scotland even today has more people in prison per-capita than any other western European nation?
In a colony we might reasonably expect what passes for a ‘justice system’ to be colonial in nature and effect. The assimilated native elite together with the imposed elite speak only the colonizer’s ‘language of high prestige’ and it is this language and cultural difference that divides the people; colonial elites do not work in the colony’s interest, they protect only the colonizer’s interest and their privileged position in the colonial racket.
In a colony it is only the values of the colonizer that are sovereign (Memmi); from poppies, to union flags, to a one-nation Britain, to English language, media, literature and even history. As Northcode reminds us, a colonized people are ‘rendered subordinate’, they are ‘out of the game’, and ‘no longer part of history’ (Memmi). Hence the ‘colonized seldom looks for justice’ in the colonial environment (Fanon).
The problem with Sir David Davis’s intervention is that he has very limited, if any, understanding of Scotland’s colonial institutions and the wey thay hiv aye warked agin the interest o maist Scots fowk, an still dae:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/08/01/the-determinants-of-independence-institutions/comment-page-1/
Alf Baird
Since you’re back again at WoS, how about a little truth from you:
In your recent “election” (with “94.2%”) to the “Liberation Scotland” “Steering Committee,” HOW MANY VOTERS ACTUALLY VOTED?
So far, all the usual moonhowler suspects, who (accurately) point out how the SNP has lied, have themselves refused to tell the truth about THEIR OWN organization.
This is your chance to show, with facts, that your organization is or isn’t just a tiny bunch of moonhowlers.
I have just sent the following complaint to the BBC. I do realise that to continue to perform the same action in the hope of a different result is one definition of insanity but I can only hope that this might just annoy somebody in the BBC. At least they will have to spend a few minutes to send their usual reply – “There is no way you can do anything about our obvious shortcomings in our dealings with Scotland, no matter how justified your complaint.”
My complaint:
Sir David Davis, MP, made a speech in the House of Commons on 18th July 2024. This speech is in the public interest as it pertains to the working of the Scottish Government and the judicial system. There has been no mention of it on any of the BBC websites, including those which would seem to be the most appropriate places for it to be reported. These include the Politics section of the UK, the politics section of Scotland and the Parliaments section of the UK website.
The speech has not been reported on any of the BBC television or radio news programmes on any channel or station.
I realise that Sir David Davis made this speech in the House of Commons and as such had the protection of Parliamentary Privilege. However, for the BBC to simply ignore it altogether amounts to a BBC imposed news blackout and censorship. The BBC could have reported the fact of the speech being made by Sir David Davis. I am sure the BBC has access to legal guidance and could have produced an informed account of the speech which did not fall foul of any legal reporting restrictions.
A media blackout such as this from the publicly funded BBC amounts to censorship and as such is unacceptable and indefensible.
On what grounds was the decision made to ignore this speech?”
“a sharp reminder of why Scotland is, in truth, not yet a country in a fit administrative state for independence”
Scotland will never be “in a fit administrative state for independence” for as long as Holyrood remains with its hands tied behind its back due to the constrains imposed by the Scotland Act.
An unelected representative of the crown is sitting in the middle of the executive power and has been able to successfully steal control over the legislative power from the people of Scotland and hand it to the crown because of that Scotland Act. In the context of a democracy, that is totally outrageous and completely unacceptable. Yet, neither the crown nor Wesminster has lift a finger to change it. Let’s not forget that the Scotland Act is a product of Westminster.
Only when Scotland’s MSPs voluntarily or forced by the people of Scotland bring themselves to ditch the Scotland Act, then Scotland can become in a fit administrative state for independence.
Mr David Davis exposed this three years ago, yet, what has Westminster done to correct Westminster’s well known “error”? Not a thing. And that was despite Mr Davis’ party being in power. And that is despite the same “error” not being present in England.
So, why nothing happened? Why didn’t they move things to separate those darn powers? Because it was most convenient for Westminster and the crown to be able to use that unelected figure in Scotland’s cabinet to thwart the entry into Holyrood of any bill for an independence referendum that could be passed by the pro-independence MSP majority currently in Holyrood.
They will progress this matter to separate both powers now only because they are already predicting (preparing us for) a unionist majority in Holyrood which will never bring a referendum bill, never mind pass it. With a unionist government in Scotland and a unionist majority of MSPs there is no danger of a referendum bill, therefore that unelected figure stealing control over the legislative power will not be required. I am sure they will use that time with a unionist majority to figure out some other way for the crown to continue to steal control over Scotland’s legislative body in preparation for another pro-independence majority.
Scotland is still being treated as a colony and that this continues to happen in the third decade of the 21st century is disgraceful.
One has to wonder why it must be an English MP who has to reveal this in Westminster and why not a single Scottish MP has found the balls to do so. I have the sneaky suspicion that the reason behind this might well be that “parliamentary privilege”, if derived from the 1689 Bill of Rights and from the original English parliament, rather than Scotland’s Claim of Right 1689, can only extend to England MPs. If this is confirmed, it will be another clear proof that Scotland’s MPs and England’s MPs are still, to this day, representing what still are two independent parliaments each governed by its own rules.
Starmer schmoozes «Europe» and the potentially yesterday’s pres Macaroon..
Come on Scotland, a hefty kick up the arse for these conceited, feet of clay functionaries.
Scotland Reconstructs, but first «ding doun».
Have Fun!
Ruairidh
Ignored
says:
19 July, 2024 at 8:31 am
I want to echo Liz and say what a disappointment it is that we have to rely on an English Tory MP to defend our rights as Scots to justice…
Bang on. It needs cleaned up before we can move on.
Mia said;
“One has to wonder why it must be an English MP who has to reveal this in Westminster and why not a single Scottish MP has found the balls to do so. I have the sneaky suspicion that the reason behind this might well be that “parliamentary privilege”, if derived from the 1689 Bill of Rights and from the original English parliament, rather than Scotland’s Claim of Right 1689, can only extend to England MPs. If this is confirmed, it will be another clear proof that Scotland’s MPs and England’s MPs are still, to this day, representing what still are two independent parliaments each governed by its own rules.”
Interesting thought, Mia. If England’s parliamentary rules only apply to England’s MPs, then another corollary is that England’s MP majorities are only relevant to England’s MPs and the English kingdom, but not to Scotland’s MPs, and vice versa. Which is as it should be anyway, because they represent two different sovereignties. Scotland’s MPs should never be overruled by England’s MPs because neither group can have any authority over another nation’s MPs.
Garavelli Princip
Ignored
says:
19 July, 2024 at 4:32 pm
David Hannah
A Reckoning is coming. And it will be mighty.
(Thanks sister Dani)
The facts have already emerged and only one arrest and probably on minor charges at that.
What gives you the confidence that that justice will be done here?
The wording about parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons and Lords is pretty clear, and you don’t even need to be a member to exercise it. I see no reason at all that Scottish MPs would be excluded (the document this comes from is extensive and official and it goes into much detail later about the reduced protections for MSPs in the Scottish Parliament). Only the first component is relevant here:
“There are two main components to parliamentary privilege; they have been described in the Westminster context as:
Freedom of speech is for all those who participate in parliamentary proceedings, whether MPs, peers or non-members. This freedom of speech exists only in parliamentary proceedings, which includes (among other things) debates, committee hearings and published reports, but does not apply to anything said by an MP or a peer outside parliamentary proceedings.”
Why was it left to David Davis to speak out about this when we had the likes of Neale Hanvey, Kenny McAskill and Joanna Cherry in the HoC, why did they not speak out when they had the chance to do so?
@RoS 8.20pm
I don’t know about Hanvey and McAskill but Joanna Cherry said to a similar complaint on X that she felt unsafe doing so. Given the very real threats she’s faced and what’s happened to 2 other MPs I think it’s probably OK to cut her some slack.
All the others who could have done so…? Not so much.
The SNP will never come back from this or the Green/Tranny party. It is ironic an English MP needs to say this because Scottish politicians don’t have the balls. Or know the difference between a boy and a girl. The Gay takeover bid failed. But the Wars not over! It is clear now Scotland isn’t able to govern itself.
I think Sir David Davis is a good man, a well intentioned man, with his intervention very much on that tone.
His exposure of Liz Lloyd to public view was very welcome. Ultimately however, and I believe this will happen, it will be the people of Scotland who force change in the rotten and corrupt political system of governance it Scotland.
Sturgeon, her ministers, Police Scotland, the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal and senior civil servants are no more than thugs abusing the levers that are supposed to comprise the rule of law. They are no different from Joseph Stalin, or one Adolf Hitler in how they operate and it will be the people of Scotland who will change this rotten state of affairs.
No one can have any trust. I certainly don’t and in so many ways it is so similar of the experiences of Northern Ireland, its political system, B Specials, and arms of government. And let there be no misunderstanding the Police Scotland, the COPFS and the state would fit you up and or take you out without a qualm.
My recent unexpected dialogue with dasblimp has caused me to realize we have made a big mistake in our strategy to achieve independence.
IMHO we have been lazy and we have fallen into a trap.
We have positioned our independence as essentially us, Scotland, getting away from England. You can dress it up all you want but that is what it boils down to in the minds of most Scots and English.
This was a strategic mistake that immediately makes us in perpetual opposition to the English.
Instead our independence should have been expressed alongside English independence.
We, Scotland and England, are both seeking independence from the same thing. And we are.
They have been fucked over for longer than we have.
If we unite IN Independence, it is game over in a matter of months.
This is how to save Briton, by ending the UK.
This is the strategic path to achieving it.
Mark Beggan
Ignored
says:
19 July, 2024 at 8:38 pm
The SNP will never come ….
We are not alone in having corrupt wanker class hell bent on destroying their own countries. We are just in a worse position than most, lacking nationhood. On the plus side our elite are very much of the pound shop variety. Liz LLoyd and Sturgeon hosting political shows ffs. We aren’t up against that much and we the general punters are stll sound enough despite it all.
United in Independence
That is your whole campaign and logo.
It says we are parting ways not as enemies but as friends who are freeing themselves from something that has been oppressing both our countries for a long time.
For both of us it is just the start of the next fight.
What we see as England is not England.
The English were victims of this same as us. They had their country stolen from them long before ours was stolen from us.
I think this a message the English are crying out to hear. Farage for sure is tapping into it…
I see a path here.
GM @
Ye agree. It was, however,Indy and the denial of the result of 2014 that has allowed the Gay gangsters to run riot. The punter has been the solid truth through this whole sorry thing. A handful of deviant crooks using us for their stage to play out their wet dreams.
their wet dreams.
The two things that stand out. The HoC has Parliamentary privilege unlike Holyrood There is no recall mechanism in Holyrood. The Scottish Secretary now Ian Murray has offered such a mechanism in the past. But no delivery for constituents so far. Everyone and his dog can see the limitations of Holyrood. Corruption abounds because of the frailties of our system. An indisputable case being the joint role of the Lord Advocate. Malicious prosecution the norm. Shite on the pot or get aff Police Scotland. Well past the date of a decision.
They have been fucked over for longer than we have. This is the golden insight.
That converts the English from your enemy to your brother, in the same war.
Who fucked us both over? Don’t you feel that question is getting us closer to the truth than us blaming them.
I don’t know what the UK is but it is not England. It seems to hate English people.
David Davis Is talking about investigations and change of process must stop these crimes from happening again in future.
I want my pound of flesh.
Prison for all those who lied in court, who helped to cover up.
All should loose any pension rights that they have.
Ahhhh. Finally – the game is afoot.
Let the fun begin and justice be served.
RoS: “Why was it left to David Davis to speak out about this when we had the likes of Neale Hanvey, Kenny McAskill and Joanna Cherry in the HoC, why did they not speak out when they had the chance to do so?”
That’s a good question.
There is a theory that Scottish MPs don’t have the same parliamentary privilege and legal protection as English MPs (deriving from differing definitions of sovereignty in the two respective states when the Treaty of Union was struck).
If not that, what?
I don’t believe fear explains it. Fear of losing their jobs and wages maybe but I wouldn’t say that happily explains it either.
Mac
A slight problem with your plan.
What’s paying for Englanders world status as just little England, Wales & an annexation? Tea, jam & money laundering?
Do you think Farage wants English Independence? LOL!!!
Does he hell. Scotland is their possession & it pays the bills. Especially in the next boom wars to come = renewable energy & lovely wind turbines.
They next thing they want their grubby mitts on.
In today’s news China is doing far too well in this field & rather than congratulate them on a job well done, the yanks & the EU are going to kill them all. They’re over capacitating on the targets they themselves imposed & cause they’ve fallen behind schedule they’re planning that auld colonisers trick of sabotaging the race.
It’d be interesting if Wings took up the mystery of Scotwind. Why was it so low, who has shares & is it tied up in confidentiality clauses?
Yet more of our resources stolen.
Plus, Why on earth would England want independence when they are already? They have the whole running of Westminster, The house of lords, a permanent government (Red & Blue) the entire Treasury, the bank of England, supreme court, the media, the military, the security services, a seat at the UN, NATO, a permanent seat on the UN security council & a permanent seat to bump their gums at the G7 to re-enact PlayStation games & until recently, a judge on the Int court of Justice, a seat at the European council & EU membership.
It only has all of that because of the UK name tag. Little England would have to reapply. Farage isn’t stupid.
“deriving from differing definitions of sovereignty in the two respective states when the Treaty of Union was struck).”
Don’t perpetuate a myth.
Scotland is a sovereign country. It was clearly stated in the claim of right which was a non negotiable terms pre dating the union even taking place.
Because the English now seem to pretend it’s lost somewhere doesn’t mean it’s true or they’ve dissolved the union themselves.
Cherry is a lawyer & a KC at that. She should have used parliamentary privileges. But then she should’ve also used her 10 years & got us independence too but chose not to do that either.
Ruaridh, and many others on here comment on the lack of similar speeches by ALBA MPs over the last few years:
1. Kenny MacAskill made a similar speech about two years ago, upon receiving a dossier of evidence from a whistleblower.
2. Kenny MacAskill, Neale Harvey and Joanna Cherry subsequently went quiet on the subject, BUT:
3. At that point the Newbiggin case, re the Leak, was still live.
4. The perjury case was not yet sat upon.
5. The Civil Action was not yet live OR sisted.
6. ALBA were still actively and publicly seeking some level of agreement or mutual support with the SNP and their supporters.
Thus, it may be that Alex Salmond encouraged all three of them to keep quiet for the time being. So as not to prejudice these cases AND so as not to feed the narrative of two tribes at war with each other.
Breeks may be underestimating Alex Salmond’s grasp of the bigger picture. When legal obstruction became apparent, he may STILL have counselled silence. Putting Scottish Independence unity ahead of his personal vindication.
Ruby Thursday, it would be worth checking that Hansard has been corrected. Sisted is definitely the word intended there.
The cases thus far are:
1. Branchform, into SNP finances, Peter Murrell has been arrested and charged. The investigation has widened beyond Nicola Sturgeon and Colin Beattie. This widening presumably takes in those suspects of the civil case who can no longer be touched upon?
2. Newbiggin, into the Leak to the Daily Record, described by David Davies, and dropped by the Crown Office as either unlikely to succeed, or more likely as not in (their) public interest.
3. The perjury case, into some of the accusers/AlphaBetties, which has been conveniently sitting idle for years, blocking
4. Alex Salmond’s Civil Case, which has been unable to proceed, that is, is sisted, until all of the above cases are completed.
I hope that clarifies for you?
The suggestion that Alex Salmond is being patient here for some reason, is likely true. Fools rush in, as they say. Strategy. The game of chess/politics.
In addition to the considerations mentioned above, it is a changing situation. Once hope of SNP reciprocating offers of working together ended, he has been more openly critical of the SNP, Scottish Government.
The SNP is no longer a major force in Westminster and behaving as the tail of the Green dog in Holyrood, with Nicola Sturgeon fading from public memory. He can afford to be more direct in his pursuit of personal vindication. With Labour on the ascendant in both parliaments, he and his Tory friend can unite in demanding institutional reform, from an opposition position.
Also, many will be repositioning for the 2026 Holyrood election now
I have no doubt that the dossier received by both Kenny MacAskill and David Davies contained much that has not been revealed. Alex Salmond will not escalate his attack fully until milder options are exhausted. Don’t assume we’ve heard it all – yet.
I am unsure whether the Sue Ruddick whistleblower has emerged recently, or was contained in the dossier of evidence?
Sven, it appears the conspiracy was in at least outline process since 2011. A pro-Independence majority was supposed to be impossible. And was a clear threat to Westminster/The Empire/MI5.
Northcode, I agree with your drama. Ms Sturgeon may well have a character flaw making her act very differently once unbounded by a pro-Independence Line Manager. Indeed, she may have subconsciously sought out a replacement ‘line manager’, of a very different hue. We can speculate whether that was effectively what Leslie Evans became.
We very strongly DO need decolonised, beginning with our minds.
Mac, James Hogg, two centuries ago proposed just such a unity in Independence in his song Both Sides The Tweed.
At our recent Gala Day, the Town Crier reminded us how the Braw Lads defeated some English raiders, “thereby playing their part in the age-long struggle for the freedom of their native land”.
At that point I said, audibly:
“We haven’t got there yet, but we’re trying”.
At which point the woman next to me, no doubt trying to elicit The Scottish Cringe, in the form of an apology, replied:
“What can I say? – I’m English!”
To which I smiled calmly and confidently replied without missing a beat:
“That’s all right – you’ll get English Independence out of it”.
She had no reply to that. Why would she NOT want English Independence? Unless she is confessing herself an Imperialist Settler seeking to subjugate the Country she now lives in?
I had failed to Cringe. And I had failed to surrender the moral high ground with any display of racism. And why HAVE the English put up with almost a thousand years of political and economic domination by the descendants of a tiny Norman elite?
This is a decolonised approach I could dae wi’ employin mair after…
“Don’t perpetuate a myth… Scotland is a sovereign country.”
Okay, now what?
Forget it. We know you can’t answer.
Zzzzzzzzz
*The Braw Lads made their contribution in 1337…
“Forget it. We know you can’t answer.”
I can. What sovereign country do you know that let’s a wee poxy neighbour forbid it from holding a referendum?
Why are we even asking them? Why does everything have to be through Westminster via our politicians? They have zero control over us & never did.
Scotland is sovereign & had that guarantee ‘for all time coming’
A sovereign nation doesn’t need anyone’s permission & I get pissed at the arsehole politicians & *usual suspect* on here repeatedly claiming we do.
As the MP Davis said himself regarding Brexshit – ‘there isn’t a single treaty in the entire world that requires a sovereign nation to seek permission from the other side to leave it.’
As usual tho, that doesn’t apply to Scotland. We’ve to be different.
The monarchy takes an oath to Scots. They didn’t/don’t do that to a bunch of peasants. So to say Scots Sovereignty is ambiguous, ancient guff, outdated pish, debatable, too vague or any other such nonsense is to keep that bullshit going.
The claim of right has been ratified in both parliaments. It’s alive & well & if the politicians won’t won’t recognize it then another group will.
Ten years they’ve had & they staffed it up the wall.. now we’ve to trust a plebiscite LOL. Why? We don’t need to if we go right back to the actual contract & the terms & conditions we can have a proper one that’d be immediately internationally recognised instead.
If Cherry is in Westminster as a sovereign Scot with equal rights then she should have used parliamentary privileges & not wasted her time on the LGBTQWERTY crew which was an entirely English problem. Not an Independent Scotland’s.
Yir on fire Geri , Aye aw the usual suspects want to claim Sovereignty when it suits them as exemplified by Cherry and the prorogation of parliament, Dae these arseholes think bojo and the rest of the tories wouldn’t have run roughshod over Cherry and Scotland’s courts if they could have
THAT result in itself showed that the COR and Scots sovereignty is meaningful, YET we have clowns on here siding with the engerlish and denying their birthright
Twathater
Aye,
& Going back to Scots Sovereignty. Her territory remains intact & that includes her vast waters. That also means the very lucrative new business of wind & tidal.
Oh deary, England has no waters to speak of. It’s diddy wee. Where can they plant turbines?
