The shifting sands of memory
We were a bit bemused by this yesterday.
The Scottish Tory MSP reacted furiously to a story in The National which said Scotland had been absorbed into England by the 1707 Act Of Union, rather than becoming a “partner” in anything, and had ceased to exist as a state in international law.
Which was a weird response, because that’s been the official stated position of both the UK government and the Conservative Party for at least the last 12 years.
It was in February 2013 that the UK government issued the first of a series of policy papers with regard to Scottish independence, and it was very clear indeed on how it regarded the matter.
You can’t be a partner in anything if you’ve been extinguished. What Professor Black said at the conference was unequivocally, unambiguously, the stance taken by the Conservative UK government during the indyref campaign.
If Stephen Kerr, as an elected representative of the same party, thinks that stance has changed in some way, we’d be fascinated to hear more about it. It might be pertinent.
Well, tories (of whatever complaexion) are going to tory.
If Scotland has been “absorbed” into England, why isn’t it called England?
Or how about “North Britain”? – They tried that, but couldn’t make it stick because other than than the tractor sycophants we consider ourselves Scottish, not British.
link to caltonjock.wordpress.com
CJ that link is broken.
So use this one instead:
“The UK – A Voluntary Union or Capture by Conquest – The role played by England’s Spymaster Robert Harvey is Key- GROK has a view -More in Part 2”
link to caltonjock.com
Thank you Jock
One irony being the current SNP have studiously avoided referring to anything related to the * Union * , eg the factors surrounding it’s formation , the historical ( largely negative ) effects of Scotland’s relation to it , the lies , wilful distortions and out n out abuses by England of this so-called * Union * and de facto concur with that Annex ( double irony alert ! ) A Opinion : at least are perfectly happy to go along with it and too fckn cowardly to so much as question , let alone challenge the utter shite that has been allowed to ossify into historical and continuing * fact * .
Even now after having had their pathetic pleas consistently contemptuously thrown back in their face , they are still bleating on about S30s and cringingly/laughably ” demanding ” blah blah blah , ie deferring to the English State for that which Scotland has absolutely no need to ask permission for : the restoration of our status as an Independent Nation
Well said.
I’m not aware that anyone has ever said that ‘Scotland is a partner in the Union’ as a legal position, it’s basically just a political slogan.
Actually, no, it’s not, Dec. The Treaty was real and very much based in legality. The Scots have never really challenged it. That is the point.
Trolls gonna troll.
Knuckle draggers gonna get friction burns from the nylon carpets in their bedrooms.
Robert the Bruce has made it clear by being accused of being a leper that he plans on being resurrected out of hell as The Order of Lazarus intimated during that 1300 time period.
He will get out of hell because he was NEVER pardoned from his excommunication. He will stop 1707 Union Act with a call from Jesus’ mouth to stand on this earth again.
(Granddaddy wins after all;) Robert supports the real Christ!
Sincerely,
A Jehovah’s Witness that grasps that early understanding too
I believe whats upset Mr Kerr is the fact he’s been running about like a tit all his life shouting he’s British through and through and as its turns out he’s England through and through.
I would presume Stephen Kerr got into politics not for the cause of anything other than his own, one thing we do know is that these so called 21st century politicians are well below average.
As far as I’m aware if he doesn’t like the truth go and research it for himself its that easy, England isn’t hiding it.
Lets thank Mr Kerr for getting the message out their he probably reach more people than The National did.
“We have catched Scotland and will hold her close”
The Speaker at Westminster 1707 following the Treaty.
Says it all really..
Does it? Politicians say all kinds of ordure that cannot be termed ‘legal’. Either the Treaty was and remains an international treaty for legal purposes, as well as political, or it was and is not. In which case, there can be no Union
Have always said that the Treaty needs to be clarified legally, rather than politically. If there was no legal(in international law) Treaty (treaties are always international) then the Acts, which are secondary legislation (i.e. domestic legislation translating and ratifying the international treaty) are not legal either as the Treaty of Union supersedes the Acts, being the primary legislation.
I can’t agree with Professor Black that there was no Treaty, and I find that argument very dangerous in that we became, therefore, a part of Greater England for over 300 years. Yes, I absolutely agree that we have been treated as such, but I would maintain that England has been acting ultra vires for over 300 years.
Just because the Scots accepted that the English institutions should suffice as the new British state’s institutions in no way means that Scotland accepted that, according to the Treaty and Acts that it became an adjunct of England. The Treaty specifically, to my mind, makes it plain that it was INTENDED by both countries – which were independent states, pre Treaty – to be a Union of partners.
The speeches by the monarch of the day, Queen Anne and the other workings around the Treaty really preclude its being anything other than a Union between two separate, independent nation states. Just because England has acted abominably towards us for over 300 years does not mean it has acted legally or that Scotland acquiesced in its own demise. Such a view is inherently dangerous in that omission in law can often be as persuasive as commission in law, and can be taken to mean, as Crawford and Boyle did, to mean that Scotland acquiesced in its own subsumption.
What ever happened to the new site layout, I preferred it.
“What ever happened to the new site layout, I preferred it.”
======
So too, did myriad cyberYOON trolls, hackers and site saboteurs,
Well it just clarifies to us all that Scotland is a colony .
Thus seeking independence has clearer reasons to pursue and routes which are already being taken.
I just hope the events by collective group tackling this ,( and which has both been ignored by media and mocked by some) is successful in the long run.
I also hope independendistas now unite to contest Holyrood in 2026
Better Together ?
Extremely rare for the SNP to hit 2%, four times in a row on UK wide, Westminster voting intention polls. It’s usually 3%, but it’s a marginal call and a matter of rounding up or down from tenths of a percentage point.
The three polls which give a Scottish sub-sample (More in Common, YouGov, & Opinium, combined population sample 352) have the following average numbers:
Con 10.7%, Lab 18.7%, LibDem 12.3%, RefUK 19%, SNP 28.3%, Green 9.3%.
Plugged into a Holyrood prediction calculator, there’s a hung parking with SNP 15 seats short of a majority.
Seat projection: SNP 50 (-14), RefUK 23, Lab 21 (+5), Con 13 (-18), LibDem 13 (+9), Green 9 (+1).
Can you extrapolate a Scottish sub-sample of Westminster voting intentions to Holyrood with any accuracy? Voters (well some at any rate) have differing motivations at each. A poll based on FPTP cannot accurately predict AMS results.
Re: the inevitable comments of people unqualified to discuss the history of international law or the constitutional history of the last 500 years of what is now the UK, the point of this article is the hypocrisy on show from one of the usual suspects. Reactionary politicians make things up as they go along and bend principles to expediency or the daily
battles on social media. No matter what your political tribe is Scotland deserves better than the corrupt politics we’ve been stuck with since the end of 2014.
PhilM: I don’t think Stephen Kerr is being mendacious; I think he believes that there was and is a Treaty of Union. What he is being mendacious about is Scotland’s role since 1707 to the present day, which he must see to be a subservient, subsumed one, and therefore, not the Treaty of Union’s intention. The Treaty requires to be ‘sound’ in law. Long, long overdue. It really angers me that this has never been done.
Of course, England would fight tooth and nail to try and push the Crawford and Boyle line pre 2014 that Scotland was subsumed in 1707, but a good constitutional lawyer KC could easily bring evidence to the contrary. It would be one helluva case. Assuming the actual law, instead of Westminster/Whitehall law, prevailed, Scotland could then bring a case in the international court to have the Treaty resiled and the Union dissolved. I think the Treaty will trip us up if we tell ourselves that we were subsumed inn 1707 and try to build a case on that.
“he believes that there was and is a Treaty of Union”
No shit, Sherlock! That puts him in the overwhelming majority of sane people.
“Scotland could then bring a case in the international court to have the Treaty resiled and the Union dissolved”
What’s this “Scotland” you write about? At issue is what the majority of Scottish residents want and will accept.
You think you speak for that majority but you don’t. If a majority of Scottish residents don’t want the UK dissolved, then it won’t be dissolved, no matter what some nit picking academics poring over 3 centuries old dead parchments might argue.
“no matter what some nit picking academics poring over 3 centuries old dead parchments might argue.”
Wait a minute there, Shitface..
Aren’t you the one cheering on a gen-ocide over centuries old dead parchment that is supposedly written by someone in the sky & recorded by themselves? Yet that’s okay?
You can go sit with that Christian fundamentalist Kerr.
The Act of Union is an internationally recognised treaty. It is very much alive or it’ll be dissolved already eh Einstein & there’d be no parliament at Westminster.
& Drop the ‘residents’ It’ll be Scots who’ll decide their own Nations status, not the blow-ins drowning out the vote.
We know how you yoons work. One set of blow-ins are okay with you lot but other blow-ins are not, especially if they’re brown or Muslim. No, the next ref will be like Brexshit. No blow-ins, part timers, foreigners or students. The UK rules will apply. 20+ yrs residency.
Yoons are just full of hypocrisy. It must give you constant brain ache to try keep up..
“the next ref”
Aw, bless.
Barbie’s pinning her hopes on there being another referendum!
Ah well. Decades of pointless pish posting on here still to come while we wait. Result, eh Barbs?
You are well-named Hatey. I have never claimed to speak for all Scots. The documents speak for the law, and, therefore, for all Scots. The Union certainly did not speak for all Scots. Most hated the very thought of a Union with Scotland’s oldest enemy.
Things change, time change, and Scotland, by a majority, whether you believe it or not, wants out of the Union.
Lorn said:
“… Scotland, by a majority, whether you believe it or not, wants out of the Union”
Easily verifiable, public domain facts say:
NO: 46% (as of May 2025)
YES: 44%
link to politico.eu
Some “majority”, huh.
Captain Caveman: I agree that its is not a large majority. On the other hand, campaigning hasn’t actually started. Think about it.
“Easily verifiable, public domain facts say:
NO: 46% (as of May 2025) YES: 44%”
By facts I guess you mean the result of a poll conducted on a selected population.
I followed the link you included in your comment and all what I can see is a graph under the title “Scotland — Potential second independence referendum”
So, what does that graph represent? What was the question asked? Was it about how many people wanted a referendum, or was the question about if they would vote for independence?
I do not see next to the graph or any link on it where it can be established how many people actually completed the survey.
I also do not see any link to the validation of the population sample selected for the survey to establish if it is representative of the voting population of Scotland or not. For instance, where were they based? Would they be allowed to vote if a referendum took place tomorrow? What were their ages? What were their political inclinations? How long have they lived in Scotland for? Were they born in Scotland? How many of them only came to live in Scotland recently? How many of them are only transiently in Scotland? How many of them were simply selected because they own a property in Scotland?
The questions above are pertinent because we have a precedent in 2014 where the right to self-determination of the people of Scotland was deliberately frustrated by including in the franchise all those living in Scotland at the time, independently of where they came from, for how long those not born in Scotland or with Scottish heritage had lived in Scotland, how long those were planning to remain in Scotland for or even simply included because they owned a holiday home in Scotland, independently if they only spent a few days a year in Scotland.
I am sorry, but a graph without information on the population used to create that graph, never mind the question asked to obtain that response is completely meaningless and certainly cannot be considered “a fact”.
If you want to use a poll as “a fact” you should cite proper ones like the ones the Rev publishes here and which provide all the information required to validate the result.
House Boy Kerr sits happily on the gravy train and no second class colony is going to take it away. A party being denied any form of majority in Scotland for 80 years should really just relocate up a mountain someone and shout their bile into the wilderness
Scottish Sovereignty Research Group Conference (17 May 2025)
KEYNOTE SPEECH BY PROFESSOR ROBERT BLACK KC
Starts at 1.46.35 into youtube link via webpage below:
link to gobha-uisge.blogspot.com
As I have mentioned on previous comments to articles on Wings
Why do the SNP and other independence supporting parties not mention David Cameron’s statement about the union being a partnership of equals during the referendum campaign.
I believe John Swinney could have more more during the Smith Commission negotiations to gain more powers as the majority of no voters wanted.
Aye, it is a wonder Peter. I recall at the time being extremely frustrated at Swinney accepting what was on offer and not getting something from it more generally. The leverage was there but you had to be prepared to refuse to take what was on offer and state in detail why. There were plenty folk warning him about the settlement from the smith commission
You seriously want the SG to have MORE powers, they have made such a mess of the ones they already have I am now in the fast growing group of folks that would like it completely dissolved and gone!
I believe that most FMs have been complicit in devolved chicanery because they have always accepted devolution, bar Salmond. He never viewed it as anything but a step on the road to independence. For Swinney, it is all. He always was a devolutionist. Always. Apart from that, the Scots have never learned how to circumvent and outmanoeuvre the English establishment. I think that SALVO, Liberation, Liberate Scotland, ISP, ALBA, etc. are beginning to understand.
My understanding of Professor Black’s view is that Scotland was illegally annexed as a territory of England and that the ToU is a fraud; a fiction to disguise the theft of Scotland’s land and resources.
This is a scenario I can easily support given England’s imperial history.
Professor Black also states that: “Scotland’s legal status today, more than three centuries later, is therefore not that of a partner in a union – unequal, perhaps, but a union nevertheless – but is that of territory absorbed into a larger country… A territory with only limited self-government and with its resources exploitable and exploited by the larger country for its own benefit and purposes.”
I believe Professor Black’s legal opinion fits neatly with Professor Baird’s ‘Scotland is a colony’ theory as presented in his book, Doun-Hauden.
I also believe, although I am no expert on international law, this is a good thing for Scotland’s case for independence currently being presented to the United Nations by Salvo and liberation.scot and this is why Kerr is furiously fuming and belligerently blasting Professor Black’s opinion.
The ToU and acts of union are all lies lies and damn English lies it has transpired.
Scotland was stolen by England it would seem. Who could have guessed that our friendly southern neighbour
and partner in unionwould stoop to such a despicable act?mibbe nou thon inglis hiv been rumbled they’ll hae tae gie us oor country back.
Northcode.
Give us our Country back, you must be joking,
England will fight tooth an nail and avoid everything in their power not to let Scotland go, even threaten Scotland and Scots with violence,
Because it does not mean just Scotland leaving behind the faux treaty, but every treaty that has come about since the hoax treaty was created By the Westminster parliament and the monarch of England,
It has much larger implications for England and the rest of the world than first might be imagined.
There will be Countries that side with England to retain their position of power,
Equally there will be many Countries that side with Scotland because it releases them from oppression. And old treaties.
“the ToU is a fraud”
There is indeed something rather iffy about the Treaty of Union and the way the monarch and the Parliament of Scotland conducted themselves at the time.
Whilst it is true, and it is on record, that the Parliament of Scotland ratified the treaty and passed the Act of Union with England, the parliament of Scotland did not finish the job.
A fundamental part of fully enacting the Treaty of Union was to disable the laws that contradicted the articles of the treaty as instructed in article XXV.
Without declaring those laws void and null, the union would go nowhere fast, because one of the active laws of Scotland at the time was that Scotland could choose a different royal line than England. In other words, Scotland could dissolve the so called “union of the crowns” at any time of its choosing.
This was because there was never a proper union of the crowns in the first place, and that piece of legislation is the ultimate proof of this. The only thing that happened is that both crowns were bestowed over the same monarch at a particular moment in time, but not necessarily in a permanent way. Scotland retained its power to select another royal line whenever it wanted.
Yet, we have been sold the idea of this “union of the crowns” as a done and dusted job over the centuries. It is bollocks.
In fact, the Act of Union with England is the only piece of Scots law that grants the Hannover line the right to become Scotland’s monarch. It is also the only piece of Scots legislation that ensures that Scotland will have the same monarch as England.
But article XXV of the treaty of union and act of union with England is very clear. Those laws incompatible with the treaty have to be disabled by the parliament who enacted them, in this case the parliament of Scotland. The treaty does not give any other parliament the authority to do this.
The fact that neither the Parliament of Scotland, nor indeed the Parliament of England actually finished the job and declared null their respective laws which contradicted or disabled the articles of the treaty of union, is very strange, and raises the question if a legal union did actually ever happen.
Those laws, and in particular the law that enabled Scotland to choose a monarch different from England’s after the so called “union of the crowns” in the 1600s had taken place, constituted the ultimate protective barrier against a permanent union with England, because it would put the claim of the House of Hannover to the Scottish territory always under threat.
In other words, that piece of legislation was a direct threat to the ambitions of the English monarch.
So, without the abolishment of those laws by the Scottish Parliament as instructed in the treaty, was the union ever properly enacted? Is the union even legal?
And more importantly:
Why was the Scottish parliament allegedly abolished before it finished the job?
Who had the legal authority to close down/abolish Scotland’s parliament?
On which date exactly was the parliament of Scotland “abolished”? Because the last record of that parliament says it was “adjourned”.
Let’s think coldly about this for a second and from what would have been the rather selfish and self-serving perspective of the monarch.
As said above, the Act of Union with England is the only piece of Scots legislation that ensures Scotland and England will have the same monarch, for as long as the union remains. It is a unique piece of legislation for Scotland that has no precedent.
We know that, before Anne, English monarchs had pursued this union with Scotland for centuries and did so always unsuccessfully.
From the memoirs and history books I have read, it seems that very few, other than the monarch Anne, thought the union would last long. So it is easy to see why the monarch would feel the urgency of “abolishing” the parliament of Scotland immediately after the Act of Union with England, which guaranteed the same monarch for both kingdoms, basically what she wanted, had been passed.
For a frail union prospect which was not predicted to last, and a rather greedy monarch who though she had nailed it when other monarchs had failed, I guess it could have been far more urgent to shut down the Scottish parliament as soon as possible to avoid any risk of having the Act revoked than to ensure the “dodgy” law was abolished.
The urgency would have been exacerbated by the fact that, at a time, the prospect of the union with England was hugely unpopular in Scotland and MPs were even fearing for their lives and being lynched by the people. Some of them had already been publicly insulted and stoned.
I guess that for an arrogant monarch who only saw parliament as the instrument to achieve what she wanted and who did not give a shit about what the Scottish people wanted, having that parliament abolishing those pieces of legislation incompatible with the treaty would be just a minor thing in her big picture.
The arrogance of abolishing the parliament before this had the chance of fulfilling article XXV would fit very nicely with the mentality of an absolutist English monarch who considered parliament their possession and subordinated to them as it continues to be seen in England.
The idea that the articles of the treaty were there to be broken whenever the monarch fancied to satisfy her interests would be fitting also with the current mentality that the English monarch can veto any laws that would make him pay the same taxes than any of us is expected to pay, for example.
But such hypothesis would also suggest that the monarch was never serious about a treaty in the first place. And that the objective would have always been that Act of Union with England. It might have been the case that the treaty was quite possibly just a ruse to get the idiots in the Scottish parliament to pass the Act of union ensuring the same monarch for both kingdoms in perpetuity.
In fact, the idea that it was the monarch or those close to the monarch and not parliament itself who selected the so called “commissioners” who folded at the minimum pressure supports this idea.
I have not found a record of that last parliament of Scotland when it was abolished, nor a record of the monarch abolishing it, nor when this happened, how, or who instructed it.
So, did it ever happen or was all hearsay just like the idea that there was a “union of the crowns” in 1606 is hearsay?
Is the union even legal if those laws were never abolished by the respective parliaments of Scotland and England and article XXV was violated immediately on the very first day of the so called “Great Britain” parliament?
If the parliaments of Scotland and England never abolished those laws and, in line with article XXV, the parliament of Great Britain never had the authority or the legal power to change pre-union Scots law, are those laws truly abolished today or it has all been a pretence?
Was the abolishing of Scotland’s parliament even legal?
Who abolished the parliament of Scotland, when, why, how and with whose legal authority?
Was the preservation of the Act of Union with England, and in particular article 2 of that act the real reason behind rushing to abolish Scotland’s parliament?
Is the preservation of that article the real reason behind keeping Holyrood under a straight jacket of the Scotland Act and under that unelected and profoundly undemocratic vulture figure of “Lord Advocate”, actively usurping power over the legislative and executive powers from the people of Scotland to hand them to the English crown?
Who is really behind the democratic suppression of Scotland’s democratic rights since 2014?
Is that the troughers and gravy slurpers allegedly “representing” Scotland?
Or is the “Kingdom of Great Britain” crown fearing that enacting that original dodgy Scots law will immediately result in Scotland refusing the current royal line and becoming a republic?
Or is the English deep state who refuses to remove its paws from Scotland’s assets?
Or is the USA and its appendage in the ME deep states gerrymandering and abusing our democratic structures for their own self-serving geopolitical ambitions?
Or is all of them simultaneously?
And if somehow it might have been possible that in certain circles in Scotland it was known that a legal union could not possibly start after collapsing the Scottish parliament, an immediate question for me would be regarding the legal position of the challenger to the throne in the 18th century.
Because, without a legal union, without the nullification of the laws which established that Scotland could well choose a different royal line than that of England, could it not be possible that the so called “pretender” was not really challenging the crown of the ficticious “Kingdom of Great Britain”, but rather seeking to regain control only over Scotland’s crown pushed aside by this fake union and fake kingdom of “Great Britain”?
The potential ramifications of all this are fascinating.
For instance, it is obvious that the idea of this ficticious “kingdom of Great Britain” emerged because Scotland would have never surrendered its crown. Then there is the question as to why England did not invade Scotland to take over. AGain, it may have feared that France would come to assist Scotland and England would lose.
Whatever the reason, what seems obvious is that this “kingdom of Great Britain” is a fabricated thing that does not incorporate the crown of Scotland. The crown of Scotland has no monarch, because, as far as I know, no monarch has signed the oath since Anne. This is not happen with the crown of Wales, for example. It is a completely different scenario.
There is another possibility to explain why the parliament of Scotland never declared those laws null.
It might have been the protection of last resource for the self-serving parliamentarian cowards who ratified the treaty to save their own arses and fill their own pockets.
Because until the first parliament of Great Britain took place, as far as I know, the alien legislation of England against Scottish people in England was still very much active. The cowards who were hoping to fill their boots with riches going to Westminster rather than sitting in Scotland’s parliament might have been concerned what would happen to their heads should England refused to declare that law null and void.
If this latter hypothesis is correct, it would suggest that the betraying cowards knew very darn well that the main (only?) interest of England in this union was to hold Scotland and England under the same monarch, therefore they might have been holding that piece of Scots law legislation that threatened the legitimacy of the Hannover line to Scotland until the very last minute and until their sorry arses felt safe enough in England.
At this point, I am not really sure what to believe regarding the treaty. I have read the memories of some of those who were part of the first parliament of Great Britain and, unless until 1713, they seemed convinced the union was legitimate despite the many inconsistencies.
There is no indication in those memoirs that they were aware (or cared) that it had all been a fudge and an excuse to take over Scotland. What they were very aware of though is that England MPs did not take long in starting violating the articles of the treaty and they did not seem to be that pleased with it.
However, at least until 1711, those who claim to represent Scotland in Westminster were convinced that Scotland’s parliament could be reconvened and what is more, THEY, the Scottish MPs and Lords could reconvene it themselves, therefore they did not have a sense that Scotland had been irreversibly annexed by force. They retained the idea that Scotland was intact as a kingdom and that could revert to its independent status at any time. It was only their presence in Westminster which ensured the permanence of the union.
A basic piece of research would dispel this immediately, the Union with England Act 1707 Article XXVV passed by the Scottish parliament disapplied the laws that you cite:
link to legislation.gov.uk
“A basic piece of research would dispel this immediately, the Union with England Act 1707 Article XXVV passed by the Scottish parliament disapplied the laws that you cite”
Actually no. Your “basic” piece of research does not dispel anything at all. In fact, it adds more confusion and puts the legality of the union under even bigger question marks.
Let me refer you again to article XXV of the Treaty and Act of Union with England. I invite you to read it:
“That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom, so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles, or any of them, shall, from and after the Union, cease, and become void, and shall be so declared to be, BY THE RESPECTIVE PARLIAMENTS OF THE SAID KINGDOMS (my capitals)”
Nowhere does that article give the parliament of Great Britain the legal power or authority to declare any piece of pre-union Scots constitutional law null or even amend it.
Nowhere does that article give England MPs the legal power or authority to abolish or even amend any piece of pre-union Scots constitutional law.
It stands to the obvious therefore that, either the Scottish and English parliaments were operating as independent still within the “parliament of Great Britain”, or the Parliament of Great Britain acted ultra-vires and exercise an authority and legal power over pre-union laws that it never owned in the first place.
If the parliaments of Scotland and England are supposed to be operating independently within that parliament of “Great Britain”, then there is no “Great Britain”.
But if that “Great Britain” parliament did not have the authority or legal power to abolish those laws, then it means those laws are extant today.
And if those laws are extant today, it means the Treaty was never enacted and the union never started, because the very first step for the union to start was never taken.
Can you see the problem now?
Mia, your comments are often a mammoth read but it’s always worth making that little extra effort to read them.
I’m frequently impressed by the depth and breadth of knowledge a few of the commenters on here display on Scotland’s legal, political, and constitutional history.
I’ve learned a great deal from your many erudite contributions here btl.
I was going to post this at the end of this entire article’s thread and include your comment’s timestamp. But I was drawn to the the quick reply link. I fear I might be succumbing to this new comments format – damn it.
It’s my understanding there was no union or parliament of ‘Great Britain’ because it never happened. It was a wish list to be united as one nation/state but that didn’t happen. It was rejected by the parliament & King James was rather pissed off & was told it’d happen incrementally.
Umm – no it wouldn’t because pre negotiated terms stated it wouldn’t. The claim of Right. Scots were/are sovereign & no one can amend that & no one asked Scots to join this shit show.
Scotland really needs to re-establish constitutional lawyers. It’s a farce that there isn’t any sitting in Westminster.
If you use AI to write it, you can use AI to summarise it.
“We wus robbed” about covers it.
@Geri
They made several attempts at a union, but all monarchs failed until Anne. She seemed to have achieved what all other monarchs before her had failed to achieve. How she achieved it (with bribes, corruption, deception, threats and ignoring the wishes of the people of Scotland) is another matter, of course.
However, her achievement only looks complete in the surface. When you start to look deeper, there are far too many inconsistences that are not explained. At least I have not found sufficient evidence to explain them.
The one of article XXV and the fact that we are led to believe Scotland’s parliament was abolished before it completed the job so the union could start are to me the biggest inconsistencies right now.
Other inconsistence is the fact that the monarch swears allegiance to the English crown but not to Scotland’s. Why is that? Is it because he is pretending that the Scottish crown does no longer exist, or is it because he is concerned those pesky laws are still active because the parliament of “Great Britain” never had the legal power to declare them null so his right to the crown can still be challenged?
Another inconsistency is that of allowing for the crown and sceptre of Scotland plus all the documentation to remain in Scotland according to the treaty. If the ultimate goal was always annexing Scotland, taking control of the two main symbols of the Kingdom of Scotland would be the biggest message ever of successful conquest.
Another inconsistency is that of “creating” a new kingdom without dissolving the other two. Nowhere in the treaty of union it says that the kingdoms of Scotland or England would cease to exist. It is like creating a parallel entity. Why?
If the ultimate goal was to annex Scotland, the whole thing could have been called “Kingdom of England”, exactly as they did when they annexed Wales.
I wonder if the reason why they did not want to be seen as annexing Scotland is because they feared France, and what is worse, that they might not win, in the state they were, another war against France where France would be corralling them and attacking them from two different sides.
One of the first things that Anne did in the first parliament of “Great Britain” was to ask for more money and manpower for England’s wars. Personally, I don’t think England was in the buoyant state we are led to believe it was. In fact, it had a significant debt at the time, hence the equivalent being paid to Scotland. It was always Scotland the one that was portrayed to us as being dirt poor, but Scotland was not engaged in any wars. England was. Scotland entered the “union” with no debt. England entered the “union” with very significant debt.
Mia: the laws that were not compatible with the Treaty fell into desuetude – which means that they were no longer useful. That happens even today when laws become incompatible with a subsequent legislative enactment – and this is a point that was not, I believe, brought up in the UKSC case recently.
Almost the entirety of the 2004 GRA has fallen into desuetude and has been superseded by subsequent legislation. That process is more our less complete now that the UKSC has clarified the law as understood in the 2010 EQA. The 2004 GRA should now be repealed.
The crucial point about the Treaty is that the Articles have been quietly and blatantly transgressed over time. One of the most blatant piece of leger de main took place shortly after the Treaty was signed off, and the Acts ratified, when the court of final appeal in civil cases was taken out of Scottish hands and placed in the HoL, now the Supreme Court.
What has been happening is that the Scottish government, desperate for relevance, has enacted, or tried to enact, very bad statute law when it could have made good use of the Scottish Common Law, a flexible and far better instrument to encompass, for example, what are termed ‘hate crimes’, and misogyny could have easily been covered by the Common Law, too.
Time and time again, the Scottish government has proved itself to be incapable of standing up to Westminster or to learn from past mistakes. If it does that learn that lesson soon – indeed all Scots who want independence need to learn the lesson – and become far more adept at constitutional law, politics, the law in general and, particularly, in understanding the Treaty and how it has been suborned in England’s interest, and how to circumvent and pre empt Westminster and Whitehall in our own interest, any attempt to gain independence is doomed from the outset.
The Union with England Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament prior to the amalgamation into the Parliament of Great Britain. In the same way the Union with Scotland Act was passed by the Parliament in England.
” the laws that were not compatible with the Treaty fell into desuetude”
Sorry, Lorn but on this, I have to disagree. I do not believe that the law that empowers Scotland’s parliament to select a different monarch from that of England ever fell into desuetude. There is no reason for it to ever become obsolete, particularly when most at the time did not think the union would last. It is a matter for the parliament of Scotland to use its prerogative to apply that law or not at a moment in time.
There has to be another reason as to why Scotland’s parliament never abolished it nor any other piece of constitutional law.
From the perspective of the English monarch, that law had to be actively abolished and pronto, otherwise, Scotland could pull the plug on the union at any point simply by exercising its constitutional prerogative to select another monarch at any time of its choosing.
You could also argue that this law is another reason as to why the parliament of Scotland had to be seen as being abolished, why Holyrood has its hands firmly tied at the back with the Scotland Act and why those elected to Holyrood can only take the seats if they swear allegiance to the English monarch.
We like it or not, the reality is that the parliament of Scotland never abolished that piece of constitutional law, never mind selecting or declaring what pieces of Scotland’s constitutional law were incompatible with the treaty.
Article XXV does not empower England Mps or England’s monarch to decide or choose what pieces of Scotland’s constitutional legislation are incompatible with the treaty, never mind abolish anything. It leaves it to the judgement of Scotland’s parliament.