The race is on in investment & there’s going to be a war cause China, rather than fck about with LGBTQWERTYS2 pish or meddling in other countries wars/parliaments, has actually put its nose to the wheel & is at the top of the charts for production (haud oan, didn’t the propagandists say they weren’t Green?) Now EU & American is wanting a war.
So to think diddy wee England wants independence is complete bullshit. They’re already in charge of the whole shit show under the UK banner & Sir Kid Starver has his beedy eyes on Scotlands vast territorial waters for the next wave of Scotland being pumped dry of its resources.
We mustn’t fret tho…I’m sure a plebiscite will have them quaking in their boots…
Yup, there’s a good chance a few individuals are “going down”.
No sniggering at the back – I mean they’re going to be doing time.
So what?
The SNP are already finished at WM. In less than 2 years, there’s every likelihood they’ll be finished at HR too.
I’d forget about the revenge and whatnot and actually focus on something concrete and practical that could advance the prospects of Indy.
But that’s me all over. Always seeing things as the majority of Scots see things – and seeing a bunch of unlovely and untalented oxygen thieves fighting like rats in a weighted sack as just a pointless turn-off forever tainting the Indy cause.
Geri at 0245am,
You are totally correct regarding Scottish sovereignty. If Scotland had never been a sovereign nation, then Engerland would never have actually needed a treaty of union, would it? Further, the union treaty did NOT in any way remove Scottish sovereignty or Scottish constitutional rights. Indeed, the Scottish claim of right which is enshrined within the Union treaty, is and has been recognized in both Holyrood AND Westminster.
And you are quite correct to raise the very legitimate question, just why would ANY country in the world feel the need to ask freaking permission just to hold a referendum. It is absurd. So, just WHY do the SNP insist we need permission? Nonsense. Utter, utter nonsense.
What we actually need are Scottish politicians with fire in their belly for independence, and big balls. The ones we have right now are all feart of England.
Scotland needs a population with fire in its belly and a judiciary that will stand for the country instead of ignoring the illegality of the rape of our resources.
wullie
Ignored
says:
20 July, 2024 at 7:42 am
Scotland needs a population with fire in its belly and a judiciary that will stand for the country instead of ignoring the illegality of the rape of our resources.
Less Rohypnol in Scotland’s “media” would help greatly too. Some sad individuals actually seem addicted to it.
The source of your confusion is the conflation of the two entities ‘England’ and ‘the UK.’ It’s a common mistake shared by most without these shores.
IN THE MANNER OF SCOTLAND NEEDS….
It needs a «revolution».
Take that how you will but stasis is killing the creature. Acceptance of the status quo, micawberish waiting for something to turn up, playing «what might have been» laments on whisky glasses or dalliances with off the wall schemes is pure self indulgence.
The SNP, in its contemporary form, seems to have gotten nowhere near to understanding the country it was supposed to cherish. It is at best a regionalist party, not the party of a culturally and geographically diverse ancient nation.
From embracing gender dysphoria to Covid to nato it has trodden a conventional path, embracing without question or democratic debate an ephemeral set of fabricated orthodoxies which may lead to its extinction as a political force.
Any successor will have to be everything the current SNP is not.
It is for Scots to work that out, and not take too long over it.
There is no «Scotland for Dummies» or «Idiots Guide to Independence» so it’s going to have to be from scratch.
So let it be done.
The majority of Scottish people (around 65%) believe in Scottish sovereignty. This includes quite a lot of Labour supporters. Few Conservatives hold that view and the number is declining. (McCrone and Keating)
As Sam rightly notes, given that headline support for independence seems (for the present) stuck at around 50% within polling margin of error, and given the recent experience in the Westminster General Election of how parties focused on targeting resources on winning over voters in particular “target” seats, perhaps the focus for pro-independence parties should be convincing more of the pro-independence Labour voters to abandon Labour?
That would gain them enough to push the pro-independence vote towards the high 50’s or low 60’s percentile.
To do that, they have to appeal to “mainstream” Labour voters.
I doubt wedge issues like fluffing for Uncle Vlad, calling for the eradication of the state of Israel, opposing EU and NATO membership and insisting there’s a short non-parliamentary “Cunning Plan for Indy” route is going to do that.
As Sam rightly notes, given that headline support for independence seems (for the present) stuck at around 50% within polling margin of error, and given the recent experience in the Westminster General Election of how parties focused on targeting resources on winning over voters in particular “target” seats, perhaps the focus for pro-independence parties should be convincing more of the pro-independence Labour voters to abandon Labour?
That would gain them enough to push the pro-independence vote towards the high 50’s or low 60’s percentile.
To do that, they have to appeal to “mainstream” Labour voters.
I doubt wedge issues like fluffing for Uncle Vlad like so many of the moonhowlers in here, calling for the eradication of the Jewish state à la Craig Murray, opposing EU and NATO membership and insisting there’s a short non-parliamentary “Cunning Plan for Indy” route to independence, or endlessly repeating post-colonial dialectic and poorly researched and even more poorly argued commentary of the Treaties of Union, is going to do that.
“The source of your confusion is the conflation of the two entities ‘England’ and ‘the UK.’ It’s a common mistake shared by most without these shores.”
There’s no confusion.
England believes it owns the UK & it’s only them that’s smart enough to be in charge of every single decision, department, organisation, international relations etc..
Even the parliament is an entire joke. 533 seats vs 56, 11 & 7 guaranteeing everything will always pass in their interests & securing an always English parliament.
Not content to give Scots what they voted for, a devolved parliament, it wasn’t long before they started to reverse powers if they weren’t going to be in charge while their foreign agents thwarted & meddled in everything.
Holyrood shouldn’t have English yoons in a devolved parliament. They serve a foreign master, not the ppl of Scotland. They should be forced to register here or piss off & take their king with them if he’s not performed his oaths to Scots.
TURABDIN
There were smart people in the SNP who knew their stuff, their history & the direction of travel.
Unfortunately Sturgeon surrounded herself with grifters & woke. Vetting & removing anyone not paying her homage. It’s up for debate if that was pure narcissism on her part to maintain her & her husband’s position without threat or if it was deliberate sabotage to kill the SNP. Or both.
I agree time is of the essence. Over 50% of Scotland is politically homeless & sick to the back teeth of weak individuals suffering imposter syndrome & grovelling, cap in hand, for something that is already in their powers to do. Call a referendum & have external international observers. Head direct to decolonisation.
Nothing will ever be *the right time* because England always has a fecking drama, a war to fight, a crisis.
As for our judicial system – well that’d have a good clean out in the process too.
A plebiscite is a complete waste of time & another dead end leading to nowhere.
“England believes it owns the UK & it’s only them that’s smart enough to be in charge of every single decision, department, organisation, international relations etc..’
Simply not true. The UK (Westminster if you like) consists of representatives of all four nations of the UK and controls the UK. The problem is, they don’t represent their respective nation: they represent their egos.
“England believes it owns the UK” What does that even mean? England is a geographic entity. The UK is a political construct. Do you think the Leeds rioters give a toss about the UK, Scotland and England? But by your logic they are all Englanders.
Sam @9.20am.
Its remarkable that support for indy remains around the 50% mark when you consider the full forces of the Imperial Empire are against it.
The figure would be higher if we didn’t have the entire foreign MSM that attempts to pass itself off as Scottish putting down any notion of the idea.
I personally think that without the foreign MSM pushing against indy along with the House Jock politicians and the English politicians putting it down as divisive and economically unsustainable the figure would be much higher, for there is NO case for the union, its all for indy and they know it and fear it.
Scotland the only country in the world that discovered oil and gas and its people got poorer, Scotland the country that invented tv (patented it first) and Scots don’t even have there own tv channels.
“Simply not true. The UK (Westminster if you like) consists of representatives of all four nations of the UK and controls the UK. ”
533 seats can & will out vote 56. Every.single.time.
Even the argument ‘were bigger than you’ is controlled nonsense when they’re in charge of immigration too.
‘Do you think the Leeds rioters give a toss about the UK, Scotland and England? But by your logic they are all Englanders.’
Leeds is a region of England. Last I looked Leeds wasn’t a country.
“England believes it owns the UK” What does that even mean?”
I’ve already given quite an extensive list above. 12:36 am but here it is again..
They have the whole running of Westminster, The house of lords, a permanent government (Red & Blue) the entire Treasury, the bank of England, supreme court, the media, the military, the security services, a seat at the UN, NATO, a permanent seat on the UN security council & a permanent seat to bump their gums at the G7 to re-enact PlayStation games & until recently, a judge on the Int court of Justice, a seat at the European council & EU membership.
It only has all of that because of the UK name tag. Little England would have to reapply. Farage isn’t stupid.
I’ll also add the electoral commission & every other commission too. How many Scottish representatives do you see in that list?
The BBC offer two Scottish channels that I know of: BBC Scotland and Alba. The people of Nigeria are no better off for their oil discoveries either.
Don’t put yourself down.
DasBlimp
Your problem is you think Scotland is a region. It isn’t. It’s a sovereign nation in a voluntary union with another one.
London is a region of England. It has 73 MPs that can outvote an entire country.
That’s not democratic.
Geri “I can. What sovereign country do you know…”
Your patter is inspiring… we were sort of hoping for a plan of action though, rather than more patter.
“The people of Nigeria are no better off for their oil discoveries either.”
They soon will be. Haven’t they just told France & the USA to pack their bags & fck off?
I don’t think they’ve even held a referendum. Ellis will be right on the blower to the international community as we speak at the outrage of not asking the French & the Americans if it was okay with them first..,
Geri. I first need to establish what you mean by the generalisation made in your previous post “England believes it owns the UK”
What do you mean by England?
Do you mean the country? How can a landmass own a political construct?
Do you mean the people? Do the people of Leeds, Cornwall, Liverpool and me, or anyone else within England, think we own the political construct of the UK.
Do you really expect the will of 50 million to bend to the will of 5 million.
No. The UK does.
The UK is OUR problem.
No. I don’t
Yes, I know.
<blockquote.
London is a region of England. It has 73 MPs that can outvote an entire country.
That’s not democratic.
We don’t live in a democracy. The ‘first past the post’ electoral system is evidence of that.
Their military bases, yes. But how will that lead to Nigeria’s oil wealth being channelled to it’s people?
Hatuey
“we were sort of hoping for a plan of action though, rather than more patter.”
Didn’t you follow? We go back to the contract & it’s terms & conditions. Doesn’t matter if it was 300 years ago or 3. It’s still a live, Internationally recognised treaty by both parliaments. The UK had zero authority to change the terms & conditions of that contract therefore Scotland, as a sovereign nation & according to Davis, sovereign nations don’t require permission from anyone what it asks its own population or if it terminates a treaty as no longer fit for purpose.
Hope that’s cleared things up for you.. use yer finger to follow along next time lol…
dasBlimp @ 10:54 am
“The BBC offer two Scottish channels that I know of: BBC Scotland and Alba”
Aye, tho nane o thaim are ‘Scots langage’ chennels, are thay. Neither Englis nor Gaelic is the ‘Scots’ langage.
Scots shuirly hiv tae hiv a Scots langage chennel. Langage is a human richt efter aw.
dasblimp.
Broadcasting is reserved, those are only Scottish channels in name only, yes the Nigerians are not that better off either with regards to their oil, I assume they have just one corrupt government (their own government) selling off their assets to foreign oil companies, whereas we have two, the latter full of Fifth Columnists and House Jocks, who sold Scots out in the Great Scotwind Giveaway.
Most aspects of energy in Scotland are a matter reserved to a foreign country.
I’m also pretty sure that the Nigerians have control (where as we don’t) over these matters as well.
https://www.parliament.scot/about/how-parliament-works/devolved-and-reserved-powers
Oh and I wasn’t being hard on myself I was pointing out how successful the lies and deceit of the illegal union have been over time.
There is considerable overlap of opinion among Scots who believe in Scottish sovereignty and those who believe in the Union. Some sovereign Scots think the UK should have some role to play in Scotland while some Unionists think Scotland should have more powers than now.
According to McCrone and Keating, a majority of Labour supporters support Scottish sovereignty at present. That might change with a Labour gov. It is unlikely to change mebbe if Labour proposes little change in Scotland which seems the case for now.
A good clean out of some SNP in parliament might allow a different SNP, one perhaps favourable to SNP1 but not SNP2.
My hope is for the Sturgeon cabal to get its jotters and a different SNP or defections to Alba within parliament.
“We don’t live in a democracy. The ‘first past the post’ electoral system is evidence of that.”
Aye & Scots have to suffer until England wants to change it & they don’t want to change it anytime soon because it gives them complete control over everything & a perpetual English government. They rather like it like that.
& Because the BBC see fit to give us two channels at the back of beyond isn’t media content or powers over our own telecoms. It still has to vetted & until recently when Scots dumped the license fee, the license fee didn’t fund Scottish content, it funded Englands.
Sounds like the SNP hierarchy are not prepared to listen to its members even after the disastrous GE results.
“THE agenda for the SNP conference is “no longer fit for purpose” and must be scrapped, the party’s national secretary has been told.
The concerns come because the draft agenda for the SNP national conference – which is due to be held from August 30 to September 1 – was drawn up before the snap General Election, which saw the SNP drop to just nine Scottish seats.
SNP members have raised concerns with The National that the party could also see severe losses in the 2026 Holyrood election unless they take stock and change tack with “urgency”.
But there are fears that no such “vital” discussion will happen at conference as the draft agenda has been set, and party bureaucracy is said to be standing in the way of any additions.
The SNP Tweeddale branch has sent a letter to national secretary Lorna Finn outlining concerns about the conference agenda, which this paper understands reflect conversations taking place across other branches in the party as well.
There are further concerns about a survey sent to party members and endorsed by John Swinney asking for people to give feedback on the SNP’s General Election campaign.
Several SNP members who spoke to The National dismissed the survey as a “box-ticking exercise” and, more strongly, “a joke”.
They raised concerns that the questions were too closed to offer real insight, with one person suggesting it amounted to asking: “How is the Scottish Government’s performance? Good, really good, or excellent.””
https://archive.is/k3Blc
I agree with your post ROS. There are similarities in England: French and Arabic companies own our water. They gleefully pour our sewage into our rivers and charge us an extortionate amount so the CEO’s and the shareholders get their massive bonuses.
In response to Alf Baird: why don’t the speakers of solely Scots (all 5 of them) club together and broadcast their own channel.
I’m going to devote another day of my precious life to explaining to you all why the ‘claim of right’ and the song ‘Scotland the Brave’ contain all the information required (and serve as a sort of step-by-step guide) to achieving our independence…
If only you fuckers would just listen.
I know my stuff… I’m actually a total expert on matters of sovereignty, as other experts in here will agree. Can’t you tell by superior tone that I’m an expert?
Naysayers who don’t want to listen to all this for 8 millionth time are enemy agents, and they’ll be dealt with accordingly…
Say it until your lips bleed: “the Scottish people are sovereign”.
Say it until their ears bleed: “the Scottish people are sovereign”.
Simples.
This is what happens in my home town (Glasgow) when folk demonstrate against G–e-n-oc-ide and those who enable it.
https://archive.is/7BpoF
https://archive.is/GapET
I thought Scotland’s electoral system was PR. Why do you have to wait for ‘England’?
Don’t the people of Scotland pay the BBC tax. I never knew that. If that is true why should the BBC fund any broadcast for the Scots? The license fee also funds Welsh and N Irish TV. It’s not all about ‘England’, you know.
Dasblimp
“Their military bases, yes. But how will that lead to Nigeria’s oil wealth being channelled to it’s people?”
Naw. The end of colonisers. The Brits ruled Nigeria until 1960s. The French thought they’d have a go & have been told to get out of their country along with the yanks.
Sure that’s why Macron had a wee episode. He thought uncle V-lad had put them up to it. Colonisers eh & their self entitlement. It couldn’t possibly be because they’re fecking sick of their wealth leaving the country to fund someone else’s.
Good. Because I am still in the dark as to what the ‘claim of right’ is and what ‘the Scottish people are sovereign’ means.
“Didn’t you follow?”
Funnily enough, no.
Here’s how I generally operate in here…
I scan the first few words of a comment and if I get the slightest hint that I am dealing a “claim of right” crackpot, I simply move on.
When you do this repeatedly you find yourself skipping by the same names over and over again so that they become familiar and you don’t even need to read the first few words of their comments.
Let me spell it out for you: I’m not buying the junk you are selling.
(For the record, I read the ‘claim of right’ a few years ago. As I recall, it was more concerned with papists and catholics than relations with England.)
Nigeria, unlike Scotland, is no longer a colony, Geri. Might be better in future for the Scots to compare themselves to Nigeria as a yardstick of success instead of England because that is aiming far too low.
Republicofscotland
Truly shocking.
Hatuey: I read the ‘claim of right’ a few years ago. As I recall, it was more concerned with papists and catholics than relations with England.
Quite true. Which is why the moonhowlers who inject “claim of right” into everything never link to, or quote the text of, the C of R. For example, The C of R forbids Catholics from holding public office, forbids the publishing of Catholic books. If the C of R is valid law on sovereignty as some moonhowlers claim (it isn’t, BTW), then the moonhowlers have to admit that these anti-Catholic provisions are also law.
I’d add that the C of R was NOT passed, or even voted on, by the Scottish Parliament, but rather by the “Convention of Estates.”
I’ve just got my Hate crime monster badges and I’m chuffed.
RoS, could this police activity be described as a hate crime do you think? or have they immunity against such allegations?
I’d like to see a test case.
dasBlimp @ 12.01.
Whilst it’s true that our devolved administration is elected by the unpopular closed list version of the D’Hondt or Jefferson voting system, the government (ie Westminster) is indeed First Past the Post. And, since Westminster retains absolute authority in terms of its’ reserved powers (Scotland cannot even lawfully hold a referendum on independence without permission) I’d suggest that it’s disengenious to imply that PR reigns supreme as the electoral system, Blimpster.
We may indeed have Single Transferable Vote for our local administrations, D’Hondt or Jefferson for areas within the competence of our devolved bunch of chancers, however for real national powers this region of the UK remains firmly under Westminster control, I (sadly) fear.
“however for real national powers this region of the UK remains firmly under Westminster control, I (sadly) fear.”
naturally. because Westminster (not England, Geri) legislates for the UK. And the only way for that not to be the case is … Here’s a clue – the word starts with “I”.
Dorothy Devine @ 13.07.
And, ain’t they just great !
@ Hatuey
Re. Your current views on The Claim of Right and Sovereignty…
Can you recall who wrote the following?
“I see that interest in Salvo and the Claim of Right has been redefined as ultranationalist extremism, along with referring to yourself as Scottish and so much else.
It’s almost as if the Scottish people are in prison but aren’t allowed to refer to the constitutional chains that restrain them, the institutional walls that contain them, or the miscarriage of justice that put them there.
Sure, parole is possible but if you request it then you’re instantly ineligible. Who drafted this Section 30 process, Joseph Heller?
Why would Salvo annoy anyone that wasn’t a unionist? No harm can come from the Scottish people knowing they have the sovereign right to self determination, which they absolute do in international law (regardless of the Claim of Right).
We are all going to die in this stinking prison if something isn’t done and soon.”
Cough.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/shut-up-or-get-out/comment-page-2/#comment-2699731
@ Campbellend Clansman
Ach, awa tae fuck with your attempts to use the sectarianism aspect to diminish The Claim of Right. It’s been addressed before ya dolt.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2022/08/31/in-response-to-roddy-dunlop-qc/
There’s a few of them getting a Saturday shift in, I see.
Time and a quarter, boys?
Dorothy Devine @ 1.07pm: “I’ve just got my Hate crime monster badges and I’m chuffed.”
I’m soooo jealous. When I donated I didn’t bother asking for a badge, and now I really regret it 🙁
Why do we name things?
Because that way we lay claim to what we name. We assume an ownership that can often be misleading.
The labels ‘Scotland’ and ‘Scot’ are part of my heritage and identity; I would keep them despite the ambitions of another country to erase them.
A country that would prefer the Scots use the labels ‘United Kingdom’ or ‘Great Britain’ or ‘British’ to define themselves; all euphemisms for England and English.
I don’t accept Scotland’s would be new owner’s preferred labels for my country and my people. A country and a people it has no business meddling with and is attempting to assimilate.
I don’t accept being defined by another people whose only interest is the plunder of my country’s resources.
Another people who don’t have the slightest regard for the Scots or their history or their culture.
Another people who place themselves, by some ill-conceived and indefinable measure, higher and more worthy than the people of Scotland.
The labels ‘Scotland’ and ‘Scottish’ and ‘Scot’ belong, through the development of a unique language and culture over many centuries across many generations and by making a land their own, to a people who call themselves the Scots…and to no other.
Why is one nation located in the British Isles so keen to group those other distinct nations geographically located in the same Isles under a single ‘United’ label, a single label that defines a single nation in the eyes of the world; a nation called England?
It can be for no other reason than to claim the wealth and natural resources (and whatever else it can get its hands on) of those other nations as its own. A claim it has no right to make.
My people, the Scots, laid claim to the labels, the names, that help define them over a thousand years ago…and long before the label ‘England’ was even thought of.
@ dasBlimp at 11.54am and 12.01pm: “why don’t the speakers of solely Scots (all 5 of them) club together and broadcast their own channel.”
Have you ever actually been to Scotland? Most people in Lowland Scotland and the Borders speak Scots, despite it being totally ignored and/or regarded as mere ignorant slang in Scottish schools. Multiply your figure by one 1,000,000 and you’ll be closer to the mark.
“I thought Scotland’s electoral system was PR. Why do you have to wait for ‘England’?”
The voting system for Westminster elections is First Past the Post. That for Holyrood is the D’Hondt proportional system. Whether intentionally or by default, both serve to ensure that Scotland effectively has no control over its own affairs. The Westminster system ensures that Scotland always gets the government that England elects, and that Scottish MPs of whichever party are powerless in that parliament. The Holyrood system is specifically designed to make it almost impossible for any party putting Scottish interests before UK ones to gain a majority. The fact that the SNP did so is regarded as a fluke.
So sorry Michael Laing it wa jest a wee joke a jape nae less and a sleekit one fer aw that. Hark at me – I’ve gone all Scots.
As for PR, FPTP is designed to keep out parties like Reform – and it works. There are so many similarities to our struggle.
It’s all in your head mate.
Hey James! You’re out your fartsack early. Did you shit it?
5,000,000! Something wrong there, Shirley.
@Northcode (1.29) –
Hear hear.
😉
I seem to recall it was two different questions.
1. Vote SNP to govern.
2. Keep Alex Salmond as First Minister
That’s why it won a majority & broke the system.
Sturgeon took over & it was SNP 1&2 ..just because.
Das Blimp
Baby face filled with gas. Openly, in plain sight gaslighting. Why does anyone here even bother reading/casting their eyes on what is nothing but empty air.
This person is probably paid by the line, so the more ignorant rubbish that is peddled, the larger the payment.
Not interested in verifiable facts; in fact, any response to the patent rubbish that is posted, only gives another opportunity to gush out more of the same.
“As I recall, it was more concerned with papists and catholics than relations with England.)”
No. It was the laws of the land.
Why would a supposed independence supporter not be interested in the terms & conditions of the treaty that is internationally recognised but not amongst yoons, apparently.
Crackpot.
Text of the 1989 Claim of Right
We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.
We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends:
To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland;
To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and
To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure implementation of that scheme.
Kenyon Wright: this vote is not just an event…it’s part of a
dynamic process
Sunday Herald
14 September
When the Constitutional Convention that planned the Scottish Parliament met for the first time in 1989, it started significantly, not with a political goal, but with a solemn declaration called “A Claim of Right for Scotland”, that recognised the sovereignty of the people. I
have often wondered how many of those who signed that Claim really understood they were rejecting the absolute sovereignty of the “Crown in Parliament”. Either Parliament in Westminster has the final say, or the
people of Scotland do. It cannot be both.
Daily Excess reports:
“Mridul Wadhwa has reportedly been suspended by the centre until a probe takes place into her treatment of staff after it lost an employment tribunal for forcing out a gender critical counsellor.”
New Board?
Did the events referred to predate government by deleted WhatsApp messages and burner phones?
I wonder how many labels generously given to the places and things of former British Empire colonies, by the former British Empire, have been restored to the original labels given them by their indigenous peoples after they managed to get rid of their interloper.
There must be thousands considering the extensive ambition of the British Empire to lay claim to everything it could get its paws on.
There are probably quite a few labels given to Scotland’s places and things by England we can rename after independence – perhaps we should set up a commission to look into it in preparation for that happy day.
I expect there will be quite a few statues and monuments needing to be ‘re-purposed’, too.
Scotland’s ‘Department of Cultural Restoration’ (once we create it) will no doubt play a major role in such matters.
It’s the 1689 Claim of right. Not the shortened on for Holyrood.
Scotland had a constitution.
That constitution was part of the Act of Union. Non negotiable.
Nothcode;
Amen to that, brother, all street names in Scotland referencing the rancid ‘union’ must be changed post-independence. Craig Murray has discussed this previously.
George Square, Hanover Street, Union Street – ugh! – and all the rest.
How Embarrassing! Cringe-worthy.
And for good measure we can dump all their statues of queen Vikki and the others over the border on the A1/M74….
@Northcode (3.04) –
Hear hear again…
Top of the list should be Fort William and Fort Augustus.
Frank Waring: your sarcasm and superiority are misplaced. What I said applies to all countries and to all politics. Yes, things can be covered up, but not entirely. Someone always cracks or whistleblows. The truth always seeps out, if not the whole truth, then a good part of it. As we all know from Nuremberg, many escape justice, most, in fact, for their vile deeds. I appreciate that Mr Salmond wants to exonerate himself completely, and I hope he does. Nobody here, or in the wider Scotland is under any illusions about what Scottish politics have become, or, perhaps, always were, but thank you for your concern about our native naivety.
@dasBlimp;
“The UK (Westminster if you like) consists of representatives of all four nations of the UK and controls the UK.”
That’s only one interpretation, but it’s a misleading one because it does not correctly reflect the formal constitutional truth of the Union; that the Union consists explicitly of two sovereign Kingdoms, and its parliament at Westminster thus contains two distinct bodies of MPs, which separately represent them.
Under that Treaty, the two kingdoms are represented in the Union’s parliament by two bodies of MPs, one body representing the sovereign Scottish half of the Union, the other body representing the sovereign English kingdom’s half of the Union, and that half includes MPs from England itself, Wales, and nowadays, MPs from Northern Ireland.
Neither of the two kingdoms agreed to give up their sovereignty, and Scotland’s sovereignty is in no way subsidiary to England’s sovereignty.
So while Westminster as a whole governs the UK, its governance is constrained by the twin authorities wielded by those two MP bodies. It cannot claim a power over Scotland that was never granted to it by Scotland. England’s authority doesn’t cover Scotland at all, and it doesn’t cover the UK either.
In particular, the English kingdom’s MPs (including MPs of Wales and NI) do NOT possess any formal authority over Scotland’s MPs, as they represent not just a different group of constituencies, but an entire sovereign Kingdom, country, nation, territory, and people, AND that kingdom’s full sovereign authority on its behalf in the Union’s parliament.
As such Scotland’s MPs are not in the least obliged to defer to a foreign kingdom or country. Any foreign kingdom or country! Thus England’s domination over Scotland and her MPs is utterly unwarranted, ultra vires, and thus unlawful.
@Campbell Clansman;
“Hatuey: I read the ‘claim of right’ a few years ago. As I recall, it was more concerned with papists and catholics than relations with England.”
That’s because it was never about Scotland’s relations with England in the first place; it was about how James VII had breached Scotland’s constitution in a number of regards, and for those breaches it then formally kicked him off Scotland’s throne. It was a demonstration of that constitution’s authority over those that hold offices of state in Scotland, and that governments, parliaments and monarchs do not get to exercise authority over the Scots without their consent.
Its significance with regard to the Union was that it cited many key aspects of Scotland’s constitution including that constitution’s declaration that Scotland’s sovereignty as a nation is held by its people. The ‘Tenor’ attached to Scotland’s Act of Union with England was put there specifically to cite the Claim of Right and oblige the Union and its parliament to guarantee the permanence of Scotland’s constitution as cited by it as a condition of ratification of the Treaty. Since both parliaments did ratify the Treaty along with the Tenor, that obligation became binding.
“I’d add that the C of R was NOT passed, or even voted on, by the Scottish Parliament, but rather by the “Convention of Estates.””
I see you carefully overlooked that in 1703 the Scottish Parliament formally declared that the Convention was a parliament.
From Salvo’s website;
15. 1703 High Treason and Ratification of Convention of the Estates:
Act ratifying the turning the meeting of the estates in the year 1689 into a parliament – Popular Sovereignty, Scottish
Constitution:
William’s attempts to have the Claim of Right amended were directed through the ‘Court faction’
which began arguing from 1699 onwards that: a. The Convention of the Estates wasn’t a
parliament so the Act didn’t really count as binding and b. the Convention of the Estates was a
parliament and so parliament could just rewrite it. A year and a half after William’s death, the
parliament of Scotland ‘put a period on the end of that sentence’ by passing an act which
recognised the standing of the Convention of the Estates as a parliament in its own right and made
it high treason to impugn its authority or to so much as suggest attempting to alter the Claim of
Right. Here is the Claim of Right understood and upheld for its secular constitutional provisions
quite as much as for its religious provisions.
“Our sovereign lady, with advice and consent of the estates of parliament, ratifies, approves
and perpetually confirms the first act of King William and Queen Mary’s parliament, dated 5
June 1689, entitled act declaring the meeting of the estates to be a parliament, and of new
enacts and declares that the three estates then met together the said 5 June 1689,
consisting of noblemen, barons and burghs, were a lawful and free parliament, and it is
declared that it shall be high treason for any person to disown, quarrel or impugn the dignity
and authority of the said parliament. And further, the queen’s majesty, with consent
foresaid, statutes and declares that it shall be high treason in any of the subjects of this
kingdom to quarrel, impugn or endeavour by writing, malicious and advised speaking, or
other open act or deed, to alter or innovate the Claim of Right or any article thereof.”
Mia: the reason no Scottish MP has revealed what DD revealed is because they are almost all gutless and/or bone-headed. They have no honour. Most of them are so jealous of Salmond’s abiities that they would rather see him in hell than back him because they, no more than NS, want him back at the forefront of Scottish politics. Mr Salmond is a difficult character. Most people of great ability are, wherever they are. They are not infallible, just difficult. Being everyone’s friend, in politics, as in every other walk of life, inevitably leads to a mess. That was Sturgeon’s downfall. Sooner or later, you have to choose, and you must choose wisely even if that makes you unpopular.
Pereat mundus,fiat justitia.
Ya bass!
@dasBlimp;
“The UK (Westminster if you like) consists of representatives of all four nations of the UK and controls the UK.”
That’s only one interpretation, but it’s a misleading one because it does not correctly reflect the formal constitutional truth of the Union; that the Union consists explicitly of two sovereign Kingdoms, and its parliament at Westminster thus contains two distinct bodies of MPs, which separately represent them.
Under that Treaty, the two kingdoms are represented in the Union’s parliament by two bodies of MPs, one body representing the sovereign Scottish half of the Union, the other body representing the sovereign English kingdom’s half of the Union, and that half includes MPs from England itself, Wales, and nowadays, MPs from Northern Ireland.
Neither of the two kingdoms agreed to give up their sovereignty, and Scotland’s sovereignty is in no way subsidiary to England’s sovereignty.
So while Westminster as a whole governs the UK, its governance is constrained by the twin authorities wielded by those two MP bodies. It cannot claim a power over Scotland that was never granted to it by Scotland. England’s authority doesn’t cover Scotland at all, and it doesn’t cover the UK either.
In particular, the English kingdom’s MPs (including MPs of Wales and NI) do NOT possess any formal authority over Scotland’s MPs, as they represent not just a different group of constituencies, but an entire sovereign Kingdom, country, nation, territory, and people, AND that kingdom’s full sovereign authority on its behalf in the Union’s parliament.
As such Scotland’s MPs are not in the least obliged to defer to a foreign kingdom or country. Any foreign kingdom or country! Thus England’s domination over Scotland and her MPs is utterly unwarranted, ultra vires, and thus unlawful.
@Campbell Clansman;
“Hatuey: I read the ‘claim of right’ a few years ago. As I recall, it was more concerned with papists and catholics than relations with England.”
That’s because it was never about Scotland’s relations with England in the first place; it was about how James VII had breached Scotland’s constitution in a number of regards, and for those breaches it then formally kicked him off Scotland’s throne. It was a demonstration of that constitution’s authority over those that hold offices of state in Scotland, and that governments, parliaments and monarchs do not get to exercise authority over the Scots without their consent.
Its significance with regard to the Union was that it cited many key aspects of Scotland’s constitution including that constitution’s declaration that Scotland’s sovereignty as a nation is held by its people. The ‘Tenor’ attached to Scotland’s Act of Union with England was put there specifically to cite the Claim of Right and oblige the Union and its parliament to guarantee the permanence of Scotland’s constitution as cited by it as a condition of ratification of the Treaty. Since both parliaments did ratify the Treaty along with the Tenor, that obligation became binding.
“I’d add that the C of R was NOT passed, or even voted on, by the Scottish Parliament, but rather by the “Convention of Estates.””
I see you carefully overlooked that in 1703 the Scottish Parliament formally declared that the Convention was a parliament.
From Salvo’s website;
15. 1703 High ‘Treesn’ and Ratification of Convention of the Estates:
Act ratifying the turning the meeting of the estates in the year 1689 into a parliament – Popular Sovereignty, Scottish
Constitution:
William’s attempts to have the Claim of Right amended were directed through the ‘Court faction’
which began arguing from 1699 onwards that: a. The Convention of the Estates wasn’t a
parliament so the Act didn’t really count as binding and b. the Convention of the Estates was a
parliament and so parliament could just rewrite it. A year and a half after William’s death, the
parliament of Scotland ‘put a period on the end of that sentence’ by passing an act which
recognised the standing of the Convention of the Estates as a parliament in its own right and made
it high ‘treesn’ to impugn its authority or to so much as suggest attempting to alter the Claim of
Right. Here is the Claim of Right understood and upheld for its secular constitutional provisions
quite as much as for its religious provisions.
“Our sovereign lady, with advice and consent of the estates of parliament, ratifies, approves
and perpetually confirms the first act of King William and Queen Mary’s parliament, dated 5
June 1689, entitled act declaring the meeting of the estates to be a parliament, and of new
enacts and declares that the three estates then met together the said 5 June 1689,
consisting of noblemen, barons and burghs, were a lawful and free parliament, and it is
declared that it shall be high ‘treesn’ for any person to disown, quarrel or impugn the dignity
and authority of the said parliament. And further, the queen’s majesty, with consent
foresaid, statutes and declares that it shall be high ‘treesn’ in any of the subjects of this
kingdom to quarrel, impugn or endeavour by writing, malicious and advised speaking, or
other open act or deed, to alter or innovate the Claim of Right or any article thereof.”
Sorry, Rev Stu, I thought the first version didn’t go through because contained what I had understood to be a banned word, so I reposted a variant which deliberately mispelled it.
By all means delete one of them.
“As such Scotland’s MPs are not in the least obliged to defer to a foreign kingdom or country. Any foreign kingdom or country! Thus England’s domination over Scotland and her MPs is utterly unwarranted, ultra vires, and thus unlawful.”
” England’s authority doesn’t cover Scotland at all, and it doesn’t cover the UK either.”
Thanks for the reply, Xaracen, and I can agree to most of what you write. But, I still do not understand the above two extracts. How does England dominate Scotland? What do you mean by “Englands authority”
On the Claim of Right (First link) and the second is on the fraudulent union.
“The Claim of Right
For centuries, our political and legal character before the Treaty of Union in 1707 has been sneered at. Apparently, we were a nation dominated by English-style nobles where the rights of the ‘small folk’, the ordinary man and woman, were virtually non-existent.
But it’s not true.
Scotland’s history of popular democracy, of human rights, of a code of justice and of a principle of equality puts anything in Magna Carta or the English Bill of Rights into the shade. So far into the shade that it makes English democracy boasts look foolish and hollow compared with the record of its northern neighbour.
Scotland was a nation that held power to account, that saw to the needs of the poor and the rights of everybody. It tells of the right to rebellion against tyranny and of the care of a people for the education of the poorest as well as the richest. Of the right not only to justice for all but of the kind of justice that applied to king or a candlemaker alike.
It’s about time we all knew true history of our constitution. And be proud of it. And once you know about it, to join Salvo to get it back.
Scotland’s Missing Constitution
The UK constitution is just England’s constitution. The forced union of 1707 made sure of that. But the commissioners who negotiated on Scotland’s side were no mugs, and it’s thanks to them that our centuries-old Constitution was protected from an enemy fixed on dominating Scotland.
The principles of our constitutional law were protected as a condition of the Treaty of Union and the Union itself. They are contained in the Claim of Right Act, 1689, which was named in the Preservation of the Presbyterian Faith Act of 1706 to be ratified and guaranteed to remain in force in Scotland after the United Kingdom was created.
Why does a 300-year-old Act and a condition of the Union matter today?
It matters because the Claim of Right sets out a Scottish constitution
It matters because it tells us why we hold certain values so dear
It matters because it provides an ‘opt-out- from the Union if the government (any government), ruling in Scotland violates the principles in the Claim of Right
It matters because it empowers our Convention of the Estates to reinstate civil rights and freedoms, to act as an ‘ombudsman’ over any elected government; to ensure that the principles of the Scottish Constitution are upheld; and to protect the people from injustice, hunger, inequality, austerity and desperation being visited on them by the powerful, the wealthy, the privileged and the greedy.
It matters, above all, to the kind of world and the kind of nation we have the right and the power to choose and to create for ourselves.
An Ancient and Modern Blueprint
Sovereignty Remains with the People – this is the doctrine of popular sovereignty. It is also the purpose of government to serve the ‘common good’ by upholding the rights and interests of the people. This is the principle of the Primacy of the Common Good. So there is a compact between the lenders, (the people), and the borrowers, (the government).
This is the heart of the Scottish constitution and is as relevant today as it was when the Union ended government from Scotland, for Scotland and by Scotland.
Restored, it holds out the possibility of a political and legal system where the rights and interests of the people and the land replace the greed and self-interest of the privileged few. A Scotland where everyone benefits from the resources of the nation, where no child is hungry, and a food bank anywhere would be seen as a national disgrace.
The compact was embodied in two separate assemblies. One which represented the people called the Convention of the Estates, (Assembly of the Communities), represented the lenders, the nation or people, and the other, the Parliament, or Three Estates, represented the ‘borrowers’ of power, those who made the laws and conducted the business of government on behalf of the nation.
This Convention has no parallel in the English system, where popular sovereignty is an alien concept. But through a Scottish prism, this Assembly represented the ‘lenders’ of power (the people), and their rights and interests. It could ensure that the compact was observed; that the government did not overstep its limits and that there was a means of veto, sanction and redress for the people if it should do so.
Imagine what that convention could do today?
Imagine justice, transparency and accountability and country run with the direct input of the people, for the good of all.
From 1592 to 1707, the Scottish Parliament acknowledged the sovereignty of the people by offering ‘salvo’ at the end of every session: any person who wished to do so was invited to challenge any legislation that prejudiced their civil rights or freedoms. It was made law by the Act salve jure cujuslibet in 1663.
Imagine a parliament today that acknowledged the authority of the people and deferred to the rights and liberties they are guaranteed.
Imagine power that was limited and directly accountable to the people
What Makes It All Possible?
The Claim of Right Act, passed in 1689 to depose James VII and II, affirms the existence of an enforceable, Scottish constitutional arrangement where the sovereignty of the people limits the power of government. And this constitution is still the Scottish constitution and still in force, in principle if not in fact, today.