There is a very good reason as to why the very first parliament of Great Britain was so eager to target that law as the very first piece of Scots constitutional law to be “abolished”. I would argue that this was ultravires and beyond the monarch’s and that parliament’s legal and constitutional power. It was also a contravention of article XXV
I would argue that that law and that of the alien act might remain extant today in Scotland and England respectively, because they were never abolished by the parliaments that actually created them, which are the only ones with the legitimate power to do so.
For instance, the parliament of the EU has no power to go in and on its own accord abolish laws created by the parliaments of any of the member states. Those parliaments have to abolish those laws themselves. Well, the same applies here.
In my view, the attempt by the Parliament of Great Britain to abolish that law displays in full their complete ignorance regarding the concept of Scotland’s popular sovereignty.
I think the urgency to “abolish” that piece of law and to “abolish” Scotland’s parliament have the English crown fingerprints all over them because they reflect an absolutist view incapable to process that Scotland popular sovereignty means that it does not need a parliament to depose a monarch as it was demonstrated with the convention of the states and the Claim of Right.
Our representatives ratified the Treaty in 1707, Northcode. They acquiesced in the Union. Scotland was not bankrupt; only many of her subjects were. We have to decide: are we duped and subsumed subjects of the UK; or are we a people who signed up to a Union in good faith and were roundly conned? Yes, we have, indeed, been treated like a colony but that does not equate to having been subsumed? It equates to having been conned for over 300 years, often acquiescing in our own conning. A Treaty is not exactly like a contract, but does bear similarities. If you cheat and breach a contract, the other party is perfectly entitled to have it dissolved. Look at Quebec; look at Catalunya. Both are territories of bigger countries. Neither has been able to break away using the argument that they are part of the bigger political and legal entity.
I don’t believe that Scotland was annexed. Yes, that has been the effect of the chicanery by Westminster and Whitehall, but that was not the INTENTION of the Treaty. The English MPs were nothing if not opportunistic. That is how and why we have ended up as a colony in all but name. The Treaty is still extant and, therefore, challengeable in the constitutional court. First, it would require to be ‘sound’ in law, and that could be done in the Court of Session, in Scotland, before being remitted to the UKSC, which is the highest constitutional court. It would be a case that would go down in history, along with the KCs who fought it.
I must admit I am still in two minds about it.
I can see that there was, at least, some intention of preparing a treaty. But the way it was done breaks through any current principle of international law and would not be acceptable today. So today, that treaty would be a non-starter.
I can also see that England MPs and the monarch started to violate the treaty from day 1. So one could argue that the union ceased to exist from day one. It was at all effects a take over.
The assault on Scotland’s constitutional body of law by England MPs targeting and attempting to abolish that particular law regarding a different monarch in Scotland and England shows the self-serving absolutism from that parliament and from the English crown, which violated the Claim of Right, but also violated article XXV of the treaty which did not empower that parliament to amend any of Scotland’s pre-union constitutional law.
So I can see valid reasons to think one way or the other. I find it perfectly credible that the whole thing was just a a con-trick from the English crown to get the Scottish parliament to pass the act of union with England and then immediately suspend/abolish the parliament to stop anybody else revoking the Act.
But I also find equally credible that the English crown, given its absolutist nature, has always been incapable of working in collaboration with anybody else. That crown has to always dominate and take over control of everything else. This is credible to me because this is exactly what we have seen for the last 300 years done to Scotland. But also we also saw how the UK had to come out of the EU because they couldn’t gerrymander and exercise control over the whole EU.
I do believe the silly things that were in Scotland’s parliament in 1706 did indeed think they were entering some kind of union, but I also think that the last thing in their minds was the wellbeing of Scotland. They were caring only about themselves, and, in particular, what part of the equivalent they were getting.
During indyref there was a lecture/BT/Yes convention held at Edinburgh Uni where Tom Devine spoke of the Union & it immediately being a bad idea from the Scots point of view as they found themselves amongst eejits & how they wanted out but events took over, the industrial revolution, the age of enlightenment (tho the thicko English didn’t read the memo about scrapping the monarchy bit) & international trade.
Michael Sheen also gave an excellent lecture along the same lines of how the Welsh went along with the same trap, sharp minds & industrial revolution was happening – sold the same pig in a poke it was a collective effort only to discover Georgie porgy always seemed to be the only benefactor in this *Union* con with always hogging the lions share for itself. Not even for its own citizens & is still alive today as they warmonger for more lands whilst they completely ignore the ones they already have. They’re colonising wankers & inbreds, passed down from one leeching inbred family to another & we won’t be rid of them until the monarchy is gone completely. The whole reason the English keep it, & their class system, instead of ditching it when the Europeans did. Tho they have Globalists now but that’s on the decline as WEF booted out Schwab & the public will revolt because they’re making no secret their puppets in government work for them as they introduce crazy policies no one actually voted for – now they’re rigging elections & that won’t last much longer across the EU as they’re resorting back to fascist type.
Both lectures should still be on YouTube. Ruth the mooth was on the panel but she didn’t have much to say cause she was just another puppet playing poster girl selling out her country for a trinket & a seat amongst kiddie fiddlers & pig shaggers. I wonder if she collected another wee donation at her initiation ceremony. They do love to “keep it in the family” those HoL sorts.
Northcode has it clearly.
The book legitimacy….self determination clearly sets out the legal routes for colonies like Scotland.
The Independence movement are progressing thus now.
Ian: you kind of have to provide evidence that you ARE a colony, not just being treated as one. It seems to me that everything unearthed by SALVO/Liberation is evidence of a massive con trick at odds with the spirit and substance of the Treaty. I also think that the massive con trick was perpetrated by the English politicians AFTER 1707, not by the monarch or the Commissioners on either side, and the ceremony was overseen by international ambassadors who, I’m sure, had not all been co-opted into perpetrating a massive con on Scotland. That is a conspiracy theory too far.
A country that is allegedly an “equal partner” in a “unitary two party state…..but;
has no control over it’s own resources [tick], houses weapons of mass destruction that it’s pretendy parliament has voted to have removed (twice) but was ignored [tick],has a majority in favour of independence but is denied a vote on the matter [tick], is kept artificially poor by the mother country [tick]…..
Six letters, starts with ‘C’
C _ L _ NY
James, I am not saying that Scotland is not treated as a colony, just that the Treaty’s original INTENTION was that it should be in a Union as an equal partner. That is the whole crux of the matter and why the Treaty should have been ‘sound’ in law and clarified in constitutional law.
The recent UKSC ruling did not change the law or set down any new law; it merely clarified that which the law already was and is. The same pertains to the Treaty. If you accept Professor Black’s stance, you also have to accept that the English establishment deliberately, with malice aforethought, forced Scotland into the Union and that Europe’s ambassadors, who were representing their individual and independent nations, with whom Scotland traded, too, were part of the conspiracy. Sorry, I don’t buy it.
What happened AFTER 1707 is the significant part of the story, when English MPs set about creating the fiction that Scotland was subsumed. Let me put it this way: if you went into partnership with someone and used his or hers pre existing buildings to house your office and storage facilities, would you be handing over everything to him or her? Would you be saying: I am a subservient employee?
No, because you would have brought something to the table yourself, plus your expertise. What you were doing is understanding that he would be recompensed for the use of his buildings. You would not be selling your soul, would you? If he cheated you, you would have the right to sue for dissolution of said contract.
Thank you stu for taking this discussion up, it is sorely needing clarification,
It is without doubt that England presumed through the Westminster parliament it had captured Scotland in a faux treaty in 1707.
That the members of the old Scottish parliament slithered into the parliament of Englend,
In the same breath the Westminster parliament of England even today say they did not capture the Scots, for they would have voted NO if they had been asked the question,
Thus the old parliament of Scotland members distinctly separated themselves from the people of Scotland and the Country of Scotland to become english parliament members in England.
They lacked any provision to remove the Sovereignty of the Scots as a people or the Crown of Scotland under the Scots,
We see this as a result of their, and Englands decision to treat the Scots as Sovereign from their old Scottish parliament.
The old Scottish parliament had already made their vote to join England.
The problem then arose what to do with the Sovereign Scots, their territory that did not belong to the old parliament of Scotland.
Their remedy was to ignore ( by avoiding ) asking the the Question to the Scots, to put it on the back burner,
hoping they could simply fool the Scots in Scotland into falsely believing that the treaty
covered them and their territorial kingdom .
The Queen of England under the English constitution may have held Sovereignty in England, shared with the parliament of England.through the english bill of rights,
However she did not hold Sovereignty in Scotland over the Scots, their territory or kingdom, under the Constitution of Scotland,
Therefore she could not officially authorise the Scottish side of the treaty of union without asking the Scots first whose authority and Sovereignty was above hers, as it was above the old Scottish parliament.
Englands parliament of Westminster and the monarch of England have not only faked the treaty of union, between Scotland and England by pretending the Sovereign Scots were in the treaty of union by escalating and furthering that hoax for claiming English mineral and asset rights over the kingdom of the Sovereign Scots whom were never (Not even by the non–sovereign monarch in Scotland) asked the question to join the treaty of union,
The question now is not so much wether Scotland is a Colony ( although that is amply argued by default ) but what would happen if the Sovereign Scots just left the the Hoax,
The Westminster parliament of England along with the English monarch would find it extremely difficult to justify their position.
As they admit that the Scots were Sovereign from their parliament in Scotland by acknowledging that the there was a requirement to put a vote to the Scots( which England ( avoided asking for obvious reasons ) after the Old Scottish parliament members had already agreed and voted to become English parliament members in England.
Scots over the years have placed themselves mentally in the position of defence of their independence from England capture
Yet all this time the Scots were not in the treaty of union, their sovereign territory and realm were not in the treaty of union either.
Scotland was not subsumed, merged or taken over other than by a pack of lies and a hoax.
Agree with most of that, James. I would say that both the Queen and her English Commissioners did negotiate a Treaty with the Scots, knowing that they were negotiating a Treaty in international law (all the speeches and working around the Treaty show this to be the case) but that the politicians at Westminster and in the HoL decided that they would humiliate Scotland and keep her a prisoner in the full knowledge that what they were doing was both illegal and unconstitutional.
The surrendering of the fishing industry just the other day mens that it was used, along with oil and gas, to get us into Europe, used to get us out via Brexit, and, now, used, to get us back in after a fashion. The English knew that Scotland was worth a great deal in trade, in tariffs, in taxes in 1707, and they managed to close the back door to invasion at the same time, and, since then, the bounty has risen and risen.
They have nothing with which to bargain because we have most of it in natural resources es and we are a sitting duck with the nuclear weapons, too. We will have to use every ounce of ingenuity and courage to free ourselves. That is why the Tories insist on the ‘equal partnership’. Yes, there is a Treaty and a Union, but it is all on England’s terms – illegal, ultra vires. That is what we have to evidence.
“We will have to use every ounce of ingenuity and courage to free ourselves”
Sure, but you’ve missed the third ingredient, bloody hard work, and I’m wondering if it’s accidental or deliberate.
I see little evidence that anybody who posts on here ever even starts to understand that there is masses of graft needed along the road to Indy. It’s always just Indy tomorrow and then feet up with embarrassing riches in perpetuity the day after.
Aye. Right.
Which is also why Westminster invented The Scottish referendum, (which if the treaty of union is not a hoax) and all must be followed,
There is no Article that States that Scots must have a referendum from the Westminster parliament of England that has the monarch of England.
However on the matter of the devolved parliament in Scotland through the Scotland Act, ( again if the faux treaty is to be adhered to)
The treaty specifically states that there will be only one and the same parliament of great Britain hereafter.
The Scotland act would automatically breach that article.
Every thing that has happened to Scotland for over three hundred years is based on wether all is correct in the creation of a invented Country called Great- Britain
As Salvo have pointed out and I have also pointed out over the years here on Wings, the old English parliament continued to sit after the union was supposed to be in force, and indeed the old laws of England continued unabated and uninterrupted to this day,
For instance The English parliament passed the Bill of Rights Act pre- union, but did not end it when the supposed treaty of union created the new united kingdom of Great Britain,
That the old parliament of England did not re elect new members from England to the new created entity the parliament of great britain but simply moved them over to the new parliament again does more than imply that the old parliament of England simply continued in the every law and in its members.
Just rebranded their old parliament of England name to Great Britain parliament. Opps of England,
By not ending the laws of England, retaining a monarch of England or closing down their parliament to create the new entity of Great Britain the political union between England and Scotland failed as a international treaty.
Not forgetting that the Westminster parliament of Englands- Great Britain also failed to capture the Scots into the treaty.
When a thorough study of the said treaty is undertaken by the Scottish people there are umpteen such glitches that fracture the treaty of union propaganda to be found,
That is why I personally am ever so grateful to Stu for raising this topic, to give the people in Scotland a chance to discuss and analyse and dissect all the ramifications of what happened, was it a faux treaty. And what position is Scotland in today if so.
Lorn,
If it is discovered that the 1707 treaty of union is indeed faux treaty it has ramification on all latter treaties undertaken by Westminster parliament, including the EU treaty,
It would imply that Westminster parliament not only tricked Scotland as a Great Britain united kingdom parliament but hoodwinked the rest of the world.
Whilst keeping in mind that the sovereign Scots were not asked to join the treaty of union and Westminster parliament in their arrogance admit this on their parliament site even today,
And boast they are one of the oldest parliaments in the world.
But that is only true if you start from the date of the parliament of England sitting in Westminster building.
“hoodwinked the rest of the world”
Aye, James, with true, Scottish Exceptionalism of the highest purity, it’s only a tiny handful of True Scots who perceive the truth.
The entire rest of the world are utter klutzes.
Man, they’re gonna be furious, just furious, when they find out
A nation makes it’s own laws.
When the people of Scotland wish to confirm they are a nation, they will not need to look at the small print of An Ancient Act of Union or anything else.
Stop worrying about nothing.
Oh, I’m afraid they will if they want international recognition.
Not necessarily. Kosovo manages just fine.
There are many countries who have ongoing disputes. It’s countries that recognise other countries, not some English permission slip.
& given the Western ‘minority’ aiding, funding & turning a blind eye to an ongoing Gen-ocide taking place in front of them I don’t think their recognition is one that we’ll need that badly or indeed, in the future. They’re not even respecting democracy on their own turf lately. Colonisers never do. Same with their own population while they’re neglected & funding them off warmongering to steal other ppls territories.
The UN will implode soon. New seating arrangements will soon see to it. A return to international laws & the “rules based order according to the Anglos” will finally be booted out. The global majority have had enough of the colonising G7.
Strong, the “wanking on and on” is, in this one.
Or should that be “wan”
Perhaps Mr. Kerr and others of his ilk are suffering acute anxiety from discovery that there is no union; hence there are no ‘unionists’, only ‘colonialists’.
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
And so, into the third and final phase of decolonization we go:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
What word from New York Alf?
What word from London, AI Dan?
What word are you expecting from London?
Rhetorical question – just like yours
It’s not a rhetorical question – Salvo submitted a dossier to great fanfare back in March to the UNCDC we which have all been told, is the first step on Scotland’s road to being declared a non-self governing territory. I and others think this is a total dead end. I’m interested to hear if a response has been received.
“I and others think this is a total dead end. I’m interested to hear if a response has been received”
If you are already so convinced it is a dead end, how can you possibly be that interested in the response? You should think it is a done deal.
Here is the thing. I do not believe you. You appear to be even more concerned and impatient about the response than those who submitted the application. You have mentioned it here several times already.
So, what is it your real concern about the response?
How naive you are to think that the wheels of bureaucracy will speed up for you. And even if they did, do you really think that Professor Baird would be inclined to share with you?
For those two reasons, your question is rhetorical.
Of course you may disagree, at which point I should expect to be party to any discomfiture currently being experienced in the Westminster corridors of pah (‘power’ in Scots)
Yes, so here’s the thing, I think that either;
a) no response has been received because this has gone into the same intray as all the other countless messages from various tiny organisations that the UN receives; or
b) A response has been received which says “thank you for your submission, this is not a matter within our remit to be able to deal with” or words to a similar effect.
In which case the people behind it will go silent on this particular initiative, but very shortly come up with another grift which they will promote and start fundraising for. This is supposed to be a popular campaign supported by the people of Scotland, so its baffling that anyone who asks perfectly reasonable questions such as asking for a status update gets told to piss off.
“A response has been received which says “thank you for your submission, this is not a matter within our remit to be able to deal with” or words to a similar effect.”
Wrong. It is actually in their remit. That is the whole reason for their reason for existence. To uphold international law. To uphold the UN charter & to uphold international treaties.
You seem to forget we’ve been there before over devolution. Westminster can’t just make shit up to suit itself & they were instructed to deliver what Scots had voted for twenty years earlier. You English really need to fuck off & learn why no one likes you. Interference in things that don’t concern you is just one of them.
Alf is under no obligation to inform you of anything. Do one. You don’t have a vote here. You don’t live here & you aren’t welcome either. Go piss off and worry about immigrants & brown ppl, there’s a good chap.
The hour is 17:04 and Geri has been on the Buckie (probably since 8am). Which despotic regime or famine-inflicted region will you be singing the praises of this week? It’s nice of Stu to allow you to post again.
I’m fascinated about how you know where I live btw, have we met in person?
Alf does not “owe” me an explanation, but silence is in itself an explanation. Nothing personally against Alf who seems like a decent guy who’d I’d happily buy a pint for, but this whole Salvo thing is a total dead end. Scotland does not qualify for NSG status within the framework of intentional law, as I have explained many times to various posters.
“In which case the people behind it will go silent on this particular initiative”
Nonsense.
There is absolute no reason for the people “behind it” to go silent if they are told by the UN that Scotland is not a colony because Scotland is in a union. They might as well shout it from the rooftops.
Because if the treaty of union is extant and there is indeed a union, then the right for Scotland to unilaterally revoke that treaty and end that union remains extant too.
If that is the case, there is no room anymore for excuses to stop us holding a referendum, no reason for our representatives to continue to swear allegiance to a foreign crown, nor legitimate reason for an unelected minion of the English crown to continue interfering and usurping our executive and legislative powers, nor legitimate justification for the English crown to continue stealing Scotland’s resources.
Either Scotland is a colony and therefore can apply for a decolonisation process, or it is in a union which it can end whenever it pleases. It cannot be both things at the same time, nor in turns depending of what is convenient for England’s crown.
The UN response will just be the confirmation of what route the people of Scotland must follow to end this toxic political construct.
Somewhat, I think you are already seeing the writing on the wall despite the pretence that you do not. I think you are desperate to know the response from the UN as soon as possible to update the troll script before it becomes completely obsolete and superseded by events.
“but this whole Salvo thing is a total dead end”
If you are so convinced it is a dead end, why are you so bothered and going on and on and on about it?
“Scotland does not qualify for NSG status within the framework of intentional law, as I have explained many times to various posters.”
I am sorry, but your explanation unconvincing, therefore we still believe Scotland might qualify for NSG status under UN’s classification. Thank you.
@Mia – there are many reasons why Scotland cannot qualify for NSGT status, but the most definitive one is the blue sea rule, which requires there to be a geographic separation between the NSGT and the administering state. This is not met in the context of Scotland.
Even if the issue of independence were to be resolved by the interpretation of a treaty, it would not be the UNCDC that would determine the outcome. An application would have to be made to the ICJ. There is of course a gaping hole in your alternatives, which is that Scotland is part of the UK state, and international law does not provide for the right to form an independent state outside of the contexts of either NSGT or military occupation.
The massive fly in yer ointment is that the Union between Scotland & England wasn’t territorial.
What Scotland entered the union with is what she leaves with.
It was a political union. That was it because it wasn’t even a Royal one. There is no UK ‘state’ There is two Kingdoms with two crown institutions & Scotland was never consulted on either Union.
Go look UK govs own website. The one state/Nation never happened. It’s a fiction created by yoons & especially under the Tory government who only decided they were “one nation” after they clearly lost Indyref. Since time began all Scotland has to do is vote a majority of MPs to Westminster & DECLARE INDEPENDENCE. That was Thatchers view, Majors, Blair’s & Cameron. It only changed under Big bird Theresa.
“after they clearly lost Indyref”
Of course, Barbie, the Yes campaign won the Indy Referendum.
The behaviour of the SNP since becomes clear with the benefit of your lucid explanation. Why hold a second referendum when we already won the first?
Simples.
I’ll summarise today’s lessons so far. We’re not in a union because it doesn’t exist, and when we held a referendum to leave that non-existent union, the Leave faction won.
Any thing I’ve missed?
Well wouldn’t you look at that: link to theguardian.com
@Aidan
Thanks for the link.
They’ve had “decades of genocide” an a’.
Has anybody else noticed how genocide’s no what it used to be?
Bring back the Germans I say. Some people give them a bad press, but they know how to organise a proper genocide.
@Hatey – and the UNCDC determined it was not within their remit because they aren’t one of the 17 recognised NSGT designated by the General Assembly. Exactly what is going to happen here (or may already have happened)
Scotland isn’t “self governing” ya plank.
Does it’s votes count in Westminster? No.
Can it collect it’s own revenues? No
Can it hold a referendum? No.
Can it decide it’s own spending decisions? No.
Can it have its own trade deals? No.
Can it control it’s own borders? No.
Can it control its own immigration? No.
Can it enact decisions passed at Holyrood? No.
Can it even sit at parliament with its own oath? No.
Can it set its own budget for the SNHS? No.
Can it borrow money? No.
Can it raise all of its taxing? No.
Can it abolish the Royal accent shite? No.
Can it have a say at the London treasury? No.
Can it have any input on overseas territories? No.
Can it have any input on warmongering/bombing the fuck out of things abroad? No.
Can it meet foreign leaders without a chaperone? No.
Can it attend international events? No.
Can it do anything at all? No. Sit down, shut up & enjoy being shafted. You are a colony. Everyone & their dug knows it… except yoons cause they’re as thick as shit & you’ll never fix stupid.
& For the last time can someone tell Shitface Holyrood is a Westminster outpost & ALL who sit there follow orders or we’d be independent already & England wouldn’t have the world shame of being taken to the UN & before that, the European council.
Fascists don’t like democracy.
The UN is corrupt as feck because the yanks run the show & they’ve already colonised England. The whole reason it was set up after WW2 was because it dethroned the British Empire & took all of its overseas territories Barr a few. It protects its own interests but the good news is that’s not going to be for long. A new world order is emerging & one that will stick to International law. It’s ironic really cause it’ll be headed by the former colonised & two countries in particular who had their own territories carved up to suit the “Western values” of fake democracy & decolonisation. Its rather fitting that the shoe will soon be on the other foot. The UN, in particular the African Union, R, China, India, the Middle east & frankly whole of Europe absolutely despise England & the USA & it’s terrorist activities around the world & funding terrorism. They don’t like Gen-ocide, war crimes & they particularly don’t like the theft of other countries dollar reserves as country after country dump the $. Don’t just take my word for it. Go tune into the UN on the daily or geopolitical channels. Head choppers, Nazis & terrorist groups are their only friends left. Even Trump has had enough of the MI5s rent boys undermining him. There’ll deffo not be a place for England at the new table & deffo nothing with veto powers. They’d be delighted to see England’s colonies ended for good & seeing Scotland independent. Karma always returns for payment. Tick tock…
I’ve asked Grok for a summary of your latest post, Barbs.
Grok says:
“The post is a free association, alliterative panegyric to the pleasures of gurning, shafting, rent boys and wanking on and on”
Imagine that, Barbie. Grok reads Wings too!
Aidan at 2.40pm
It’s bad enough that it might be the case without you wishing it so..
Replying to James Cheyne: 21st May @ 5:19 pm
“Give us our Country back, you must be joking”
I was indeed joking – but I’m sure you knew that.
If it is accepted that Scotland is the victim of a hostile takeover by a foreign power and has been illegally, and secretly, deemed a territory of that power under the guise of a treaty to be ruthlessly exploited the notion of any genuine and fair independence referendum, or a fair vote through a captured electoral system designed to work against the Scots, is ridiculous.
In such a scenario it would also have to be accepted that the Scots are the indigenous people of a stolen nation and are technically homeless; forced to pay exorbitant rent just to exist on what was formerly their own land; blocked from ever recovering their nation and their sovereignty through any political or constitutional mechanism controlled by their captor.
“It has much larger implications for England and the rest of the world than first might be imagined.”
You are correct, of course, when you say that the fallout from the liberation of Scotland will have far-reaching domestic and global consequences. But think of how interesting the whole thing would be to watch unfold live on the telly.
I wonder how the BBC will report the liberation of the Scots.
“I wonder how the BBC will report the liberation of the Scots”
Do you really? I’m thinking most grounded people will be wondering WHEN the BBC will report the liberation of the Scots.
So there’s a new slam-dunk finding that allows 300+ years of history to be written off. Great. What’s the date of our liberation? All grounded, rational and notionally sane Scots will need to start planning.
Are you going to tell me there’s no date, because apart from some boring fart pontificating, SFA has changed?
I bet you are
Bbc might have a hairy fit and explode a zillion times, after all it is funded by the England Great Britain government making Scots pay a tax to them,
Lorm @6:23pm
As to “surrendering the fishing industry” on Monday, so far that is only a political agreement to surrender it, not anything legally enforceable; the deal itself isn’t done, and won’t be for some time. So it could get even worse once the actual negotiations with the EU are concluded.
The PM has been gaslighting everyone, and both the various MPs, and the UK media are too thick to work that out. The discussions upto Monday were only “exploratory” talks, as the EU published versions of the joint communications make clear.
The is not yet any “deal”, the Commission needs to be granted a Mandate by the member states to undertake negotiations, and only then will a “deal” be concluded. Probably in the form of a treaty.
Currently there is no “deal”, just an agreement to pursue a “deal”. Which is why the PM could not provide any detailed answers when questioned in Parliament.
Have a read of the Q&A document, and the three other documents (especially the last) linked from it.
link to europa.eu
The western world is consumed with righting wrongs of the past so surely that must include Scotland. The Scottish people had no say in joining the English Union, it was a handful of aristos who sold our country and that must surely have been a human rights violation of the entire population of the country.
We demand justice.
Lying to the Scottish people for hundreds of years that they were in a treaty of union with England and therefore must abide and pay taxes and give up their resources,
at the same time as admitting that they never asked and avoided asking the sovereign Scots the very important question….
Meanwhile all the old Scottish parliament members vacated their posts in Scotland to become members of the parliament of England, leaving Scots and Scotland unknowingly to their own devices with no monarch.
Is it the settled view of most people on here that the independence referendum of 2014 was meaningless? And moreover that no future referendum would be required before a democratic Scotland became independent? If so it shows a rather shaky grasp of realpolitik.
My reading is that it’s the settled view of many that because the majority of Scottish residents returned the wrong result the last time, it’s best not to ask them again.
Hence the obsessive search for magic bullets, etc.
It’s because the push for undemocratic solutions is so strong, that I believe that Scottish Indy, if forced, will result in Scotland itself breaking apart along the ethnic, linguistic and frankly racial divisions that are apparent to anybody who looks close enough.
And yes, many of the posters on here don’t have “realpolitik” in their dictionary. In fact there’s a page missing where the words starting with “real” should be, such as “reality”
Yawn….
It was meaningless because it wasn’t written down legally anywhere that they’d actually enact the result – just that they’d respect it which could be twisted to mean anything & as we all know Perfidious Albion is famous for it.
A sovereign nation doesn’t need anyone’s permission to end a treaty. It’s a racket that we need even ask what England thinks. It’s not in their remit. Scotland would be perfectly entitled to end the Union & then hold a referendum on re-joining the Union once we see what they’re offering cause they offer nothing but shit so far.
I just love that film ‘Passport to Pimlico’.
Scotland was effectively acquired, through hostile takeover, by England, who had threaten to cut off Scotland’s international trade through naval blockade and was about to park a host of infantry on Scotland’s doorstep.
The 1707 “Union” simply changed the name of the Kingdom of England to that of the Kingdom of Great Britain, under a single monarch, (which had been the case since 1603), and a single flag, (which had been the case since 1606), and save for 45 Scottish MPs and 12 Peers turning up at Westminster, England carried on as it had been doing pre-1707 without so much as a snuff-induced sneeze.
The Kingdom of Scotland was extinguished save for a few remnants, of which some, but not all, remain to this day…
* Scots Law
* Presbyterian Church of Scotland
* Education (Secondary school exams and university degrees)
* Ability of Scottish banks to print promissory notes
The take over was labelled a ‘Union’ simply to disguise it’s true nature – the 1706/7 Treaty and Acts were binned before the ink was dry and the “parcel o rogues”, having seen the writing on the wall that any blockade/war would finish off a country already near bankrupt thanks to Darien, simply opted to make a few guineas from the inevitable.
We’re a colony of England, and our continued status and treatment confirms such.
I think that that’s a reasonably accurate summary of the historical situation.
So that’s how we came to be where we are today.
Now, the question all alert readers are wondering, what do you propose we should do about it?
Hint: Endlessly and repetitively posting wishful thinking on here isn’t the answer any ordinary, grounded, apolitical Scot is looking for.
“The Kingdom of Scotland was extinguished”
On this point, I have to disagree. I do not believe the Kingdom of Scotland was extinguished at all. It was simply put on hold and is currently mis-governed by its greedy neighbour Kingdom.
Scotland did not surrender its crown and sceptre as symbols of the kingdom. The only thing it does not have, at present, is a Kingdom head and an independent government.
But that can be changed. The only thing that is needed is for the spineless amoebas claiming to “represent” Scotland to ditch the Scotland Act and for the so called “Scotland’s MPs” to either transfer ALL the powers from Scotland they still hold in Westminster to Holyrood or hire a spine from somewhere, put it on and reconvene the old Scotland’s parliament themselves.
Following its own tradition of popular sovereignty, there is nothing stopping Scotland reconvening a convention of the states and nominating a new monarch. There is already a precedent in 1689.
The monarch is not “Scotland’s crown” like it is in England. Scotland’s crown is its people, its territory and governing structures. The monarch does not choose Scotland’s crown, Scotland’s crown chooses its monarch.
English monarchs since Anne may have chosen to not sworn allegiance to Scotland’s crown, but that does not mean the whole kingdom has ceased to exist. The position of the Kingdom of Scotland’s monarch is simply vacant at present**.
Take Ireland, for instance. The kingdom of Ireland was not extinguished when it was colonised by the English crown. It was only extinguished when the people of Ireland themselves terminated it by declaring Ireland a republic.
I am of the opinion that the exact same applies to Scotland.