When the parliaments of England and Scotland ratified the Treaty of Union in 1706 and 1707, a new state came into existence, the United Kingdom of Great Britain. In the difficult negotiations for this single, unified state there was one, especially thorny, obstacle: the two nations had opposing and irreconcilable constitutions. In England, (from the Bill of Rights in 1689), parliament and the crown were ‘sovereign’ over the people. Parliament was in charge (and still is). But in Scotland the pretension of a government or a parliament to be sovereign over the people was not just an alien idea, it was unlawful. It got James VII deposed!
The incompatibility of the constitutions was never resolved. Instead, the two nations agreed to keep their two constitutions, with a guarantee that in post-Union Scotland the Claim of Right would continue.
The guarantee was that an insertion was made into the Treaty and ratified, along with the articles of the Treaty by the parliaments of Scotland and England.
But somehow, the condition of the Union and the Scottish constitution disappeared over time.
The Union, however, remains based on a contract between two sovereign nations. The terms of that contract and what they mean can be and have been disputed. And the pre-condition of that Union, the get out clause that says the Union is over if this is ignored, is not up to Westminster – or anyone else – to remove. It will be up to us, however, to enforce it.”
https://salvo.scot/claim-of-right/
“The important word here is ‘sovereignty’. The transfer of the sovereignty of the nation of Scotland to the newly created United Kingdom did not happen because a Queen decided she would like it, had it put into a treaty and got it ratified by two Parliaments. Only an absolute ruler could have done so and Anne was not an absolute ruler in either England or Scotland. Nor, in Scotland, was the Parliament. There had to be a precise and lawful mechanism for transferring national sovereignty to the new ‘kingdom’, so allowing the primary purpose of the Treaty of Union to be realised:”
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/06/02/fictional-kingdom-fraudulent-state-2/
A Scottish Clarity Act, SCA?
One that gives definition to when and how we get independence?
“The adoption of an SCA would represent a stabilising and democratic response to agitation for secession by a significant portion of the population within Scotland. It would, at once, provide greater stability to the UK’s constitutional arrangements, while also providing the Scottish people with a legitimate avenue to determine their democratic future. This does not represent an explicit constitutional change, given the widespread political acceptance that the Scottish people have the right to determine their democratic future, but merely a clarification of the existing constitutional settlement within the UK.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.13417
It sounds wonderful ROS. Please invade England, usurp our monarchy, bring our elites to heel and impose your Scottish constitution upon us.
I’m up for it.
Anyone unclear about the origins of Scottish speech could do worse than study the following ‘Dictionaries of the Scots Language’ (DSL) webpage:
https://dsl.ac.uk/about-scots/an-outline-history-of-scots/origins/
And just for supplementary fun, try researching the question:
“Why was Johannes Scottus Eriugena given those last two parts of his name?”
Aye, Ian, Fort William and Fort Augustus were a couple of places that popped into my head straight away.
And James – George Square, Hanover Street, Union Street; embarrassing right enough.
There’s no doubt Scotland’s Department of Cultural Restoration will have its work cut out for it.
I’ll tell you what is embarrassing and cringey. It’s being a colonised, subjugated people that has been subsumed by it’s colonial masters and having a national anthem that glorifies the condition of being a “subject.”
The CI–A/FB—I linked cyber security firm CrowdStrike that helped create the fake R000shh-ia-G-ate DNC hack scandal cause the enormous cyber crash that began on Thursday into Friday around the globe it was one of the largest crashes ever.
https://consortiumnews.com/2024/07/20/crowdstrike-further-tainted-by-worldwide-crash/
https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/CrowdStrike
Fafafa away in Caledon where Unicorns have sex in public and the word union has a different meaning than anywhere else. The thistles softly sway to the soft sound of Anika my south Vietnamese boy/girl.
Al Jazeera reporting air strikes on the oil terminal in Yemen’s port city of Hodeidah.
It was the fuck aroundest of times. It was the find outest of times.
An amazing post! Inasmuch that I am amazed you think someone would pay for the drivel I write.
That Rape Crisis centre – Man in Edinburgh who runs it has been suspended.
XY chromosome. Tiny tiny penis and little balls. Who gets an errection when putting women’s nickers on. But he doesn’t have a gender certificate. So technically and legally still a man.
He’s been suspended for the treatment of his staff.
Ahaha. That guy Luke Warm Dave has made a Leaky Liz Lloyd music video!
JAIL HER. JAIL LEAKY LIZ! AND THE ALPHABETTIES SHE ENLISTED!
I suspect Leaky Liz Lloyd will through Sturgeon under the bus.
Who would ever trust leaky Liz again? In her future employment?
Knowing she breaks GDPR? And she breaks THE LAW. With her conspiracy attempts to destroy a man.
A man hater and evil cow. Send her to jail.
Why would any man want to date Leaky Liz Lloyd.
Now that we all know what leaky liz lloyd is capable off.
She sleeps with the gutter press. Filthy! A bunny boiler of the highest order.
She’s unfaithful to her employer. She can’t be trusted. If I was her husband. I’d be running for the hills. He could be in a toxic abusive relationship and he doesn’t even know it.
Shame on Leaky Liz. The criminal. Lock her away!
RepublicofScotland @ 4.08pm.
Exactly! And it needs to be made clear to all Scots far and wide!
What prevents that happening is the control over the press & media.
If we can solve that, we’re independent!
[DELETED BY REVSTU]
Matters on here seem to have reached their usual equilibrium, save that a ‘new’ (1989) ‘claim of right’ has emerged. Since the original from 300-ish years ago has-according to leading authorities on here-never been expunged, which is to take precedence ? And on what authority ?
Meanwhile I gather from an article this evening that a Mr Wadwa of the RCC has been suspended. Perhaps another front- runner will emerge in the Deviancy Derby that the SNP has become.
Thanks to all true Scots who posted the history, meanings and excerpts from the COR it is reassuring that no matter the arsewipe usual suspects non stop insistence that the ANCIENT GUFF isny worth a fuck or disnae matter, it DIS matter but unfortunately the politicians we have are too COWARDLY or too CAPTURED to UTILISE IT
People can deride or denigrate SALVO,SSRG,or Liberation.Scot but all they are doing is showing THEIR ignorance and betrayal of THEIR HISTORY
WM, the establishment ,the English political parties, revere and hold in great esteem the magna carta,it might be a load of pish to ordinary English people, BUT it is a document of ANCIENT GUFF that is heralded and adhered too
HR, our politicians and political parties seldom even mention the COR and TBQH few of them even know what it is or means because it is shunned and derided by people who are ASHAMED of being Scottish and prefer to be british
Ever notice how Moonhowlers like “Xaracen” copy-and-paste endless, repetitive, unsourced stuff from their fellow Moonhowlers at Salvo?
And when challenged, they link to the same Salvo silliness, and start telling people to “feck off?”
A few years down the line young Scots will wonder at how the fcuck it took us so long to regain our independence.
If they can read without retching, captured shit stirrers like “Tommo” and “Tory Clansman” will give them an inkling, as they are multiplied x100 in the English run ‘media’.
I don’t want to be a politician I want to be a porn Star.
“the reason no Scottish MP has revealed what DD revealed is because they are almost all gutless and/or bone-headed. They have no honour”
I agree that most of them have demonstrated to be gutless, hopeless, with no principles and having no honour or pride. However, I am not convinced there is no more to it than a question of character of the MPs themselves.
If you take a look at both, article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 and the equivalent in the Claim of Right 1689, you will notice a very significant difference:
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights states:
“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament”
However, the Claim of Right states:
“That for redress of all greivances and for the amending strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of speech and debate secured to the members”
As you can see, the English Bill of rights specifically confers, by statute, legal immunity to England MPs from impeachment in an English or Welsh court for what they say in parliament or parliament proceedings.
The Claim of Right warrants freedom of speech and assembly, but it does not state categorically, like the Bill of Rights does, that it confers legal immunity against impeachment. It is left to the interpretation of the COPFs. And we all have seen the catalogue of malicious prosecutions under the COPFS belt, we have seen what the COPFS has done to Mark Hirst, Craig Murray and Alex Salmond, and we have also seen how it abused its power to silence witnesses during Fabiani’s farce.
The COPFS have demonstrated to be a rogue institution that is clearly operating for the interests of something else other than the Scottish people and it is engaged in the pursuit of what looks like political persecution rather than justice.
Even if you were to consider that Scottish MPs, as members of the UK parliament, should enjoy the same rights as their English counterparts, it is likely that this legal immunity against impeachment can only be guaranteed in England/Wales’ courts, not necessarily Scottish ones, particularly if the crown agent or Lord Advocate of the day is a particularly vicious one.
The following two quotes were taken from the Memorandum written by Mr Geoffrey Lock and submitted as evidence to the the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament appointed in 1997-98 to review parliamentary privilege:
“7. Difficulties over Article 9 of the Bill of Rights stem partly from its origin. The Bill does not cover the whole of the United Kingdom, but only England and Wales. The corresponding Article of the Scottish Claim of Right is narrower in scope, and Article 9 does not apply to Northern Ireland”
“Territorial coverage: In general, the Bill covers only England and Wales. The greater part of the Bill has never applied to any part of Ireland—and this non-application continues with Northern Ireland today… The exceptions were the references to the Irish Crown and to electoral laws (ie including Articles 8 and 13) applied to Northern Ireland under a Section, now repealed, of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
As for Scotland, Article 25 of the Claim of Right corresponds to both Article 13 and Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It reads (the spelling is modernised):
“That for the redress of all grievances and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of speech secured to the members.”
“My comments refer to the last eight words. The scope of the Scottish Article is narrower than that of the English one: it covers only members, not, say committee witnesses; it does not mention “Proceedings in parliament” or forbid their being “impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”. Thus, for example, if the Pickin case had taken place in Scotland rather than England and if the court had been guided by Article 25, it might have been willing to review the validity of parliamentary proceedings on a private bill. (The main authority relied upon by Mr Pickin’s lawyers was an old Scottish case.) The effect of the Scottish formulation is broadly similar in scope to the interpretation of Article 9 by Hunt J in R v Murphy in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. A leading Scottish text book, which is however 30 years old, notes that on freedom of speech “the Bill of Rights is much more specific than the Claim of Right”. Although parliamentary privilege was different in origin and development in Scotland and England “as a general rule the law must be taken as uniform, though in particular cases where procedure rules of general law are important there may still be differences. There is, however, little modern authority in Scotland and the weight of English authority as forming a pattern of thought must be regarded as substantial”. There can, however, be no guarantee that a Scottish Court would follow English precedents, as the statute law is plainly different”
-end of quote-
Mr Geofrey Lock’s memorandum can be accessed here
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/43ap16.htm
The following quote is from the memorandum submitted as evidence by the Law Society of Scotland to the same Joint Committee:
“The main privilege is that, subject to the rules of order in debate, a Member can say anything in debate however derogatory or scathing on someone’s character, without fearing an action for libel in England and Wales or for Defamation or Convicium in Scotland…The scope includes freedom of speech in debate, freedom from arrest other than under criminal law”
It seems that in Scotland it protects against being charged by defamation, but not against a criminal case. What could constitute a criminal offence would be key on this.
The Law Society of Scotland’s memorandum also states:
“6. What are the issues arising out of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights (1688) and freedom of speech?
The Article states that freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. It protects a member as regards criminal law in respect of anything said as part of proceedings in Parliament. It is doubtful whether it covers criminal acts committed in Parliament.
As legislation, it cannot be waived or not insisted upon and it can only be removed by an amendment to the statute. By implication, the article has been amended by various statutes which have imposed penalties eg for irregular voting in the House, false evidence given on oath before Committees of either House.
However, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights does not apply in Scotland whereas the Claim of Right (1689) does. This document by a Convention held in Edinburgh on 14 March 1689 and adopted 11 April 1689 asserted certain rights and offered the Scottish Crown to William and Mary. The Claim of Right is remarkably concise on the point—”That, for redress of all grievances, and for the amending and preserving of the Laws, Parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of speech and debate secured to the members.”
The Law Society of Scotland’s memorandum can be accessed at
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/43ap14.htm
The following quote is taken from the actual report published in 1999 by the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament appointed to review parliamentary privilege:
“133. The Scottish `Claim of Right’ of 1689 contained a provision narrower in scope than article 9. It provided that `for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of speech and debate secured to the members’.[185] The Bill of Rights was not enacted in any part of Ireland, although the Irish Parliament prior to the Union assumed similar privileges to the Parliament of Great Britain, and the Northern Ireland Parliament enjoyed the same privileges as Westminster by virtue of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
134. Doubts have been raised on whether a law passed for England and Wales in 1689 would apply in other parts of the United Kingdom.[186] Despite the absence of case law, both the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Robert Carswell, were convinced that the law would be interpreted in Scotland and Northern Ireland so as to reflect closely the interpretations placed upon parliamentary privilege by the English courts, even though the interpretation in every case might not be precisely the same.[187] Although an element of doubt must remain, the Joint Committee has proceeded throughout this report on the basis that the privileges of the United Kingdom Parliament will be interpreted and applied in a similar fashion throughout the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, if there were to be legislation on privilege, we recommend that the extent of freedom of speech of the United Kingdom Parliament in the laws of Scotland and Northern Ireland should be expressly harmonised with the law of England and Wales. The opportunity should also be taken to declare that the other existing rights and immunities accorded under the law of England and Wales to the two Houses, their members and officers are likewise applicable throughout the United Kingdom”
The report can be accessed at
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4302.htm#evidence
So how that parliamentary privilege will be interpreted in Scotland, in the context of legal liability, is not as clear cut as it appears to be in England.
Campbell Clansman said;
“Ever notice how Moonhowlers like “Xaracen” copy-and-paste endless, repetitive, unsourced stuff from their fellow Moonhowlers at Salvo?
And when challenged, they link to the same Salvo silliness, and start telling people to “feck off?””
Unsourced, CC? The last paragraph I posted was a direct quote from the ‘1703 High Treason and Ratification of Convention of the Estates Act’ of the Scottish Parliament confirming that the 1689 Convention of the Estates was a ‘lawful and free parliament’, and fully entitled to pass Scotland’s Claim of Right.
Oh, and Feck Off!
James
Ignored says:
20 July, 2024 at 6:45 pm
If they can read without retching, captured shit stirrers like “Tommo”
Well- it’s kind of you, James, to trouble to respond but that said I haven’t been arsed to post on here for -months ?-and I have always said I am for the Union. My mother was a McNeill of Gigha and I have just as much right to post on here as you-unless of course you cannot brook other views, in which case you doom your cause.
Dan @ 1.19pm
If that’s supposed to be a “gotcha” it is missing an important ingredient; a point.
As I said;
“No harm can come from the Scottish people knowing they have the sovereign right to self determination, which they absolute do in international law (regardless of the Claim of Right).”
My problem with the claim of right crackpots is A) we have been listening to this junk two thousand times per day for several years, and B) precisely fuck all has come from it or ever likely to come from it.
Any right of self determination contained within the claim of right has been superseded by laws elevated & enshrined by the League of Nations and the UN — you won’t find any reference to papist plots or anything like that in the UN charter but since we all moved on from that sort of thing (eh?), why don’t we stick to established and accepted principles, rather than patter that will offend about 30% of the population?
The argument, of course, is that the references to papists in the claim of right reflects the concerns of the period and we shouldn’t hold them against anyone or take them too seriously. Okay, I accept that, but to accept it is to admit that the document is inappropriate to Scottish society today.
And we don’t need it. We don’t need to offend anyone. We don’t need to explain or hope nobody notices… because the principle and right of self determination is established in international law.
My fingers are close to fucking bleeding with scrolling past this crap.
Another possible reason, on top of that given by Mia above, that the Scottish MP’s couldn’t do what David Davis did could be something to do with who had the intel.
I think i recall DD stating that *he* was informed by the Daily Record’s chief man, Foote, who the leak came from. Perhaps the Scottish MP’s were not privvy to those facts and therefore would be acting on hearsay if they did what DD did.
And knowing what DD was about to do they made a professional decision to leave it to the person with the facts. And in this case it would appear to be David Davis. Just a thought.
Mia: the Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs at Westminster have exactly the same right of privilege to speak in said Westminster. The Scottish MPs in 1707 accepted English constitutional law as being the Westminster default position.
That was the reason the cowards shifted their backsides off the green benches post haste when DD started to speak – because they knew what was coming and they did not want to say they had listened. They are an utter disgrace to Scotland.
The Claim of Right does not operate at Westminster in the same way. Can you imagine anything more disgusting than that that those nine – most of whom should have been shown the door – had the nerve to remove themselves from an English MP speaking on Scottish affairs.
These so-called representatives sold out long ago, and not just on the Salmond debacle – but on every Scottish issue. Please, please, do not hand them the front line on independence or the CoR. They are unfit to even be MPs for Scotland.
They know what happened under Sturgeon; they know the party was destroyed by her, and their adherence to horse manure policies; and they know the level of corruption that is still at the top of the SG. They removed themselves when Kenny MacAskill or Neale Hanvey spoke, too. What are they there for, anyway? They add nothing to the place. Their shame is our degradation. Alf Baird is right about colonized countries.
@sam
Text of the 1989 Claim of Right
“We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.”
This is great stuff.
For the hard of thinking, it has to be processed that it enfranchises the 55% of Scots opposed to Indy, just as much as it enfranchises the 45% of Scots in favour of Indy.
And then a bit more, because, you know, 55 is a bigger number than 45. Even in the Scots language.
And hence the wobbly wheel of Wings BTL discourse has completed yet another revolution and we are back where we started – the majority in favour of Indy does not exist.
Now, are we going to look at how we can build on that 45%, or are we going to interminably post the same tired old pointless gurns for the foreseeable future?
Why do I think I already know the answer?
@James says:20 July, 2024 at 6:45 pm
A few years down the line young Scots will wonder at how the fcuck it took us so long to regain our independence
Naw.
Your online brainfarts won’t ever be going away. They will still be online for young Scots to wonder at long after you have departed this earthly realm.
Whatever replaces the SNP, it will for its own protection isolate you and the rest of the usual hoon mowlers from any official capacities whatsoever.
And for that, rational, decent, responsible, adult Scots can remain grateful.
David Hannah: Mridul Whatisface has been suspended. However, he is far more likely to be a homosexual cross-dresser than any kind of ‘trans’ knicker-fumbler. He lives with a man. Any male who lives with another man in a sexual relationship is gay. His reasons for taking the job from a woman and for making fools out of the women there and making his staff’s lives hell if they did not bend the knee is because he is a woman-hater, not because he identifies with women.
Any man who could say to raped and traumatized women that they should “reframe their trauma” to be inclusive of males claiming a ‘trans’ identity, is a sadist, probably also a psychopath. The way he inveigled his way into the ERCC (with the help of the treacherous handmaidens on the Board) would suggest so. Those bloody women need to be brought to book, too.
Then there are the two SNP favourites who have been found guilty of major crimes. When are politicians going to admit that these men are dangerous and that they should never have been allowed near females or the party instead of doubling down and calling people bigots. The ‘trans’ activists, and other supporters, too, need to answer questions about what they get out of encouraging these men?
On this issue, women have been the canaries in the coal mine, but did anyone in power listen? We recognize sexual deviance and male entitlement, but, the Rev an exception, with twathater, you, David, Robert, John and several others on here, most men in the independence movement saw it as a side issue when it was THE issue that was going to stymie independence and the SNP.
@Lorna
I feel exactly like you with regards to the SNP detritus 9, and to be fair, I have the exact same level of contempt towards labour, tories and libdem MPs as well. Each and every single one of them could have lifted their backsides from supine position and spoken up. However they chose not to. This is a matter of high public interest, yet, instead of serving the people of Scotland as they are supposed to, they all choose to serve whoever/whatever is hiding behind this disgusting conspiracy. And all for the sake of preserving the union.
I agree with you that Scotland’s MPs might have the exact same right to speak in Westminster as their English counterparts. I also agree that they enjoy the same level of immunity that their English counterparts before England’s courts.
But Westminster is in England and the bill of rights and therefore statutory immunity to impeachment applies only in England and Wales. This is okay for England/Wales MPs, but our MPs live in Scotland and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of Scottish courts.
Those responsible for the political conspiracy also live/were living in Scotland under the jurisdiction of Scottish courts. English constitutional law, in particular the Bill of Rights, does not apply to Scotland. What the Scottish courts would be looking at, with regards to parliamentary privilege, is the Claim of Right.
Margaret Ferrier was an MP and sought advice in Westminster before travelling. She was advised to go home and she did. She was tried in Scotland in a Scottish court.
The concept of “parliamentary privilege” is two-prone. On one side extends to freedom of speech and in England, legal immunity with regards to what is said in parliament. The other aspect refers to the right of both Houses to regulate their own affairs (exclusive cognisance).
This “exclusive cognisance” is not in statute and while it may apply in English law as part of English convention, it is evident this “exclusive cognisance” did not apply in the case of Ms Ferrier – because she was a Scottish MP who was tried in a Scottish court under Scots law.
As I mentioned in my previous comment, some of the people/entities submitting evidence to the joint committee on parliamentary privilege in 1998, indicated that the way the Claim of Right would be interpreted in Scotland would be a matter for the Scottish courts to decide because the immunity to impeachment was not stated clearly in the wording of the Claim of Right.
There is another thing. Where is Ms Lloyd living now? Is she still living in Scotland and is still under the custody of Scotland’s courts, or has she now moved to England so she is now under the jurisdiction of England’s courts is she wished to bring forward a defamation case?
If she has moved to England, it could explain why Mr Davis has decided to reveal this now. She will not be able to use the English courts to bring forward a defamation case against him.
You ask “What are they there for, anyway?”
1. to earn a nice pension
2. to earn a nice salary
3. to enjoy the perks of the subsidised bars and other benefits
4. to feel important
5. to do some high power networking
6. to legitimise Westminster as the “UK of Great Britain” parliament
7. to legitimise the abuse, pillaging and absolute rule Scotland is subjected to in violation of the Claim of Right and in the name of treaty of union.
The people of Scotland needs to find a mechanism to overrule Scotland’s useless MPs. The people of Scotland needs to remove the powers from them, ditch the Scotland Act and empower Holyrood as Scotland’s REAL reconvened parliament.
Lorna Campbell
Ignored
says:
20 July, 2024 at 8:42 pm
David Hannah: Mridul Whatisface has been suspended.
Spot on. The reach of this ideology within Scotland’s institutions and the speed it took over reveal it to be the top priority for Sturgeon and by extension the Scottish government. There was nothing related to Independence and little done on any other important issue in SG work done under Sturgeon’s instruction.
@Hatey
Normally I ignore you, John.
The importance of the 1989 declaration of the Claim of Right is that most of Scotlamd’s politicians signed up to it. They would find it hard to disown it.
Most of Scottish society today supports Scottish sovereignty.
As usual you’re talking about something else.
Hatuey
There is no 55%
That collapsed on the 19th of September.
People thought they were voting for ..
Devo max
Super Devo max
EU membership
Extensive new powers.
The most safe & secure parliament in the whole wide world.
The oil was running out.
None of it happened.
Yoons cannot claim the SNPs fall from grace is a measure for independence. It isn’t. There are Indy supporters who’d never vote for Sturgeon.
The independence question is apolitical. All political parties or none at all.
So you can pipe down. A referendum is what’s being discussed & YOUR right to have one as often as we see fit.
We don’t need to beg anyone for what’s already ours.
H
Where did the news about mridul whatsthisname come from???
Hatey McHateface
Text of the 1989 Claim of Right
“We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention…
What a joke. A bunch of self-appointed people got together and called themselves a “Constitutional Convention.” And issued a “Claim of Right.” As even Wikipedia points out:
“The [1989] Claim of Right has never had or claimed any legal force.”
It was debated in Holyrood in 2012 (23 years later!), but not even the SNP government of Alex Salmond voted it into law. Obviously, the 23 year delay shows that even the signers didn’t take it seriously. Of note–the hopelessly corrupt Nicola Sturgeon moved the motion to debate it. The hopelessly corrupt Mike Russell opened the debate on this SNP motion. I wonder if the Moonhowlers are proud to promote Sturgeon’s handiwork?
It was debated in the UK House of Commons in 2018. Again, it was only a talkie-talk. No actual motion was passed. As Wikipedia again points out:
“This was a non-binding debate and did not create any legal recognition of the Claim of Right or have any legal significance”
If I got together a dozen drunks at some Glasgow pub, and we issued our own “Claim of Right,” it would have as little legal significance as this.
It seems to me that the Sturgeon went after AS with a confidence that she would be protected.
Right on cue, “Xaracen” responds to my pointing out his errors with yet another “feck off!” How predictable.
What is funny is that he claims the 1703 Scottish Parliament passed a law saying the 1689 Convention of Estates was somehow a “Parliament.”
There’s so many problems with that:
1) If they had to pass a law many years later saying it was a “parliament,” that proves it wasn’t a parliament in 1689.
2) Would Xaracen agree that if Parliament calls a cat an elephant, that feline is actually an elephant? If Parliament calls a man a woman, does that make the man a woman? Just because Parliament says something, doesn’t alter reality. And the reality is that the 1689 Convention was not elected, and was not a parliament.
3) Xaracen should read his fellow Moonhowlers, who claim (incorrectly) that Queen Anne (1702-14) was not Queen of Scotland and thus the 1703 (and 1707) Scottish Parliaments had no legal authority. If there was no Scottish Parliament, any purported 1703 Act of that “parliament,” including the one Xaracen cited, was ultra vires (beyond one’s legal authority).
4) The cited 1703 Act makes it “high treason” to question or criticize the 1689 Claim of Right–which includes all the anti-Catholic provisions. If (like Xaracen and the Moonhowlers) you take the C of R as constitutional law (it isn’t, BTW), you have to take the whole Claim. You can’t pick and choose which parts of the Claim are sacrosanct, pick just the one you agree with, and reject the rest. Which means you endorse laws forbidding Catholics from holding office.
I anticipate responses trying to change the subject, and further “feck offs.” It’s all the Moonhowlers have to offer.
@ CC can you state why you don’t agree with this explanation that you were given a link to earlier?
“Mr. Dunlop also justifiably cites the very sectarian clauses against ‘popery’ and the like in the 1689 Claim of Right, which obviously and rightly have no place in contemporary society. He also cites the 1689 equivalent of the ‘right to remain silent’ enshrined in the CoR, which remains very relevant. He validly inquires as to how one can determine which clauses are still in force in law, and which aren’t.
The answer lies in distinguishing statutory effect from constitutional principle. If one examines the US Constitution for example, the original text in Article I, Section 2 holds that slaves are to be counted as ? of a person in counting the population for representation. This provision was rendered moot by the XIV amendment which guaranteed equal citizenship for all (men) in the wake of the Civil War. The ? compromise remains in the original text, but no longer has any statutory effect, it thereby fell by implication. This is also the case for the fugitive slave clause in Article IV, Section 2. Basically, virtually all historical constitutional documents and laws include provisions we find abhorrent in contemporary society, yet they remain in the text because one cannot retroactively rewrite them, though they have no current statutory effect. In the UK, this includes all the ‘popery’ provisions in the Magna Carta, the 1689 Claim of Right, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, the 1706 Treaty of Union, the 1707 Acts of Union, and on, and on. If one invalidated all historical constitutional documents because of controversial provisions with no contemporary effect, there would be nothing left of ANY constitution.
However, virtually all the mechanisms, clauses, and rights contained within the US Constitution remain in effect, because they are constitutional principles which cannot be altered, except by explicit abrogation which requires super-majorities in the Congress and the States. The procedural criminal rights enshrined in Amendments IV-VIII in the 1791 Bill of Rights exemplify this. Amendment V for example guarantees the Right against self-incrimination, or the Right to remain silent. Over the years, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has had a profound effect in the US criminal justice system over how this right has been applied with varying degrees of fairness, but there has never been any meaningful attempt to repeal it. It would never succeed, because it is a constitutional right of which Americans are fiercely protective. Similarly with the Amendment II Right to bear arms.
Therefore, the 1689 Claim of Right remains law and an inalterable fundamental part of the Scottish and UK constitutions. However, there are abhorrent clauses in the original text which have been rendered moot and inapplicable through subsequent laws and societal conventions. This does not alter the fact that the Claim of Right remains a fundamental basis of the Scottish Constitution, which includes several very important provisions which have never, and can never be abrogated or altered:
The power of the government is legally limited,
The people of the Scottish Nation have the final authority to grant or remove power from the ruling government,
The constitution protects civil rights and liberties,
The government has no authority to deny, alter, or rescind any right, or to claim ‘absolute’ sovereignty over the laws and rights of the people on pain of forfeiture.”
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2022/08/31/in-response-to-roddy-dunlop-qc/
Clansman Clingon
You do know that Wikipedia can be written & edited by blokes from down the pub don’t you?
The Claim of Right has no legal force & not binding? LOL! That’s funny. It’s a condition to the very Act of Union even taking place. Even the English monarch mentions it too & the UK gov website even gives it an entry. Oh & even mentioned in both parliaments. Now why would they do that if it had no importance to anyone?
By the way, fuck off.
No one is interested democracy deniers here..
Dan
Cheers for the link…
“Therefore, the 1689 Claim of Right remains law and an inalterable fundamental part of the Scottish and UK constitutions. However, there are abhorrent clauses in the original text which have been rendered moot and inapplicable through subsequent laws and societal conventions. This does not alter the fact that the Claim of Right remains a fundamental basis of the Scottish Constitution, which includes several very important provisions which have never, and can never be abrogated or altered:
*The power of the government is legally limited,
*The people of the Scottish Nation have the final authority to grant or remove power from the ruling government,
*The constitution protects civil rights and liberties,
*The government has no authority to deny, alter, or rescind any right, or to claim ‘absolute’ sovereignty over the laws and rights of the people on pain of forfeiture.
Geri @ 11:08 pm
“*The government has no authority to deny, alter, or rescind any right, or to claim ‘absolute’ sovereignty over the laws and rights of the people ”
Scots lawyers need to face reality. The government denied the Scottish people these rights in the case of our enforced EU withdrawal against our will. Successive elected majorities of SNP politicians denied us these rights in their refusal to withdraw Scotland from the UK Union alliance. We are repeatedly denied our right to self-determination. The UK Union should already be ended due to numerous treaty violations. Justice is denied. Also in the Salmond case, and more, Craig Murray too. ‘Colonialism is force’; a colonised people living under oppressive rule every day.
The Protestant / Catholic/ Anglican aspects of the 1707 treaty should not be viewed through a reductionist contemporary lens and thus superciliously dismissed as outdated bigotry. The religious denominational differences were proxy for crucial divides in perspectives regarding constitutional sovereignty. Both the Catholic and (in a qualified sense) the Anglican views leaned towards “Divine Right of Kings”. The Scottish Presbyterian perspective in contrast is tantamount to incipient republicanism, the monarch being accorded no special status in its non-hierarchical democratic ecclesiastical system.
Aidan O’Neil QC (KC) explains such matters comprehensively in his 2016 submission to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain.
Here are a few extracts (I will give a link to a pdf of O’Neil’s full submission separately in case Wings site protocols automatically reject this whole post):
« 3.6 This tradition of popular sovereignty within the Scottish constitution reached its apotheosis with the decision by the self-convened Scottish Parliament in 1689 to declare James VII to have forfeited the Crown on the basis of its claims that he had over-reached the lawful limits placed on his executive power. The use of the word ‘forfeited’ was of particular significance because it was consistent with the terms of the 1320 CE Declaration of Arbroath as well as with the constitutional writings of George Buchanan and Samuel Rutherford.
« 3.8 In this early modern period, models of constitutional government are expressed in the terms of political theology. The religious is political precisely because in defining the terms of the Church settlement in a territory you define the source and extent of power of the State. So in Scotland at least, the term “Papist” translates into a believer in absolutist government; “Episcopalian” into a supporter of constitutionally limited Monarchy; while “Presbyterians” hold to a democratic model in which the Elect(ors) delegate defined and limited powers to those whom they appoint to hold office.
« 3.9 The whole point about the 1707 Union is that it constitutionally entrenched the distinct Scottish and English constitutional traditions as embodied in the two nations’ separate ecclesiastical settlements. Thus, the “securing of the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government within the Kingdom of Scotland” was expressly declared to be “a fundamental and essential Condition of the said Treaty or Union in all times coming.” And it was similarly declared by the English Parliament that the preservation of the Anglican settlement in England also be made “a Fundamental and Essential part of any Treaty of Union” with Scotland. And this is not simple antiquarianism or misplaced originalism. […]
« 3.10 What this means is that this distinctive Scottish constitutional tradition embodied in the Claim of Right – of the Crown holding power from and in trust for the people assembled “in a full and free representative of this Nation”, with the Crown bound by the constitution to honour the terms and limits of the sovereign people’s grant of that power, and with both the people and the Crown subject to a duty to respect fundamental rights and the rule of law – not only survived the 1707 Union, but was expressly preserved by it and is reaffirmed by the Crown in personam every year of her reign.
« 3.12 The reference in Section 63A(3) SA to the maintenance/abolition of the Scottish devolved institutions of Government, being a matter for “a decision of the people of Scotland” – rather than simply saying “on the basis of a referendum held in Scotland” – only makes sense (since there is otherwise no specification in the Scotland Act as to who constitutes “the people of Scotland”) as a clear and unequivocal reference to, and affirmation by the Westminster Parliament of, this Scottish constitutional tradition of popular sovereignty. »
PDF download of full 2016 submission to the Supreme Court by Aidan O’Neil QC on behalf of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain here:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/independent-workers-union-great-britain.pdf
Independence supporters everywhere agree that the UK Union is detrimental to Scotland. There’s no need to go through the litany of shit that Scots suffer on a daily basis, then — we all agree on that.
The question is ‘how do we get out of it?’
“The people”, much referred to in the Claim of Right, straightforwardly equates to the electorate in the modern context. The vote bestows upon “the people” their sovereign power, or, if you prefer, the vote gives expression to the innate sovereignty of “the people”(it amounts to the same thing).
Those who argue that the CoR is a fundamental keystone in constitutional terms need to be careful when they argue that we can dismiss the parts of it that don’t sit well with us today. I’m not a Unionist — right now I’m an I-don’t-give-a-fuckist — but it won’t be long before one comes along and tells you that you are on very thin ice with an argument like that, for obvious reasons; if you can so casually dismiss the sectarian shit, why can’t they or whoever also casually dismiss your constitutional shit?
And with that the whole conversation is over. Can someone let all those concerned, Salvo, “the people”, etc., know that the issue is finally at rest and we are going to need to come up with something else (ideally something that doesn’t offend half the country)…
Alf
Aye, I blame the titles & positions. It razzle dazzles them every time & they’re easily captured.
Scotland desperately needs a permanent convention specific to the laws relating to Scotlands constitution & the bull emitted from Westminster that’s in violation of it.
Holyrood would’ve been sacked too for wasting years of parliamentary time on the self-id nonsense that had no public support & no mandate.
Right on cue, Moonhowler “Dan” cuts and pastes from some other Salvo Moonhowler.
Right on cue, “Fergus” Moonhowler cuts and pastes something from O’Neil Moonhowler.
Right on cue, “Geri” babbles about an imaginary Scottish “Constitution” that does not exist, and never has existed.
Right on cue, “Alf Baird” republishes the same incomprehensible nonsense he’s posted a hundred times. Hey, “Alf,” how about a little honesty from you? Tell us how many voters there were in the “Liberation Scotland” “election” that chose you? And if you won’t tell the truth about that, why should we believe you about anything?
Hatuey
Might I suggest you actually read Dan’s link?
*Sigh*
Everyone & their grandma isn’t denying the electorate a say. The claim of right is confirming they have one by law under the terms of the treaty.
So Westminster, or any other rocket our there, claiming a referendum would be illegal/now is not the time/won’t be legitimate/has to meet conditions imposed on it by the other side/needs a section 30 etc is absolute bullshit.
“The government has no authority to deny, alter, or rescind any right, or to claim ‘absolute’ sovereignty over the laws and rights of the people on pain of forfeiture.”
As for the bigotry – that’s also explained in Dan’s link regards outdated (US) entries over slaves…
“The answer lies in distinguishing statutory effect from constitutional principle.”
It didn’t change the principal.
& Don’t get like Ellis & think you’ll speak for everyone. You may want the conversation over. Others may wish to continue to discuss it.
It’s relevant to independence & our rights to have a referendum, even UDI regardless of what anyone says.
The UK doesn’t get to decide international law. Even heehaw say on UDI. It’s states that recognise other states, not some poxy section 30 permission slip.
Clingon
If you want honesty let’s start with yours.
What’s your qualifications?
You’re describing kings councils & professors as moonhowlers? Is that the best you have?
Get a life & quit trolling. The union is dead & so will your time on here if you keep breaking the rules on personal insults. Either add something of substance or fck off.
“As for the bigotry – that’s also explained in Dan’s link regards outdated (US) entries over slaves…”
Geri, my little mentally challenged friend, try and follow a simple argument.
It is exactly because aspects of the CoR can be dismissed as inappropriate (just like the “outdated entries over slaves” in the US constitution) that it is weak and absolutely not the foundational keystone that you and other absolutists think it is.
You are defeating your own argument. Because the first thing a Unionist with more than one brain cell is going to argue is that the sovereignty of the people part can be dismissed too as inappropriate (because that sovereignty was invested in the Treaty of Union — duh!).
And if you can fuck about and remove parts that you don’t like, on what basis do you think Unionists or anyone else can’t? Who gets to decide which parts still apply, since we are now picking and choosing?
You’d have a more logical argument if you stood by the sectarian stuff and said it was still applicable. It wouldn’t be better politically, but politically you are screwed anyway if you think this stuff can win us independence.
BTW, I read the linked to articles/debate two years ago when they were fresh. For what it’s worth, I thought both arguments were pretty weak in that both largely neglected 20th century developments in international law.
We don’t need the CoR to argue that the people of Scotland are sovereign; they are anyway. And that sovereignty is enshrined in documents that are extant, universally recognised, and inoffensive to catholics.
Hatuey
Ignored says:
21 July, 2024 at 4:34 am
You are defeating your own argument. Because the first thing a Unionist with more than one brain cell is going to argue is that the sovereignty of the people part can be dismissed too as inappropriate (because that sovereignty was invested in the Treaty of Union — duh!).
I get your point Hatuey, but I disagree with you. You imply, if you can’t defend your sovereignty, then QED you’re not sovereign.
If Scotland can be overruled by Westminster, then Westminster is sovereign. But you’re missing out the important word… legitimately. Scotland cannot be overruled legitimately
You’re correct, being sovereign is an absolute and binary condition, and that’s the whole point. Scotland’s historic Constitution, event disjointed and fragmented is consistent throughout with the Crown of Scotland NOT being sovereign, but answerable to the Community of the Realm. The people are not only sovereign, but well documented as being sovereign, and even acknowledged thus in corroborating treaties and ordinances.
By contrast, where, anywhere, is there any legitimacy whatsoever behind Westminster’s usurpation of Scottish sovereignty? The Parcel o’ Rogues who sold Scotland out were bribed and coerced into doing a thing they had no constitutional entitlement to do. The subsequent Treaty of Union is nothing but a con, but a con backed by the illicit might of an Establishment Malefactor empowered to bribe, coerce, and get it’s way through illicit means.
That “dominance” to act unchallenged outside the legitimacy of law has remained a prevailing condition of the subsequent 300 years of so called Union, but throughout the existence of that despicable false Union, neither Westminster Government nor UK Monarch has been able to expunge the Claim of Right which affirms that in the Realm of Scotland, the people are sovereign.
So we come full circle, and back to the argument. How can Westminster be sovereign if after 300 years neither the Palace of Westminster and King of England can remove Scotland’s obdurate Claim of Right?
This is the essence of Scotland’s Constitutional route to Independence. It’s a bit like the Highlander movie, “In the end, there can only be one”. Sovereignty is an absolute and binary condition, and while Westminster might disrespect the principle, when push comes to shove, it is bound by it. Westminster is NOT sovereign in Scotland.