I am not really sure what the situation for Wales is, though. Whilst the figure of “Prince of Wales” remains extant to this day, it is no longer a legitimate Wales’ prince who is holding the title. It is an English usurper. It is not vacant, like the position of crown of Scotland’s monarch. However, being fair, the title of Prince of Wales remains separated from that of the heir to the crown of England, so the crowns are retained as separated.
**As far as I know, there is not currently a “Kingdom of Scotland” monarch. Charles did not swear allegiance to Scotland’s crown. So the position remains vacant. He is simply the monarch of this parallel entity called “Kingdom of Great Britain” currently governed and exploited for the benefit of the English crown.
Which part of the word “kingdom” do you not understand, Mia?
Your lot chucked the Kingdom Of Scotland into the dustbin of history when you all resolved that Scotland should be a republic.
Don’t you dare try to revive its mouldering corpse now just because it suits your grubby short-term political advantage to do so.
Our many centuries long history as a constitutional monarchy is just another part of our rich cultural heritage that your lot of entitled, chippy, would-be SJWs knows SFA about.
Which part of the word “kingdom” do you not understand”
I understand the full lot of it. Now, which part of the concepts “crown of Scotland”, “popular sovereignty” and “democracy” you do not understand?
You say: “Our many centuries long history as a constitutional monarchy is just another part of our rich cultural heritage”
I ask, which part of Scotland’s constitution, which part of the concept of “limited” and which part of the concept of “democratic” is this present construct where we have an unelected English crown minion in the shape of “Lord Advocate” foisted on us, actively usurping from the people of Scotland the power over our legislative and executive powers, and then handing that power to the foreign crown?
Which part of “constitutional”, never mind “limited” is to have a foreign crown self-awarding itself ownership over any precious metals of value that might be found in the pieces of land people bought when they bought houses in Scotland? On which date exactly was this “transfer” of ownership from the crown of Scotland to this foreign crown? I do not recall reading anything about it in the Treaty of Union, but I will read it again, just in case I missed it.
How deep, if any at all, were the interventions of that “constitutional” and “limited” monarchy in the disgusting conspiracy against Mr Salmond, his persecution and the destruction of his reputation, the protection of perjurers, the malicious prosecutions thrown against pro-independence supporters, the blatant suppression of information of high public interest from the people of Scotland, the gerrymandering of the 2014 referendum, the sudden removal of the political teeth from the SNP once every poll pointed towards a landslide win, the destruction of the democratic structures of the SNP, the coronation of a useless non-elected Swinney to the position of SNP leader and the seemingly miraculous brushing of the missing 600,000 case under the establishment carpet?
Wouldn’t be crucial to know so we can establish how much of a “constitutional” and “limited” monarchy this is?
Which part of “constitutional”, never mind “limited” was to catapult the unelected David Cameron to the position of foreign Secretary back in 2023? Who selected him for the post and on whose authority was he undemocratically parachuted to the post? Who exactly was Mr Cameron accountable to at the time?
Which part of “constitutional”, never mind “limited” is to have a monarchy that continuously relies on an overflowing graveyard of unelected political rejects chamber, aka HoL, larger than the chamber of democratically elected representatives?
It is very easy to see the “rich” part, but what part of “constitutional”, never mind “limited” is to have a monarch with a self-awarded right to veto and self-awarded exemption to any law he does not like or that could affect his own pocket like everybody else’s?
This monarchy and their actions do indeed look rather “rich” more often than not. However, it appears to be stretching the concepts of “limited” and “constitutional” well beyond their breaking point, don’t you agree?
Mia,
That is the part of Scottish constitutional history that union minded people do not understand or wish for their own benefit to ignore,
That the kingdom and territory of Scotland is under the people and therefore the community.
Unlike England constitution.
But they need to colonise that very factual thought before it works to be transferred into the kingdom of Englands constitution,
And that fails because they deliberately avoided asking the Scots a very important question in 1707.
To change the Scottish Constitutional position of monarchy you have to asks the Scots to join the treaty in the first instance.
Which they state on Westminster uk parliament site they did not do
That leaves the Scots and their territorial kingdom outside the kingdom of England.
The two Constitutional positions in two separate kingdoms are incompatable for the treaty to have ever worked.
The bill of rights, passed in Englands old parliament ( pre- union ) makes the monarch the Queen of England,
No longer a shared crown monarchy of both kingdoms,
And in that sense the monarch of England held no authority or sway to act as the monarch in Scotland to commission bodies to negotiate the faux treaty of union.
But arrogance and presumptive overlord status of the mind thought of England were excited in thinking if it captured their monarch it had also captured the Scots, “their” kingdom in Scotland,
Whereas they are two separate constructions,
If the articles of the treaty of union are supposed to be accurate and not faux, and historical records still stand up, then it should be noted if Scotland agreed that the Scottish monarch could be the English monarch.
We did to all intents and purposes simply gave the monarch away to England and retained the kingdom of the Scots.
“Our many centuries long history as a constitutional monarchy is just another part of our rich cultural heritage that your lot of entitled, chippy, would-be SJWs knows SFA about.”
When were you asked if we should keep this constitutional monarchy? That’d be never.
Scots are sovereign & can choose wtf they wish to represent Scotland, ya fckn blow-in & it won’t be a bunch of spoilt, racist, tax dodging, benefit scrounging mongrels from another country.
Chucky is king of England. Isn’t that strange? According to yoons, England doesn’t exist anymore since the shiny new state pish. So he’s not King of the Union, He’s not King of Scots, Sovereign Scots haven’t been asked if we even want a monarch from another country so he has fuck all business here & neither does his minions polluting Holyrood. They’ve no authority here. So take yer 1690 WASP pish & ram it. He wasn’t even English either & neither is Chucky. Descendants of Nazis. The English do seem to have an unhealthy affinity to them eh? Here they are back in bed with them under various guises Fae the Banderited & TRA dick playing piano players, U rent boys & 100 yr rare earth deals not worth the shag they were consummated on ..fck me! You have problems matey, a gid yin or twa bigger than a wee diddy colonial outpost matey…
Scotland will be independent. Get over it already. Even Trump is dropping England from his truth socials..awww, wee rent boys didn’t even get a mention during his wee phone call to P. Quick on the phone to everyone in Europe excluding the UK. That’s gotta butt hurt…
“You have problems matey”
Not as many or as serious as you have Barbie, if your post is anything to go by.
Are things a bit parched on the lurv front with you ATM? It’s just that your post seemed to be rather fixated on the sexual act, specifically the one euphemistically associated with tradesmen.
I’m not being judgmental mind, this is 2025 after all, but you do need to think twice before putting all your personal stuff online.
Mind how you go, Barbs.
Scots Law: Domestic only, zero impact on English law regulated British state apparatus.
Presbyterian Church of Scotland: Assured the Protestant socio-cultural sectarian ascendancy.
Education, Secondary school exams and university degrees: Major vehicles for Briticization.
Ability of Scottish banks to print promissory notes: Never actually «legal tender».
Yep – merely crumbs off the table – kept to placate elite Scots in the day and used to hoodwink the rest into believing that Scotland was still a country with influence. All quite pathetic really.
You do realise that no note over £5 whether printed in Scotland or England is legal tender dont you
RobertKknight.
It is strongly debatable wether Scotland was taken over officially into international treaty with England at all. Or simply lied to.
After all the Scots are not in the treaty, Westminster parliament state this themselves.
The monarch is the monarch of England due to Westminster parliament retaining the passed pre- union Englands laws on the subject.
The what and why Westminster parliament of Englands Great Britain presume they captured Scotland after the shared monarch started only acknowledging and wearing one crown of England is for the birds.
It needs no stretch of the imagination except that of Westminster parliament to see that the sovereign Scots nor their territory had not been captured.
Without the permission of the Scot being offered the question on a union, in fact deliberately avoided , and with the shared monarch becoming the monarch of England,
with the Scottish parliament members vacating there position, membership and offices in Scotland, to move to the continuing parliament of England.
The Sovereign Scots were now left sitting in their own Country with no parliament, no Scottish parliament members, no representation, and no monarch as she had abandoned the Scottish crown.
Basically Scots were living in a republic of Scotland with no monarch of their territorial kingdom,
That was when Scotland became a Colony of England , when the Scots had no one to represent them,
Although they remained Sovereign Scots of and in their own kingdom territory throughout these afflictions.
The deid Queen called herself QE2. It was on the coinage. Yes I know she was QE1 officially in Scotland. But that was never actually enforced. That name tells you all you need to know about absorption.
England’s history became Scotland’s in a continum. There is no UK or Britishness. It’s greater England. We are viewed as a rebellious county.
This article is ‘manna from heaven’ for all the fringe nutters and cranks who habitually pollute Wings.
Much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands from the usual individuals with the overriding sentiment of ‘it’s jist no fair’.
Just in case anybody has missed it-the people who agreed to the Treaty of Union are all deed-it happened over 300 years ago. But, but, no ‘ordinary’ Scots were consulted in the process. Exactly the same as today. Laws are passed with no tacit agreement from ‘ordinary’ Scots. Nobody consulted me that the maximum speed on motorways are 70 mph or you can’t purchase drink before 10am! Personally, I think both are wrong, along with hundreds of other laws I disagree with, but we are where we are.
What is the way forward with all of this? Do Westminster and Holyrood employ reams of solicitors to argue the case in Court, at enormous expense to the taxpayer? Do Scots rely on the UN to repeal the Act of Union on the back of some ‘mickey mouse’ petition? Do we vote in some honest, competent politicians, with a backbone, to fight for Independence? Maybe, as some suggest, we should simply walk away from the Treaty and declare Independence tomorrow. How will that work? SNP in charge of everything in Scotland? Shudders at the thought! It might be a wee bit expensive!
Romantic notions of Independence do not cut it in the real world. This will upset the Geri’s. Che’s, Confused and the Twat on here but the reality is that individuals of this ilk represent less than 1% of all Scots. Empty vessels make the most noise, springs to mind.
As it stands today, I can only see one thing that will galvanise the overwhelming majority of Scots to seek Independence. If England decided to take Scottish water for free. A pipeline running from Scotland to England with various offshoots to the bigger cities. All paid for by the taxpayers of Scotland and England. The English would not mind, The Scots, not so much! It could happen.
Apologies for the length of this post, which is approaching ‘Mia length’ proportions.
Realism not romance is always best in the long run.
It disna maiter when the ‘UK’ deceit occurred, the fact is the ‘union’ disna exist an haes nivver existed, apairt fae in colonised minds, denial forming part of the ‘colonial condition’. Which explains Mr. Kerr’s (and your) anxiety.
That’s right, Alf, there’s no union and there never has been.
And so we Scots, with true Scottish Exceptionalism, are trapped in an imaginary prison, unable to break free from a non-existent servitude, doomed to be forever feart of phantasms.
I’d wheesht about that if I were you, should you ever find yourself in the presence of real freedom fighters.
There’s a few of these rare paragons going about. They won’t take kindly to being compared to people who, by your very own logic, are congenitally incapable of bursting their way through a wet paper bag.
So why not return to planet Earth, accept we’ve been politically and economically linked with England for over 3 centuries, and put in the graft needed to persuade a decent majority of rational Scots of the merits of a national divorce?
Believe me, it’ll be quicker in the long run.
Not even the barmiest of swivel-eyed, loony Brexiteers was so daft as to claim the UK was never in the EU in the first place!
I think you will find that ‘the Union! Whatever that means to each individual, has existed for over 300 years. You may not like it, but to deny it’s existence is just plain stupid. The anxiety is all yours Alfie boy. The real issue is HOW to end it’s existence. You and your cohorts NEVER produce anything to do this. It will only come via the ballot box. Why can’t you see this? There is no magical solution. Scots have to do it themselvrs. Nobody else will assist.
You folks are clearly starting to panic, and rightly so.
Your blessed ‘union’ is proven to be a cultural illusion, i.e. what we have is merely a rebranded England-as-UK, with Scotland annexed.
Scotland was therefore ‘incorporated’ as the Rev suggests, hence ‘a takeover, not a merger’ according to Prof Black.
No partnership = no union. Hence independence is decolonisation, i.e. liberation from the colonial hoax.
Alf,
Indeed Alf, they are projecting anxiety. Back here, in droves trying to protect the treaty of union articles which they have breached time and again,
A hard task to protect something that you call ancient history that no one pays any attention to anymore, or put down its credibility as old guff, if they
And labours governance keep slaying your own dragon why worry about the Scottish people doing it.
Everyone is beginning to want to leave.
“You folks are clearly starting to panic, and rightly so”
What is most fascinating to me is that those who are coming out of the woodwork now to defend the union and the treaty were precisely those who poo-pooed the treaty the most every time the suggestion that Scotland should unilaterally revoke the treaty was mentioned in these threads.
“It is just a worthless old document” they laughed. “It is irrelevant now” they boasted. “It is just symbolic”, they conceded.
Ahh, isn’t it just fascinating to witness how quickly the “unionist” mind moves from considering a piece of paper “worthless”, “obsolete” and “old” to becoming the precious treaty that demonstrates and legitimises the existence of their precious “union”.
Engage only in the battles you can win, is the classic motto. The only way “unionists” can now win the argument that Scotland is not a colony is if they can demonstrate that such document is still valid and extant.
But here is the clincher. If that treaty is valid and extant and Scotland is therefore in a union, there is nothing stopping Scotland ending that union by revoking that treaty.
It is beginning to look like “checkmate” from here.
@Mia – it’s only looking like ‘checkmate’ from here if we subscribe to your unique brand of legal reasoning which repudiates the ability of the courts to determine questions of law and instead treats your own personal reasoning as absolute legal authority. Inside those parameters it is indeed checkmate. Within any recognised framework of law, it is checkmate in the other direction. Or rather advancement of hopeless arguments with no relationship to any recognised principle of law.
If we take the other common line of argument here that the older the law, the more relevant it is (incidentally, exactly 180 degrees from the normal approach taken by the legal profession), then how exactly could the Scottish state have had capacity to enter into the ToU in the first place, having been formed by a illegal rebellion of Robert the Bruce in 1306. I am also unsure how the treaty could bind the Hebridean and Shetland islands which should have been returned to their rightful owners prior to the Viking conquest. We haven’t even considered the Pictish tribes who were displaced by the romans to build Hadrians Wall.
All of this is the territory of historians. Does anyone seriously think that any court will be pursuaded that the UK’s constitutional order could be upended by litigating whether the ToU was validly entered into in 1707? And what’s to say that the consequences of succeeding in that argument are to our benefit? If the ToU has no legal status, then the protections within it for Scottish representation in parliament and the Scottish legal system might also be extant. Even if the ToU were not legally entered into, Scotland has been part of the U.K. for a very long time as a factual matter, so perhaps Scotland’s place in the Union is without conditions. That’s a much more likely outcome than the proposition that Scotland goes back to the legal order it had in 1707!
Realism over romance? Absolutely
Deception over truth? Certainly not
In a parallel universe, Grangemouth Refinery remains open and Distillers plc have their HQ in Edinburgh. Oh, and you get done for speeding on a motorway
THE VIEW THAT SCOTLAND is a part of England is the normative perspective of foreigners looking at the history of the «British state». Only rheumy eyed old Scottish Unionists appear not to see the realpolitik of those Treaties of Union.
Scots schlepping down to London to find places in the English parliament building is pregnant with symbolism.
We bought you, you’re ours now.
In his latest musings, Robin McAlpine claims that Scotland is a feudal state rather than a democracy. He believes that the Government and the Third Sector are in a symbiotic relationship, and at present the QUANGOs have the upper hand.
A Permanent State of middle class apparatchiks run the show while elected politicians up to and including the First Minister, are resigned to carp from the sidelines.
The middle class functionaries act in the interest of the Capital owning class (out of self interest of course). In return, the QUANGOs provide cover for incompetent elected representatives.
The role assigned to the politicians (which they grasp with alacrity) is to provide a veneer of democratic accountability (in return for sinecures they couldn’t dream of in the cut-and-thrust of the real world).
A curiously structuralist analysis from someone with a MSc in post-structuralism, but Robin has long since repudiated that rancid pile of keech.
Always look for the structuralist explanation. Sturgeon was never committed to, or even interested in the TWAW mantra. It was always a means of exercising control over the cult.
Vivian: yes, I also think that Robin has long since abandoned his post structuralist roots – that “rancid pile of keech”. That made me smile. He is spot on in his analysis of the political class and how they operate and nothing is going to change until politicians are held accountable and personally liable for their defiantly insane and/or perverse decisions.
Yes, I agree that Sturgeon was a control freak in every sense, but I do think she was committed to TWAW from a purely philosophical and psychological point of view, as well as from a control perspective. She believed that this army of young, totally dense activists could be controlled, but she would have discovered that they could not. Her own proclivities led her into a dark place.
“Vivian: yes, I also think that Robin has long since abandoned his post structuralist roots ”
======
He definitely has. In fact, he wrote a piece on the subject himself not too long ago.
Robin will aye “struggle more to explain to people what is going on in Scotland” so long as he and other pro-independence commentators continue to ignore our colonial reality and thus misunderstand what independence means (i.e. decolonisation).
What Robin is referring to here is our imposed ‘cultural hegemony’ which has numerous specific outcomes in any colonial society, an aspect he still needs to recognise in the scottish context:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
VO
A very good and insightful post.
The proof of the pudding is in the local news most nights; pontification about pet mantras from one Quango or another (alleged for financial reasons) charity then a lame dull meaningless response from an MSP.
How have things got so seriously bad so quickly? Copying big brother Westminster perhaps where it’s $multi nationals$ in lieu of the odious 3rd sector..
SCOTTISH NATIONALISM is becoming like some abstruse theology concerned with the details of process at the expence of aim and result. Stasis is the evident result of this.
A mind switch toward determined and dynamic proactivity, away from «complaisant» contemplation of the navel?
The twenty women on hunger strike have taken virtue signalling to a whole new level. Hunger striker Bobby sands MP gave his life and in doing so changed the path of history.
Tourist information for visitors to Scotland
The lands and the seas and the lochs and mountains and skies of the territory formerly known as Scotland are now the property, some say property acquired illegally, of Great Britain – another name for England.
There are many more names for England coined by a plethora of peoples from around the world but most are considered inappropriate for polite company.
Indeed there are now three accepted names for England – England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom.
Many folk around the world still call that northern territory of the British Isles – that area of England north of Hadrian’s wall- by the name, Scotland; although not with any sense of a once great country attached to the name, but merely as the place name for a region of England.
And so it would appear thus…that the country of Scotland is no more.
However, the Scots – or the poors or the smellies as the English and those who would emulate them (the Scottish bourgeoisie in particular) affectionately call them – still exist.
Those indigenous Scots who have remained true to their ain kin and haven’t betrayed them for personal gain (the ninth circle awaits those who have) can be seen in their natural habitat bumbling aimlessly around (many aren’t employable in any useful way) the cobbled streets of Edinburgh old town.
They endlessly shuffle and search, heads down and intently focused on the gutters, for discarded bottles of rosewater and hauf-sooked barley sugars; rosewater in the hope of hiding their Scottish smelliness and barley sugars for sustenance.
Some native Scots make a scant living as objects of derision for tourists who are granted under local bye-laws the right to throw rotten veg and dog shit at them and demand they perform traditional highland dances for their amusement.
In return those native Scots are paid in rotten veg and dog shit. The lucky ones might be given whole unopened bags of barley sugars which tourists can buy from local vendors at greatly inflated prices.
Welcome to Scotland – most of it isn’t Scottish anymore by the way. Nice scenery though.
Remember – it’s best to stay upwind of the natives.
Mia: no, I agree that the Claim of Right has not fallen into desuetude. There are and have always been two heads of state – one for England and one for Scotland and neither has been erased. The Scots would do well to remember that. The so-called Union of the Crowns meant simply that two crowns rested on one head. The monarchy insults Scotland on every royal occasion by refusing to acknowledge that there is no British crown and never has been one.
I was talking of smaller laws. The Treaty replaced many of them and they fell into desuetude. That is what happened. The actual Articles themselves remain extant within the still extant Treaty. It is they that have been suborned by England – illegally, in an ultra vires fashion. The trade Articles, especially, favourable to Scotland’s already-established trading agreements have been wholly undermined by England’s interests, and the UK Framework is totally illegal, as is devolution.
The suborning of Scotland’s legal system – not its laws – is the point. That was to have been protected for all time coming. Almost immediately, Westminster and Whitehall saw that Scottish legal methods (i.e. constitutional principles) would clash with England’s interests, and set about undermining Scotland’s legal system. That has been the real crime because it prevented Scotland from approaching any number of matters in a different way from England, and England needed to ensure that Scotland toed the line.
The recent GRA Reform blocking was not a deliberate attempt by England to suborn Scots Law (as an institution) but to bring Scots law into line with UK law that governs both countries. That is an inevitable result of having a UK parliament. That the SNP brazenly tried to usurp UK law which would have affected England and Wales, as much as Scotland, was stupid to the point of imbecility because the Scottish parliament had already ratified the GRA 2004 and any deviation from it would have created many problems for the rest of the UK. Common sense meant that the GRA reform bill had to be blocked. That is very different from blocking the Scottish legal system itself, protected in the Treaty.
The closure of tourist information centres is also an act of vandalism that should be reversed.I read that this was copying England and Wales but not Ireland.The feeble excuse of much of it is done online was used,yet I asked about the Edinburgh TIC and was told that it had closed permanently as Edinburgh was regularly the person’s first destination in Scotland this is running down the tourist industry something that is still successful and employs many people,or do they want to put refugees in hotels at taxpayers expense.
As for the Scottish Justice so called reforms which only most
MSPs one judge and three lecturers and a civil servant at the Scottish Government who had done the photocopying and arranged the chairs in meeting rooms in London supported and betrayed the Scottish legal system.
Finally why has there been little political opposition to Starmer selling out the fishing industry to the European Union as fisheries is devolved.
Plus, there’s this re. Flamingo Land.
Flamingos? FFS, this is Scotland, if it’s just a corporate piss-take then could at least have had something more appropriate like a Haggis Land or something.
link to dearscotland.substack.com
Yes Dan, Leah certainly provides information of the continuation of contempt that the Scottish administration inflict daily especially when there is nothing happening within Scottish politics
It appears that one person a fabled government reporter holds more power than 178,000 voters and numerous civic government departments, maybe bastard tax moan could find out if he is German and if he knows how to conduct a proper gen o cide, I hear there is a possible employment vacancy available
BTW I submitted an email to Ivan McKee indicating that snp were corrupt
Lorn,
There is a problem with declaring Sots law desuetued, or even sections of it, because of the UK government of great Britain,
Westminister parliament to date, state the Scots are not in the treaty of union, because they ( England Westminster and the Scottish parliament of old) avoided asking the Scots the elephant in the room major Question, that being the case neither are the laws of the Scots by logic,
That includes the Scottish constitution, whereby Scots are Sovereign as a nation over their kingdom territorial realm,
The monarch and parliament of old were second and third place.
So Englands Great Britain could not interfere with the law of the Scots.
Other than Colonial body.
The more we learn the more we realise that a Colonial take over is not a binding treaty with between England and the Scots in international law..
When the National & Westminster banks ‘merged’ they became the NatWest.
Neither the National nor the Westminster exist anymore.
Now swap National for England and Westminster for Scotland and Natwest for Great Britain and it will suddenly make sense.
You’re welcome.
Except the Scots did not merge, or become part of Westminsters Great Britain because Westminster state there was no treaty with the Scots people and their territory.
England became the Brand name Great Britain.
Scotland and its people remained a separate realm entity outside the supposed merger as you call due to the choice made by the commissioners The parliament of Scotland and the parliament of England,
They debated and recognised that the Scottish parliament was not the same as the Sovereign people of Scotland,
They debated asking the Scots because the recognised that the monarch was not Sovereign over the people and territory.
They chickened out asking the Scots to the big question ( ahem, cough cough merge) the reason given , in Westminsters own words was,
Because the Scots would probably have voted NO.
That does not merge , subsume or join Scots and Scotland to England in a treaty,
It is called Colonisation of Scotland by England without permit.
What matters, ultimately, is that the people of Scotland should be able to determine their future whenever they see fit, and as frequently as they see fit, and nobody, least of all anyone outwith Scotland, should be able to say yay or nay to such a process taking place.
Establishing whether Scotland is a Non Self Governing Territory in international law would hopefully ensure that Westminster cannot veto any outcome or declare any such process illegal.
The rest, rightly so, is up to us and us alone – Westminster can go whistle!
Imagine if England decided to have a referendum on independence. Can you imagine the Scots having a veto on that? LOL!
Westminster is where it’s at, like it or not.
Holyrood has been clarified by the so called Supreme Court as a glorified parish cooncil with limited capabilities. The recent rank incompetence there (while maddening) is besides the point.
The referendum was a blip, it’s unlikely to be ever “granted” again so-back to basics.
1. Holyrood; sort yourself out, get professional for once and do what you have been “graciously” allowed to do better for those aspects of our life’s.
As for the high ideal of a referendum, as I’ve said it’ll never be allowed to happen again but its legacy for Unionists who soiled their breeks is to fantasise about ever greater percentages (what was the latest? 70% or something like that). Totally nuts.
2. Back to Westminster. Get rid of political party self interest (hint hint SNP) create some form of bond that states categorically that a vote for concerned independence parties candidates is a vote for recognised independence seeking MPs.
It’s a low start point at present, but if Holyrood can get its act together restoring people’s trust here in our politicians then hopefully at General Elections a majority of independence parties MPs can be sent down to Westminster to formally enact what the original and repeated stipulation was, an immediate start of process of dissolution of the TOU and its git devolution.
3. Empty devolution Holyrood out, MPs return from Westminster, oversee the creation of a constitution, currency etc etc and then call a general election to repopulate Holyrood as a bona fida parliament with MPs of whatever parties the Scottish electorate so chooses at that time.
The Monarchy is different, part of 1603 matters not 1707 so if the public will is there it can then be looked at thereafter distinct from the TOUs discombobulations..
Same goes for NATO membership, EU etc. etc.
Nail down Scottish independence first and foremost with a will..
“The Monarchy is different, part of 1603 matters not 1707 so if the public will is there it can then be looked at thereafter distinct from the TOUs discombobulations”
The monarchy and the ToU are very much interlinked. The main reason behind the ToU was to ensure Scotland was subjected to the exact same monarch as England. In other words, it was to ensure Scotland was permanently under the control of the Kingdom of England’s crown.
Until that subordination to England’s crown is ended, and it can not be ended if Scotland retains the same monarch, Scotland will never become fully decolonised and independent.
There is a very good reason as to why the smart Irish did not waste time ditching the crown as soon as they could.
The ToU was very much a Kingdom of England crown affair. It was pursued and instigated by the Kingdom of England crown.
I am of the opinion that it remains very much the case to this day. Otherwise we would not have a “crown agent” in control of our prosecution service sending commands to our police force regarding what political figures to hunt, actively prosecuting pro-union figures on the flimsiest excuses whilst making 1000 excuses to avoid prosecuting pro-status quo political criminals and perjurers, and we would not have a crown minion in the form of “Lord Advocate” actively usurping control over our executive and legislative powers to stop independence.
Mia
Maybe, maybe not.
However it would be interesting to speculate if C3 and his progeny would show up in an independent Scotland (other than to holiday) if the Maiden was set up on the High Street Tolbooth site again and the Chook o Hamilton was placed under house arrest for his historical and ongoing crimes against (headwear) fashion
Lorn,
When Westminister state that Scots were not asked to join the treaty even although they were aware they should have been,
It arouses further questioning from ourselves,
For instance if Westminister are stating they are not in a union with the Scots, then whom are they in a union with?
The old parliament of Scotland which is Dissolved long ago, and whom now sit in the parliament of Englands Westminster rebranded Great Britain parliament, ending that obligation to the treaty of union.
With the shared monarch of England and Scotland that once was?
That ended when we let England have the old monarch for the solely monarch of England, so that obligation has also ceased
It is another one of those Westminster black hole glitches.
They are not in a union with the Scots, The Scottish monarch or with the Scottish parliament.
Here’s what I think. And because I’m not a lawyer I’m probably right.
It doesn’t matter now if Scotland was annexed by design or by accident. The end result is exactly the same.
It doesn’t matter now if Scotland was deliberately fooled into joining a hoax union or if the whole affair was just a farce from start to finish engineered by greedy incompetents from both kingdoms.
It doesn’t matter now if the whole thing was just a misunderstanding that all went terribly wrong for the Scots.
What matters now is that the union honest or hoax, sincere or swindle, forthright or fraud has been exploited by England for it’s own benefit whilst causing great harm to Scotland and the Scots.
The ToU is either a genuine treaty between two equal partners or it’s a hoax.
Surely the Scots can walk away from the union without asking for some foreign power’s permission to do so if either condition is true.
Of course, the vote in 2014 doesn’t apply because of external interference and a hilariously wide-open franchise and a dodgy crooked secret vote count. Not to mention the stupid question that was asked.
The question should have been: “Should the Scots as a people dissolve the union between Scotland and their oppressor, England and in so doing liberate themselves from over 300 years of colonial oppression and servitude?”
Northcode.
It does matter how it came about, due to the present monarch being the monarch of England and the Westminster parliament also being the continued parliament of England, and Westminster “up to date” statement on UK parliament declaring that the Scots were never in via avoidance of the major question being asked to the Scots, regards the treaty.
Scots should not be paying taxes to England,
Scots have their own territorial realm that has been continuiosly raided of assets and resources,
Scots have joined treaties not under Scots law but under the law of England,
Scots have gone to war and lost lives on the belief that they were in the treaty of union,
Scotland is traded as a commodity of England,
Just a few of the examples why it is important for the future of Scots to discover the truth or hoax surrounding the treaty of union,
And how to put any wrongs done and may still be being done to Scotland right,
And to be able to decide the Scots right self determination.
“It does matter how it came about”
I do believe you are correct, James.
But how the last three centuries and more came to pass and how Scotland ended up a territory of England is for others more qualified than I to set out.
I am content to scribble down some vague rhetoric which is more to do with persuasion than imparting accurate historical information.
“It does matter how it came about”
I do believe you are correct, James.
But how the last three centuries and more came to pass and how Scotland ended up a territory of England is for others more qualified than I to set out.
I am content to scribble down some vague rhetoric which is more to do with persuasion than imparting accurate historical information.
Can I just check something please?
When Scotland decides to walk away from the Union on Monday morning will they still want to use English banknotes and the Bank of England?
Does Scotland have enough staff to control the border with the hated English?
What visas will anyone not Scottish need to enter Scotland?
Did any of the above prevent the people of the Republic of Ireland determining their own path? I didn’t think so…
Nor the former states of the Soviet Union, nor Yugoslavia, nor Czechoslovakia, need I go on?
All such issues will undoubtedly be overcome.
England has as much right to veto the choice of Scotland as did the EU that of the UK, and the EU certainly didn’t try to enforce a one time only deal with the permission of the European Council a prerequisite.
“Did any of the above prevent the people of the Republic of Ireland determining their own path? I didn’t think so…”
—————————————————–
“The Irish War of Independence (1919-1921) resulted in an estimated 1,400 deaths, including over 600 members of the British security forces and over 700 civilians and IRA members. The Irish Civil War (1922-1923), which followed the establishment of the Irish Free State, resulted in around 1,485 violent deaths on the island of Ireland, with a majority of those being combatants.”
Yes really simple and straightforward wasn’t it. And don’t forget NI.
Haud oan noo, Bob.
The regulars on here don’t like “former states of the Soviet Union” “determining their own path”. They don’t like it one little bit. In fact, they’re fanatically opposed to the very idea.
Bad example, Bob. Have a re-think and then re-submit your post with something more ideologically acceptable.
So tell me, Agent X, how many battered (second) wives do you recon have been warned against leaving their abusive partners with the words “look at what happened to [insert name] when she tried to leave…”
That’s one helluva sales pitch you’ve got there for staying in the “Union”.
“agent x”
That you, Yoon Scum? Reads awfy similar….
No I am not Yoon Scum.
That’s a mighty smart seeing eye dowg you’ve got yourself there, James.
Alf,
Do you know if Salvo have copied the Statement by present Westminster parliament that a debate was held by all involved in 1707 on wether to ask the Scots to join the treaty of union,
But they decided all against it because in doing so as the Scots would probably have voted No.
In that Statement is the recognition that Scots were separately Sovereign from and above their parliament and separately Sovereign and above of their monarch.
As this is important information towards the argument of Scots and Scotland being Colonised.
Thanks James, I recollect this aspect may be included in the ‘markers of colonialism’ but I will check to see if this is the case.
“The Duchess of Rothesay officially named a new Royal Navy warship in Glasgow with a traditional statement – as she smashed a bottle of whisky off its hull. Princess Kate was in the city for the ceremony to mark the naming of HMS Glasgow on the River Clyde”
link to scottishdailyexpress.co.uk
———————————————-
Phew – just in time to blockade the Scottish Navy – oh wait – does Scotland have a Navy?
According to that article, HMS Glasgow will be followed by another 7 Clyde-built ships of the same design.
Looks like some of our working boys have a good wee earner going for them over the next few years.
Does England have a Navy?
Yep the MOD – such a cracking good employer that we have to bail them out by buying poppies. Still they realised that you don’t have to change the design every time you build a warship. Good job they don’t delegate to Civil Service Scotland.
Allegedly HMS Glasgows action stations klaxon has been specially modified to reflect its name:
Haw haw haw
Action stations
Haw haw haw
Action stations
The English needed our soldiers to win themselves an Empire,
the Scottish Highlander was known to be the greatest fighting force since the Spartans,
(although the Romans did defeat the Spartans but not the Scottish Highlander)
sold out by their Chiefs and Lords to do the bidding of the English,
without them the English Empire would have consisted of Ireland ,Wales and Guernsey.
Fair point.
Ah so Scotland is responsible for the evil British Empire.
“The British Empire, at its peak, encompassed a vast network of territories and dominions ruled by the United Kingdom. It began in the late 1500s and continued for nearly 400 years, at one point covering a quarter of the Earth’s surface and encompassing over 400 million people.”
It was once said that the sun never set on the British empire, what they forgot to put was the reason, that Even God didnt trust the British through the night
“The British Empire, at its peak, encompassed a vast network of territories and dominions ruled by the United Kingdom. It began in the late 1500s…”
This is not possible. The “United Kingdom of Great Britain” did not start until May 1707. Whoever wrote that quote was therefore referring to territories and dominions ruled by the Kingdom of England, not Great Britain.
Is the Kingdom of England now also retrospectively changing its name in its frantic quest to claim full ownership over “Great Britain’s” statehood and the perks that come with it?
The Romans were all gone from Britain, not just Scotland, by 410.
The Scots started coming over from Ireland to what would eventually become Scotland 2 to 3 generations later.
So, far from the Scots being undefeated by the Romans, it looks as if the Scots didn’t dare set foot here until the Romans were long gone. We then went on to genocide the people who were already here – we boast about it in the Declaration of Arbroath.
Good that you acknowledge our part in the British age of empire though. Perhaps you’ll want to claim that every indigenous inhabitant of the colonies we Scots killed, enslaved or starved, magically held no grudge against us, just because we were Scots.
But that would just be shite.
Gonna break a habit here and respond to your keich.
The Scotti were mentioned in panick stricken Roman reports from the late 3rd century onwards, there’s plenty of references of them whining about them and the Picts.
As Scottish history.org cogently points out, much of these Scottic elements were then probably already resident on the Scottish western seaboard; there’s plenty references to Attacotti who being a likely by product.
The so called Barbarian conspiracy over-ran much of Roman England in 367AD, this being a confederation of Picts and Scots here while the Anglos b@ggered and postured locally about on the Belgic coast on the continent.
As usual your sanctimonious AI inspired sH1te is factually wrong.
Having stepped into your baleful gaze again I will happily remove myself AGAIN from reading your facetious bilge.
Hope yer next ones a hedgehog, tw8t..
YL Sah! says:
Boom Boom!
One in the chest, and one in the heid, tae mak siccar.
He’s Wings BTL only self-id-ing trained killer, and that kind of training sticks.
Nae so hot with his little grey cells though. If he was, he might have picked up on “panick”, “there’s plenty”, “who being a likely by product”, “ones”.
Stick to the mindless violence and the playground name calling, YL Sah! When you try to engage your mind, all we get is some futile wheel spinning.
“I will happily remove myself AGAIN from reading”
You’re half-way there, Sah! Just the learning to write to master. Stick in, and maybes one day …
Boom Boom!
Well done, Salvo/Liberation.scot, and the SSRG team. Having a “big” legal eagle change his mind after 59 years will wake up others in the Scottish legal establishment – perhaps they too will think again.
Prof Black is going to be the lawyer for Liberation.scot at the UN Decolonisation Committee in the second half of June. This is serious stuff – no messing.
And Craig Murray is Ambassador for Liberation.scot at the hearing. He has a great deal of experience appearing at the UN [including for Julian Assange] so this is another boost for the cause. [I doubt he will be charging for it either.]
Craig Murray the ham ass supporter?
That Craig Murray?
Oh dear. That’s it fucked then. May as well cancel it and donate the ticket money to some good cause.
It sounds like turning up uninvited to the UNCDC in June might actually involve quite a lot of messing about . .
A cynic might suggest this will be a nice summer trip to New York funded by donations. Nice work if you can get it
Great news – I’ll be in Estonia, but can you link me to where I can watch the hearing online, and where I can get the submissions to the UNCDC for that session?
“Aidan”
Mind and take yer Big Book of Unionist Myths with you in case you get stuck.
Labour have thrown in the clout at Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse. On Monday the bookies had the SNP at 64% to win and Labour at 29%. As of last night, it was SNP 78%, Labour 17%.
Morgan McSweeney has mair pressing concerns than boosting his wife’s chances of remaining MP for Hamilton at the next Westminster GE. RefUK have hit 32% on the poll of polls (Wiki, best fit graph).
The Electoral Calculus model has RefUK with a 120 seat majority on these figures. Labour are reduced to having one safe seat in Scotland (Ian Murray). They are wiped out in Wales, and in England they are reduced to the London boroughs, and Merseyside.
McSweeney’s controllers didn’t give him £750k for a postal address in Hamilton for this shoddy standard of performance.
Never mind, the Permanent State has no allegiances. They promoted a Blue rosette (Boris), they backed a Red rosette (Starmer), they’ll move onto a Turquoise rosette with seamless effort, just so long as they get to dictate domestic and geopolitical policy.
The Italian Romans conquered most of England in about 40 years,
stayed there for 400 years then the German Saxons and Angles conquered England and they were there 600 years then the Danish conquered most of England,
The word Angle comes from the Latin word angulus, meaning “crooked, curved” and the English word “ankle”.
then the French Normans conquered England and later put a German family on the throne.
England has always been a conquered country.
Scot Finlayson said:
“England has always been a conquered country”
Easily verifiable, pre-GCSE level historical facts say:
“… At its height in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it became the largest empire in history and, for a century, was the foremost global power.
By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23 percent of the world population at the time, and by 1920, it covered 35.5 million km2 (13.7 million sq mi), 24 per cent of the Earth’s total land area.
As a result, its constitutional, legal, linguistic, and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was described as “the empire on which the sun never sets”, as the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.”
link to en.wikipedia.org
True, but a Scot says, led by a bunch of inbred foreigners.
“Inbred foreigners”
If we’re going back to Roman times as per Scot Finlayson’s post, the question is: who in Europe *isn’t* “a bunch of inbred foreigners” as you so eloquently put it? Who qualifies as racially pure, according to you? (Urgh btw, nice sentiments there).
Oh, FYI the Scots, too, comprise of numerous disparate groups, the Picts and the Gaels among them.
Us Picts are still here, merely under a different name, i.e. Scots.
@Alf Baird
Wrong as usual. The “Scots” don’t purely comprise of Picts, but other ethnicities as well, most notably (but far from exclusively) the Irish Gaels.
Not that it matters of course. Well, unless you’re a blood and soil nationalist engaging in self-delusion and wilful ignorance.
Or, Fred Flintstone, more prosaically; The Empire in which the blood never dried..
It’s not called the “Butchers Apron” for nothing you Engerlush historically challenged nugget.
You should have ducked that fly press weight you Reform Exceptionalist “alleged” self proclaimed captain of industry.
A-hole.
Awa back hame and sort yer own sh1thole countries manifest problems out.
@YL
Yawn. Way to even stick to the point: your dribblings make zero sense and have precisely nothing to do with anything I’ve said in response to the Learned Professor.
Mind you, I note you were posted at *that* time (lol), then going on to impotently bashing your keyboard through the wee hours. Seriously, go play with some beads or something mate.
Wow! Wow! Wow!
Makes me happy to have Scottish Independence being discussed in these pages
Good discussion being had albeit with agents of the the British state.
Their fear is still real
Their nonsense never ends
Their denial of reality never stops
I’ve skipped a lot to post this, I’ll go back and catch up.
But wanted to say that for weeks (at least) the verbal scrap between Stu and James SGP has been putting me off visiting either site when both should be dealing with different sides of the movement.
Please both of you give us all a break and focus on what we desperately need which is a Unity campaign for independence
Forget trans, forget how shite the SNP might be, forget how ridiculous Alba have become
Keep things on track and we might just get a movement back
If Kenny McAskill can get Alba into the fold for the list then we might be onto something.
Surely the man who released the wrongly jailed Megrahi can do one more positive thing for Scotlands politics?
Anyway keep going great real Wingers on here eliciting fear from the bots and Chelmsford dwellers.
When you get wee replies like “ I am not Yoon Scum” – erm aye you are pal, the months of sh*te fade away
Looking forwards to Salvo Highlands AGM tomorrow.
Free Scotland Now
England Out Of Scotland
Forever
@ Tartanpigsy: I’m hoping for a zoom link for tomorrow’s AGM in which case I might see you!
James Kelly, the Cumbernauld Copernicus dismissed four UK wide, Westminster voting intention polls in a row that put the SNP at 2%. Well, now it’s five consecutive polls.
Average results from last available Scottish sub-samples (combined sample population 460): Con 8.8%, Lab 17.3%, LibDem 14%, RefUK 19.25%, Green 9.4%, SNP 28.2%.
Plugged into the Election Polling, Swingometer algorithm for Holyrood, you get a seat projection of: Con 12 (-19), Lab 19 (-3), LibDem 15 (+11), RefUK 23, Green 10 (+2), SNP 50 (-14).
A hung Parliament, and SNP 15 short of an outright majority. The result would be existentially disastrous for the Conservatives.
Never mind, the attendees of Mayor Swinney’s squalid little “anti-extremism conference” have a stonking 59 seat advantage over non-attendees (and I suspect that was the point of the exercise to begin with).
One of the issues of a Colonised Country is the removal of its Culture, and their history,
But along with this is the replacement of that Countries history with the Colonisers version.
In Scotlands case as a Colonised Country for over three hundred years it is not surprising for Scots to belatedly learn of its own back ground history.
Keeping the people that have been Colonised ignorant, to legal and cultural identity, the foundational explanation of capture will become accepted as their lot.
Until the Coloniser with confidence feels it is safe enough hundreds of years later to presume the confusion of merged history between the colonised and the coloniser has been completed and control progressed so far that the Colonised nation/ Country are unrecognisable to its own inhabitants,
But seldom in history do nations and people forget the remnants of their enslaved capture, by the harsh and often violent Colonisation even hundreds of years later,
In fact the Coloniser themselves, remaining in the Colonised Country, are the constant reminder
To impose new laws, new belief systems, new languages, new restrictions,, severe punishments while raiding resources and assets.
With only a selected few benefiting,
While the lives of the people that were Colonised gradually become more oppressed and suppressed compared to the memory and stories of how life was prior to their lost freedoms.
No nation forgets, because they are constantly reminded that they have very little rights to self determination,
and have become enslaved and are still captively enslaved today hundreds of years later to the Coloniser.
Excellent summary of a colonised and therefore ‘doun-hauden’ (i.e oppressed) people, James.
Albert Memmi explained the process whereby the colonizer seeks to absolve himself of his crime thus:
“He endeavours to falsify history, he rewrites laws, he would extinguish memories-anything to succeed in transforming his usurpation into legitimacy”.
Good points well made and nicely summarised, James.
One of the many notable things about the Scots is that we still retain the essence of our unique cultural identity and even, miraculously, a good deal of our language despite much being lost after 300 years and more of subjugation by a foreign power.
Much the same could be said for the Iroquois, Northcode.
And they’ve been on the receiving end for more than 300 years. We Scots colonisers certainly doled out some of what they received too.
But I recognise just how dear your sense of Scottish Exceptionalism and unique grievance is to you, so you cling on to it tightly.
ON Topic: Leaving the false Union is, of course, the answer to almost every social and economic ill that Scotland is currently suffering.
It needs two elements: domestic democratic approval – a majority vote; and international recognition.
2026 is the next opportunity to demonstrate the former. The way to achieve the majority is to combine all the independence vote – this can be done by an umbrella organisation committed to the principle of restoring Scotland as an independent state.
A reminder to readers that happily the umbrella has been formed – called Liberate Scotland – and at least three groups have already joined. The Independence Scotland Party [ISP], Independents for Independence [I4I], and the Sovereignty Party [SP].
I am hoping that Alba, New Scotland Party and others e.g. SSP will join.
Voting for umbrella candidates means no wasted votes and no splitting of the independence vote. Most readers here will know about this umbrella, I’m sure – we all need to talk to family and friends about it, and help Liberate Scotland every way we can. See Barrhead Boy’s blog.
Turning to the other element of independence, if there was a majority vote for independence then international recognition would follow. But, pending such a vote, then the UN Decolonisation route is a very clever initiative by Salvo/Liberation.scot.
Not quick, obviously, but useful in putting another bit of pressure onto the UK and letting the world know Scotland’s true position. Readers of Wings can help by getting people to sign the Liberation.scot’s Edinburgh Proclamation on https://liberation.scot. It would be very helpful to get signatures up to 100,000 or so before the UN’s Decolonisation committee meets in June.
“Leaving the false Union is, of course, the answer to almost every social and economic ill that Scotland is currently suffering”
So you don’t think the eejits and crims infesting HR have any culpability for any part of our ills.
“It needs two elements: domestic democratic approval – a majority vote; and international recognition”
So you see no need for a third element – a competent, open, non-criminal government “in waiting” for when Indy comes.
No need to respond, sarah, I think the answers are obvious enough.
If only Bonnie dick head had taken a bullet at Culloden.
Discuss.
Was Ally MacLeod a reincarnation of Charles Edward Stuart?
I think BP Chas for all his issues stood more than just marginally closer to the firing line than did either Cope, Hawey or Cumberland.
Mind you; following the Wars of the Roses Engerlunds monarchs and their hangers on unashamedly left the front line fighting to the quote unquote “lesser sort”.
Arguably Scotlands downfall in not doing similar.
Hey ho; that’s history for you..
A small and inconsequential point, perhaps. But one I’d like to make.
I do not favour the term ‘Scottish independence’ being used in the context of liberating the Scottish people from oppression. To my mind it’s too polite. It sanitizes what I believe is Scotland’s current status as an illegally annexed colonial territory; a territory where the Scots as a people have been subjugated and abused for more than 300 years.
In that context the term ‘Scottish liberation’ seems more appropriate.
That is my view and others might well have their own reasons to take another view. As always – each to their own beliefs and convictions.
A very valid point, Northcode.
Postcolonial theory (Fanon) suggests this transformation from an ‘independence movement’ to become a ‘national liberation movement’ reflects:
(1) the failure of the ‘nationalist’ political class, and;
(2) the peoples improved understanding of their colonial reality, followed by a firm commitment to decolonise as a matter of urgency.
That’s a very good point,Northcode.
The idea of independence has been irrevocably tarnished by the actions of Sturgeon and the SNP.
Besides, what exactly is independence in the 21st Century? As seen with the recent actions of Trump, we are living in a more turbulent world now and a small sovereign country is at the mercy of the big boys unless it is like Norway with a large sovereign fund that can shield it from the economic pressure brought on by the big powers.
Whether we like it or not, Scotland outside of the UK would have to be part of the EU in some form, not only for trading reasons but for protection. As noted by a lot of people, that isn’t independence in the sense of the world so to be pragmatic, there needs to be a rebranding of the argument.
Oh, that’ll be Norway that managed their oil and gas resources somewhat better than the UK’s incredibly bad shitshow of fossil fuel derived energy policies. A situation which continues today with the renewable energy skipfire.
If Scotland out of the union will be a worthless geographic area, then why the fuck would anybody want to invade us?
For me the benefits of being a self-governing country means we could work towards being a more independent self-sustaining geographic area, which means we would only need to trade the commodities we couldn’t actually produce here.
That ticks the environmental sustainability box too, instead of continuing to ship endless tat about the planet on bunker fuel burning ships.
Of course, if you want to just continue being a lazy unindustrious parasite of a nation filled with none jobs paid for by the taxpayer that effectively contributes fuck all to sustain itself or offer anything to the wider global community, then just continue as you are within the union.
Personally, I wish for better for this ill-treated piece of land and sea and those that inhabit it.
England is a net importer, Scotland is a net exporter. That’s two alternate positions held by the constituent parts of the UK that require differing trade agreements optimised to suit their specific requirements.
Options for trade.
link to dearscotland.substack.com
Is it me or are the paragraphs on here getting longer.
Dunno about longer, but plenty are getting a lot denser.
“plenty are getting a lot denser”
Oh dear, are you having trouble keeping up with the pace and depth of the conversation?
Now, this is interesting. The following quote was taken from the article Gove ‘in agreement’ with Swinney over second independence referendum”, published by “David Wallace-Lockhart on BBC News, 18 May 2025:
“There could be a second Scottish independence referendum if the public show “overwhelming support” for one, according to Michael Gove.
The former Conservative minister, who sat in the cabinet for most of the period between 2010 and 2024, told BBC Scotland’s The Sunday Show that he didn’t think another referendum was necessary. But he conceded that the UK government may have to change approach if SNP popularity and support for another vote grows”
So what do we see here? Well, a lot:
First, we see a well established and well known pro-status quo Britsh state high ranking useful idiot (Gove) trying to validate and amplify the propaganda already spouted by another lower ranking useful idiot of the British state (Swinney).
As both sit exactly on the same side of the constitutional debate (both clearly support with their actions devolutionism/unionism/preservation of the status quo), the message of both can be written off as being mere propaganda and gaslighting from the deep state.
Let’s wait and see who is the next useful idiot to be wheeled out by the deep state in its quest to amplify the same propaganda message. Would it be the political fraud Sturgeon, perhaps, or somebody from Labour/Reform? Or will they go big and drag Trump or Zelensky into amplifying the propaganda and gaslighting?
Second, we have a dual attempt to revalidate the already discredited route of an independence referendum within the UK political system.
A referendum within the UK political system is a non-starter. We have already seen the cosmic size degree of interference, rigging and gerrymandering by the deep state during 2014. We don’t want a repeat of the same. If we are to have a referendum, it needs to be completely outwith the control of the Kingdom of England (as the UK) deep state. Clearly Mr Gove, and Swinney before him, are frantically trying to revive the decaying corpse of a UK-led referendum.
We have also seen how the stupid S30 has been held as ransom over our heads for the last 10 years. WE have seen how the useless Sturgeon, Yousaf and now Swinney, all status quo minions, have hidden like cowards behind that stupid S30 to pull the hand break on independence. So thanks, but no thanks.
Gove’s comments prove, in my view, that the deep state is showing sings of distress and concern that pro-independence people in Scotland have seen the light and may be irreversibly moving from the traditional “UK” fake political (con)route to other avenues.
Such concern appears reinforced in these threads by the sudden increase in unionist trolls posts related to Salvo/Liberation and the decolonisation route. Is it a coincidence? I doubt it. I am convinced all of it is part of the same strategy: to deploy and amplify the propaganda to revive the dead corpse of the imaginary referendum as “the route” to independence.
The BBC, as a traditional “reliable” source, is being used in the amplification strategy with that article too, of course.
Third, we have a no-so-subtle go by Gove at promoting the SNP. He is not just saying that a referendum would be “graciously” “given” by the “UK” (at a time of its choosing, this or next milennia) should there be enough support for a referendum. He says that there has to be also enough support for the SNP. Interestingly, we are never told exactly and in no uncertain terms how much is “enough” in the language of the deep state. This language and the meaning of “enough” appears to shift faster than moving sands.
What is interesting here is that many have already realised that the SNP is a dead end. The SNP is now a devolutionist party. Its useless unelected “leader” already suggested that there has to be support for a referendum at the level of support that there was for the referendum on a devolved parliament. It is a dead end. I wonder if this propaganda from Gove could be a sign that the deep state is concerned the number of pro-independence supporters ditching the SNP is approaching critical mass.
What is also interesting is that the useful idiot Gove is deliberately ignoring the other pro-independent political parties, and, what is most interesting, the Liberate umbrella, which has already announced its first candidates, and that it will stand both in the constituency and the list.
It is evident that Gove is deliberately trying to re-validate the much discredited SNP as the only “legitimate” pro-independence party. And we all know why that is, don’t we? Because since the political fraud Sturgeon removed the pro-independence teeth of that party, the SNP has become another pro devolution party that is innocuous to the status quo.
Gove’s comments hide the deep state’s concern for the proliferation of real pro-independence parties, the choice of other routes to independence and the fact the SNP, its last acquired political toy, is rapidly heading towards obsolence. I think what Gove does not say is almost as relevant, if not more, than what he said.
What we see here is the British state starting to circle its wagons around its failed, flawed, undemocratic and crooked “political system” designed to suppress democracy in order to preserve the status quo.
So, who will be the next useful idiot and undemocratic stalwart wheeled out to defend the rigged colonial political system? would it be Gordon Brown? will it be the war criminal Blair? Will they unearth some quote from the very Thatcher? Or will they throw the kitchen sink at us by wheeling out Kezia Dugdale?
Having a useful idiot like Gove trying to amplify the message of Swinney suggests that Swinney is as much part of the anti-independence British establishment as Gove is and that they are working together, which we already suspected. But it also shows the deep state’s fear that it may have started to lose control of the narrative and that there is a real risk that its rigged political system tool may be bypassed.
This quote from the above BBC article is also interesting:
“He (Gove) added that he believed too much focus on the constitution was bad for all political parties and that governments should “retain confidence” by concentrating on the economy, health and transport”
Ahh, of course!! Too much focus on the constitution is disastrous for “all” political parties of the rigged political system because none of the devolutionist/colonial parties can provide any longer convincing answers that justify their refusal to facilitate, never mind deliver Scotland’s independence. So yeah, I can see why the useful idiot Gove would want the parties to focus exclusively in other matters.
This other quote for the article is laughable:
“Gove was part of a government that rejected requests from the Scottish government for a second referendum. He denied that this was anti-democratic and insisted that Scotland had “more important” issues to deal with”
This quote is laughable because nobody, including Gove can credibly deny that refusing a referendum for which there were SEVERAL valid democratic mandates is undemocratic. The only thing that the useful idiot Gove can ever say is that IN HIS OPINION, it is not undemocratic, not that it is not undemocratic, which it clearly and categorically is beyond any reasonable doubt.
Also, it is not for an arrogant hasbeen like Gove, who chose to stand for England’s constituencies rather than Scotland’s to decide what can be considered as Scotland’s important issues. Again, he can only claim this IN HIS OPINION. In 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2021, the people of Scotland gave democratic mandates for a referendum on independence. It stands to the obvious that, if the useful idiot Gove and even Swinney were real democrats, they would have more than accepted and acknowledged that a referendum on independence is important for the people of Scotland.
Let’s keep at it. This propaganda and gaslighting by Gove and Swinney suggests that the way to go is avoiding or bringing down the UK “political (trap) system”, either by not voting at all, or by voting only for parties prepared to really represent Scotland through refusing to swear allegiance to the foreign crown and refusing to uphold the interests of anything else above Scotland’s
Mia correctly concludes that every true Scottish Indy supporter must avoid a second Indy Ref like the plague.
And she even sees right to the root of who’s behind this idea.
That openly J***** politician, the man Z******* himself. A puppet dancing on the strings of the master manipulators in the Middle East.
“They’re offering us a referendum on Indy”
“Kill them all!”
“Every true Scottish Indy supporter must avoid a second Indy Ref like the plague”
Every pro-independence supporters must avoid at all cost falling for the carrot of THE PROMISE of another referendum WITHIN the constraints of THE UK POLITICAL SYSTEM, and a referendum that has been “given”, will be controlled (and rigged) BY the UK deep state.
Every pro-independence supporter must avoid at all costs falling yet again for the insulting propaganda that the reason why the SNP and the representatives of the Kingdom of England refused our democratic mandates is because “there is no enough support for a referendum”.
For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with a referendum delivered strictly under the UN terms and supervision, with a fair franchise, with international observers and one that leaves the governing structures of the kingdom of England (as the UK) completely out of the organisation, planning, campaigning delivering and supervision of the referendum.
I will always remember with huge disgust and contempt how the UK Civil Servants from the Treasury were granted prizes for joining forces to “save the union”.
I couldn’t believe how they could have been so crass as to boast and publish that disgraceful behaviour. It was surreal and as if acknowledging how they deliberately flushed their civil service code of conduct and principles of political impartiality down the tubes to undemocratically stop Scotland’s independence could have been something to be proud of; something other than showing the biggest contempt for the democratic and self-determination rights of the people of Scotland. It was disgusting and a true reflection to the lengths the deep state will go to corrupt the UK structures to stop Scotland’s independence.
@Mia – the thing I like about you is even when your arguments get comprehensively debunked or disproven, you just start another insanely long rambling post echoing essentially the same points further down the page as if nothing has happened. Don’t change.
@ Aidan
You say “when your arguments get comprehensively debunked or disproven, you just start another insanely long rambling post…”
So here you go, fill your boots:
The following quotes are from the article
“HM Treasury team wins special Civil Service Award”
Published by Samera Owusu Tutu on CSW (Civil Service World), on 21 November 2014
Quotes as follows:
“The Treasury’s Scotland Analysis Programme Team won the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Award in this year’s Civil Service Awards.
The team was tasked with producing analysis in the lead-up to the Scottish referendum of how both, Scotland and the rest of the UK, benefit from being part of one country”
“The award, which is aimed at “an individual or team who deserves particular recognition for their outstanding achievement in making a difference on an issue of national significance”, was handed to the winners at the awards ceremony held on Wednesday, 19 November, at Lancaster House.
Cabinet Secretary and civil service head Sir Jeremy Heywood (centre) presented the award to team members Paul Doyle, Will MacFarlane, Shannon Cochrane, and Mario Pisani”
“Pisani said: “In the Treasury, everyone hates you. We don’t get thanks for anything. This is one occasion where we’ve worked with the rest of Whitehall.
“We all had something in common, we’re trying to save the Union here, and it came so close. We just kept it by the skin of our teeth. I actually cried when the result came in. After 10 years in the civil service, my proudest moment is tonight and receiving this award.”
“As civil servants you don’t get involved in politics. For the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognised [at the Civil Service Awards], makes me feel just incredibly proud.”
“Cochrane said: “we’ve learned that it is possible for civil servants to work on things that are inherently political and quite difficult, and you’re very close to the line of what is appropriate, but it’s possible to find your way through and to make a difference.”
“Doyle added: “This award is not just for the Treasury, it’s for all the hard work that was done by all government departments on the Scotland agenda.
“The reality was in all my experience of the civil service, I have never seen the civil service pull together in the way they did behind supporting the UK government in maintaining the United Kingdom. It was a very special event for all of us.”
“MacFarlane also gave credit to their Scottish Government counterparts, “in particular the government economic service there, who did their jobs for their ministers. I think over the currency debate in particular both governments put forward their economic analysis, which framed where their governments were coming from in the debate.”
End of quotes
Now, you go and “debunk” all that if you can.
Take your time.
Further to my quotes above regarding the prizes received by the civil servants for ditching their expected political impartiality and instead work to “save the union” in 2014, it is evident that NOTHING that comes out from the civil service regarding Scotland’s independence or any of the subjects related to that (economics, currency, etc, etc, etc) can ever be trusted again.
It is quite possibly that any information that comes from the civil service will be part of their campaign “to save the union” and done in the expectation of receiving a prize for their services to the status quo. At the end of the day, there is already a precedent for that, isn’t there?
If there is ever another referendum, the civil service must be kept completely out of the equation and not let touch anything at all to do with the campaign, the information released to the public, the planning, the execution of the operative process and, heaven forbid, the counting of the votes. They should all be put in some kind of garden leave until the result of the referendum is announced.
The quotes above demonstrate beyond any doubt that the UK civil service will throw its impartiality out of the window and go against democracy and the right to self-determination at less than a second’s notice to “save” the status quo.
Actually, giving prizes to staff for breaching the code and ditching that impartiality is a form of bribing in itself and a further demonstration of the permanent bias, contempt for democracy and gerrymandering by the Kingdom of England’s deep state against Scotland’s independence and the people of Scotland’s themselves.