What empowers Westminster, is not empowerment at all. Therein lies the myth. What allows Westminster the platform and opportunity to usurp Scotland’s sovereign authority is a contrived disjunction in Scotland where the will of the sovereign people is silenced and/or diverted through subterfuge. The Scottish people are sovereign all right, but hoodwinked to believe they are not. That is the despicable and unholy foundation of the United Kingdom, and it should NOT survive even the shallowest constitutional audit.
Westminster’s best argument, is that what the con lacks in legitimacy and origin, it can make up for with 300 years + of internationally recognised convention. The United Kingdom is the perceived “norm”. And to large extent, it is, but it’s a threadbare and ropey argument. What mechanism, in detail, removed the sovereign birthright of the Scots? What day did it occur?
The “established” norm it may be, however, I would argue that the perceived “norm” assumes the Treaty of Union which created the United Kingdom is sound in law. I don’t believe it is. When, eventually Scotland gets its act together and argues this is NOT the case, then the International Community will be obliged to recognise the rule of law, and the Treaty of Union will already have crumbled to dust.
And lastly, for the record, I believe Westminster knows this to be absolutely true. The UK Establishment knows the game is up if Scotland wakens up to the fraud. It is my opinion that Scotland only needs to affirm it’s determination to see this dog’s breakfast of a UK unwritten constitution properly codified with specific reference to the Claim of Right, and both Westminster and Monarch will capitulate.
For now, they hide behind a rancid and corrupt media which habitually skews and misdirects political discussion in Scotland, and an intricate abuse of democratic principle which is designed to keep Scotland trapped in political purgatory.
It’s been a long time coming, but the Union is in its death throes. Good riddance. But we must see it through to the conclusion. Do not allow ourselves to suckered into believing more sophistry and horseshit.
I think we might usefully explore the possibilities of a Scottish Clarity Act.
I doubt very much any UK gov is going to legislate for it and that, if Scotland’s political parties want a Clarity Act, serves to underline how tight we are held.
Part of the introduction to an awfy long read, well written and reasoned.
“It is therefore incumbent on scholars and policy practitioners alike to remain cognisant of the future challenges to the UK’s territorial constitution and deliberate over potential solutions. In response to post-Brexit agitation for a second independence referendum, various commentators have suggested that the UK Parliament should adopt legislation that provides clarity on when Westminster would afford Scotland the opportunity to hold a future plebiscite on union membership.2 Canada adopted a similar approach in 2000, where the federal government passed a ‘Clarity Act’ following the narrow victory of the federal union in the 1995 Quebec independence referendum, which sought to provide greater certainty surrounding the issue of secession and clarify various rules before any future poll. This model serves as a rare example of a democratic state recognising the right of a geographical minority to secede and providing guidance on how such a process could occur.”
I have been reading posts about the sovereignty of the people. Presumably when the sovereign people of Scotland voted in the referendum to remain in the union that then legitimised the union as it was the will of the sovereign people of Scotland to be part of the union as then established?
@Geriatricsenility 1.14am
& Don’t get like Ellis & think you’ll speak for everyone. You may want the conversation over. Others may wish to continue to discuss it.
*Sighs* Once gain if you would wipe the spittle from your eyes for just a moment, you’d have the intellectual honesty to admit I’ve never claimed to speak for everyone, only for the majority. In relation to the fringe nutter views expressed by the moonhowling usual suspects in here it’s usually the overwhelming majority both of all Scots and of pro-independence Scots.
It’s a provable fact with reference to polling evidence, the performance of those views electorally and any significant support for their views in academic, legal, political and media circles.
Your views and weltanschauung are about as popular as a fart in a lift.
No sane alert reader will fail to see the irony in a know nothing like you criticise others and question their qualifications as you have the temerity to do in your post at 1.32 given the repeated failure of the “cunning Plans for Indy” brigade to come up with any substantial evidence supporting your assertions. The views of Sara Salyers and Alf Baird are pretty thin gruel to base your whole movement on, because they have no visible support anywhere else, either in Scotland or abroad.
No significant legal or political authorities have spoken up about it, which seems passing strange if it is so self evidently true as you all keep asserting. The world is chock full of independent experts on international law, political theory, constitutional law…and yet what do we get? Zilch. Niente. Nada.
Get back ti us when you have a point, or a clue.
Andy Ellis yesterday @9:41
No idea how to seduce labour voters but think it worth noting that an opportunity has arisen to question them relentlessly about Anas Sarwar’s apparent support for illegal asbestos removal from Yemen’s critical infrastructure (& much worse).
Since it’s not impossible that both Mr Sarwar and Mr Starmer have been duped by the sort of corrupt civil service that David Davies firmly believes to exist, perhaps the very least we should be expecting from the new SOC for Scotland is his urgent focus on wtaf is going on – particularly if it transpires that the new PM is not, in fact, fully on board with this duplicitous and highly unethical policy.
Hey Andy,
It’s also a provable fact after the recent General Election results that your Alba Party ideals are only supported by a tiny amount of the electorate, so you have some nerve calling others out for being moonhowling fringe nutters…
There is an explanation as to why certain things don’t get purchase though. It’s because discussion about them is suppressed or diverted rendering them with little support.
The first rule of #FightClub and all that…
This site’s btl commentary has now effectively become an eternal skipfire because it facilitates the endless repetition of certain subjects that have been done to death over the years, only for some new or old trolls to re-ignite the flames.
This is an effective disruptive and distracting tactic which has resulted in far less btl engagement and limits broader discussion and perspectives on a wider range of matters.
What’s the international community’s view on pumping untreated effluent into our watercourses, unofficially re-introducing destructive animals without proper informed consideration and consent, fitting shite solar PV and air sourced heatpumps onto unsuitable properties, where have all our insects gone?
Why are our councils taking away power tools from their workers to limit rsi or vibration injuries, yet hiring private contractors to use strimmers and hedgecutters for days on end to cut privately owned hedges along our roads and pavements.
What’s the actual positives of knocking seven shades of shit out of the failures of the elected and un-elected “governance” of our society if we are not at the same time also working towards creating viable alternatives to replace the current failing setup?
Scotland isn’t one nation, it is a collection of nations who seemingly can’t stand being in the same country.
Call it colonialism, sectarianism, bog standard prejudice or rank stupidity it is a matter that modern party politics has made worse.
Vive la différence is not, at the moment, a Scottish slogan.
Nation-states tend to be doctrinaire, one language, one religion or none, one history, one politics, one this that and the other….not healthy.
Good on you,Dan
@Campbell Clansman;
0. For a start you didn’t point out any errors, you just invented some.
1. You don’t get to pretend that Scotland’s 1703 Parliament asserted that the 1689 Convention of Estates only became a parliament after the event, it confirmed that it was an actual parliament at the time. It was merely not one called by Scotland’s monarch, since at the time there was no Scottish monarch. Nevertheless it was a formal entity that represented the sovereign people of Scotland under Scotland’s constitution. It was not the first and only time a CoE had sat, the Convention was a sister entity that paralleled the monarch’s parliament, and its authority was fully legitimate under Scotland’s still-extant constitution.
2. Don’t be so bloody stupid! 2a. Don’t be so bloody dishonest!
3. I have never accepted James Che’s position that Queen Anne was not a legitimate Queen of Scots, and I have said so here on several occasions, so this assertion of yours is false. Even the way you’ve laid out your argument is a logical failure, because you’d already undermined its initial premise with your ‘(incorrectly)’.
4. This one fails because A, the Claim of Right is constitutional law, and its permanence in Scotland is guaranteed under the Treaty of Union. And B, under Scots law we can indeed separate out the anti-Catholic provisions, and have evidently done so, as Scotland’s judiciary can and has chosen not to enforce legislation that is no longer deemed socially acceptable, without the need to wait for it to be formally repealed. Such unenforced provisions have ‘fallen into desuetude’.
Love and kisses
Xaracen.
@Hatuey, who said;
“if you can so casually dismiss the sectarian shit, why can’t they or whoever also casually dismiss your constitutional shit?”
What on Earth makes you think it would be ‘casual’?
‘They’ are the Scottish judiciary, and when they ‘dismiss’ shit, there will be nothing remotely casual about it.
“This is great stuff.
For the hard of thinking, it has to be processed that it enfranchises the 55% of Scots opposed to Indy, just as much as it enfranchises the 45% of Scots in favour of Indy.
And then a bit more, because, you know, 55 is a bigger number than 45. Even in the Scots language.”
The above does not negate the Claim of Right, infact it only reinforces it, simply because its a safety mechanism for Scots, in the sense that Scots who are unaware (most of the 55%) of it and that the union is illegal, and therefore cannot be voted on the CoR protects their rights as well, they are unaware that England is stealing and has stolen Scottish assets for centuries which the CoR protects, the foreign monarchy and government and indeed our ain domestic government from doing.
The (55%) could not vote for something that never legally existed in the first place.
I’m sure Salvo/Liberation will present the irrefutable evidence to the international community that the union never legally existed, it couldn’t have existed both sovereignties are utterly incompatible and the CoR is still active and probably always will be.
https://salvo-cor.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Reclaiming+the+Rights+of+Scotland.pdf
@Dan 9:38
Well call me old fashioned, but it’s more than a little rich to bemoan the lack of BTL debate and discussion when in fact it’s people like you, Ruby, Geri etc who typically deride anyone wishing to do just that as a “troll” or whatever, throwing insults and abuse at them until they can no longer be arsed with any of it. Your supposed moral high ground is, in actuality, a fetid swamp mate.
“Xaracen,” if the “Claim of Right” is (as you say) “Constitutional Law” (it isn’t, BTW), since you think so then your Scottish “Constitution” makes it illegal for Catholics to worship, to publish “popish” books, or to hold government offices.
Here is the text of your “Constitution” on this latter point:
“Imploying papists in the places of greatest trust both Civil and military the thrusting out protestants to make roome for papists and the intrusting papists with the forts and magazines of the Kingdome are Contrary to Law”
You responded that Scotland’s judges are “canceling” these parts of the “Constitution.” Uh, the whole idea of a Constitution is that it can’t just be “canceled” by judges.
With David Davis’s statement and Joanna Cherry’s comments a few pennies are starting to drop for me.
Cherry had the same parliamentary privilege as David Davis but she sites her personal safety as being her issue in using that. I believe there has already been 1 member of the Trans/Stirling set taken to court for threats to her and with the recent imprisonment of another its suggest they are the ones causing other SNP members to feel unsafe.
Is it too much of a stretch to think that Sturgeon and Murrell were using the Stirling set & Trans nutters as their enforcers? When Sturgeon did her appeal from the broom cupboard did she do it because she feared losing her enforcers? Has the aggressive push of Trans rights just been the cost Sturgeon was willing to pay to have her own heavy squad?
Breeks: “The Scottish people are sovereign all right, but hoodwinked to believe they are not.”
Bingo! That’s 100% true and it’s 100% true of all states, but it needs a little work. We are now in the murky world of social contract theory, a world of where you’ll run into smoke, mirrors, liars, and thieves at every turn
It’s probably a good time to let you all in on a little secret…
The very idea of sovereignty is a lie. It’s made-up. People like Roddy Dunlop don’t want to admit to that because they don’t want to admit (and face) the truth; that everything is essentially based on the oldest principle of all, ‘might is right’.
Every single time you see people with robes, fancy hats, gold and silver crests, etc., you are dealing with a bunch of con artists who want to deceive you into thinking that what they’re up to is officially sanctioned by divine right or some such nonsense, when the truth of it is that what they’re doing rests on the principle of ‘might is right’.
To admit ‘might is right’ is to admit that we live in a world that has foundations in brute force, what people like Roddy call anarchy, and that’s a big problem for people with a vested interest and the powers that be — it means they can very legitimately be toppled and replaced by the same method that they themselves succeeded to the throne.
This is an old conversation, the essential elements of which were hammered out by people like Burke (Reflections ion the Revolution in France) and other political thinkers in the 18th century.
Anyway, we are conveniently back where we started — the people are sovereign but have been hoodwinked. Yes, true, because… the people (despite all appearances) are actually the ones who have power and might on their side, which in a world based on brute force means they also have ‘right’. If you assume ‘right’ to mean sovereignty, everything becomes clear with regards to Scotland.
David Hume explained all this a couple of hundred years ago. Burke attempted to come up with an alternative but ended up in the same place: it isn’t an anarchy if it succeeds. Thus, if treason doth prosper, none dare call it treason… you get the idea.
The Scottish people are sovereign because they have (and will always have) might, and might makes you right (sovereign). That’s more an inalienable fact than a principle but call it what you will.
All the King’s horses and all the King’s men couldn’t stop Scotland taking back control if the Scottish people decided to. Everybody, including Roddy Dunlop, knows this, and anyone who has more than glanced at the history books knows it too.
The hoodwinking, when you boil it down, is really aimed at deceiving people into thinking that they don’t have ‘might’ on their side, when all recorded history explains and proves that they do. And they definitely do.
Anyone that disagrees might explain to us where the legitimacy of King William IV can be found. I’ll save you some time, if you like; he had none.
Anarchy rules.
How subtle the power transfers; right school, right friends, graduation and transfer onto the first rungs of the ladder – all guided by relatives and their connections, mutual back-scratching orchestrating alliances, including marriages. It all leads into the darkness; but the ones on the ladder, the ones in controlling niches, never let that worry them.
Their intellects, dulled by generations of ‘inbreeding’, are incapable of extrapolating into a coherent pattern the signs that point to their own demise.
And when the ladder finally fails and rung by rung collapses, as it inevitably must, they never see it coming such is their unshakable, though misplaced, confidence in a system created to suppress the insuppressible.
We look in fascination at the shock, the horror on their faces, as the realisation finally penetrates the thick skins that once guarded their awareness from the truth, “We are not the unreachable lords mundi, the gods of the world, we thought we were.”
We look as they are inelegantly swept aside and stripped of all dignity and honour and we wonder how they could have been so ignorant, so pitifully blind, as to think themselves greater than we, the people.
We look and we wonder…but we do not pity. They lost that privilege, that little compassion saved for those who have sinned in error and which can only be granted by those peoples sinned against, long, long ago.
Btw, the so-called British constitution (which really doesn’t exist except as an idea) is full of anti-catholic nonsense too, much of which is still technically extant.
In pointing this out, I point out that most if not all “sacred” documents are full of what would be called crap in today’s terms — I wasn’t saying the Claim of Right had exclusivity when it came to crap.
When you think about it, our power and right to ignore the crap that’s in these old treaties and manuscripts is a demonstration of our sovereignty.
“and then, for no reason, people just took against us … ”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Iw2fm58FY
– there is so much here it is broken down by sections – the labour party is around the half hour mark, the conservatives, 40 minutes. Starmer owes his position entirely to them.
there is a suspicion in certain quarters Tony Blair was a mossad agent, and his “tennis partner”, Lord Levy, was his handler; a bit out there, but he managed to fund his own press office, early on from some unknown source … Pappe at 1.15
As an aside; learn how “getting what you want from people” really works, how you have to work it – scottish nationalism is simplistic and crude in its thinking, by comparison (“our cause is just, therefore … ” – nothing, is what you get, nothing at all) – zionism works in varied ways, a multi strategy, both in breadth and depth … where are our advocates in New York, Brussels, Paris, the centres of power? What about links to all those people at the UN who really, really fucking hate england … ?
why is there so much bother in ireland right now about migrants, where did that come from?
https://www.unz.com/article/ongoing-jewish-influence-in-the-transformation-of-ireland/
– were you ever in doubt? Lobbying again, it’s a small number of people, in exactly the right/wrong places.
Mia: absolutely, Mia. The Scottish MPS need to be removed from Westminster. Only then, and under independence, can the CoR come into its own, long-asleep Scottish constitutional rules can be resurrected (and all modernized, of course) and England’s constitution left to England. We have to face the fact that the Scottish MPs did not use parliamentary privilege for anything and this recent lot will never use it either for anything remotely of interest to Scotland. Simpering cowards, all. We also need to face the fact that those in Holyrood have done little either. Every Scottish MP and MSP is part of the problem and will never be the solution while they continue to have the same mindset.
A great flood of immigrants into Ireland aided by the Irish government has cause a state of anger and tension in the country, ring any bells back home in Scotland?
https://www.globalresearch.ca/ireland-mass-immigration-great-reset/5863166
Lorna Campbell @ 2:43 pm
“Every Scottish MP and MSP is part of the problem”
Indeed so, and all dutifully play their colonialist part well by delaying the decolonization process, according to postcolonial theory:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/05/25/the-three-phases-of-decolonization-lessons-for-scotland/
Mr Davis’ speech in the video above is the best contemporary example we have today of how both, the claim of Right and the English Bill of Rights apply in practice.
Mr Davis was able to freely speak in the HoC without risk of being impeached in an English court of law for exposing some of the disgusting dirty deeds of the Scot Gov under Nicola Sturgeon and Leslie Evans, thanks to the protection put in place by the Claim of Right and the English Bill of Rights.
I find rather comical how, despite of this, the usual trolls here keep falling over themselves in their futile quest to undermine the Claim of Right. This time round, their horse battle is some pretend moral “high ground”.
What is even more comical is that while they rush to rubbish the Claim of Right, they do not show the same inclination or the same urgency to rubbish the English Bill of Rights.
The English Bill of Rights 1689 and the Scottish Claim of Right 1689 are contemporaries and use very similar language. For this reason, it is not just comical but actually ridiculous to pretend to adopt the moral high ground by criticise one but not the other.
@ Campbell Clansman
In response to Xaracen, you wrote: ” ‘Here is the text of your ‘Constitution’ on this latter point: “Imploying papists in the places of greatest trust both Civil and military the thrusting out protestants to make roome for papists and the intrusting papists with the forts and magazines of the Kingdome are Contrary to Law’
Wonderful. Now take a look at the following quotes:
“That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law”
“And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power)”
“I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God”
“and with their Majesties’ royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted”
“And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, _An Act for the more effectual preserving the king’s person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament”
Lovely and inclusive, huh?
Well, guess what? None of those quotes have been extracted from the Claim of Right. They have been extracted from a piece of UK constitution applicable to England and Wales which is English Bill of Rights 1689. If you live in England, then THAT text above, no matter how much you abhor it, is part of YOUR constitution.
Before you attempt to furiously peddle some more garbage to claim the Claim of Right 1689 or its English counterpart The English Bill of Rights 1689 are not part of the UK constitution, I invite you to read the following quote extracted from the paper “The Bill of Rights 1689”, written by Lucinda Maer and Oonagh Gay and published by the House of Commons Library under the section “Parliament and Constitution Centre”. This document was last updated 5 October 2009.
Now, if somebody in the UK knows what is part of the constitution and what is not, surely is the House of Commons and its “Parliament and Constitution Centre”, don’t you agree?
Here are the quotes:
“Because there is no single document comprising the rules of constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, it is sometimes said that the UK has an “unwritten” constitution. In fact, in
the UK the fundamental rules of constitutional practice are enshrined in many individual documents: in various acts of parliament, in the common law, in judicial decisions, in
parliamentary law and customs and in constitutional conventions. It is therefore more correct to say that the constitution is “uncodified”, rather than “unwritten”. One implication of the
absence of a single codified constitutional document is that there are no unambiguously constitutional “higher” laws. With a written constitution it is generally easier to distinguish
constitutional laws from the rest of the law, while in the UK there is no strict distinction.
However, there are certain laws which are generally REGARDED AS BEING “CORE” CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS (my capitals) that deserve and receive particular respect and special consideration, and the 1689 BILL OF RIGHTS FALLS INTO THIS CATEGORY (my capitals). For example, the courts would generally be unwilling to accept that the provisions of such legislation have been overridden by later statutes except in very clear language.”
“The Bill of Rights is still in operation today, as recent debate on parliamentary privilege for example, has demonstrated. Article 9 protects Members’ rights of free speech in Parliament. However, many of the Bill’s original articles, while never formally repealed, are generally regarded as having been superseded by subsequent legislation. Laws may be obsolete but still unrepealed. For example, the article covering the right of protestant subjects to bear arms is generally considered to fall into this category”
end of quote-
BOTH, the English Bill of Rights 1689 and the Scottish Claim of Right 1689 are fundamental conditions in all times for the Treaty of Union to continue extant. You trash one of them, you trash the treaty, hence the monarch having to swear abiding by the Claim of Right to be installed as “KIngdom of Great Britain” monarch.