10 years of toxic Sturgeonism, three absolute majorities of anti-union MPs wasted and not a single additional power has been clawed back from Westminster to holyrood by the three useless FM we have had since Mr Salmond’s departure in 2014. Not one. All what was brought to Scotland was thanks to Mr Salmond’s work.
If Sturgeon, Yousaf and Swinney were real nationalists and were truly seeking Scotland’s independence rather than the pretence of it, they would have immediately demanded full control by Holyrood over the civil service operating in Scotland.
The fact they have never even demanded that power over the civil service, never mind clawed back linked to the way the political fraud Sturgeon colluded with the UK civil service to destroy Mr Salmond speaks volumes.
By the way, if I am not mistaken, Sir Jeremy Heywood, who handed the prices to the undemocratic hypocrites who flushed their political impartiality down the tubes “to save the union”, is the same individual who was Leslie Evans’ boss at the time the whole saga of the unlawful “complaints procedure” to stitch Mr Salmond started in 2017.
Coincidence?
@Mia – I was specifically referring to the prospect of Salvo’s success at the UN, which you described as being “check mate”. Well, a petition with 1.8m signatures was presented on behalf of the people of West Papua to the UNCDC asking for recognition as an NSGT. This was outright rejected and describe as abusive by the chair, because the UNCDC only has the remit to cover the 17 NSGT’s recognised by the UN General Assembly. We can therefore expect exactly the same outcome in respect of Scotland can’t we.
@ Aidan
You wrote “I was specifically referring to the prospect of Salvo’s success at the UN, which you described as being “check mate”
My response to you is no, I did not. Either you completely misunderstood my comment, or you are simply pretending you did not understand it so you can undermine it by claiming I wrote what I did not.
For the sake of clarity, I will explain it to you again.
The proposal that Salvo is taking to the UN is that Scotland is a colony of the Kingdom of England and they seek official recognition of that fact. The proposal of Salvo is that the Kingdom of England used the pretence of a treaty to change its name and to annex Scotland. The proposal of Salvo is that since then, the Kingdom of England acting under the name of Kingdom of Great Britain, has governed, abused and exploited Scotland for its own benefit.
Success of Salvo’s proposal means, therefore, that the UN recognises those two things: that Scotland is a colony and that the government entities acting under the name of “UK of Great Britain” are simply England’s under a different name.
But the success of Salvo’s proposal is not a given. It is not a given because there is a piece of paper with a treaty written on it where Scotland and England agreed to form a political union. We are told by the Kingdom of England acting as the UK that such treaty and therefore its product, the union, are legally valid and still extant. You simply have to go to the legislation pages of the UK in internet or to the records in Hansard to see this.
There is therefore the possibility that the UN might simply acknowledge that treaty, and its product, the union, as still valid and extant. The UN may recognise “Great Britain” as a legally separate entity from the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.
Should this be the case, Scotland cannot be a colony and has to be therefore a partner in a bipartite legal contract. The union is a product of that legal and valid contract.
What I described in my previous comment as checkmate is not the anticipation of the success of Salvo’s proposal. I do not know if Salvo’s proposal will succeed or not. I do not know if the UN will recognise Scotland as a colony. I do not even know myself if Scotland is a colony or not. I know that, beyond any reasonable doubt, Scotland has been treated and is still treated as a colony and its resources constantly pillaged. I know it is being treated as a colony by our own MPs and MSPs, as demonstrated by the disgusting capitulation speech delivered by the political fraud STurgeon in 2020, or how she, Yousaf and Swinney have deliberately refused to deliver our democratic mandates whilst hiding like cowards behind the UK gov and the stupid S30.
For all this, I think Salvo’s proposal has a very good chance because there are far too many indicators that suggest Scotland is definitely being treated as a colony, including the way those who claim to represent Scotland in both parliaments conduct themselves.
What I described as checkmate is the fact that BOTH results from Salvo’s proposal to the UN are favourable to Scotland. The both possible results being:
a. Salvo’s proposal succeeds and Scotland is recognised as a colony by the UN
b. Salvo’s proposal does not succeed and Scotland is not recognised as a colony by the UN because it is in a valid union with the Kingdom of England
Why do I say is it check mate?
Because:
a.
if Scotland is recognised as a colony, all the bullshit that we are in a union ends and things are finally seen for what they really are. It is very likely that this will enrage a significant proportion of Scotland’s population, potentially increasing the support of independence even further.
In addition to this, Scotland can apply to commence the process of decolonisation, to which the UK should oblige as a signatory to the UN charter. I am not sure about the implications for the UK remaining part of the UN if it goes rogue and rejects the decolonisation of Scotland.
Also, should a referendum be demanded as part of the decolonisation process, it will be under the supervision of the UN and following UN rules, not the make as you go along rigged rules of the Kingdom of England or the constant change of the goalposts, or the rigging of the results.
This means removing the control levers of the process out of the representatives of the Kingdom of England acting as “the UK” and its institutions reach. That can only be a good thing.
and
b.
If Scotland is not recognised as a colony by the UN and instead is acknowledged as part of a voluntary bipartite union with the Kingdom of England, because it entered a valid and lawful treaty with the Kingdom of England in 1706, then it means that, under international law, Scotland has the absolute and legitimate right to unilaterally dissolving, at any time of its choosing, that treaty and the product of that treaty. The product of that treaty is a political union and the entity so called United Kingdom of “Great Britain”.
It means it is not required to seek or receive permission from the UK government, nor the Kingdom of England as the UK to hold a referendum on independence or to indeed reconvene its old parliament and unilaterally revoke the treaty and Act of Union with England.
It means it does not need any stupid S30 to proceed, therefore neither the Kingdom of England abusing its position of power by acting as the UK, nor the spineless so called Scotland MPs or MSPs can continue to procrastinate independence by hiding like parasitic cowards behind that faux S30.
It means the UK gov, the UK parliament and the Supreme Court are simply products of the treaty and therefore not above Scotland. They are subordinated to the treaty of union, only legitimate for as long as that treaty remains extant and therefore subordinated to Scotland as signatory of the treaty, not the other way round.
It means that it is unlawful for the Kingdom of England to continue exercising absolute control over all the “UK” government structures, leaving Scotland out of any negotiation with other countries for trade deals or agreements.
It means it is unlawful for the Kingdom of England to continue acting as “the UK” and stealing Scotland’s resources and territory for its own benefit or selling them without the people of Scotland’s consent.
It means it was unlawful for the war criminal Blair to change the boundaries of Scotland’s territorial waters.
It means forcing brexit over Scotland was unlawful and the triggering of article 50 to exit the EU without the consent of Scotland was unconstitutional and therefore unlawful too because it violated the conditions of A50 itself.
All of the above means that either of the two options, a or b, is favourable to Scotland and will take us to a much better place than the limbo where we are now.
The clarification of Scotland’s status will represent a significant step forward for Scotland’s fight towards its liberation or its returning to state status.
Why is that?
Because knowing what the real status of Scotland currently is will help dissipate the fog the kingdom of England as “the UK” is constantly pumping towards us to keep this confusion going.
Because knowing what the real status of Scotland is will make it much easier to select the best route towards independence without the continuous obfuscation of the Kingdom of England acting as “the UK”.
Because knowing what the real status of Scotland is will completely remove from Scotland’s so called representatives the opportunity to continue hiding like parasitic cowards behind an illusion and behind an abusive partner instead of standing up to them, standing up for the people of Scotland and doing for once and for all the job they were voted in to do.
Did I make it a bit more clear for you this time?
Again, why write one paragraph when 10 will do.
But again, you haven’t engaged with what I have just said. The UNCDC will not engage on or determine whether the ToU was lawful any entered into in 1707. The position will be the same as West Papua – Scotland is not on the list of NSGT’s, and therefore it is out with the remit of the UNCDC.
Even if the matter were to be determined, the outcome would be that the UN already recognises: the United Kingdom is a single state, with Scotland being a part of that state. International law does not recognise the right of peoples to self determination by forming a new country, outside of the circumstances of either colonisation or military occupation. It’s not something we have to guess at, because it’s the settled position in both domestic and in international law.
“Why write one paragraph when 10 will do?”
Why stop at 10? Why not 100?
I doubt Mia writes them anyway. The evidence for AI can be found, from time to time.
And then the very name “Mia” reveals somebody so convinced of their own superior cleverness they want to leave clues in plain sight.
Strangely enough the people in Wales still feel, remember their annexation all these years later by England,
Yet their hundreds of years of colonisation, a lot longer than Scotlands has not dematerialise into believing they are English or the Country of England,
I remember them burning their own houses to prevent the onslaught of immigration from across the Welsh border, of their being out priced and losing their land, and becoming second class people in their own Country,
Most of The Irish nation have not forgotten their enforced Colonisation, often with violence or starvation used to bring them to their knees,
England has surround itself with peoples and Countries that no longer have the right to self determination due to Colonising them by any weapon or method available including bribes,
I have had the fortune to be related to all the four Countries, as my four grandparents are from each one of those Countries,, I have lived in three of them, and from that background have had personal experience on how the Countries that have been Colonised by England still feel today, hundreds of years later,
That feeling of being a catured slave with no self determination never leaves and will not vacate the people of those nations,
Even with the effort to dispel the nations people with a replacement population,
The nation of England today is for the first time in their memory being Colonised with a replacement immigration population, where their laws, their mother tongue and their reiigion are being altered to suit the new population,
Just as happened in Scotland, Ireland and Wales all those hundred of years ago.
They are protesting that it should be done to them, but karma has a way of eventually returning.
And one day they too will protest about being colonised with consultation.
I hear the commentary of union minded Scots indicating it is down to Scottish exceptionalism,
Well the exceptionalism of England that is steadily rising will be no different.
Whilst they themselves fail to recognise their own exceptional unionist attitudes running along side.
Do not look to close in the mirror for you only reflect your own image looking back at you’re self.
And realise the union you are trying to protect is fast disappearing under the new planned Colonisation of England.
Of the four nations left to be Colonised England is the last one, and that is now in progress.
But the question has to be asked, who or which countries are have targeted England the empire builder.
I suspect the paymasters bribed the head of the tribes gilded elite a long time ago in and for England,
And the puppets lined up in readiness to be in governance of what was once Englands Britain.
Judging by the all the chaos in all past governments , Just like they were in the other three nations
There In the justice system, the bankruptcy of Councils, NHS, the pensions, the blackholes and bad budgets, taxing peoples and businesses (but never balancing the books) to the bone, failing infrastructure, police, and new laws to invoke wokeism, and change the population that was to have less right than the new replacement population
Under those notable changes and New rules in England an the fast disappearing freedoms of free speech,
The bribes must have been accepted, a long time ago , and puppets readied just like it was is Scotland, the same behind closed doors MO.
So I wonder if some of those un named Countries or one world governance would consider releasing Scotland and agree that Scotland is a Colony to break down Englands empire,
Sometimes taken away one wee bolt…..and paying reparations,
Might figure in their bigger plans,
@ Northcode at 11.33 a.m.: “I do not favour the term “Scottish independence”.
Agreed. That term suggests that Scotland has never existed as a nation state. I prefer to talk of restoring or regaining Scotland’s status, and of leaving the “Union”.
“Dissolving the Union”, perhaps?
That sounds about right!
Ending the Union, even.
Or a Proclaimers version:
“UNION NO MORE!!”
I like it.
Question in the ballot:
“Should Scotland end the union with England?”
I think it is very clear. It uses very simple language that can be understood by everybody. It means ending the treaty of union, if still valid. It means ending the entity “Great Britain”. It means ending Westminster as the “union” parliament. It means returning Scotland’s MPs back to Scotland. And it means, of course, Scotland returning to its status as an independent state.
I must admit I never liked the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?” because it is incomplete and puts Scotland in the back foot. It leaves the door opened for the concept of “secession” as if Scotland was part of the territory of the Kingdom of England rather than what it really must be: Scotland actively ending a 300 year toxic union that should have never happened in the first place.
Scotland can never become a fully independent state until it fully ditches the Act of Union with England, revokes the treaty of union and ends the subservience of its representatives to the kIngdom of England’s crown.
This subservience is demonstrated by the demand to swear allegiance to that crown before our representatives can actually take parliament seats and represent us.
But they can never properly represent us when they have sworn to put the interests of that foreign crown ahead of the interests of their own country and the Scottish people.
I believe bilateral treaties can be denounced.
Legally, Denunciation is a unilateral act by which one party terminates its participation in a treaty.
In which case…I denounce the ToU.
Northcode.
I am interested on how denounciation would take effect and what strength it would have say compared to ending the treaty of union, or decolonisation of Scotland and based on the strength of the argument the Scots are not in the ToU.
For all this information is probably an asset in one way or another. And I have not read much on denouncing a treaty.
If the ToU remains valid, then Scotland could have ended it at any time of its choosing. The problem is that neither Nicola Sturgeon, nor Humza Yousaf nor indeed Swinney ever intended to end the union.
The Vienna Convention of the law of treaties indicates several ways in how the treaty can be terminated. One of them, which is a fundamental principle in international law and which also applies to treaties predating the Vienna Convention of the law of treaties, is the principle of “Clausula rebus sic stantibus”, which means the treaty does no longer apply because of a fundamental change of circumstances.
Do you remember the words in the SNP manifesto in 2016?
“We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will”
“Material change in circumstances” are the magic words that activate, according to Wikipedia, the “escape clause” to the the general rule of “pacta sunt servanda” (promises must be kept).
In 2016, the material change in circumstances was brexit and the fact that Scotland had voted against it signalling its desire to follow a diametrically opposed political path to that of England. It was a huge change in circumstances and more than enough to trigger and justify the end of the treaty. Nicola Sturgeon knew this.
I am of the opinion the SNP was bluffing to the deep state and the crown about ending the treaty of union, possibly to get something in return. I say bluffing because it is perfectly clear since then that the useless STurgeon, Yousaf and Swinney never had any intention of ending that treaty.
The useless and political fraud Sturgeon let that wonderful change in circumstances go to waste by procrastinating the referendum until at least 2021, so she could use the carrot of the referendum again for the 2021 Holyrood election.
But, by then, brexit was no longer a change in circumstances. It had become the status quo. That woman is a disgrace to Scotland.
It is interesting, however, that Sturgeon would use those magic words again in the paper “Scotland’s right to choose: putting Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands”, published on the 19 December 2019. Of note it is that this paper was published just one week after the UK GE of 2019 when the SNP won an absolute majority of Scotland’s seats in Westminster for third time.
In my opinion, the political fraud Sturgeon was bluffing this time too. And bluffing she must have been, because in a little over a month she would be embarrassing and insulting Scotland by delivering her disgusting capitulation speech at the end of January 2020.
I wonder if we will ever know what that political fraud Sturgeon got in exchange for giving up on that wonderful treaty exit clause and for selling her own country. I also wonder who/what that bluffing was directed at, was it directed to Whitehall or was it to the crown?
One also wonders if giving up on that exit clause and selling her country might have been the price to pay in order to avoid prosecution later on for some peccadillo or another…
James Cheyne
I could be wrong, James. But as far as I’m aware Denunciation is just a legal term for one party in a bilateral treaty acting to seek their withdrawal from it and doesn’t carry any special meaning beyond that.
Mia @ 4:59 pm
“I wonder if we will ever know what that political fraud Sturgeon got in exchange for giving up on that wonderful treaty exit clause and for selling her own country”
It might be stated as part of the charges listed on the international arrest warrant issued by a liberated and independent Scotland’s government.
I’m sure Portugal will agree to an extradition treaty with Scotland.
Now that would be a treaty I’d be reluctant to denounce.
If the 1707 Act were declared null and void by a court decision, wouldn’t that mean that every law enacted by Westminster affecting Scotland in the last three centuries would be effectively rescinded? No more votes for women would just be for starters. Blimey!
Trolls gonna troll.
I’ve got a more sensible post below, but I was struck by the same point as Andy Wiltshire. I don’t think it’s trolling, it’s quite funny: there is nothing to make you pay income tax, or the tv licence. But gay people (and witches) should go into hiding, and men in Scotland, and perhaps also England, can use whichever toilet they like.
My tongue-out-of-cheek point is that either a newly independent Scotland (brought into existence by a court declaring the 1707 Act both justiciable and unlawful) would have to accept the accumulated ‘aquis’ of UK legislation and legal precedent, or the Scottish people would have to trust the new legislature and executive to select which bits to keep and which to bin. That’s a lot of trust.
Do you know what usually happens? Czechoslovakia, for instance? Most laws aren’t going to be contentious, like your votes for women. But if you can’t trust the new government to decide which laws to overturn, then you can hardly trust them to make new laws! So they shouldn’t be there, but who should be? We’ve lost faith in our politicians as a class.
That’s always been my understanding of the situation, Andy.
We already have an example during the Brexit process. All the laws, rules and regulations that had accrued during the UK’s EU membership period were rubber stamped into UK law.
That’s what would have to happen in Scotland. We would rubber-stamp UK WM law as otherwise absolute chaos would ensue.
And afterwards, just as UK rules and regulations are shadowing EU rules and regulations now, Scottish rules and regulations would very much have to conform with those of our neighbours after Independence.
It’s 2025 FFS, and wee countries conform with their trading partners, otherwise they can’t trade.
President Trump is currently trying to buck that trend. Give it a year and we’ll all see how badly that will have worked out, even for the world’s biggest economy.
Nope. Sorry to not pander to your misogyny, but it would be more likely that a clean slate would be applied from the date of leaving the Union. It would ten be up to Scotland to repeal any laws it deems to be onerous. Good luck with trying to repeal the female vote, Andy. You’d be lucky not to be strung up by your two veg.
@ Mia, Fearghas, Xaracen and Northcode: yeah, let’s focus on denouncing, ending the Union.
This stand demonstrates that Scotland has equal status with England and highlights the abuse by England since even before 1707 – today I’ve seen a petition from people in Fife in 1701 asking for the removal of “the army of occupation”!
“today I’ve seen a petition from people in Fife in 1701 asking for the removal of “the army of occupation”!”
That was a form of coercion and a very clear reason to declare a treaty invalid under the Vienna Convention of the law of Treaties.
As I said previously, under today’s standards, that treaty would have never ever been seen as legal and would have been declared null and void even before the ink was dry in the parchment.
This is one of the things that pisses me off the most. Nothing, absolutely nothing in 1706 ever gave the most minimum consideration to what the people of Scotland wanted.
Scotland’s parliamentarians are on record asking each other before the ratification of the treaty if the people of Scotland should have been allowed to vote on it. They deliberately rejected it. It was a stitch up of the highest order. The people of Scotland was deliberately left out of the decision and this was done by the queen and its spineless and self-serving aristocrats in Scotland.
There was nothing even remotely democratic about it and there was nothing legal, under today’s standards, about that treaty.
Yet, now in the 21st century, we are demanded that, to exit this union which was was at all effects a stitch up and unlawfully forced on Scotland, we must follow the highest standards of democracy and demonstrate majorities for independence well in the 60 or now even 70%.
I am sorry, but this is beyond absurdity. It is an insult. It is impossible to talk about democracy when we do not even have a proper franchise for a constitutional referendum of that type because the imperial power is foisting at pace into our electoral roll people without allegiance to Scotland and likely to vote no whilst, by de-industrialisation and impoverishment of the country, it is forcing our youngsters to emigrate in order to find jobs elsewhere.
Since 2014 more than 10 years have passed. How many No voters have joined Scotland since then? How many native yes voters have left Scotland?
the longer it passes, the more this exchange continues and the imbalance becomes evident.
The only acceptable way for a referendum on Scotland ending the union is if it strictly follows UN rules, it is conducted under UN supervision and it is planned and executed totally out with the control of the imperial power and its government structures, including the politically biased civil service.
And we all know that a referendum is not even needed. Treaties have nothing to do with democracy. A referendum was not needed to start the union, therefore it is not needed to end it either. The only thing that is needed is a majority of anti-union MPs with the balls and the conviction to do their job, reconvene the old Scotland’s parliament and revoke the treaty and Act of Union with England.
You’re not wrong, Mia!
Yes, ‘banishment of the natives’ combined with ‘settler occupation’ are well established ‘colonial procedures’ (Memmi) resulting in mass population displacement, as we can readily see in Scotland:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
Given its many violations, and the fact that the ToU as envisaged was never even implemented, Professor Black surely provides a solid case for judicial review, where the court’s duty is to protect the rights of citizens. A corrupt, malicious and fraudulent treaty exploiting and oppressing an entire nation should never be allowed to stand.
Yes, ‘banishment of the natives’ combined with ‘se**ler occupation’ are well established ‘colonial procedures’ (Memmi) resulting in mass population displacement, as we can readily see in Scotland:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
Given its many violations, and the fact that the ToU as envisaged has never even been implemented, Professor Black surely provides a solid case for judicial review, where the court’s duty is to protect the rights of citizens. A corrupt, malicious and fraudulent treaty exploiting and oppressing an entire nation should never be allowed to stand.
“the ToU as envisaged has never even been implemented”
I firmly believe the Scottish parliamentarians in 1706 genuinely thought they were entering a union of some description. Many of them were disgusted years later when they saw what really was happening, yet, they did not do much to end it because they were far more concerned about themselves and their wealth than their country or fellow countrymen.
There are some inconsistencies that had me questioning many, many times just what kind of nationalists the SNP are, just how much they believe what they preach regarding Scotland’s sovereignty and how much any politician in Scotland or England truly believe Scotland is in a union. I honestly think none of them do.
As usual, in my cynic style, since the political fraud Sturgeon took a wrecking ball to the dentures of the SNP in 2015, I do no longer give any credence whatsoever to politicians’ vacuous words. I form an image of their character and trust worth on the basis of what they do, not what they say.
And, so far, since Mr Salmond died, I do not recall a single one of them at any side of the border who actually acted as if they truly believed in Scotland’s popular sovereignty, in Scotland’s rights and if they believe Scotland is in a union that, therefore, it can end at any time of its choosing.
In fact, all of them conduct themselves as if they firmly believed that Scotland is a colony. They may not have said it with words, but they demonstrated it with their body language and actions.
The first incongruence between their words and their actions is their nonsense of having to ask permission to Westminster to hold a referendum.
The second incongruence is them saying that any form of independence has to be negotiated and agreed with Westminster or the UK government.
Well, if Scotland is really a party to a bipartite union, this is patent nonsense. If Scotland is in a union, its partner is not the product of the treaty, that de nuovo entity called “Great Britain”, never mind the centuries post-union “United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI”.
Scotland formed and IS the “United Kingdom” as much as England is.
Scotland’s partner in this union is the Kingdom of England, therefore any discussion or negotiation about Scotland’s independence cannot be with representatives from the United kingdom because that would mean Scotland negotiating with itself, which is beyond stupid and incongruous.
Any negotiation of division of assets, etc, has to be done with Scotland’s partner in that union, which, again, is the Kingdom of England not “the UK”.
If Scotland is in a bipartite union, then it does not have to ask permission, never mind begging for any stupid Section 30s. If Scotland is in a bipartite union it simply announces that it will hold a referendum and it will hold it at any time of its choosing. Scotland’s partner in the union has no say in the matter.
When you want to end your marriage and divorce your partner, you do not go to your children and ask for their consent. You simply inform them that you will be divorcing your partner. Well, the same applies here.
You discuss the terms of the divorce with your partner, not with your children. Your children do not determine if you can divorce your partner or not, nor they determine the conditions and terms of the divorce. The same applies here. You discuss that with your partner or their legal representative if no longer in speaking terms.
When you negotiate the divorce settlement, you do not negotiate that settlement with your children. Your children are not even present during the negotiations. You negotiate that with your partner. I do not see why the dissolution of this union has to be any different.
A marriage is a contract, exactly in the same way that a union of states is a contract too. The same contractual rules therefore apply.
You do not need to hold a referendum for the all the extended family, never mind ask your children permission to hold one and allowing them to control all the levers of that referendum, to end a marriage contract.
So why is this what has to happen when it comes to Scotland ending its marriage contract with England?
If there really is a union between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England on the back of an international treaty, the UK government and the UK parliament are simply products of and therefore subordinated to the treaty and to the parent entities that ratified that treaty. The UK gov or UK parliament did not ratify that treaty, they were produced by it. They do not own the treaty and they do not have authority above it. They are subordinated to its existence.
In the event of one of the two partners deciding to end the treaty and therefore the union, then the children of the treaty, that is the UK gov, UK parliament and Supreme Court must be informed, but not consulted, never mind asked permission.
The only difference between this union and a marriage is that the children of this union (UK gov, UK parliament, UK Supreme Court) cease to legally exist when the contract for that marriage ends. In a human marriage, children do not cease to exist.
The fact that not only England’s politicians like Gove, but also the SNP themselves talk about asking permission to what should be the products of the treaty and therefore subordinated to the treaty and to Scotland, indicates that absolutely none of them truly believe this is a real union and all of them believe instead that Scotland is a colony. They just do not say it loud.
The fact that the SNP thinks that it is with the UK gov that Scotland needs to negotiate independence, again, indicates that the SnP does not believe the UK gov is a product of the union and therefore subordinated to the treaty. The SnP does not see the UK gov as if it was the government of an entity which is a product of a treaty with Scotland’s partner and therefore subordinated to Scotland. The SNP conduct themselves as if they see the UK gov and UK parliament as the gov and parliament of an entity that owns Scotland. They see the UK gov and UK parliament as if they were the government and parliament of the Kingdom of England.
So, quite frankly, given the above, the way the SNP and indeed all of England parties conduct themselves with regards to Scotland when it comes to its rights to end this union unilaterally, is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
All, and I mean every single one of them act as if Scotland is a colony of England and ALL of them see the UK as if it was the Kingdom of England under a different name.
And yet, all of them hypocrites clutch their pearls and wail when a group of pro-independence activists had enough of inaction and bypassed the wailing wankers who have been taking us for absolute fools and betrayed us for 10 years. The pro-independence activists have simply put the wheels in motion to report Scotland’s colonial status to the UN. A colonial status which is very much in line with what every single one of the wailing wankers at both side of the border has conducted themselves as and acted as for the last 10 years.
The Treaty does not give succour to the dominance of England over Scotland, nor to the dominance of England’s MPs over Scotland’s MPs.
It can legitimately be argued that only Scotland’s sovereignty survived the Treaty of Union. Scotland’s sovereignty was and still is vested in Scotland’s people, and not only did they never give up their sovereignty, no-one ever asked them to, and no-one had sufficient authority to take their sovereignty away from them. They took no part in the Treaty negotiations, and were clearly solidly against the Union.
But England’s sovereignty was clearly vested in its parliament as of 1689, and that parliament formally voted itself out of existence in 1707 and its sovereignty ended with it.
That just leaves the sovereignty of the UK monarch. Unfortunately for KCIII, his sovereignty only covers the territory of the Kingdom of England via his English crown, which is the only one he legally and formally acknowledged, and his sovereignty as a Scottish monarch is outnumbered by several million other sovereign Scots, (first among equals has its limitations, heh!), and is also legally limited by the Scottish constitution, the permanence of which having been guaranteed by both former parliaments. Thus did the arrogance of the English establishment snooker itself.
In an interview with Professor Black during the SSRG Conference one interviewer made a point that in the Supreme Court case in 2022 two things came out. One was that the UK parliament possessed supreme sovereignty over both England and Scotland, and the other that in 1707 both former parliaments ceased to exist. But these two assertions entail a contradiction, because the UK parliament can only have inherited its current supreme sovereignty from the English parliament, but when that parliament ended, then that supreme sovereignty cannot have carried on to the new UK parliament.
“Absolutely!”, Professor Black agreed, and he continued ” No, that is absolutely right, and that is what, in McCormack against the Lord Advocate, Lord Cooper was reaching towards, that particular point, and if an entirely new legislature came into being in 1707 then why assume automatically that it has all the powers of the parliament that it succeeded to. It doesn’t make sense. Parliamentary sovereignty makes sense under our constitution only if what exists today is a continuation of what existed in England at that time. It otherwise makes no legal sense.”
@ Xaracen
I agree 100% with your comment (24 May 9:51). I also would add that if the first parliament of Great Britain was indeed a de nuovo parliament, it could not possibly have the legal authority to dive into Scotland’s pre-union constitutional legislation and amend it at will, never mind abolish it.
Article XXV of the Treaty of Union is very clear. The abolition of pre-union legislation contradicting the terms of the treaty should be carried out by the respective parliaments that created that legislation.
Article XXV does not specify what pre-union legislation in Scotland or England contradicts the terms of the treaty. It leaves that decision to the respective parliaments.
Neither of those two parliaments selected legislation to abolish or indeed abolished it before the union. There are several reasons that could explain this, but one of them is that neither of those two parliaments actually identified any piece of legislation in their constitutions that should be abolished. They thought none of it contradicted the conditions of the treaty. And that was, in line with Article XXV, their prerogative.
This is not so far fetched. The piece of Scottish constitutional legislation targeted by the first parliament of Britain to abolish was the law that empowered Scotland’s parliament to choose a different monarch to England’s.
If the people ratifying the treaty did not see the prospect of a permanent union, or, in other words, did not think the union would last long, they quite rightly did not see any reason whatsoever to get rid of that piece of legislation. That piece of legislation would be simply superseded/put on hold by the treaty for as long as the treaty remained extant. But should that treaty ceased to be extant or be revoked, then that piece of legislation would remain extant.
However, what we saw from the records is that the very first parliament of Great Britain proceeded to abolish some pre-union constitutional laws from both Scotland’s and England’s body of law. It was not the right of that new parliament to determine what laws the parliaments of Scotland and England should have abolished before that parliament came into existence. It was a clear overreach.
This would immediately contravene Article XXV and therefore and invalidate the treaty, unless it was seen at the time that the parliaments of Scotland and England remained as independent but inside the so called “parliament of Great Britain”.
What is clear to me is that a brand new parliament from a brand new legal entity has no legal authority whatsoever over the legislature created by a completely different parliament belonging to a completely different legal entity.
That action alone, I mean the parliament of Great Britain helping itself to pre-union legislation as if it was its own, suggests that either England thought it simply had taken full control over Scotland, or that there were two separate and independent parts to that new parliament, one for Scotland and another for England.
Should the latter be the case, then the concept of “parliamentary sovereignty” only applies to legislation localised and applicable to England, but not to Scotland.
If that is the case, all the recent rulings of the English court denominated “UK Supreme court” whereby the English convention of “parliamentary sovereignty” was used to justify rulings over Scotland are, in my view, overreach and therefore unlawful.