BOTH, the English Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right 1689 are still extant today. You just need to do a search in the legislation.gov.uk website to realise this is the case. Mr Davis’ speech above is a further demonstration that they are active in practice too.
BOTH, the English Bill of Rights 1689 and the Scottish Claim of Right are ‘core’ parts of the UK constitution – repealing of any of them means trashing the treaty of union. Trashing the treaty of union means ending the Kingdom of Great Britain.
BOTH, the English Bill of Rights 1689 and the Scottish Claim of Right 1689 were written in the 17th century, in a language appropriate for the times and the context where they were written.
BOTH, the English Bill of Rights 1689 and the Scottish Claim of Right contain paragraphs that are no longer acceptable today under today’s social standards. But that DOES NOT invalidate them completely as constitutional instruments. The only thing that has happened is that some of those paragraphs have been superseded by posterior legislation.
You cannot credibly pretend to criticise Scotland’s Claim of Right 1689, without criticising the England Bill of Rights with the exact same force and same sense of righteousness, because both were written in the same unacceptable language by today’s standards, both pursued very similar outcomes and both were written on the same year (ie before the union).
If you attempt to single out the Claim of Right as the target of your criticisms while conveniently ignoring the English Bill of Rights 1689, then your position becomes hypocritical and ridiculous.
Crown minions seem desperate to rubbish the Claim of Right and bury it again into obscurity. Why? The clue is in the name of the document.
The convention called this document “Claim of Rights” because they did not see it as a “concession” of or a petition for new rights. It is the active reclaim of what the convention saw as rightfully the people of Scotland’s.
Scotland’s Claim of Right was not written by parliament but by a Convention of States, trashing the English dogma of “parliamentary sovereignty” and adding weight to Scotland’s tradition of popular sovereignty.
Further clues as to why the crown minions and colonialists are so desperate to hide the document are in the text itself. If you move pass the smoke the detractors of the Claim of Right are so frantically trying to fan up by specifically dangling on our faces the paragraphs in the document about religion, you see that the Claim of Right reflects quite clearly how it is the people of Scotland that actively removes the crown from a monarch and hands it to another of their choice.
From this document, it seems clear that, in 1689 Scotland, the monarch was seen as a subordinate to the Convention of the States, the constitution and the people of Scotland. There is no better practical expression of popular sovereignty than that. The problem is that this directly clashes with the concept of sovereignty of the monarch over the people in England. Either the people are the sovereign, or the monarch is the sovereign. There cannot be both. This is where this whole set up of “the monarch of Great Britain” falls flat on its face. You cannot have a monarch which is the sovereign in part of the kingdom and then is a subordinate to the people in the other.
Now lets look at the English counterpart, the English Bill of Rights. It is a parliament bill, nothing more nothing less. It was written by parliament, reinforcing the concept of England’s tradition of “parliamentary sovereignty”. But there is more. If you read the language of the document, in no way it states that England’s parliament actively removes the crown from the monarch like the Scottish convention does. What England’s parliament does is simply ratifying that the monarch had abdicated the throne. The words in the document are “the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant…”
To continue the farce that the union has become and the claims of England’s monarch over Scotland’s territory and people in the name of the ToU, they need to bury this document and they need for the people of Scotland to continue believing it is the monarch who is sovereign over Scotland rather being a subordinate to the people of Scotland.
What it becomes obvious as soon as you read the Claim of Right is that, in 1689, Scotland saw monarch and crown as different and separated concepts.
Until now, this discrepancy in the concepts of sovereignty between England and Scotland is being managed by the obfuscation created by political parties, a pretend democracy and the perpetuated misconception that we actually elect who and what govern us. But more and more people are waking up to the fact that politics are neither an expression of self-determination nor the means to reach self-governance. Politics is now the obstacle that, by design, has been deliberately obstructing both. Nothing demonstrated this better than when the political fraud Sturgeon extracted the SNP teeth by claiming in 2015, AFTER polls had predicted a landslide win for the SNP, that “a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence nor a vote for a referendum”.
Why could the crown minions be so petrified about the Claim of Right and about Scotland’s popular sovereignty? I think it is evident: if the people of Scotland could call a convention of the states in 1689 to depose a monarch and the monarch keeps pissing the people of Scotland off today by abusing power and stamping laws deliberately and knowingly passed against the will of the people of Scotland, effectively rubber-stamping the imposition of absolute rule on Scotland, what is stopping the people of Scotland recalling a modern version of the convention and deposing the monarch?
The biggest inconvenience of the Claim of Right is that this document is a fundamental condition of the Treaty of Union, so it cannot be trashed. Hiding it again is the best damage limitation avenue.
Bravissima, Mia, at 4:10pm
(I hope Northcode doesn’t have to correct me over that word!)
The ‘Union’ is headed for extinction.
The problem is that it’s taking so infernally long dying. Inevitable but oh, the boredom meanwhile.
There just isn’t anywhere near enough ‘Scottish’ in the ‘Union’ to make it interesting, or to keep it alive.
It dares call itself great! It dares call itself united! It dares call itself a nation!
Everything about it is a midden. It has no style. No panache. No flare. No charisma. No sparkle. It is dull dull dull; its less than mediocre leaders mundane and spiritless and lacking vitality; its jewels and baubles, now faded and tattered, vainly aspire to symbolise a nation state; its regal attire threadbare and bland; its smell one of odious decrepitude; its stride a hobble; its swagger a stumble; its voice croaking and weak; its breath stale and foul, and its milky eyes lustreless and blind to all but the phantom memory of a glorious past that never was.
It is a staggering zombie. It is the crawling dead. Oh, God…please be merciful and spare us having to endure the misery of its existence for much longer.
Xaracen
No correction required. And appropriately used as an adulatory intense form of ‘bravo!’ in recognition of a particularly spectacular performance. Like the one just given by Mia.
I don’t know how she does it…but I’m glad she does.
Wonderful post, Mia. Thank you. As Northcode says, I don’t know how you do it.
Mia: “….what is stopping the people of Scotland recalling a modern version of the convention and deposing the monarch?”
Nothing. Go do it. God knows you’ve talked about it enough.
Good luck.
If we ever get Indy within these people’s lifetimes we should declare as personae non grata various English people starting with Farage, Tice, Tommy Robinson, May, Johnson, Sunak, Braverman etc etc.
But we should publicly declare Mr Davis very much persona grata for being such a good critical friend of Scotland.
As others have said above, Mia, first class!
“I don’t know how you do it.”
Practice probably plays a big part. We’ve been suffering this pseudo-intellectual bullshit for about 3 years now.
And as Mr Davis pointed out Sturgeon’s I do not recalls should have meant at the very least serious newspaper commentators and our parliamentarians to have questioned her suitability for high office since her faculties were clearly deserting her.
That naebody drew that line except some of us cybernats is an indictment on Civil Scotland.
4:10
Excellent Mia, thanks..
@Hatuey; What exactly is ‘pseudo’ about it?
Which parts do you consider to be bullshit, and why, exactly?
Enquiring minds wish to learn!
The problem with trying to use the “Bill of Rights” to dissolve the union is that it won’t work.
Even if you could get a legal judgement that it was still valid, which legally I don’t think would fly due to the reams of subsequent legislation since and the fact that most of it has been obsolete for so long, the simple fact is that you still need a majority to push the decision.
Folk are not going to vote yea in a referendum based on an arcane piece of old legislation but on conditions now and issues now.
As an interesting historical discussion it is interesting but as a vehicle for automatically dissolving the union it has no chance, not even as an auxiliary addition.
I don’t think the bill of rights issue will ever cause any cold sweats from unionist, its probably the sort of thing they hope takes up time instead of the real current issues that folk would want clarified before voting yes.
@Rob; it’s the “Claim of Right” in Scotland. The “Bill of Rights” is the English one, and it has no relevance up here.
The legal validity of the Claim of Right in Scotland is beyond formal question, because that is under permanent guarantee by the Treaty itself.
If any aspect of the CoR has been subjected to change from your ‘reams of subsequent legislation’ by Westminster, then that is a direct and fatal breach of the Treaty itself. That makes it a matter for the constitutional courts, and no court finding requires democratic approval for validation.
If the court finds that one or more such breaches have occured then the Treaty and the Union will both be over, and all of Westminster’s authority over Scotland will be dead in the water. Beyond all doubt that result will be an unholy mess to sort out by both kingdoms, and all sorts of avians will be coming home to roost.
WM will do its level best to throw up enormous range of spurious problems to try to retain as much of Scotland’s wealth as it can for as long as it can. We would have to treat it as a hostile and deeply untrustworthy enemy negotiator.
“The Ge–n0ci-de committing Zzzz-i-io-Mon-ste–rs were ruled against by the I_C_-J.
“The Int–ernati–onal Co–urt of Jus–tice said Friday that IzzHhel’s decades long occupation of Ga_z–a and the W-es-t B–an-k, including E-as-t Jer–usal-em, is unlawful and must end.”
What in the FUCK makes you (and the others who do this sort of thing) think this is acceptable behaviour? If you have to go to this sort of lengths to try to evade the filter, how do you think I’m going to react to it? The filter is there for a fucking reason. TAKE THE FUCKING HINT.
Whether its the “Bill of Rights” or the “Claim of Rights” is pretty irrelevant, as it the application of it to dissolve the union.
Even if legally a breach was found what relevance would it have these days?
If a smoking gun was found there would still need to be a referendum to decide whether or not to do anything about it and I suspect apathy about it would be the main reaction.
The lapsing of very old arcane laws happens all the time, I think until recently it was still legal to kill any Scot within the walls of York, but I suspect a jury even of York residents would fail to understand anyone who actually did what was actually still technically legal.
As a historical issue I don’t have an issue with folk researching this but as a method of creating an independence movement it sits well within the realms of fantasy.
If folk want independence they are going to have to create confidence in governance, confidence in the SG, and a situation where folk feel it would be a good thing to achieve.
None of the three of these conditions exist at the moment and efforts need to be made to create them.
Flourishing a 350 year old arcane set of laws won’t impress anyone and I bet WM would actually prefer effort being put into this rather than the things that are needed.
The sacred Claim of Right argument falls to pieces almost literally when you start carving out the sectarian references. Yes, I heard you, this is done elsewhere too, I get it. But that doesn’t make it inoffensive — it confirms that it’s offensive.
Great start.
The core basis of the argument itself is obsolete because, whether people want to accept it or not, today’s established norms presume that overarching sovereign authority rests with Westminster and Holyrood, and the recognised means by which “the people” exert democratic leverage is through voting (that “model” is essentially paradigmatic throughout the entire world).
I mentioned the other day, although it fell on deaf ears, that questions of sovereignty and legitimacy which are raised in this discussion are nothing new. What you’re really talking about, whether you know it or not, is social contract theory. Smarter people than any I have encountered on here have been discussing social contract theory for over 200 years.
I also mentioned that the “sovereignty of the people” argument has been rendered obsolete by 20th century developments in international law. In other words, we don’t need a ‘Claim of Right’ to make the case for self-determination – because that right is enshrined in terms that are clearer and more widely accepted than the offensive terms offered by the ‘Claim of Right’.
Why not bang that much more worthy drum? There are no guarantees but there are plenty of examples where international law has served the desired purpose — no ‘Claim of Right’ required. I suspect the reason for no wanting to rely on international law is down to a reluctance to do the research and, for some, it lacks the glamour.
You could say the CoR case helps bolster the argument for Scottish statehood in some vague way, but since nobody really seems to deny Scottish statehood, I’m not sure how it would help.
I consider it pseudo-intellectual to discuss this without reference to the points made above. Worse still, I consider it delusional, the sort of delusional that is common amongst conspiracy theorists and cultists in this internet age; “shut up and eat your porridge, we can do what we want because we are sovereign… didn’t you read my latest 3000 word essays on the ‘Claim of Right’… try and keep up…”
Thank you Wings!!
They wont escape justice!
everything, everywhere is some kind of ancient guff, so you either take it all seriously or you don’t – you can’t selectively say “this is okay” and “not this” down to whether or not it is to your advantage
the TOU has been breached many times, the supreme court being the most recent and obvious; the remarks by de Gaulle about the english never abiding by any treaty when they had a superior power comes to mind
if you say the TOU is ancient guff and we should pay it no mind then there is no actual law binding us to England, then Scotland is under illegal occupation by a foreign power and under international law you have the right of armed resistance – go out and kill an englishman, freedom fighter, it is totally legal; you are now obviously a clony and can go thru the UN process
– I am totally cool with “all bets are off”
the OT is ancient guff too why not tell the jews to give it a fucking rest about their dodgy 3000 year old property deal with this imaginary spirit and the voices in an old mans head
and the muslims, why not tell them mohammed was a bit of a conman who ripped off bits of the bible and chucked out the stuff he couldn’t understand
the US constitution, guff
half of magna carta is about debts owed to the jews and is total cringe to the modern ear; the english will fetishize it though
its all ancient fucking guff
but it still counts, believe it
and who the hell ever argues excessively – “we really shouldn’t check the small print of this contract we are signed up to just in case we have rights and protections we can exercise” ? When you’ve been ripped off in a deal, this is your first recourse.
People also forget that england is the original pirate nation and always preferred a state of lawlessness, the unwitten constitution, the ad hoc, make it up as we go along, just to they could do all their fucking nonsense and get away with it, er “its written up somewhere” – you need to hold them to account when they pull this bullshit, which means you need to know the fine print, the nitty gritty.
“constitutional lawfare” is a completely legitimate tactic as part of a wider multi strategy, it is just another bullet in the gun with which to do damage; it might not get you there on it’s own, but it is useful and people trying to argue we should NOT use every tool at our disposal are fucking-at-it and should just fuck off. Somebody should be on this, somebody should have been on it decades ago, but at least now we have Salvo/Liberation – why kick people trying to make a positive contribution?
“ancient guff” is one problem, but a bigger problem is modern guff, i.e. postmodernism, which seems to think that “things in my head are really real because my feels tell me so” and we can legislate reality.
“Somebody should be on this, somebody should have been on it decades ago, but at least now we have Salvo/Liberation – why kick people trying to make a positive contribution?”
Maybe because they are another tiny fringe group claiming to represent everybody when the vast majority have never heard of them.
They are also promoting an irrelevant strategy which won’t work because the only way to gain independence is by universal suffrage, ie a referendum which at the moment will fail, again.
Personally I don’t like conspiracy theorists and tinfoil hat wearers claiming to represent me, folk just get the wrong idea about most scots when these folk claim to have “popular” support
“The sacred Claim of Right argument falls to pieces almost literally when you start carving out the references”
In your mind, perhaps. In reality it does not. In the exact same way that Mr Davis demonstrated with his speech that the parliamentary privilege “argument” provided by the English Bill of Rights did not “literally fall to pieces” due to the religious references and lack of inclusivity in the text of the bill, the exact same applies to the “arguments” embedded in the Claim of Right.
By the way, the monarch of the Kingdom of Great Britain swore abiding by the Claim of Right in its current form not that long ago. He did so without even trying to “carve out” the obsolete religious references.
If the monarch is prepared to acknowledge the legitimacy, fundamental importance and current validity of the document despite its language, what exactly makes you think the people of Scotland will not? Do you think the people of Scotland are complete idiots who cannot see pass beyond the parts of the document which are evidently no longer applicable?
“core basis of the argument itself is obsolete because, whether people want to accept it or not, today’s established norms presume that overarching sovereign authority rests with Westminster and Holyrood”
Says who? Whose “established norms”? Who established those norms?
According to Westminster, Holyrood has no authority. According to England’s and Scotland’s own MPs, it is a creature of statute that is not even entitled to parliamentary privilege. So whose norms?
“I also mentioned that the “sovereignty of the people” argument has been rendered obsolete by 20th century developments in international law”
That you mention something does not necessarily make it truth. It may make it desirable in your mind, but not necessarily the truth.
International law has no power to change the constitution of a country. Scotland’s popular sovereignty is embedded in the Claim of Right and the Claim of Right is embedded in Scotland’s own constitution. International law cannot change that. The only thing International Law will be concerned about is the revocation of the international Treaty of Union on the basis of systematic violation of its fundamental conditions or a change in circumstances. The Claim of Right happens to be one of those fundamental conditions valid at all times. if a fundamental condition of the treaty is violated, the treaty becomes void in the eyes of international law. The fact that the union has now become toxic for Scotland – and the continuous decline of its native population and the squandering of Scotland’s assets without Scotland seeing a penny out of it, are proof of this, constitute a change in circumstances.
” There are no guarantees but there are plenty of examples where international law has served the desired purpose — no ‘Claim of Right’ required”
You are completely missing the point. The Claim of Right is a fundamental condition of the Treaty of union at all times. It is a fundamental condition that has been repeatedly violated, ergo it presents an opportunity to terminate the treaty. Every time the monarch rubber stamps a law which has been forced on Scotland by an English MP majority, they are imposing absolute rule over Scotland and they are giving us an opportunity to invoke the the Claim of Right and declare that treaty of union void.
The attempt by Wesminster to usurp Scotland’s sovereignty via the clause 36 of the EU Withdrawal Agreement bill was another blatant violation of Scotland’s constitution and the Claim of Right. Yet, our useless SNP MPs sat through that without even blinking, probably just thinking when they were next visiting the subsidised bar.
The interception of the referendum bill by the unelected representative of the crown and the transfer of the control of Scotland’s legislative power to an English court was another violation of the Claim of Right, and therefore another missed opportunity.
The only thing we are missing at this point is a representative entity that is willing to speak on Scotland’s behalf and terminate that darn treaty on the basis of all the violations of its fundamental conditions and the continuous usurpation by Westminster of Scotland’s sovereignty.
The last 10 years have demonstrated to us that no political party is prepared to do that and the only thing they are prepared to do is to continue playing the fool’s game of dangling a carrot and showing every now and then the begging bowl. Therefore, we have to look pass beyond political parties and elsewhere. They are wasting Scotland’s time (and resources)
“nobody really seems to deny Scottish statehood”
? you must live in a parallel universe. England MPs deny Scotland’s statehood every day. Even Scotland’s own MPs and MSPs deny Scotland’s own statehood every day for as long as they keep abiding by that Scotland Act. If they didn’t they would not be humiliating us as they are by begging on their knees for a stupid S30 or they would not have fell over themsleves to hand the stone of destiny so a foreign king could place his arse on Scotland’s stone to symbolise Scotland’s subjugation.
“I consider it pseudo-intellectual to discuss this without reference to the points made above”
And that will be your prerogative. I consider your rebuttal unconvincing because, just like Andy Ellis does, you provide an assertion of what you think without the evidence to back it up. You seem to think that, just because you think that way, everybody else must follow suit. Sorry. It does not work that way.
“conspiracy theorists and cultists”
And moonhawlers and “tin foil hat” wearers and blood and soil nativists. Again, just like in the case of Ellis, insulting the opponent is not going to make your argument stronger. In fact, it makes it even weaker.
@LogorrheaMia 6.20 pm
And that will be your prerogative. I consider your rebuttal unconvincing because, just like Andy Ellis does, you provide an assertion of what you think without the evidence to back it up. You seem to think that, just because you think that way, everybody else must follow suit. Sorry. It does not work that way.
No Mia, your reasoning is flawed because it enjoys no appreciable legal, academic, constitutional or political support or background.
It’s not a matter of what I personally think, although it happens of course to chime with the views of the vast majority of Scottish voters generally and independence voters more narrowly, it’s the fact that the worldview of the moonhowlers lacks both theoretical and practical hinterland.
You and your adherents enjoy no appreciable support. You can’t produce any evidence or back up because you have none.
If you were capable of using 1 word instead of 10 as a default setting now and then it might be easier to take your effluvia more seriously. You really, REALLY need to get an editor, or just a life. Preferably both.
“although it happens of course to chime with the views of the vast majority of Scottish voters generally and independence voters more narrowly”
Another arrogant assertion made with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. The views of the independence supporters I have had the opportunity to talk to do not align with yours at all.
My experience is that when you talk to independence supporters who are fed up after waiting 9 years for a political party to make a move or who are disgusted by the SNP’s betrayal, or who are frustrated by the way Westminster undermines Scotland every day, actually, they are very receptive to the opportunity for an alternative route. They have shown great interest in the Claim of Right and wondered why its existence and relevance was not made much more widely known after 9 years of nationalist majorities.
“You and your adherents enjoy no appreciable support”
Where is the evidence for the support of your views? For instance, how many people in Scotland supports the genocide in Gaza by Israel and the interventionism of USA through its neoliberal wars to preserve the hegemony of the dollar? Have you actually asked them? How many people in Scotland support a war with Russia?
Mr Ellis, it seems to me you have no self-awareness at all. You have littered your comment with 42 words of totally unnecessary
ad hominem. Yet, in your usual display of arrogance and complete lack of self-awareness, you proceed to show the brass neck of demanding my seeking an editor!
There is something really disconcerting about the way the
detractors of the Claim of Right operate in these threads. Almost all of them only rubbish the language of the Claim of Right without no mentioning at all the language of the English Bill of Rights, which has a very similar language. Almost all of them deem the Claim of Right as obsolete but they do not say a peep about the English Bill of Rights. Almost all of them assert without evidence. Almost all of them proceed to dish insults or ad hominem galore when things do not go their way in a desperate quest to completely shut down discussion on the topic.
The way I see it, if you really want independence, you will be happy to see in front of you as many open avenues at once to achieve it as possible. You grab the opportunity when you see it. The more routes can be pursued simultaneously, the more likely one of them is going to succeed.
At the end of the day, the strategy of divide and conquer is something the British state has been teaching us for centuries. In this case, the more fronts the British state has to fight, the weaker its resistance in each of those fronts will be. This stands to the obvious.
The fascinating thing about the Claim of Right detractors here (and what really gives their game away, actually) is that it is not simply a case of favouring a route over the other or claiming that a route will have more probability of success than the other. No. The way they operate is by attempting to close down completely the route of the Claim of Right. No questions asked. No explanations given. You have to stop and that is that.
The way I see it, if you opponent is frantically trying to put obstacles in your route or trying to convince you to follow a different route, you should take that as a sign that you are in the correct route, not in the wrong one.
Because, at the end of the day, and after 10 years of stasis and no progress whatsoever, for independence supporters, what exactly is there to lose in having some very dedicated and learned Scots progressing in the pursuit of this route?
You are free to support them or not. You are free to join them or not. You may prefer to join the efforts through a different route that can be simultaneously pursued. That is great. But really, who are you to stand in their way?
Just because you can travel from A to B by car, would you demand all planes, all trains and all buses to stop running because you consider them less efficient and more expensive than your own car?
Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? Well, attempting to close the Claim of Right route just because you favour another one sounds equally ridiculous. Unless, of course, you are trying to close it down because you are trying to stop independence and you do not see how you can do so if this route is pursued.
So, to those of you who claim in these threads that you support independence but are so completely against this route to be pursued, what exactly any of you have to lose if a number of people in Scotland choosing to pursue this route and are self-funding it?
Do you seriously think that people who have moved onto this route because they were utterly and completely disgusted at the waste of time, resources and opportunities displayed by political parties, and who considered political parties are taking them for fools and will never progress independence, are simply going to go back to party politics because you guys throw the toys out of the pram and demand with ad hominem that they go back to play the losers’ game you like?
I happen to think that those who ardently demand for the route of the Claim of Right to be locked are not independence supporters, but rather independence blockers. But in case I am mistaken and any of you strongly feels that we can only pursue independence through a particular route, YOUR route of preference, please enlighten us by telling us what exactly you think we have to lose in pursuing the Claim of Right route. Apart of the obvious, that is, which is of course the fact that this route targets the Treaty of Union and does not entertain the nonsense of begging for “secession” or stupid S30s so the current monarch can keep the “UK of Great Britain” crown on.
@LoggorheaMia 7.57 pm
Maybe those who live in the real world rather than the Brigadoon fantasy land of “Cunning Plans for Indy”(TM) are just beyond tired of the mountains of unicorn shit about legal routes to dissolve the union, Salvo, Conventions of the Estates, and low lives insisting anyone who doesn’t agree with them or asks for tiresome things like evidence isn’t a “real” independence supporter Mia?
I don’t doubt the commitment of you and aw’ the moonhowlers to independence, I just think you’re delusional. None of “us” give flying fuck at a rolling donut if you want to waste your time building fanciful “castles in Spain” as our French friends say. Fill yer boots. Waste all the time and effort you want.
What we DO have to lose is the achievement of independence in any reasonable timescale, because these non-conventional, non-parliamentary, non majority in a popular vote routes will result in independence being kicked in to the long grass for much longer that it would take to just knuckle down, do the work, and convince more people to vote.
The $64,000 question none of you moonhowlers EVER answer (despite your personal superabundance of words, or James Che’s screeds of gibberish, or Alf Baird’s repetitive self referential post colonial claptrap) is why you think your case will previal when it has vanishingly little in the way of support.
For a movement that’s somehow going to convince the majority of Scots to support it, and carry the day internationally such that effective UDI is recognised, you have vanishingly little in the way of legal, academic or political support.
Why is that? Could it be because your case is half baked wishful thinking?
“There is something really disconcerting about the way the
detractors of the Claim of Right operate in these threads. Almost all of them only rubbish the language of the Claim of Right without no mentioning at all the language of the English Bill of Rights, which has a very similar language. Almost all of them deem the Claim of Right as obsolete but they do not say a peep about the English Bill of Rights.”
Is that right? Disconcerting is it? I’m afraid to say that’s the least of your problems.
Nobody is defending the English Bill of Rights. Nobody is suggesting we chap doors with the English Bill of Rights in the hope of convincing people to support independence.
NOBODY — EXCEPT YOU — MENTIONED THE ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS.
You know what’s really disconcerting? The way intellectual pygmies think pointing at what others have done is a justification for what they are doing. It isn’t.
“The Claim of Right is full of sectarian pish but so is the English Bill of Rights” isn’t an argument for independence. Neither is “oh, we can just ignore the sectarian pish”.
We are talking about ways of achieving independence. I have no idea what you think you are hoping to achieve but this distraction has all the hallmarks of the independence sector (I.e “click to donate”).
Let me put it another way.
SALVO or Liberation or one or another of the groups manage to dig out a still smoking and just fired gun on the illegal basis of the Union from the 17th C
What do you think will actually happen in that circumstance?
I can tell you, nothing, nada, zero.
And do you know why?
Nobody really cares about what happened 350 years ago and what has been breached, people care about what is happening now.
The rights and the wrongs of it are irrelevant.
And I never once said close the line of enquiry down, if folk want to do this for their own entertainment then fill your boots, you are just not doing it for me and the majority of Scots so stop claiming this and I will be happier about the plan.
Geri
20 July, 2024 at 11:07 am
““The people of Nigeria are no better off for their oil discoveries either.”
They soon will be. Haven’t they just told France & the USA to pack their bags & fck off?”
Niger has done that, not Nigeria.
They are two different countries.
Geri
20 July, 2024 at 12:01 pm
“Naw. The end of colonisers. The Brits ruled Nigeria until 1960s. The French thought they’d have a go & have been told to get out of their country along with the yanks.”
Where do you get your information from?
It would be advisable to get your facts right before making strong statements.
“What we DO have to lose is the achievement of independence in any reasonable timescale, because these non-conventional, non-parliamentary, non majority in a popular vote routes will result in independence being kicked in to the long grass”
Why would that be, Ellis? If more than one route are being pursued at once, what exactly makes you think that the simultaneous pursuit of this particular route would lead to losing “the achievement of independence”?
Where have the last 10 years of playing by your rules taken us?
So what exactly makes this particular route to stand up so much and cancel, in your view, your perception of progress towards independence through your route when this has not moved the dial even a mm in the last 10 years despite sending 3 majorities to westminster and achieving over 50% of pro-independence vote in 2015?
“why you think your case will previal when it has vanishingly little in the way of support”
Come on, Ellis. You are much smarter than this. How much support did the Treaty of Union had in 1707? Did it matter an iota that there was virtually no public support for the union in 1707? So what is the difference now?
Remember the triggering of A50 saga that would end the Treaty of union with the EU? the Uk government at the time intended to trigger the article without even consulting parliament. And this is despite they being the biggest advocates of “parliamentary sovereignty”. At the end the Act was passed, but do you honestly think the rest of the world would have given a shit that it would have been done without an Act of Parliament? Did any other country in the rest of the world give a shit that we were forced out of the EU despite voting by over 60% against? Get real.
Take a look at the result in the last GE. How much support does your route actually have among independence supporters? Did you not see that at least between 500,000 and 750,000 pro-independence voters chose not to vote? Isn’t that a cue that it is time to change tack rather than demanding people to continue hitting the same stupid wall over and over again, like you propose?
What exactly are we going to be presented to vote for in 2026, Ellis? More of the same? More abiding by the Scotland Act to ensure full compliance with Westminster and the monarch continues? More begging for an S30? More ransacking of Scotland’s resources and dismantling of Scotland’s assets, like the refinery? The sell out of chunks of Scotland through Freeports?
“convince more people to vote”
To vote for what, exactly, Ellis? What is it that we are voting for? Take a look at the last GE. What exactly were we voting for? Where was the option of voting to end the treaty of union? ISP was the only party standing on an abstentionist ticket and they only fielded two candidates. What was the point in even bothering to cast a vote at all?
What is the point in continuing to play the pretend democracy game when democracy is being systematically denied to us over and over again, even by our own representatives? You think people are stupid and will continue to hit their head against the same wall over and over again expecting each time that they will get independence instead of a bump in the head. Well, Ellis, the people of Scotland seem to have become fed up of getting nothing but bumps in their heads for the last 10 years , so chose to not vote at the GE.
“effective UDI”
It is a bilateral union, Ellis. You have been told this many times. Revoking the Treaty of Union on the basis of violation of the fundamental conditions of the treaty is not UDI. It is ENDING the treaty and therefore ending the union. It results in independence of the two original states who signed the treaty, not just one as you would obtain with UDI.
“Nobody is defending the English Bill of Rights”
What do you mean, “nobody is defending the English Bill of Rights”? Every effing English MP is defending the freaking English bill of rights because it is protecting them from impeachment and giving them freedom of speech in the chamber. Goodness, they have based their entire concept of “parliamentary privilege” on the darn bill. They have had plenty of debates about the English bill of Rights. Goodness me, you even have an example in the video above with Mr Davis invoking parliamentary privilege and demonstrating how this bill is used in practice today. The English Bill of Rights is mentioned right left and centre in Hansard.
“Nobody is suggesting we chap doors with the English Bill of Rights in the hope of convincing people to support independence”
I am sorry, you completely lost me now. Chapping on doors with the English bill of Rights? Where are you going to chap the doors with the English Bill of Rights? In England? To promote what, England’s or Scotland’s independence? Who in their sane mind would ever consider using the English Bill of Rights to promote Scotland’s independence in Scotland? Sorry, but you are making me laugh now.
Yes, indeed, it was me who mentioned the English Bill of Rights because it is contemporary to the Claim of Right and written in the exact same “foul” language. The point you seem to have spectacularly missed is that you cannot direct criticism against one without directing it also to the other. Both documents are extant. Both documents are part of the constitution. Both documents are fundamental conditions of the Treaty of Union. Yet, all the praise in Hansard and in Westminster is for the English Bill of Rights and none for the Claim of Right. But when it comes to criticism and attempting to rubbish it, then it seems it is the Claim of Right what gets all the action while the English Bill of Rights gets none.
“The Claim of Right is full of sectarian pish but so is the English Bill of Rights” isn’t an argument for independence”
It is not an argument for independence but it is an argument that exposes the stupidity and hypocrisy of those who purport to single out the language in the Claim of Right as a means to deter people from following the Claim of Right route.
“We are talking about ways of achieving independence”
I am. But are you?
“I have no idea what you think you are hoping to achieve”
Well, I have no idea what YOU are hoping to achieve. Seeking to closing down alternative routes to independence does not seem like the smartest move to ensure you reach independence when you have to contend against a hostile opponent who has systematically abused its power to frustrate every other route that you had.
“Nobody really cares about what happened 350 years ago and what has been breached”
Speak for yourself. The people I have spoken to really care, get enraged, actually, when they realise how any breaches of the treaty have taken place already and Scotland’s MPs have done SFA to stop it or to put the treaty out of its misery.
“people care about what is happening now”
the breaches of the Claim of Right continue to happen today. Every one of them is an opportunity to progress independence.
“The rights and the wrongs of it are irrelevant”
In your mind, perhaps.
“you are just not doing it for me and the majority of Scots”
Do you speak on behalf of the majority of the Scots or, like Ellis, you just think you speak on their behalf?
“so stop claiming this and I will be happier about the plan”
Stop claiming what and what plan are you referring to?
Lets give it a few years regarding SALVO etc and see who was right, I surmise nothing will happen and nobody will care anyway.
“The point you seem to have spectacularly missed is that you cannot direct criticism against one without directing it also to the other.”
I have no words to express how dumb that statement is.
Your core argument is that Scottish sovereignty lies with “the people” (convention of the estates) rather than Parliament. Are you pretending you forgot that?
The English Bill of Rights has exactly no connection to that core argument. None.
Pretending you are dumb is one thing, but if you think you can conveniently forget your own core argument in a debate like this you, you reveal yourself to be a dishonest actor too.
But that’s very typical of intellectual imposters — always trying to direct the debate in ways that suit their narrow and limited grasp of things.
“I have no words to express how dumb that statement is”
You cannot find the words because there is nothing dumb about the statement. You could at least be honest about it.
“Your core argument is that Scottish sovereignty lies with “the people” (convention of the estates) rather than Parliament”
Yes, that is correct.
“Are you pretending you forgot that?”
In what way exactly are you purporting to claim I forgot that?
Let me remind you how this discussion started:
1. you and others jumped on the bandwagon of trying to rubbish the Claim of Right and to undermine those who are seeking to pursue that route on the idiotic claims that the language of the document, which was written centuries ago but is still extant and is part of BOTH, Scotland’s and UK’s constitution, is foul, outdated and some paragraphs are focused on religion.
2. I responded to those stupid claims by pointing out that the Claim of Right, applicable only to Scotland, IS NOT the only document which have that kind of language. The English Bill of Rights, revered by every England MPs at Westminster and for which NOBODY in the last 300 years has EVER disputed its validity and applicability today, is written in the exact same foul language. To make the matter even more comic, the video above displays an example TODAY of how that English Bill of Rights and Claim of Right are applied in practice.
3. I put to you and the other Claim of Right detractors the question of HOW does it affect YOU that some people in Scotland has chosen to follow this route. None of you responded.
4. I put to you and the others Claim of Right detractors the question as to what right do any of you have to stop these people following this route.
The right you have is none. You are free to join in if you wish or pursue other route of your liking. But you have no right to stop others to pursue what they believe.
5. I also put to you in what way you are claiming to seriously pursue independence when you and the other Claim of Right detractors, somehow, believe you are above everybody else and insist that this route has to be abandoned on your say so and we must all follow a route that for the last ten darn years has proved to be completely futile.
YOu can huff and puff and double down on your nonsense as much as you like. But attempting to rubbish the Claim of Right as a valid document or purporting to stop others using it because you do not like its language when you have a text-book example in the video above of how it is still practicable applicable and when your route has been trashed, frankly leaves the credibility of the seriousness of your commitment to pursue independence under a rather large question mark.
“The English Bill of Rights has exactly no connection to that core argument. None”
Yes, it bloody does. You may insist in closing your eyes and refuse to see it, that is up to you. But that you cannot or will not see it does not mean it does not exist.
1. Both documents report the transfer of the crown from one monarch to another. IE – they refer to where the sovereignty in both England and Scotland lies.
2. The English bill of rights was issued by the English parliament. This supports the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. In contrast, the Claim of Right was written and issued by a Convention of States NOT A PARLIAMENT. This means in Scotland, in 1689 parliament WAS NOT sovereign. This means the concept of “parliamentary sovereignty” does not apply to Scotland.
3. The English bill of Rights DID NOT remove the crown from the monarch. The English bill of Rights simply ratified that the monarch had absconded and left the throne vacant. What does this mean? It means England, in 1689, saw the monarch as the sovereign. As the ultimate authority. Only when the monarch was absent parliament took over.
4. The Claim of Right did not simply ratify the absence of the monarch. The Claim of Right actually removed the crown from the monarch and handed it to another monarch. The claim of right clearly states that forcing absolute rule on Scotland is unconstitutional. Why is this important? It is important because it is a demonstration that popular sovereignty was present in Scotland in 1689. It is a demonstration that ultimately, Scotland’s crown was the people of Scotland, not the monarch of the day.
5. Why is this all relevant? Because if Scotland was able to constitutionally call a convention of States in parallel to a parliament, and if Scotland was able to remove the crown from a monarch and hand it to another without that monarch or the parliament’s consent, it means it can do it again.
6. That document proves parliamentary sovereignty does not apply to Scotland. That document proves the tradition in Scotland was of popular sovereignty. That document proves Westminster cannot be “sovereign” over Scotland because the parliament of Scotland that ratified the treaty of union did not have the power to transfer a sovereignty it did not own in the first place.
This is fundamental to understand the real position of Scotland in this union and the actual rights of the people of Scotland when it comes to decide how and when to leave this union. This is fundamental to understand that the political frauds in the SNP have been taking us for complete and utter fools for the last 10 years with their knee bending and begging bowls to Westminster asking for a stupid S30. And THAT is the relevance of the document, which is why it is completely idiotic to simply fixate on the “foul language” as a mean to block what could possibly be the soundest route to independence of them all. For goodness sake, lets leave the stupidity of extreme political correctness aside and lets concentrate in the matter at hand: seeking Scotland’s independence for any means available to us and by pursuing as many avenues as we possibly can.
“Pretending you are dumb is one thing”
I guess this is precisely what you are pretending to be. I have no other explanation by your ridiculous attempts to divert from the original matter of discussion and your attempts to make believe you do not understand what is being discussed here.
“but if you think you can conveniently forget your own core argument”
Never for even a second I have forgotten, nor purported to forget what the core argument of the debate is:
1. POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IN SCOTLAND VERSUS PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY IN ENGLAND. This is reflected in the differences between the Claim of Right and the English Bill of Rights.
2. WESTMINSTER CANNOT BE SOVEREIGN OVER SCOTLAND IF THE PARLIAMENT WHO RATIFIED THE TREATY WHICH CREATED THE PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN COULD NOT TRANSFER THAT SOVEREIGNTY BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
“you reveal yourself to be a dishonest actor too”
The way you have attempted to quash this route on the nonsense of its language when you know that for the last 10 years the route you claim we should follow has failed election after election, and the fact that you have tried and failed to deflect from the original point of discussion makes me think that the dishonest actor here is you.
“But that’s very typical of intellectual imposters — always trying to direct the debate in ways that suit their narrow and limited grasp of things”
And that defines you down to a T.
The length of your backsliding response (which I refuse to read) speaks volumes.
You are supposed to be defending the Claim of Right. That isn’t an invitation to talk about the Bill of Rights, the constitution of Azerbaijan, pork sausages, Gregorian chants, or the climate on Jupiter. Get it?
Failure to grasp that basic logical point suggests you are incapable of taking part in a meaningful conversation.
” I put to you and the others Claim of Right detractors the question as to what right do any of you have to stop these people following this route.”
I had said at least twice that as a research exercise into historical documentation anybody can go ahead and research away and I have no issue with that.
The documents may be valid, or not.
What I said was even if it could be proved to be a legal smoking gun that “proves” the invalidity of the Union it would make absolutely no difference.
There would still need to be a referendum to make any decision.
The rest of the argument about legality, applicability, language etc is now irrelevant on that basis, the key point here is that essentially the rest doesn’t matter if nobody cares about the result of the process which is why I haven’t bothered arguing about all the points on either side of the argument.
“You really, REALLY need to get an editor, or just a life. Preferably both.”
Don’t make me put both of you on pre-mod again.
NO. FUCKING. PERSONAL. ATTACKS.