The same applies to the triggering of A50. The “parliamentary sovereignty” did not apply to Scotland at that time either.
If you’re pinning your hopes on the UN enforcing a vote where only Yes voters are allowed to participate then you’re in for a big dose of disappointment
Hmmm, there is certainly the smell of fear in the myriad unionist posts on this thread.
The UN route is clearly not one they’d bargained for.
Keep it up chaps, lets us know we’re doing something right
2014 UK Legal advice said
‘Scotland was extinguished in 1707 and became Lesser England’
Lesser England is the perfect and very descriptive name for what we know as Scotland.
This place smells a whole lot better since Yoon’s cum has left the building and a question over whether he has returned in cunning disguise has arisen. I suspect he never left but continues to spread his brand of charm under one of his multiple identities. Whatever but the point is that talking pish on here will not stop the adults getting on with working for Indy. Now that spunk has left we await the New incarnation of the Yoon collective. Over to you Johnboy.
Naw.
It has rained for the first time in a month and some of the regulars got caught in it. That’s the real explanation for the fresher atmos on here.
You need a second sousing. Give it an hour this time.
Or alternatively…
Why we shouldn’t listen to anybody who’s a climate Armageddon net zero zealot that gets taken in by all this bullshit and doesn’t simply point out the utter ridiculousness that we don’t really need any fucking car (regardless of whether leccy or fossil fuel powered) that has 150 electronic control modules and an IT system capable of karaoke mode, and the need to accelerate from naught to 60 in 2.7 seconds in a tyre destroying style.
link to robinmcalpine.org
We could have been running an evolution of the Scottish made Hillman Imp. It started out as a small lightweight car powered by an all alloy engined overhead cam 8v engine. Pretty much the pinochle of engineering efficient and practical simplicity which could have evolved to embrace improvements in modern machining method tolerances, and a useful but not overwhelming amount of electronic control systems to improve emissions.
We could have been running them on lpg autogas from our own oilfields, which would have slashed nasty emissions compared to petrol and diesel engines thus negating all the ULEZ bollox..
France still incentivises the procurement of lpg autogas powered cars whereas the UK is removing lpg autogas pumps from our filling stations thus blocking that option so you will have to buy overpriced leccy to power your shitey leccy car as you neck calming pills to ease your range anxiety.
Ultimately an Imp-like vehicle was all you really needed to get from A to B until you got brainwashed into thinking you need to spend the price of a home on a huge over-engineered, over-powered, and over-priced piece of disposable junk that doesn’t even fit in a standard car parking space.
Interesting how LPG which is much greener than diesel or petrol is being phased out by the Westminster government.
Why is this so when in Europe manufacturers are manufacturing and selling many many bi fuel petrol and LPG vehicles that can fill up with LPG at ubiquitous pumps available in most filling stations.
My wife having just bought a new bi fuel petrol gas car finds that in Glasgow the available gas pump filling station are now restricted to two. She also tells me that the car tax rate is a derisory £10.00 a year less because the car is more green.
So why is it that a green alternative is being squeezed out. Why are we so different from the continent where moreover the greener LPG is much cheaper.
Its a good question and one folks should be asking.
I’m sure in a change from arguing about “ancient irrelevant guff” the unionists will be along any minute now to explain why the UK’s historic, current, and future fucked up energy policies and initiatives require us to be so different compared to how other countries in Europe operate…
If anybody still sports an alert reader badge they’d know I’ve previously highlighted that the UK was phasing out the lpg autogas pumps at filling stations thus effectively blocking that greener vehicle power option.
England still fires up the gas powered leccy generators when it needs power though. Like now for instance, with about 10% of GB grid power being generated from CCGT power stations.
link to gridwatch.templar.co.uk
Scotland generating enough to power ourselves (3GW) mostly through renewables, and still managing to export the same amount down to England.
Big site to load with a lot of information and not recommended for viewing on mobile phone.
link to terravolt.co.uk
Good to hear we’re generating twice as much leccy as we need in the particular weather conditions prevailing when you posted.
What are the predictions for how much more leccy Scotland will need when all homes and businesses are on heat pumps and all transport is electric. Maybe we might build some manufacturing capacity too – get some lucky Scots into employment.
Twice as much
Ten times as much?
Let’s go with 10, which means we still need 5 times as much generating infrastructure as we currently have. Should the multinationals building and installing this expect to make a return on their investment, or should they treat Scotland as a special case for charity? Haha, that’s not a serious question.
Ouch. This eye wateringly expensive greenwash is going to hurt us all!
BTW, Dan. A significant number of Scots like spending the price of a home on their wheels. It’s called conspicuous consumption and it afflicts Scots just as much as other tribes.
Since we are now all talking about the key issue of restoring Scotland’s status, there’s another easy thing that may help – go to the new site manifestoforindependence.scot and sign the petition. Even if you signed the previous petition, Peter A Bell says we need to sign the one on the new site, for security reasons.
Done
Hi all, just popping in to leave this quote FAO Mia, Alf, Sara and others who might be interested.
It’s a wee glimpse of what was considered worthy of publication at the approximate mid-way point between the TOU and now. (It’s a tweet so I’ve just C&Ped the whole thing.)
The whole ‘settler/colonist’ thing is pretty obvious but so too is ‘the cringe’.
(Dr. Robert Knox was Scottish, born in Edinburgh in 1791. ‘The Races of Men’ was published in 1850.)
Scotland deserves a gargantuan reparations package when she finally gets tf out of this shit show, Fake country, international GDP landmass thingy that some still bizarrely call Britain.
Britain is hell, and the geniuses who planned the last few decades back in 1997 can hold their heads high while they survey what tf they have done.
It might be small consolation, but those shit bags who merged Labour and Tory in 1997 will need to fall off their perches and kick the effing bucket whilst watching what they have left to their children.
Fuck knows what those spoon-fed shitstains envisaged when they installed Blair. It has ended in disaster, though. And when regular people are eventually paid properly, the island will quite simply heammorage regular, average natives.
The spirit of Britain – as well as it’s character and culture – are as dead as a fkng do do, and it is just pure selfishness and malice for London to try dragging Scotland into it’s catastrophe. Selfishness laced with some hefty denial!
Andy, Britain is a hollowed out busted flush heading towards a potential Greek style debt crisis.
And that is why as the UK crumbles Westminster becomes ever more desperate to hang onto Scotland.
Its all going to end in tears and ramping up military production spending tens of billions on weapons of war is not going to sort the economy. Tears, floods of them, they’re a busted flush, but a dangerous busted flush, and they know it.
“The spirit of Britain”?
Don’t make me laugh! That’s an Anglo fantasy –
“Britain” = “Engerlaaaaand”….
Stale sandwiches, pish beer, the EBC, subsidised Scotch, Enlgand winning the war….
…just ask the Site Prick; wee Johnny Main stains his nylon underwear every time the “Empire” gets mentioned….
Scott McTominay wins the Italian league for Napoli,
Finn Russell wins the Challenge Cup Final for Bath,
Wha`s like us.
Thanks to those that responded to my question yesterday.
Surely on of the biggest changes to the ToU since its supposed creation for Scots is the belated discovery for Scotland anyway, is that of Westminster informing us and the rast of the world publically that Scots were rejected from joining the ToU.
We can not ignore or undermine just how important that piece of information is,
1) The members of the old Scottish parliament abandoned Scotlands parliament to join the parliament of England, those members all moved out of Scotland to inhabit the parliament of England
2) The Scottish parliament was dissolved behind them.
Hence no parliament or Scottish representatives,
3) The monarch became the monarch of England.
4) And the Scots nation was rejected from joining the ToU.
I am failing to see a connection of where Scotland and the Scots are joined or obligated to a ToU with England.
I am failing to see a reason for why Scots need to vote to leave a treaty they were rejected from joining from the beginning,
I am failing to see a treaty of union that would any longer include or connect the monarch of England to the Scottish crown since 1689.
Other than a story of propaganda.
There appears to be nothing substantial or solid to hang the ToU hat on, that obligates scolands
The Scots cannot Breach a 1707 Treaty of Union that they were rejected from joining,
James: read all the speeches and workings around the Treaty. They make it very, very plain that the Union was a partnership, that a new British parliament had been created within the pre existing English parliamentary structure. Queen Anne was at pains to point out that she was acting as the head of state of Scotland and the head of state of England SEPARATELY. She actually says that which tells us that the Scottish crown continued in spite of claims to the contrary. The Union of the Crowns meant very simply that one person held both roles, not that the two separate crowns had become one. There is, and never has been, a BRITISH Crown.
Ambassadors from all over Europe and further afield, with whose countries both Scotland and England traded, came to the Union ceremonies to oversee the Union and the Treaty obligations on each partner. This is never done with domestic legislation (acts of parliament), only with international treaties. Read the speeches. It is very evident that the parliament of the Union, the British parliament, was a new parliament albeit housed within the pre existing English parliamentary structure.
If we do not understand the Treaty and the obligations it placed on both parties, particularly on England, we will come a cropper if and when we try to disentangle ourselves from the Union because, as sure as sure can be, the English establishment will use the Treaty to try and mess us up however they can. They might be unable to stop us leaving, but, boy, will they not let us go without divesting us of everything they possibly can. The Treaty protects us, our assets, our land, our seas.
Yes, international law would prevail, but even today, we could lose a great deal of that which the Treaty guaranteed over 300 years ago. By repudiating the Treaty, we also repudiate the protections it offers us constitutionally and in reality. That would be utter folly on a scale even the SNP government of the past ten years has not yet managed to accomplish.
The English establishment now has undersea cables running through our maritime assets into England; it has infrastructure being built now over Scottish terrestrial assets, all running into England; and it has its nuclear arsenal sited in Scotland. Do you really believe, does Professor Black really believe, that they will just give all that up without one helluva fight? Oh, yes, they will use that Treaty against us. Be assured of that.
Replying to: Mia 24th May @ 8:47 am
I’ve quickly scanned your comment, Mia – I’ll read it with a more thorough eye later – and my initial conclusion is that your logic is sound.
My understanding of the main point made in your comment is as follows:
a) If Scotland is deemed a colony by the UN then the decolonization process overseen by the UN is a route to liberation open to the Scots.
b) If Scotland is deemed to be in a live bilateral treaty of union with England then the Scots can legally under the international laws that govern treaties and without interference from the other party to the treaty denounce the ToU and withdraw from it unilaterally.
If either of the conditions A or B is true then the Scots can pursue internationally recognised legal routes to liberation without the permission of the UK government or the need for an S30.
Checkmate
Thank you Northcode.
Yes, that is the main point I was trying to make. You have presented it much better and much more elegantly that I could have ever done.
Whatever answer the UN provides, it will open a legitimate route for Scotland to pursue independence without having to resign itself to tolerate continuous and insidious interference from its greedy “partner”/coloniser.
And we know that it is this interference what has been stopping Scotland’s independence since at least 2014.
When you look at it from that perspective, Salvo’s actions are nothing short of genius and deserve to be praised even more. They indeed put the SNP and its 10 years of capitulation and embarrassing inaction to shame.
@Northcode: what happens if c) Scotland is part of a single state, the United Kingdom?
A: Alf, with his faithful yet entirely imaginary ghostly cohorts of Memmi and Fannon ever present at his side will be dreadfully upset and unlikely to emerge from his black painted bedroom until at least tea time.
*Sigh*…. Trolls gonna troll.
You can bloody talk Park Bench Buckie Boy.
A meaningless hypothetical question, Aidan, and one designed to confuse and deflect the unwary and the uncertain! You are constructing a straw man.
Scotland is not merely a part of a single state, it is one half of a binary state, one of two sub-states sharing a single parliament for the purposes of jointly co-ordinated governance of their territories and peoples.
The United Kingdom only looks like a single state externally, from the perspective of the rest of the world. Internally it is unremittingly binary at many levels except, to a limited extent, its parliament.
The parliament is the only singular aspect of the Union, but even then its MPs are not a single homogenous body; they are composed of two distinct bodies, each formally and separately representing a completely different kingdom under the terms of Article XXII of the Treaty, and not merely a subset of British constituencies. Neither of those kingdoms agreed to be governed by the other, and nothing in the Treaty says otherwise.
Can you give me a give example of where the concept of a binary state is recognised in intentional law in any context?
“Can you give me a give example of where the concept of a binary state is recognised in intentional law in any context?”
Korea – One nation, 2 states.
@Mia – “Korea” isn’t a “binary state”
“The UK only looks like a single state …”
When I go through immigration, in either direction.
When I am asked to show my driving license, here or abroad.
When I go online to check my state pension entitlement.
When I watch Eurovision.
When it’s an Olympics year.
I can’t be arsed coming up with any other examples right now, Xaracen, but do us all a favour.
Admit the UK is real and has been for over 300+ years, because that at least grants the Indy movement some justification for its struggles.
Otherwise, if you maintain the UK is non-existent, an illusion, a fiction, etc. we Scots just look like the world’s most pathetic, hopeless, incompetent losers.
Unable to burst our way out of a wet paper bag, in fact.
You totally missed the point, Hatey.
Did I really, Xaracen?
“The parliament is the only singular aspect of the Union”.
Your words. I listed some common place, everyday singular aspects to show you the error in your argument.
Produce your Scottish drivers license or your Scottish passport and I’ll eat my UK ones.
“Did I really, Xaracen?”
Yes.
That is my worry also, Aidan. With any luck, the UN will recognize Scotland’s ‘colonial’ status, but, if it doesn’t? If it holds that we did enter a Union in 1707, regardless of how England has treated us since then – and I absolutely agree that we are treated as if we are a colony or, at any rate, a devolved territory of a Greater England-as-the-UK – then we are in a bind because we will not have had the Treaty ‘sound’ in law.
I have no patience with those who want to be independent so much that they will believe anything rather than face the truth that it may not be as easy as they thought. Tub thumping will get us nowhere. Believing that the law says something it patently does not will get us nowhere unless we are prepared to simply disobey the law, which will bring disaster down on our heads.
Thank you for asking that question. You are the first on this thread to have done so, to query the “it’ll be alright on the night if we just scream and tub thump loudly enough” brigade. It won’t be enough if the UN and international law states that there was and remains a Union. In those circumstances, we will need to be on top of the Treaty and the Claim of Right, and I mean really on top of them, constitutionally and legally.
That is, knowing them inside out and being able to defend our position, not just stamp our feet and make up stuff because it sounds nationalistic. That is what we have always done since 1707 instead of arming ourselves with the reality of our position – which is by no means clear (SALVO/Liberation have done most of that work already).
However, we can be very clear on the fact that, if there is a legal obligation under the Treaty, the English establishment has not behaved legally in regard to its obligations by treating us as a ‘colony’. The evidence for that is accessible – in every law and document since 1707, including the Crawford and Boyle report of 2013/14, which began with the conclusion – that we were subsumed – rather than a premise. A circular argument. Does anyone seriously believe that the English establishment will not use that argument again, but against us, while we argue the self-same conclusion in the form of a premise that should set us free? It is ludicrous!
Awa back tae yer blackhoose, Xaracen, and croon softly tae yersel in the peat reek.
You don’t have a Scottish passport, Scottish drivers license, Scottish NI number, nor any entitlement to a Scottish old age pension.
I fully understand and indeed sympathise with you that these incontrovertible facts shatter your carefully constructed illusions.
There, there, Xaracen. Bad Hatey’s gonna leave you be for a while. Reality can never harm you if you refuse to let it in.
For C see B.
Reading all the fantasies on here about how ‘cleverly’ Scotland can be a ‘nation’. Ideas spread out like instructions to build a child’s toy. After I stopped laughing or was it crying, I’m not sure which, I can only conclude that ‘reality is agreement’ and some folk need to take up fly catching or some other useful pastime.
“some folk need to take up fly catching or some other useful pastime”
How about you put to action your own preaching and lead by example?
There’s no flys on Mark.
@ Mark Beggan: Howsabout YOU “take up fly catching or some other useful pastime” instead of wasting your own time and everybody else’s posting your unionist codswallop on this pro-independence web-site. You never provide any examples of how Scotland benefits from being ruled by England. All you ever do is criticise and insult.
“time”
“Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.
You fritter and waste the hours in an off-hand way.
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town.
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way.”
The only fantasy here is the ‘UK’, which is and always has been a colonial hoax based on a mankit worthless treaty as far as Scots are concerned, and much as Professor Black confirmed.
“Imagine there’s no countries.”
“And no religion too”
Then spend the rest of your life in hiding from the fatwah.
All these bright ideas seem to rely on the UN being some sort of world government. In reality it is a members club in which the Territorials integrity of members is one. Of the main tenents. The General Assembly is a talking shop whose resolutions can be safely disregarded by member states. The 200ish resolutions against Israel being prime examples. Any substantive motions have to be approved by the Security Council where permanent members have a veto. The UK is a permanent member-of the Council. The UN Court (ICJ) has no authority over members internal affairs and only members can bring cases before it. The best an independence movement can hope for is for a member state to ask the court for an advisory opinion which can be safely ignored by any member state found to be at fault.
If Scotland is to gain independence it will have to be through our own efforts in persuading the UKG to let us depart.
When the bombshell UK legal advice was released in 2013 there didn’t appear to be a lot of discussion about it. That could have been because people just thought it was a ridiculous idea that Scotland didn’t exist or maybe because there were so many other things being discussed at that time ie which currency will we use, EU membership,no Eurovision etc etc etc. Unionists may not have wanted to focus on the idea that there was no union because if there was no union then ‘what is a unionist’ or more importantly ‘what is a Scottish Unionist’
As we have found out recently use of language is important.
Regarding this bombshell UK legal advice being drowned out by all the other topics being discussed at the time similar seems to be happening currently with discussion about liberation/independence//Scotland as colony being sidelined by discussion about gender. (Sturgeon’s cunning plan?)
I too would be fascinated to hear more from Stephen Kerr or from any unionist.
What is a Unionist?
Smith Commission report stated…
“nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future, should the people of Scotland so choose.”
link to hansard.parliament.uk
link to lawscot.org.uk
After all these years, the yoon trolls “Aidan”, franchise fanny “Andy Ellis” and the rest are still trotting out the same discredited bullshit.
Sounds like they’re getting worried. Again…
FYI Ellis, try watching ‘The Stolen Seas’ by Craig Murray.
@James – I’m outside in a rental cabin in Norway at the moment with a beer in hand yet I’m sat here responding to you, sort of sad on my part really isn’t it.
Aye , James , notice how ” Aidan ” always has to tell us he’s in another country ; a while back he just had to tell us he was passing the U.N offices in New York ( presumably the U.N flew him over to get his omniscient opinion on Scottish Independence ) more recently Estonia ( doing P.R shite for the E.U’s rising warmongering failure wee Kaka Kallas ? ) : now the international jet-setting know-fuck-all is in Norway ( feeding rusks to former NATO man-child Stoltenberg ? ) : yea , ” he’s a real Nowhere Man , sitting in his Nowhere Land ” , but , in between being a genius ,” making all his nowhere plans – for nobody ” . in short another conceited twat whose entire input here can be reduced to the formula ” you cannae dae that because……….? ” .
He’s that other conceited know-fuck-all Ellis’s dopplewanker : the latter being as much of a joke as he’s always been – still trying to tell us the Reds blew-up their own pipeline , Einstein ?
Wee Vlodka Ben Main getting more hysterical ( in both senses of the word ) by the day . Seeing Commies everywhere ( well , after 3 years on the Busby Front , witnessing daily double-parking atrocities , who can blame him ? ) – tried looking up yr hero Zelly’s nostrils yet , Vlod ? We could have told him too much coke results in bad bad BAD judgements n eventually psychosis – ask wee Manny Macron , there he is with his weird wee man-wife ( no , not Starmer , he’s too busy paying off U*****ian ” male models ” ) imagining he’s the latest incarnation of Napoleon , when he’s just another of Uncle Klaus’s petit fours , destined to be consumed by the adults of BRICS – ditto rent-boy fan , Starmer , Germany’s latest clown ,Merz and the rest of the Euro Coalition of the Delusional
That trio along with the other pop-up twats have absolutely zero of any worth , or even interest to contribute to the cause of Independence and are , indeed , getting their y-fronts helluva contorted at the conversation widening beyond the cul-de-sac of Party Politics n the very thought of progress being made via other routes – hence the intensification of their tedious negativity .
Ach well , I suppose they do serve to amuse us with their never-ending stream of meaningless drivel , * hilarious * pseudonyms & Brit tabloid worldviews .
Good News kids ! Almost school summer holidays time : mind pack yr bucket n spades ; n try not to annoy mummy n daddy too much by continually asking ” are we there yet ” . You’re not
Wow, Bob!
An almost word-for-word regurgitation of Barbie’s favourite talking points.
What is it with the “two” of you and the obsession with bum sex?
Dan,
Having had a quick reminder after reading the link you provided,
Question, if each territorial state remains in tact internally then surely the slice of Scotlands territory that was annexed of the north sea by the parliament of Great Britain was a illegal move by that parliament.
As those territory borders were Scotlands border., yes?
Absolutely, James Cheyne.
Which also brings up another question:
if the UK of Great Britain and NI was a unitary state or a “nation” as some claims it to be, what was the exact purpose and point of changing the borders of Scotland’s territorial waters?
Such move of stealing Scotland’s territorial waters only makes sense if the war criminal Blair and his acolytes knew Scotland’s and England’s territories remain separate and independent despite the union because Scotland and England are still separate entities.
When you cover your ears to avoid listening to the noise, waffle, continuous lies and double speak emanating from politicians’ mouths and simply guide yourself by their actions, everything becomes clearer.
The boundary change is a red herring. Until and unless Scottish voters grow a pair and take their independence rather than ask permission it signifies precisely nothing. Post independence, the boundary will be negotiated by the parties according to the principles set out in other analogous cases.
International law, UNCLOS and many precedents will dictate what the eventual boundary will be. There are a number of articles covering this online. The actual line is likely to be neither the original line (which was a straight line from the Scottish/English border) or the revised one, but somewhere between the two. It actually makes little difference as there’s not much in the way of gas fields left in that part of the southern North Sea.
Mia,
I am aware that my personal view that the Scots are not in the treaty at all due to “What to do with the Scots” question arising which recognised that the Scots Sovereignty over the Scottish monarch and the Scots sovereignty over the Scottish parliament having then been debated and discussed and then thought better of it, not to ask the Scots because in all probability they would likely Vote No to joining.
Is sometimes contentious with others that on here that wish the treaty to be binding for Scotland for the sake of negotiating later on.
I can understand this position although a shoogley peg, Seeing how they negotiated with Scots and Scotland the last time and now presume they captured Scots through the treaty,
If I ignore my personal view for the moment would the default Westminster branch office devolved “but still Westminster” argue both sides as they did in 1707.
Or would it have to be a full genuine Scottish parliament.
And if so there would be a return of the true Scottish parliament,
Or maybe they will just discuss it behind closed doors in Westminster and the embeded Scottish parliamentarians in Westminster and the supreme court.
This time around the Scots would need to act as a Sovereign Scots nation in any negotiations
As Westminster have not recognise the Scots or their claim of right since they first repealed under that claim as not compatable with the laws of Great Britain.
It is my belief that even if the 2014 vote had gone to ‘YES’ it would have made no difference beyond being an embarrassing outcome for England.
Referendums are not binding in the UK and the UK government had no legal obligation to honour a winning yes vote and probably wouldn’t have – the Scots would have had to take their case to the UN just as Salvo are doing now.
What? Do some folk actually believe England would have let Scotland walk away from the union on the basis of a non-binding advisory poll just because it was called an independence referendum?
Although I do think England was trying to be a tad too clever when engineering a close defeat for ‘ YES’; it almost shot itself in its own foot.
Slightly shaken, but not particularly stirred, England embarked on a second colonial enterprise in Scotland and set about colonizing the SNP ultimately rendering it a territorial tool for cunningly kicking Scottish independence into some very very very long grass.
The SNP has become the Jacob Marley of independence; a ghastly apparition rattling its colonial chains as it drags them through the halls of Holyrood; its bony finger beckons the Scots to follow it to the land of the dead and there to lie in its cold embrace for all eternity and to let all thought of a liberated Scotland fade into the realm of forgotten dreams.
No. I’m afraid the SNP is utterly lost to the Scots as a vehicle for Scotland’s liberation and is now actively working against them.
“It would have made no difference”
Keep going, NC, you’re half way there!
Believe the 2014 vote DID go to yes.
After all, as you say, what difference would it make?
And by so believing, you will now be in lockstep with some of the more reality-averse regulars.
For those that wish for the treaty of union to remain as a status quo sure we see many instances where Westminster parliament has not only breached those artcles of the 1707 treaty, but many occasions whereby Westminster parliament has Colonised the treaty itself by presuming there are not two united territorial kingdoms within the unit,
But only One.
A perfect example of this is the fact that Westminster parliament insist Scots need a high percentage of votes to enable them to hold a referendum, and then only with a section 30 or some similar permission from the Westminster parliament,
As far as I am aware Scotland has never entered a treaty of union with the Westminster parliament of Britain.
Only with England.
To refuse Scotland the right to self determination on their terms and in their( Scotlands ) own territory borders by Westminster does imply that Westminster parliament itself thinks it is above the treaty of union and owns the treaty ruling both side rather that existing because both sides exist.
Scotland couldn’t enter into a treaty with the Westminster parliament of Britain because it didn’t exist yet.
But your next point still cries out for an answer, how is it that the central state holds the power to decide if a part of that state gets independence? Not just Scotland, but everywhere else in the world.
“how is it that the central state holds the power to decide if a part of that state gets independence? Not just Scotland, but everywhere else in the world”
No, sorry. If that state you talk about is only an state on the back of an international treaty which is subjected to international law and therefore can be revoked applying international law, then that state has absolutely no right whatsoever to deny ANY of the signatories to that treaty and therefore owners of that state and with authority ABOVE the government and parliament of that state, its legitimate right to:
a. remove any legitimacy from that parliament/government to continue acting on behalf of that signatory to the treaty
b. terminate the treaty and with it the union and the state that are sustained by that treaty.
The problem is that the so called UK state is no ordinary state. It is simply sitting on an international bipartite treaty between two equal parties, two equal states. End the treaty, end the state.
So no, a product of a treaty has no right to refuse the owner of that treaty their fundamental right under international law to end that treaty at any time of its choosing and remove the power of that state government and parliament to continue acting as such.
The kingdom of England can continue using those structures as its own if it so wishes, but what it cannot do is to continue claiming they are “UK” structures when one of the fundamental constituent parts of the UK and incidentally England’s only equal partner in this union, is refusing to uphold them and refusing to grant them the legitimacy to continue existing in its current form.
Let’s see: Scotland has given democratic mandates to hold an independence referendum in 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2021. What does that mean?
That means clearly and categorically that since the day Scotland issued the first mandate for an independence referendum, the legitimacy of the UK parliament and UK government to continue acting on behalf of Scotland was put on hold.
Add to that the fact that in 2015, Scotland sent its first absolute majority of anti-union MPs to Westminster. If Scotland was represented by actual MPs instead of parasitic cowards, the union would have ended right there and then. But not only we are being abused by a greedy and abusive partner in a treaty, we are also being abused by the inaction and cowardice of those who claim to represent us.
The thing is, that legitimacy to continue acting on behalf of Scotland can only be restored with a no vote in a referendum of independence which deep state hasbeens like Gordon Brown, England MPs and their useful idiots in England parties’ administrative branches in Scotland keep telling us that we cannot have. Like it is the fckng legal right of any England MP or political hasbeen to tell us we cannot have that darn referendum.
Well then, if we cannot have a referendum to establish if we wish to continue giving the UK gov and parliament the legitimacy it needs to continue acting on behalf of Scotland, then those two entities have been acting ultravires and imposing absolute rule on Scotland since at least 2016 and more likely 8 May 2015. In other words, the so called UK gov and UK parliament ceased to be UK gov and UK parliament the very day we were refused that referendum for first time.
The actions of that ultravires and no longer legitimate UK gov and UK parliament equate to imposing absolute rule over Scotland, which, incidentally is yet another violation of Claim of Right and indirectly the treaty that sustain those two structures.
If the treaty is really extant, England, England MPs and England’s crown do not have the legal right to force the UK gov and UK parliament over Scotland against Scotland’s will, which is exactly what England and its crown has been doing since 2015, when Scotland sent an absolute majority of anti-union MPs to Westminster.
That denial of a referendum since 2016, despite Scotland DEMANDING it for not one, not two, not three, but at least FOUR TIMES is enough to indicate Scotland is not in any effing union. Scotland is being abused, exploited and mismanaged as a colony by the kingdom of England and its crown.
“Scotland couldn’t enter into a treaty with the Westminster parliament of Britain because it didn’t exist yet”
Absolutely.
And that is precisely why it is not for the Uk gov or UK parliament to have ANY say in the matter of Scotland deciding to hold a referendum on independence or to unilaterally ending the union.
The UK gov, UK parliament and the so called “UK” Supreme court are PRODUCTS of the treaty of union and therefore SUBORDINATED to the treaty and subordinated to the signatories of the treaty, which AT ANY MOMENT can exercise their perfectly legitimate right under international law to end the darn treaty and with it the legitimacy of any product of the treaty to continue acting on their behalf.
Either this is a union on the back of a valid international treaty of union and therefore the so called UK parliament, UK gov and UK Supreme Court ceased to hold legitimacy to continue acting on behalf of Scotland since at least 2016 and more likely 2015, or this is a political construct where England abused a treaty to annex Scotland and exploit it as if it was its colony.
It is either or. It cannot be both things at the same time and it can not be one minute one thing and the next the other to satisfy the convenience and the wants of the Kingdom of England and its crown.
That’s a lot of “can’t”s Mia.
As always in the real world, the question arises: Says you and whose army?
Eternally talking the talk is one thing. Who’s gonna walk the walk?
I wrote a post that hasn’t appeared, quite possibly because it was too long, which it most definitely was. If so, many thanks to the moderators and please don’t print both. I thanked Mia for her posts, but said FWIW I disagree, and Scotland became a region of a larger state with the Union. (As did Catalonia, Navarre, Sardinia, any number of other kingdoms. Navarre is directly comparable – Henry of Navarre becoming Good King Henry IV of France – although Navarre’s ended up in Spain.) That said, nowadays, it makes no sense for Scotland, or other places, to have to get “permission” from the larger state for succession.
One point I’d like to repeat: I think it was clear from the discussions of the period (at least, what I’ve seen) that everyone knew the Union was an amalgamation of kingdoms and their parliaments. This is from the petition of the Country faction against the amalgamation:
“That we, undersubscribing, have seen the articles of the Union agreed upon by the commissioners nominated in behalf of Scotland, and the commissioners nominated in behalf of England, in which they have agreed that Scotland and England shall be united in one kingdom, and that the united kingdom shall be represented in one and the same Parliament. (… that the same is destructive to the true interest of the nation.)
There had been several attempts to join the kingdoms before, with James VI/I wanting it from the beginning. And the Commonwealth had already joined the two countries, but they separated with the restoration of the monarchy.
I had other points, better phrased, but it’s getting long again. The problem IMO with a constitutional argument is that it’s based on the arbitrariness of history, rather than the present. It needs a majority now who want independence.
Of course. A real majority in favour, not an imaginary one.
And politicians competent enough to run the country, not eejits chosen by fuckwits who instinctively hate and resent anybody with intelligence, which is why they only ever vote for eejits.
Both Germany, Italy, the Orc Federation and the USA are amalgamations of formerly independent principalities, states, nations and tribes. None of them are in any hurry to split themselves up either.
I don’t agree with Orcs, but it can wait for another day. The rest, yes. Spain imprisoning Catalan politicians for their unauthorised poll, as it was against the law. It was, but the law is an abuse of power made by the majority. Turkey and the Kurds, Kashmir etc. etc..
The occasional exceptions, Kosovo and the Good Friday agreement. But it is real politics who gets it.
Trolls gonna troll [yawn]
@ AndrewR: If Scotland’s present constitutional predicament isn’t the result of the Treaty and Acts of Union, what is it based on? Certainly, there needs to be popular support for independence/decolonisation, but I fail to see how the process that brought about England’s domination over Scotland can be dismissed as unimportant or a historical irrelevance. It’s precisely why we’re in the situation in which we find ourselves.
What is this trolls gonna to troll business? It makes no sense. Whoopee Doodah.
Michael, I’d say that Scotland’s predicament is because it is a minority part of a larger state, the prime minister of which has said that he will not allow a referendum. As Aidan wrote above, that is enough in international law, but that doesn’t make it right.
Trolls gonna troll…..
Just back checked and a post I submitted on Tuesday seems to have got lost in the ether; so, ere we go again-
Happy Anniversary of the Battle of Dunnichen 685 AD
Stu, as a Dons supporter I am sure that you will be delighted that we won the cup today.
The press said we had no chance against the very much wealthier and more talented squad. What a great result.
Celtic, stick the treble up your bum.
Who would have thought that Kasper Schmeichel would be the weak link?
The thing is Stu neither of those options is what HMG has been telling the UN, the EU, the Council of Europe, anyone that will listen to avoid having Scotland listed as a Non Self Governing Territory NSGT by the UN Decolonising Committee of which UK is a member.
No we are a happy voluntary partner is a union. That is the official international position.
Because if we are in fact listed as an NSGT which is what Liberation are trying to achieve then as a member of the UNDC HMG is obligated to do something about it. Like letting us make a democratic choice about staying or leaving this union/unitary state.
States not exactly or no longer friendly with UK (anyone concerned about the Gaza genocide for eg) will be able to use this to diplomatically hit the UK over the head with “Let those people go”.
IF they drag their heels a General Assembly resolution might be got up. The only reason they’re doing ANYTHING about the Chagos Islands is because there’s a GA resolution in favour of Mauritius and the Chagos Islanders.
Mia,
thanks for responding to my question and explaining the issue with common sense and logic.
It is appreciated.
As I am still sorting through my Spouse belongings and have to wait on someone to give me a hand for the heavier items, at the rate things are going and being a one man band so to speak it will be into autumn before I can have time to fully focus here,
there Are still multiple extending ladders, outside and scaffolding, tins of paint to sort through electrical tools and on top of that he lived here for over forty years and threw nothing away including his parents belongs all outside in the sheds, a momentous and daunting task that is taking up so much time
So a genuine thanks mia for stepping in when I am called away,
It really is appreciated and a big thank you to everyone else that contributes
@Aidan 9.15 am 24th May
Even if the matter were to be determined, the outcome would be that the UN already recognises: the United Kingdom is a single state, with Scotland being a part of that state. International law does not recognise the right of peoples to self determination by forming a new country, outside of the circumstances of either colonisation or military occupation. It’s not something we have to guess at, because it’s the settled position in both domestic and in international law.
International law (IL) isn’t as clear cut as you are making out. The UN charter specifically recognises the right of ANY people to self determination. Unhelpfully it does not however provide a definition of what constitutes “a people”. Few would I think argue however that the Scots do constitute a people for the purposes of the UN charter.
The right of self determination is a jus cogens under IL and as such is a peremptory norm, i.e. a fundamental principle, binding on ALL states which cannot be derogated from. Thus states cannot use bad faith counter arguments like constitutional bans, historical precedent, territorial integrity etc.
There is now no consensus amongst IL scholars or international relations (IR) or constitutional law that de-colonisation or violence are the sole grounds for the exercise of self determination.
All that being said, the right to self determination is neither automatic or unlimited: a people seeking self determination is expected to exhaust other reasonable means to achieve its legitimate aims before the international community is likely to accept any attempt to “secede”, whether unilaterally or via an agreed process such as a referendum or plebiscitary elections.
Recent scholarship and indeed precedent, including cases like Kosovo and the more particularly in relation to our situation debates around the Clarity Act in Canada, suggest that both parties will be expected to negotiate in good faith. It is at least arguable that London refusing to grant a referendum for which the Scottish people have given a mandate to Holyrood exhibits bad faith. It may also strengthen the case for Scots to use plebiscitary elections rather than a “single purpose” referendum.
The international community will still insist however on a clear majority voting in favour, in response to a clear question or platform.
The somewhat abstruse debates around the Treaties of Union, Salvo and the quixotic campaign to have Scotland recognised as a case of decolonisation are all pointless distractions which will likely fail and only serve to delay the achievement of the movement’s ultimate aim.
The clearest, most plausible and fastest route to independence is now securing a convincing victory in plebiscitary elections. Scots need to exhibit the political self confidence to tell Westminster what will happen, not ask for its gracious permission.
In short, self determination won’t be delivered to us, we have to exhibit the self confidence to take our independence as a matter of right.
Totally agree about the plebiscitary elections, Andy.
Of course, that’s a hell of a lot more work than endlessly bumping gums on here.
And then there’s the awkward fact that with Indy support always around 50%, in the dimness of the polling booths, small ‘c’ conservative Scots are likely to bottle it, just like last time.
Nothing that some competent, principled, dynamic, smart Scots politicians couldn’t change. If we were to follow the numerous examples set by other political movements in other parts of the world.
I guess it’s just a waiting game until some turn up.
Colonialism tends to be ‘obscured’, especially by the more assimilated and collaborative native elites (Fanon), as we see with such groups vigorously opposing their own liberation.
It is important for an oppressed people to better understand that independence and true liberation requires decolonisation.
@Andy – I agree that nobody could plausibly claim that the Scottish are not a people for the purposes of the right to self determination, but as international law stands at the moment there isn’t any authority for the proposition that the right to self determination provides the right to form an independent state outside of the context of either a NSGT or military occupation. It isn’t even necessarily clear that the right to self determination provides the right to an independent state in the context of repression. There is certainly no authority I am aware of that provides for self determination through independence as a democratic preference. On the contrary, there is significant authority that would suggest that this is explicitly not provided for. For example, Article 2 of the UN charter (respect for the territorial integrity of states) and Article 2(7) (UN not to intervene in domestic matters within states). Most significantly, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States includes the following paragraph: “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.“
Far from being a bad faith argument therefore, territorial integrity of states is a key principle of international law and a legitimate reason for a state not to recognise a people’s demand for independence. I do however think a democratic event (e.g. a plebiscite election), would create a strong political challenge which the U.K. government would find difficult to ignore outright, depending on how widely accepted the plebiscite was within Scotland and other factors such as turnout. Particularly as Scotland is a distinct geographic area, with mature institutions and its own legal system etc. so independence could be achieved without comprising the rUK’s ability to function as a state. However, I think recognition of that result would come through moral pressure rather than through any legal process, and many states I think would actually privately put a great deal of pressure on the U.K. government not to recognise it so as to avoid empowering their own domestic secessionist movements.
The issue with the whole Salvo thing is Scotland outright does not conform to the definition of a NSGT, most clearly because of the blue water rule. The petition will be outright rejected in the same way that the petition from West Papua was rejected. This may already of happened which is why the usual suspects get so prickly when asked about it.
” territorial integrity of states is a key principle of international law and a legitimate reason for a state not to recognise a people’s demand for independence”
But that principle does not overrule the international treaty that originated that state nor the rights of each partner in that treaty.
If this union has become fundamentally toxic for one of the two signatories, and the way Scotland’s demographics have suffered since the union started is a way to demonstrated this, or that treaty has been abused to treat one of the two partners as a colony, forcing that state to continue is endorsing imperialism and putting the rights of one partner, the abuser, above the other, the abused.
“Pacta sunct servanda” and “rebus sic stantibus” are also key principles in international law that should be taken into account here.
The kingdom of England acting as “the UK” has violated the fundamental principle of “Pacta sunt servanda” countless times. It did this every single time it violated one of the fundamental conditions of the treaty. It already did so on the very first day of the parliament of Great Britain and has done countless times since then.
The principle of “rebus sic stantibus” applies here because the material circumstances have changed since the day the treaty was agreed: Scotland and England are no longer wanting to follow the same political routes, and every decision England makes to protect its own interests, is damaging Scotland. You can no longer govern both countries with the same laws unless you subjugate one of them to the other. That is one hell of a change in circumstances.
Under international law the principle of “mala fides” (acting on the basis of deception, dishonesty, or lack of sincerity) can also invalidate a treaty or agreement.
I think in the last 300 years we have had countless examples of “mala fides” by the Kingdom of England acting as “the UK”. Brexit was an example. Pretending that our many mandates to hold a referendum were not good enough is another example. The freeports another example. the theft of our territorial waters is another example. The closing down of Scotland’s only refinery is another wonderful example.
Besides all of the above, “coercionem abstine” is also a principle in international law. It emphasises the prohibition of states to use unlawful force or threats to coerce other states into acting against their will. Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that a treaty is invalid if it was concluded under the threat or use of force.
We know the parliament of Scotland was acting against the will of Scotland in 1706 when it entered the union. We also know that there are several records that indicate that England had parked its army at the doors of Scotland as a way to coerce its parliament to ratify the darn treaty. We also know that several parliamentarians were bribed to change their minds regarding their support for the union.
When we look at the rights of the Kingdom of Scotland vs the rights of the Kingdom of England and the prospect of Scotland being a colony, we have to look at the entire picture, not just the myopic section of international law that is the convenient one to secure preservation of the toxic union.
You must have high level connections, Aidan, as this is pretty much the expected limit of the Whitehall ‘case’ to maintain Scotland’s continued annexation and colonial rule from Westminster.
Aside from the Blue Water Principle which defines colonialism in a narrow, restrictive way and is not therefore a valid argument. For example, using the Blue Water Principle, Poland could not have been colonized by neighbors like Germany or Russia, etc etc.
The ToU does not create any rights or obligations in international law, it is domestic law, so outwith the remit of the UN in accordance with Article 2(7) above.
“The ToU does not create any rights or obligations in international law, it is domestic law, so outwith the remit of the UN in accordance with Article 2(7) above.”
Utter blethers, Aidan! The Treaty of Union is emphatically NOT domestic law. No treaty is, even if its provisions are incorporated into domestic law. The ToU is still a standing international agreement between two sovereign kingdoms, and neither of those kingdoms was extinguished, as their continuing distinct and separate sovereignties, constitutions, monarchies, legal and justice systems, not to mention their still extant formal representatives in the Union’s parliament confirm.
As for your territorial integrity argument, the UN has repeatedly demonstrated that the principle of non-intervention does not apply rigidly when issues of self-determination and sovereignty are at stake. And Scotland is also entitled to its territorial integrity.
It never gave up its territory, and the Treaty never required it to, but Westminster’s English establishment had no qualms about helping itself to Scotland’s territorial resources, including actually shifting a sea border to help England justify a claim to some of Scotland’s undersea oil fields if Scotland were to end the Union.
And on that topic of borders, how do you explain the very existence of that sea border if the UK is supposed to be the single unitary state you keep claiming it is? Summat doesn’t add up there, Aidan! Maybe you should explain how that worked.
Your ‘blue water rule’ is blethers, too! It was never an explicit legal requirement for decolonization, it was a flimsy framework used by certain states, including the USA, to limit the scope of self-determination. In the US case, they didn’t want the original owners of US territory coming out of their reservations and demanding all of their territories back, with the US not having a legitimate leg to stand on.
The ‘blue water rule’ was nothing more than a political maneuver, not a legal principle.
It’s been said Scots law is more advanced, compassionate, enlightened and egalitarian when compared against the more primitive and unsophisticated laws of many other nations.
Not being a lawyer or a student of jurisprudence I’m not qualified to offer an opinion on such matters, but the differences in the laws of the world’s nations got me thinking.
It got me thinking why it should be that England and Scotland have such different laws and legal systems when the two peoples, the Scots and the English, share the same island; Scots in the north and English in the south.
It would be reasonable to assume that due to their geographical proximity the two different peoples would have developed their laws and legal systems with considerable equivalence. That such is not the case and the laws of the Scots and the English differ substantially puzzled me.
And then I came across a theory that might explain the difference – and it’s a fascinating theory.
Friedrich Carl Von Savigny was a prominent German jurist of the 19th century and he developed a theory that has had a considerable and lasting impact on the field of legal philosophy.
The Volksgeist theory, or ‘Spirit of the People’ theory as it’s also known, is an idea in jurisprudence that considers the relationship between the collective consciousness of a people and the development of their legal system.
There are several principles underpinning the Volksgeist theory but there are a couple in particular that caught my attention.
a. Law as a Product of Society:
b. Law Develops Like a Language:
These two principles of Savigny’s Volksgeist theory aligned with his theory’s base premise which posits that the law of a nation is a reflection of its people’s collective consciousness , or spirit, make great sense both intuitively and empirically.
It also answers my question of why Scots law and English law are so different.
Based on Volksgeist theory Scots law and English law are so different each from the other because the people of Scotland and the people of England are themselves very different peoples. Their cultures, histories, languages and societal development are unique to each.
It’s clear that in the context of the colonization of one people by another the elimination of a colonized people’s collective consciousness and spirit includes that people’s history, culture and language.
But I hadn’t considered prior to my discovery of Volksgeist theory how a colonized nation’s laws and legal system would also be a target for elimination by the colonizer being, according to Savigny, just as much a product of a people’s collective consciousness and spirit as their language.
Loving it NC. The purist essence of Scottish Exceptionalism at its best.
I’m particularly fond of the traditional Scottish punishment for habitual thievery.
Lugs chopped, whipped, then hung. Aye, it doesn’t come much more advanced, compassionate, enlightened and egalitarian than that!
But if you prefer to stick with the German, do volkssturm next. That’s a belter
No bigger fan of exceptionalism than you Mr McHasbara.
What do you reckon, Marie, did they have a hand in the Dandy Dons victory yesterday?
I mean, why not, eh? If you like to blame them for everything else, why not the fitba too? And Celtic and all. The fave team of the lassie torturing tunnel skulkers. That can’t possibly be a coincidence.
Why don’t you take some time, after you’re done working your 17.5 hours today, to investigate?
Helpful theory, Northcode. Which reminds me of discussions with continental academics who stated that a major cultural and legal difference lies between what they regarded as nations following the ‘Latin tradition’ compared with the ‘Anglo-Saxon tradition’.
Culturally, Scotland was evidently well within the ‘Latin tradition’, which stresses the importance of the public good, of society, of community, of public ownership of utilities, of land, and the protection of the ‘common good’, the latter an essential feature in the Claim of Right Act 1689, and hence a condition of the ToU.
Culturally, England clearly lies within the ‘Anglo-Saxon tradition’, which as we know to our ongoing cost emphasizes private ownership, private profit, and the utility and advantage of the private individual.
As Mrs Thatcher informed the Church of Scotland, in her view ‘there is no such thing as society’.
This is the basis of the alien and dehumanizing culture and ideology that has been forced onto Scots in all areas of life, including via the imposed laws of Westminster, and what remains of Scots law.
“a major cultural and legal difference lies between what they regarded as nations following the ‘Latin tradition’ compared with the ‘Anglo-Saxon tradition’.”
Very interesting and quite illuminating, Alf.
The notion that the Scots are of the ‘Latin tradition’ and the English are of the ‘Anglo-Saxon tradition’ certainly explains the cultural differences observed between the different peoples of Scotland and England.
It also explains why the Scots are naturally averse to the spread of English culture across Scotland – the two ‘traditions’ would seem wholly incompatible.
HERMAN DOOYEWEERD (Professor of Law and Jurisprudence at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam 1926-1965) explained:
«The Roman republic started with an elevation of the primitive inter-tribal law of the Quiritian tribes to a civil law bound to Roman citizenship.
« Initially this ‘ius gentium’ (law common to all humanity) did not exceed the boundaries of a law containing the common ingredients in the legal customs of the old Italian tribes. But gradually it emancipated itself from the primitive inter-tribal law. In keeping with the expansion of the Roman city-State into a world-empire, the ‘ius gentium’ assumed the characteristic of an integrating world-law founded on the principle of the legal equality of all free men, as legal subjects in the inter-individual legal relationships. It was this private world-law which the classical Roman ‘juris’ consults connected with the Stoic conception of the ‘ius naturale’ (natural law).
« The Stoic idea of natural law in principle broke through the classical Greek idea of the city-State as the perfect natural community. It proclaimed the natural freedom and equality of all men as such. It is true that the Roman ‘ius gentium’ did not entirely satisfy these principles of freedom and equality, insofar as it maintained slavery; nevertheless, it constituted an inter-individual legal sphere in which every free man was equally recognized as a legal subject independent of all specific communal bonds, even independent of Roman citizenship. This was the fundamental difference between the undifferentiated Quiritian tribal law and the private common law. »
Wikipedia:
« GEORGE BUCHANAN / SEÒRAS BOCHANAN (1506-1582), native Gaelic-speaker, was a Scottish historian and humanist scholar.
« According to historian Keith Brown, Buchanan was “the most profound intellectual sixteenth century Scotland produced.” His ideology of resistance to royal usurpation gained widespread acceptance during the Scottish Reformation. Brown says the ease with which King James VII was deposed in 1689 shows the power of Buchananite ideas.
« In 1570, after the assassination of Moray, Buchanan was appointed one of the preceptors of the young king, and it was through his strict tuition that James VI acquired his scholarship. As the young king’s senior tutor, Buchanan subjected James to regular beatings but also instilled in him a lifelong passion for literature and learning. Buchanan sought to turn James into a God-fearing, Protestant king who accepted the limitations of monarchy, as outlined in his treatise ‘De Jure Regni apud Scotos’.
His treatise, published in 1579, discussed the doctrine that the source of all political power is the people, and that the king is bound by those conditions under which the supreme power was first committed to his hands, and that it is lawful to resist, even to punish, tyrants. The importance of Buchanan’s writings is shown by the suppression of his work by James VI and the British legislature in the century following their publication. It was condemned by act of parliament in 1584, and burned by the University of Oxford in 1664 and 1683.
« Michel de Montaigne was Buchanan’s pupil at Bordeaux and acted in his tragedies. In the essay ‘Of Presumption’ he classes Buchanan … as one of the foremost Latin poets of his time. Here also Buchanan formed a lasting friendship with Julius Caesar Scaliger; in later life he won the admiration of Joseph Scaliger, who wrote an epigram on Buchanan which contains the couplet, famous in its day: “Imperii fuerat Romani Scotia limes; Romani eloquii Scotia limes erit?” – “Just as Scotland was at the apex of the Roman Empire, so Scotland shall be at the apex of Roman eloquence”. Not only is Buchanan’s Latin scholarship extolled, a congratulatory reference to Scotland retaining Scottish law – quintessentially an improved version of Roman law – as the foundation of its legal system is also implied.) »
@Alf, Northcode, and Fearghas;
Good stuff!, More, please.
AndrewR
6:24pm.
Not the same as Catalonia at all Unless from a unionist wish it were so
However one of the issues with that fully captured and enslaved Colony of Scots and Scotland thought position, is that the Scots themselves according to Westminster parliament, 2025 and years previous state the following
the Sovereign Scots are not in the treaty of union,
the political union that was to come into being noted the Scots were a separate Sovereign nation from and above the monarch Queen Anne and above the Scottish parliament
Because after the monarch of the time made all her arrangement for a union and the Scottish parliament had already had their vote,
The Question arose separately, What to do With the pesky Sovereign Scots because the Scots would probably Vote No.
That question and the answer to that question was never completed for a complete union and was put on the back burner where it still sits today, as the Claim of Right.
The Claim of Right for Scots is equal to the bill of right for England, both passed in the same year, both mentioned through the treaty of union (if not a hoax ) must be retained,
Because Westminster parliament of Great- Britain wished to reduce the Scots Sovereignty and Constitution in that political union parliament. They not only ignore the Claim of right,
They repealed one of the main foundational agreements in the treaty.
Regardless, they now claim the Scots were not asked to join .
A very odd remedy.
That leaves the Sovereign Scots standing outside the articles of the treaty of union and Westminster parliament unable to say to refuse the Scots the right to self determination,
Interesting dialogue as usual with some great constructive comments from Mia and Northcode.
The message is clear that if Scotland is a colony, which I think it most clearly is, then there is a decolonisation route out.
Alternatively, if in a bilateral treaty then there is too a route out.
This is a message we must get out to the widest possible audience.
People have the power. Yes the coloniser may try to resist, as he is doing just now frustrating every aspect of process, stripping out control and wealth, planting the country with people from the south.
It does not have to be like this. Yes in 2014 showed how the people could come together, and vote for independence. That the referendum, only granted as a non binding ploy because Cameron thought the referendum would be lost, the colonisation, as we see all around us now has moved up a gear and in so many many coordinated ways.
Scotland hollowed out, ts resources plundered, it people relegated to the fate of the North American Indian or Australian Aborigine folks must be educated to the fact that there is a route out.
Ireland kicked the English out jut over a hundred years ago and Northern Ireland is moving steadily to the removal of their colonial masters who were aided and abetted by imported fifth columnist planters.
If West Britain can do it, then North Britain can too. That’s why the message of a route out is so important.
Aye, willie.
None of us wants to see our grandkids playing the didgeridoo.
Incidentally, after NI kicks out the fifth columnists, and they all return to Scotland, what hopes for Indy then?
As always, you’re failing to think things through.
Willie; forget it, don’t you realise that the Site Prick is right; as always.
It’ll never work, we might as well no bother, eh?
Everything is just fine.
And when they start draining the fresh water away, via the pipeline next to one of the new nuclear power stations, things will be even better!
Just remember – “Its England’s oil”….
“the quixotic campaign to have Scotland recognised as a case of decolonisation”
Why is it “quixotic”? It is the obvious step to take after the political class in Scotland, the England as the UK government and the England as the UK parliament have colluded to bin the perfectly legitimate mandates for independence referendums we have been handing to that political class since 2016.
It is the obvious step to take after the entire political class in the UK have colluded to avoid any action towards independence despite Scotland sending absolute majorities of anti-union MPs since 2015.
It is the obvious step to take when you see how the kingdom of England, our alleged partner in a “precious” union, is systematically de-industrialising and dismantling any source of economic growth in Scotland and is systematically stealing our resources or selling them to foreign entities whilst Scotland does not see a penny out of it.
One of the most well remembered scenes of Cervantes’ novel “El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha” is that of him on his squalid horse attempting to fight the mills thinking they were giants. He was obviously crushed and badly injured after his efforts.
Well, pro-independence supporters in Scotland have been riding a useless squalid horse (SNP) and crushing our swords and our heads against reinforced concrete mills thinking we were fighting the status quo by fair ways.
And why is that? Because the election system in the UK is deliberately rigged to stop independence. With that purpose, that system will morph, will move the goal posts, will prosecute our pro-independence leaders on trumped up charges, will infiltrate our political parties and destroy its democratic structures, and will turn itself over time and time again to either disenfranchise us, to beat us resourcing to any undemocratic move they can think of, or simply rig the result.
So what is really the “quixotic” move here? Is it trying to get out of this rigged system and pursue independence through a route that is beyond the reach of the game rigger, or is it continue to ride a squalid horse, wasting all our energy and crushing our heads against an unbeatable mill pretending to be an innocuous democratic route?
I happen to think it is the latter.
“pointless distractions which will likely fail”
Actually, given the circumstances, that is rather rich, isn’t it?
We have followed this rigged game you are so keen for us to continue hitting our heads against for the best part of ten years. We achieved majorities in Holyrood and Westminster. We delivered countless mandates through that rigged system, and where exactly has all that taken us?
Nowhere. We are even behind the point where we started because the deep state has moved the goalposts again and has reneged on his own word.
At least, 10 years ago, we had a genuinely pro-independence party and a real pro-independence leader. For the last 10 years what we had passing for pro-independence political vehicle is a useless, devolutionist, pro-status quo construct disguising itself as pro-independence, and a series of political frauds acting as “pro-independence leaders”.
“The clearest, most plausible and fastest route to independence is now securing a convincing victory in plebiscitary elections”
Actually no. We already got pro-independence majorities in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2021. Did ANY of those majorities took us to independence?
No.
It is interesting that you have sneaked in the adjective “convincing”. A fair victory is a victory and therefore never “unconvincing”. That extra adjective for decoration is not required. 50%+1 of the seats is a fair victory and therefore convincing. 50%+1 of the seats is what got us into this toxic union, therefore it is convincing enough to take us out of it. Our majorities have always been fair and convincing. But the deep state turned itself inside out to lie and pretend they were not because it simply never had any intention to respect them, never mind act on them.
Convincing our majorities have always been, but nothing has been done about them. After delivering the same result not once, not twice, not three times, not four times but FIVE times and having achieved the square root of FA in 10 years, it would be rather naive to think that something is going to change in the character of this undemocratic, absolutist deep state if we deliver yet another “convincing” majority in 2026.
How many hundreds of times do we need to deliver the same result and achieve the square root of FA until voters realise that this route is systematically, deliberately and always rigged against us and therefore taking us nowhere?
The only thing it is doing is wasting our time. Perhaps this is the aim. At the end of the day, using this rigged system, the deep state has managed to extend the life of this union for 10 years.
The only way 2026 could be different is if we are voting for something completely different to what we have been voting until now. Different would be to vote to bring down the Scotland Act and to refuse swear allegiance to the English crown. In other words, different would be to vote to bring down the entire darn rigged system that is undemocratically standing in our way.
The only alternative to voting to bring down that rigged system is to refuse to vote and to refuse to endorse the darn rigged system. That is another way of bringing it down.
Yes, I know that the profoundly undemocratic rigged system is designed so the profoundly undemocratic and absolutist deep state will ignore and hide the low turnover that demonstrates the result is no longer democratic. But there is only for so long they can keep hiding a low turnout and pretending the result is democratic.
But in the same way the 2014 referendum was rigged, there is nothing stopping the status quo rigging 2026 and every election after that to keep this toxic union going.
If you can no longer trust the system and the deep state that is controlling that system, expecting that your vote within that system is ever going to miraculously catch that absolutist deep state off-guard and that such deep state is going to allow you to change anything that goes against its interests, is naive and pointless.
“self determination won’t be delivered to us, we have to exhibit the self confidence to take our independence as a matter of right”
And that is precisely what Salvo and Liberation are doing. They are not counting on self-determination being delivered to their laps by some magic act of contrition or reinvention of the deep state that has been deliberately denying it to us for the last 10 years.
Salvo and Liberation have just exhibited the confidence that the SNP has lacking for the last 10 years and they have gone to take that self-determination on behalf of Scotland as a matter of right. They may succeed or not, but this is far, far, far, far more than what ANY political party has attempted to achieve, never mind delivered in the last 10 years.
I’ve no argument with the substance of this or any of your posts, Mia, but please note: it’s recoursing/taking recourse, not resourcing/taking resource, in the context in which you have used it.
Why is it “quixotic”?
It’s quixotic in the usually accepted definition of the term in that it’s “extremely idealistic; unrealistic and impractical.” The mandates for referendums in a devolved parliament only really matter if there is agreement from the other party – in this case Westminster – that it will be bound by the political and moral force of the mandate achieved.
The expectation post Edinburgh Agreement and indyref1 was that Westminster would continue to honour the Sewell Convention type obligation not to overturn something that Holyrood had a clear mandate for. Of course, we now know that British nationalists do NOT in fact accept that Westminster can be bound by a devolved parliament, and post the finding of the Supreme Court, we can’t expect any future unionist adminstration in Westminster to honour the precedent of 2014.
Therefore the only plausible route likely to achieve results in any reasonable timescale is to gain a majority in plebiscitary elections, as they aren’t subject to the kinds of gerrymandering and squabbling about legitimacy and precedence that holding a referendum without the agreement of both parties is.
With that purpose, that system will morph, will move the goal posts, will prosecute our pro-independence leaders on trumped up charges, will infiltrate our political parties and destroy its democratic structures, and will turn itself over time and time again to either disenfranchise us, to beat us resourcing to any undemocratic move they can think of, or simply rig the result.
That all just sounds like more tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorising. the fact that too many in the movement are seduced by such nonsense doesn’t advance the cause one iota. There’s not a scintilla of evidence to all these ridiculous claims.
The failure of the movement to advance over the past decade is adequately explained by political cowardice, crass stupidity and the SNP’s obsession with gender woo in lieu of actually pursuing the betterment of the Scottish people by governing competently and forcing the issue of repatriating more power from Westminster to Holyrood to make independence a self fulfilling prophecy.
We haven’t been robbed, we just bottled it. Facing up to that unhappy fact is of course much harder than believing in fanciful short cuts to independence and implausible claims of infiltration and disenfranchisement, which only serve to make those making such claims look like the fringe extremists they are in terms of support levels in the broader movement.
Actually no. We already got pro-independence majorities in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2021. Did ANY of those majorities took us to independence?
No.
Thos majorities signify precisely nothing if they aren’t achieved on an explicitly pro-independence platform. Few if any countries in the world would recognise UDI on such a basis: ask the Catalans and others throughout history who have tried it.
There is little if any excuse for the pro-independence parties around now to duck the issue of making the 2026 Holyrood elections plebiscitary. Polls now show a popular majority for independence.
The rise of Reform may even increase that before the elections, but we need ALL the parties to sign up to the plebiscitary principle, or to field a single slate of candidates. The problem with that of course is the SNP aren’t playing ball, and yet people are still willing to vote for them. Until that changes, we’re spinning our wheels.
Salvo and Liberation have win the arguments. They might, or they might not. It’s unlikely the international community, UN and international organisations will regard such organisations as representative of the Scottish people as a whole: what is the basis of their standing or their claim to do so?
Even if they win their argument at the UN, moving from a (in my view highly unlikely) recognition of colonial status from the UN to actually achieving independence could still take a hell of a lot longer than many people would like to think.
You’re right: all we need is 50% + 1 in plebiscitary elections. That’s convincing enough, although obviously the larger the number the easier it will be to gain recognition. The clear and present problem is that we’ve never been able to demonstrate a mandate enjoying that level of support when it counted. Nothing will change until the Scottish electorate grow a pair and vote for change.
As 2015 shows, it avails us nothing to vote for 56 of 59 MPs if their mandate is to represent a devolved people in a union parliament whose superiority they accept. If folk want to change that, they need to make it so by forcing the issue such that Westminster accepts that Holyrood is superior in constitutional matters relating to Scotland in the union, or if Westminster refuses to countenance such a curtailment of its prerogatives, make it clear that we’re not asking, we’re telling.
As Thatcher observed in pre-devolution times, the Scots can’t expect to be the tail that wags the unionist dog and dictate terms that the Westminster parliament finds impossible to agree to: the only solution to that conundrum is independence. Go do!
Andy,
I agree with some of what you say and there’s room for manoeuvre on others.
I think many people debate Scottish self determination from opposing or different perspectives, sometimes simultaneously.
Regarding UDI for example, why would a country that is older than England expect anything other than recognition from the other countries globally unless it ceased to be a country at some point in the past?
If this is the case, then surely, there would have to be a consensus internationally that Scotland was extinguished lawfully and with full agreement with its populace?
On the other hand if Scotland has continually remained a country, it does not need the permission or validation of a foreign country whatsoever.
I understand that any treaties a country enters into are made to be adhered to but it is also means that same country can break it and simply suffer the consequences, if any.
It does not need to seek recognition of being a country by the international community.
Is Scotland a country or is it not?
Some people seem to argue that it’s both at the same time, like Schrödinger’s Scotland.
“The only plausible route likely to achieve results in any reasonable timescale is to gain a majority in plebiscitary elections, as they aren’t subject to the kinds of gerrymandering and squabbling…”
Sorry, on this I disagree. There is no plausible route to independence through a rigged system. And a rigged system is what we currently have passing by elections.
Every single election in the UK is subjected to gerrymandering one way or the other. Since 2015, when the political fraud Sturgeon declared that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence, supporters of independence have been deliberately disenfranchised. Since then, the SNP, now a pro-status quo devolutionist party, continues to portray itself as pro-independence to deceive voters into thinking it will pursue independence. Now we have this construct, Reform, clearly seeking to unite the pro-union vote in Scotland. Then we have the branches of England’s parties pretending to look autonomus and more Scottish by adding the “Scottish” to their names. This is not the names they are registered as, and yet, the electoral commission allows them to continue with the deception. Nothing is what it seems. It is all about deceiving voters to frustrate independence.
Just look back at the mile long list of excuses the SNP and others have given to avoid having the last GE as a plebiscite. Just look at how the devolutionist SNP is also dragging its feet for the 2026 one.
Then there is the issue of the franchise. Each election follows a different one. I do not agree with the Holyrood election being used as a referendum because it has the exact same flaws with the franchise as the 2014 referendum had.
“That all just sounds like more tin foil hat wearing conspiracy”
Frankly, I couldn’t care less that it sounds like tin foil hat wearing conspiracy to you. It is what it is. We do not have a relying democratic system, we have not had one since at least 2014 and we will not have one for as long as Scotland wants independence.
“The fact that too many in the movement are seduced by such nonsense doesn’t advance the cause one iota”
Right. Please remind us all, how much has the cause of independence advanced for the last 10 years when all of us have been obediently playing by the rigged rules of the oppressor?
If we have not even advanced an inch towards independence in 10 years following that route, why the hell should we continue using the same rigged route? What exactly makes anybody think that after doing the same thing 50 times you are going to get a different result?
It is a complete waste of our time.
“There’s not a scintilla of evidence to all these ridiculous claims”
Where exactly is the evidence that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that UK elections are not rigged?
You may like the idea of start from the premise (presumption) that elections are not rigged and the rigging is only an occasional event. That is your prerogative.
Well, since 2014 I start from the diametrically opposed presumption: ALL elections are rigged by default.
What exactly makes you think your starting presumption is more believable than mine?
Just take a look a the council by-elections we have had this year. How many of them had a turnover bigger than 50% of the electorate? For how many of them the proportion of the vote won by the allegedly “winning” party was larger than the proportion of electorate that refused to vote?
How can anybody who call themselves a democrat can even claim any party won in such circumstances? How can anybody claim that the candidate parachuted to the post “represents” the will of the majority?
Now look at Starmer. The man is more unpopular than somebody farting inside a lift. His party was catapulted to power on the lowest turnout and the lowest share of the vote in a long time. Despite the mother of all majorities, labour is now trailing behind Reform, which makes one wonder who/what exactly catapulted him to power and why.
Look at what they did to Corbyn.
Look at what they did to Mr Salmond.
Every leader who does not tow the line of the deep state is either subjected to character assassination, to malicious prosecutions or both. How the hell is that not rigging an election?
So, in light of the above, quite frankly, at present, my presumption appears far more in line with the facts than yours.
“The failure of the movement to advance over the past decade is adequately explained by political cowardice”
Absolutely, 100%. I could not agree with you more.
But the problem is that political cowardice does not go away overnight and originates from somewhere. So we have to look at what is making our elected representatives vulnerable to and targets for political cowardice. The answer is very clear: swearing allegiance to a foreign crown and being part of a political system that will go to any lengths and will destroy anybody in the way to frustrate Scotland’s independence.
For as long as Scotland’s political class continue to make themselves vulnerable to cowardice and to extortion, for as long as they continue to swear allegiance to a different entity to Scotland, they are of no use to us and the system they are part of is an anathema to pro-independence supporters.
“We haven’t been robbed, we just bottled it”
I disagree. We have been robbed and robbed big. The day the political fraud Sturgeon disembowelled the SNP she robbed us of our political vehicle for independence. The day the useless Yousaf handed the stone to the English king, he robbed us of our dignity as a country. The day Swinney was parachuted, unelected, to the post of “leader” of the SNP, he robbed us of any illusion that the SNP was a democratic party. The day the attacked Mr Salmond , we were robbed of our best leader the independence movement ever had. The day they suppressed the evidence and protected the perjurers trying to put an innocent man in prison, they robbed us of justice.
“fanciful short cuts to independence”
Please, change the record already. 10 years of wasted opportunities because we were trying to be good and play by the rigged rules of a rigged game rigged by an oppressor determined to stop Scotland ending this union, is no longer a valid route. It is a fanciful “scenic route” that distract us from our aim and never take us to were we want to go. This “scenic route” has led us, time after time, to a cul de sac and it will always lead us to a cul de sack.
It is no longer a matter of taking a shortcut, fanciful or not. It is a matter of choosing A DIFFERENT ROUTE so if does not take us to another cul de sac and does not force us to waste our time admiring (or loathing) scenery we are not interested in.
“only serve to make those making such claims look like the fringe extremists”
We have exchanged comments for long enough for you to realise by now that gaslighting and emotional blackmailing do not impress me on the least and do not work with me. You can call me “extremist” or “fringe” as much as you like. It is not going to change the way I think at all. On the contrary. It is going to reaffirm those thoughts as the right ones.
“No”
Yes.
“Those majorities signify precisely nothing..”
Ahh, now you are telling us that they were not the “right kind of majorities”, the “right kind of mandates” or the “right kind of wording in the mandate”, just like we were told in 2014 that Scotland has the “wrong kind of oil”, aren’t you?
Well save it. We send anti-union majorities to WEstminister in 2015, 2017 and 2019 which should have ENDED this union if those taking the seats were representing Scotland and not their own interests or those of the crown they swore allegiance to.
We sent pro-independence majorities to Holyrood for them to deliver independence, not to play UK politics and play at being good colonial administrators.
“the Catalans..”
Oh, for goodness sake. Here you go again bringing the Catalonians into a discussion of Scotland’s independence. For one hundredth time, Scotland is not Catalonia and will never be.
“There is little if any excuse for the pro-independence parties around now to duck the issue of making the 2026 Holyrood elections plebiscitary”
Yet, they still do.
Even if every single one of them declare it a plebiscite, there is still the issue of trust. Trust in the political parties and trust in the system they operate within. The SNP blew to pieces the trust in political parties for the last 10 years. 10 years of unfulfilled mandates and useless majorities destroyed the trust in this rigged system.
“we need ALL the parties to sign up to the plebiscitary principle”
Which we will never manage, because, as I said above, the system is rigged and designed to stop independence, not to facilitate it. There will always be a party which will refuse to sign up to it kiboshing the whole thing. This is, of course, by design.
“It’s unlikely the international community, UN and international organisations will regard such organisations as representative of the Scottish people as a whole”
And they do not need to be seen as representative of the Scottish people as a whole. Salvo is presenting the case for Scotland being a colony. The fact that Scotland is or is not a colony is not conditional to the number of people currently seeing Scotland as a colony. It is conditional to the number of markers of colonisation that Scotland meets.
“Even if they win their argument at the UN, moving from a (in my view highly unlikely) recognition of colonial status from the UN to actually achieving independence could still take a hell of a lot longer than many people would like to think”
Scotland has ALREADY wasted 10 years and counting following a rigged path that is taking us to nowhere and will never take us anywhere because the rules of this path are rigged and constantly changed to stop us getting somewhere.
You will not get ALL the parties to agree to a plebiscitary election because that is at all practical effects a referendum, which is what the deep state in control of this rigged political system has been desperately trying to stop since 2014. The idea that such “plebiscitary” election is ever going to happen is, in my humble opinion, a delusion. The deep state will never ever allow that to happen.
The only possible way you can use this rigged path is by voting (or not voting at all) to bring it down.
“We’ve never been able to demonstrate a mandate”
Nonsense. We have sent absolute majorities of anti-union MPs, absolute majorities of anti-union MSPs and we have given several mandates for a referendum. EAch and every single one of them were demonstrably democratic AND VALID, and should have led to the end of the union and a referendum.
The fact that they didn’t is not a matter of our inability to demonstrate a mandate. It is down to the fact that the system we used to achieve those is rigged against us.
“Nothing will change until the Scottish electorate grow a pair and vote for change”
I couldn’t disagree more. The Scottish electorate has been voting for change since 2014. Nothing will change until we ditch this rigged system that is deliberately stopping change and we find ourselves a better system.
“As 2015 shows, it avails us nothing to vote for 56 of 59 MPs”
Absolutely, and that is what I mean by a rigged system that is taking us to nowhere. We have ALREADY sent the mother of all majorities of anti-union MPs to Westminster and changed nothing. We sent THREE absolute majorities of anti-union MPs to Westminster and changed nothing. So this is no longer a reliable route and therefore we should stop wasting our time and our energy in such a rigged route.
The best thing we can do is to stop our MPs getting into Westminster and swearing allegiance to a foreign crown by either not voting at all or voting only for candidates who refuse to take the seats.
“As Thatcher observed in pre-devolution times, the Scots can’t expect to be the tail that wags the unionist dog”
Thatcher also told us that “if Scotland wants to leave the union, no English party will stop them”. It was evidently all a lie. Firstly because it is not even clear that this is a union and secondly because every single English party is encroaching in our rights to hold a referendum and unilaterally end this union.
The fact that Thatcher said something, no longer means anything.
“dictate terms that the Westminster parliament finds impossible to agree to”
If this is a true union, then the parliament of Westminister is a subordinate to the treaty and to Scotland. It is not the right of that parliament to dictate over Scotland what Scotland can or cannot do. Unless, of course, it that is not the parliament of the UK at all and it is instead the parliament of England treating Scotland as England’s colony.
Well, Mia, at least you managed to reply to Andy without blaming Da Dews.
(I think. It’s next to impossible to read your posts through to the end without losing concentration)
Willie,
there is a possible third route that has not quite sunk in yet to most Scots,
That arrogant self admission made by the Westminster parliament of the UK. ( Cough cough.)
That all concerned with the attempts to make a binding treaty acknowledge that they did not ask the Scots to Join the treaty, because their vote if asked would probably have resulted in a No Vote.
This announcement on the Parliament of the UK has multiple nightmares for Westminster parliament.
1) the Scots were considered a separate entity in Sovereignty above Queen Annes opinion and discisionn
2) the Scots were considered a separate entity and Sovereign above the Scottish Parliaments votes and decision.
But the question was never asked of the Scots due to the anxiety and fear that the Scots would spoil an end the plans for a union,
Do the Sovereign nation of Scots that were not then and are not now in the ToU because the question was avoided, need a certain % of votes or the requirement of referendums for self determination from Westminster parliament with Westminster parliament stating that the Scots were never asked to join The ToU.
The Scots were not captured into the Treaty of union, they are not bound to that treaty,
The reparations to the Scottish nation and their realm while under no obligation to adhere to the ToU negotiations or repay the equivalent would finance Scotland into a wealthy Country,
If the Westminster parliament government under labour are giving away the Chgos Islands and paying them handsomely billions of pounds for years to come. Because it is the right thing to do
Sovereign Scots ( not in the 1707 Treaty) could walk away and demand reparations,
After all it is that same government that are declaring the Scots were never asked to join the treaty for Fear, of the Scots answer might in all probability vote No.
I would like to make it plain that I am not dissing the esteemed professor. Other equally eminent professors of public/constitutional law have offered a different perspective. I just cannot agree with his opinion, much as I absolutely respect it, and that’s not down to a massive ego, but to the years I poured into looking into the whole issue. In the end, it comes down to opinion, and that is why it all requires to be ‘sound’ in law. That this has never been done before, is testament to the refusal to see Scotland as anything other than subservient by so many Scots.
The point is that the Westminster parliament ask Scotland to set up the all the struggles for themselves,
While it just sits back saying no, not now, no, you have to beg for permission from us,
You need a high % of vote,
No referendums are not binding even if you get those % votes,
This has been the status quo case for years,
Hoops and loops for Scotland and no effort needed for Westminster,
How about changing the record, putting them on the back foot, requiring them to provide the proof they are not colonising Scotland and Scots arguement.
The UN is one way, and may achieve decolonisation years later after they may accept our side of the debate,
What happens if it delayed time and again, thwarted..
And what happens if sovereign Scots ( not the devolved parliament ) go on Strike from participating and put the treaty of union on hold,
By placing it on pause, until Scots nation investigate any breaches to the treaty of union
This is not breaching the ToU, if we are not a Colonial Country,
That would speed things up in the UK parliament and prevent them from thwarting or denying Scottish self determination.
Call their bluff.
No one Scot in streets, no violence from the Scots, no protesting with the Scots marches, just go on strike from the treaty until its sorted by the UN and all other nations decide from around the world are involved & included
At a far quicker pace than the UK, the UN and a Supreme courts might manage alone.
If we are in the treaty we have the right to go on strike , we would have the right to have a union,
Well well well!
Everyone is a lawyer now using Latin terms
I always wondered where the lawyers were hiding down through the years as Engerlund did what it wanted and we and the rest of the Celtic fringe got dragged along for the ride..
Or is it the use of AI?
Well there ye go, a profession in a flash..
They are going to paragraph themselves into independence. Paragraph by paragraph.
I think you misinterpret my comment against independence promoters Mark.
Could it be that there are more Scots literate in Latin than there are Scots literate in Scots?
A question for Professor Baird.
It’s him who wants all post-Indy employment in Scotland to be reserved for Scots linguists. Maybe he needs to revise that idea and reserve all jobs for Latin scholars.
Per ardua ad libertatum!
Everyone is a lawyer now using Latin term
Well why not? Is most of the law just a matter of opinion?
We all have opinions.
As Lorn says In the end, it comes down to opinion
Had Lady Hale been part of the panel of lawyers making the decision about the FWS case there might have been a totally different ‘opinion’ one that Sturgeon would have been happy with.
Sturgeon is a lawyer with an some weird opinions.
Over in Tranny-land SHE whose name shall not be uttered is in out of control hose mode again, wanting laws changed as she’s not best pleased with the recent so called Supreme Court ruling.
Strange, don’t recall her getting ANYWHERE near as exercised about the Indyref ruling from the SC..
I reckon she sees an image of herself and Professor Frink Chapperson in bronze being erected in every city in Scotland at some point in the future as some sort of “champion”.
I’ll leave it for others here to determine what champion she actually was and of what..
“N.. S… has argued the law on the definition of a woman may need to be changed to accommodate trans people after complaining that a Supreme Court ruling had been “massively over-interpreted”
I find it annoying that I have had to ‘accommodate’ her for these past few years, and endure what I perceive her divisive attitude to those of us who dared to have a different opinion. And again, I don’t feel that I have ‘massively over-interpreted’ this viewpoint.
SM;
Yup.
Idle curiosity makes we wonder if SHE who’s name shall not be uttered is still shacked up for free with pal Val?
And just where is Sneaky Pete hiding?
Just how long can he keep his head down?
The whole thing is a farce and I don’t see it having run its course..
Curiouser and curiouser..
What’s the wording of a plebiscitary election to be?
This is a tentative try.
A majority vote by seats won of parties and individuals who wish Scotland to be independent will be taken to be a vote for Scottish independence. Scottish independence will then happen within 3 Years of the majority vote.
What is this thing about Starmer and the three U male models?
Why is it being said that the three male models were targeting Starmer when at least two of the properties were not Starmer’s?
He sold the car, so it was no longer his.
One of the properties was one where he was living before entering n10, but now somebody else was living there. So how is it that Starmer is the one portrayed as the victim here when the victims in those two cases are the new owners of the car and whoever is living in that property?
This is all very strange.
Handsome male models turned amateur arsonists. It feels like the trailer/preview of a new Netflix soap opera. Arsonists can not just be arsonists anymore, it seems. Now they have to be male models, young and handsome.
What have these young men to do with Starmer? What is the link between them three, were they in the same model agency? Why would Starmer be linked to young male models?
Are we expected to believe a coincidence that three young U male models, handsome men come independently all the way from U to become arsonists in the UK and target things liked to the UK PM?
Even more strange is that now, surprise surprise!! they have somewhat built links between the U male models and R! Well, of course they would. I am just surprised the deep state geniuses have not yet linked the models to Iran as well…
The whole thing sounds bizarre.
I have wondered for a while what could yahoo had on Starmer for him to so willingly act like his pathetic puppet turning a blind eye to the genocide. Could the young and handsome male models be some answer to that question?
Yes , Mia , what else is noticable is the almost complete silence on the part of MSM on this , what would normally be sensasionalist headline generating situation .
Imagine if this had been, eg a prominent pro-Scottish Independence or ( god forbid ! ) a critic of Israel at the centre of this story , the furore would have been cacophonous : instead …….O . Why is Starmer being protected ?
We can probably safely assume it’s not unconnected with the nationality of the perps ; because , like those other chosen ones in the M.E , THAT country is immune from even the most innocuous criticism ; comprising as it/they do populations consisting exclusively of heroes , saints , martyrs and – of course – victims .
And – as you refer to – the laughably dishonest attempt to somehow implicate the ” most evil regimes ever to despoil the planet “( coincidentally the same ones that refuse to bend the knee to * Western * would-be hegemonic psychos ) is dragged out in feeble deflection .
Starmer’s risible ( as far as I know , only ) comment on the situation ….wait for it ……” an attack on Democracy ” ahahahahahahahaha – says the prick whose party gained a ludicrously massive UNDEMOCRATIC * victory * on less than 1/3 of the vote ; who is in the process of undoing the democratic choice of the people to leave the E.U ; pledged $Bs – FOR A CENTURY – to a foreign country whilst denying senior citizens in his own country a few £100 to help keep them warm , whilst persisting in keeping the death toll rising in that country and facilitating the ethnic cleansing in THAT other place .
” attack of Democracy ” FFS . Taking the piss , right ?
I read speculation that Starmer The C**T may get ousted ( if not * outed * ) and that his attempt to , effectively , get the UK back into the EU is his last act of undemocratic vandalism : personally , I’d be surprised if this happens , as the same ” elements ” that have greased his seemingly frictionless path to Labour Party leader & PM will/do have the power to keep him there until the agenda he was – without doubt – installed to inflict is realised . Unless he’s deemed to now be a liability ; in which case some other compliant monkey will be waiting in the wings to replace him .
If nothing else , Starmer is putting the final nail in the coffin of Labour as a credible political entity – formed remember to represent the interests of the perennially disadvantaged ( now they are the complete opposite of that , ditto every other mainstream UK Political Party , inc the SNP , ie there to serve the interests of Corporations and the Super-rich ) and almost guaranteeing Reform victory in the next G.E .
All part of the plan ? What else explains such arrogant contempt for the * citizens * of this benighted , sceptic isle ?
“I am just surprised”
That’s you, Mia. Always supposedly surprised – never actually surprising.
What is it with Scottish Indy supporters seeing bum sex everywhere?
Tell us aboot the genocide though. Is that something else you see everywhere?
@Breastplate 3.19pm
Other countries don’t care about the Treaties of Union or 300 year old history, any more than we care about 18th century German, or Polish or Cambodian history: better to live in the here and now.
Of course Scotland is a country. Nobody sane would deny that. You could make much the same argument for Bavaria, which has its own monarchy and legal/constitutional identity within the German Empire until 1918.
It just isn’t of much relevance or importance to the grubby mechanics of actually achieving independence in the here and now, using the processes, international institutions and corpus of international law (such as it is) that we have now, rather than what applied in the 18th century or post WW1 or WW2 or when the Iron Curtain fell.
The international community and international law can be expected to be pretty agnostic about the differences and similarities between cases like Scotland, Quebec and Catalonia, which are widely seen to be of the same broad type in comparison to (say) unequivocal cases of de-colonisation or ethnic cleansing / use of violence against minorities.
They have expectations that a self defining people in a democracy seeking self determination will exhaust other methods to achieve their legitimate aims, and after doing so can then decide to opt for independence. They don’t care about Scotland’s colourful history, or that fact that Catalonia for example has never been an independent state in the past: the same general criteria will be applied.
Scotland is a country, but a majority of its electors need to grow a pair and actually vote to become independent. There is no other way absent some black swan event like a military/violent suppression of our movement and British nationalist boots on the ground giving rise to a general uprising, conflict and a claim of UDI which will then be dependant on the international community accepting such a declaration. That’s no small things as the Kosovars found out.
The international community needs to accept Scotland as an independent state. That’s how it works: that’s how it worked for Slovakia, for the former Yugoslav republics and the former Soviet republics.
A voice of reason.
I think you’ve just proved my point about how people debate from several conflicting standpoints.
You say Scotland is a country then proceed to explain why it’s so similar to many other non countries.
I don’t believe you’ve understood what I’ve written as I didn’t state any particular opinion of my own, I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in the debate around Scottish independence and why people can’t have it both ways, hence the mention of Schrödinger’s Scotland.
You also seem to have misunderstood my point about recognition by the international community. I know you’ve studied IR, so you should understand that if you believe Scotland needs to be recognised as a country within the international community it must mean that at some point the international community recognised that Scotland wasn’t a country?
As Scotland was recognised globally, as a country before the ToU, why would the international community need to recognise Scotland as a country again?
Either Scotland has continued to be a country throughout its history and needs no recognition from the international community or it has ceased to be a country at some point and does need recognition.
As I’ve explained, you can’t have it both ways.
Of course, to argue from contrary positions, I understand there has to be an attempt to muddy the waters (colony, old documents, apathy).
So is Scotland a country or is it not?
You say it is and I can agree with that, then you compare it to other regions or areas of land, and then I cannot.
So is Scotland a country with all that entails or is it not?
Is it some sort of halfway house between both like a colony?
Is it a colony, or just treated like one?
If Scotland is a country with all that entails, surely they can make their own decisions?
If not, why not? I want to know.
Are our hands tied by the same old documents that nobody cares about, how can that be?
So again, I don’t believe it’s logical to take contrary views on the same subject.
You’re reply to my post only throws up more questions.
@Sam 5.04 pm
What’s with the 3 year thing? All that’s necessary is for all pro-independence parties who support the principle of plebiscitary elections being a mandate for independence to publicly say so in their campaign platform. If the combined vote for those parties is 50% + 1 that’s de facto independence. A constituent assembly should then be formed to call elections, draw up a constitution and negotiate the immediate steps necessary to secure our de jure independence.
We don’t need additional steps. We only need to win once. British nationalists need to keep winning.
Andy, 3 years to complete negotiations. Sets a deadline.
It can be done by seats won rather than votes cast.
This, I can agree with.
Good to see the “50% + 1” idea returning after an absence of, what, 6 months?
So, let’s run with it.
50% + 1 of what? Votes cast, or seats won?
Where? WM, or the wee, pretendy parliament, or both?
Franchise? Indigenous, internally settled Scots, or all Scots everywhere, or everybody in Scotland with an address and/or postal vote in the hands of their “community leaders”?
Constitution? Do we get a say, and a vote on the final draft? Surely a veto, if a majority of Scots can’t agree with it?
EU? Is it a done deal, i.e. will our Independence be a sham from Day 1?
I have my answers to these questions, as will you. I bet my answers are different to yours.
Just as I bet that some will say none of these questions matter.
But they do. And it’s the fundamental importance of answering these questions that give the lie to your “All that’s necessary” claim at the top of your post.
Here in Scotland we have a solid track record exceeding a decade now of both crass stupidity and mind-boggling incompetence. All laced through and through with seemingly untouchable criminality.
If we are to have Independence, we need some cast-iron, watertight defences against this idiocy, cack-handedness and institutional malfeasance simply being passed onto and thus infecting our newly independent political reality.
We need to know what the checks and balances will be BEFORE we vote them into existence. Afterwards, when the troughers and crims already have control, will be too late.
Surely, if there’s one lesson the Scottish people have learned from the SNP’s anti-democratic stitch-up, it is that our Scottish politicians can never be permitted the unbridled power to do as they please.
@ Mia at 5.16: “Starmer and the three male models/arsonists”.
Phil Boswell has something to say about this on today’s Through a Scottish Prism – about 16 minutes from the end.
He also says that he knows of 3 blackmail occasions on Miss Sturgeon.
Interesting.
But what it means is that politicians are open to all kinds of pressures from the State and others. So it is best to end the power of party politics and also have a strong amount of direct democracy.
That is indeed very interesting, Sarah.
There are rumours as well about the ex PM of New Zealand.
It is beginning to look like the deep state only allow politicians with dark secrets, which can be exposed and used to manipulate them, anywhere near power.
And some in these threads still have the naivety to claim this is a democracy or that we are going to get anywhere by continuing to play the same rigged game ad infinitum.
I think you are absolutely right. We need to have individual candidates. Party politics is rotten to the core and has become a trap to neutralise decent politicians.
Looking at what the SNP has become, party politics looks now like a conveyor belt to catapult useful idiots and puppets into union gatekeeping positions whilst it isolates decent, knowledgeable and competent ones like Joanna Cherry out of the system.
Well said Mia.
People are slowly wising up and the current crop of troughers are at a loss as to how to deal with it.
It’s probably been going on for centuries..
Sarah
If SHE whose name shall not be uttered turned out to be a tranny banger then it would go a long way to explain what’s been going on in politics here for some time..
Hopefully truth will out eventually..
Xaracen: yes, the ToU is, indeed, an international treaty and may be challenged only inn international law. I am getting a headache with all the routes. We cannot be both subsumed and a colony, then, above all, that the Treaty is or is not extant. Of course, it is legal and it is extant. The whole UK stands on its being legal and extant! If were were subsumed, that happened AFTER the ToU was agreed to under international; if we are a colony, same. The Treaty itself did not confer subsumption or colonization upon us. It could not have done. If this did happen in the years AFTER the Treaty, it happened ultra vires and has no legal basis. Have been saying this for years now. Anyone might be TREATED as a slave, but they cannot be a slave in law.
Agreed, Lorn.
NEWS – four more constituency candidates standing under the Liberate Scotland umbrella, announced today [see Barrhead Boy blog]. All are Independents for Independence [I4I]:
Angus North and Mearns: Lynne Tammi-Connolly
Motherwell & Wishaw: Greig McArthur
Stirling: Matthew Reilly
Uddingston & Bellshill: David Baird.
Anyone here who is a voter in those constituencies – your help will be welcome!
Discussion on wether the treaty of union is extant today or, not were needed, for as long as can be remembered on this site unionist minds have have argued that its real and Scotland needs referendums and certain percentages hurdles to overcome, permission from The UK parliament required,
Contrary to their own statements they have also pressed forward the argument that it is ancient history that nobody pays attention to any more, that is rubbish and old guff, stuff and nonsense, and
That nobody cares.
I have often argued the position of both sides over the years and tried researching both sides for the simple reason that the Westminsters version of the treaty of union at loggerheads with Scotland version,
The two becoming further confused when Westminster parliament created by both the countries of Scotland and England has presumed itself to be the english side of the 1707 treaty of union,
It has also dismantled or repealed many of the articles that were supposed to remain, mostly the Scottish of terms, conditions and agreements,
Such as the removal and blatantly ignoring the Scottish (Claim of right,) as Westminster considered it incompatible with the new union, at the same time retaining the English bill of rights from pre- union.
Along with many other changes to the supposedly international treaty of union.
This is where we are able to view that the treaty of union itself has been altered and manipulated and….Colonised…. to favour England more and more so over the years,
However The nation of Scots have had no interaction with the treaty of union.
On this matter it is interesting that it is the Westminster parliament of Great Britain UK that explain the reason.
The UK parliament from Westminster make the Statement That the old parliament of Scotland made a political union with the parliament of England and was then immediately dissolved,
but that the Scots were not asked to join, as they would have voted no to a union.
The Is a extremely odd position for the Westminster parliament of Great Britain UK to uphold, for it confirms and contradicts the treaty of union.
The old Scottish parliament was united with Englands, until shortly afterwards dissolved.
Regardless, this left the Scots and their Sovereignty intact and not in the ToU.
And that is where Westminster has long presumed the mistaken belief that it had Captured the Scots, the kingdom realm of Scotland,
Instead of just the Scottish parliament and the Scottish monarch. Which converted into the monarch of England. In 1689.
Placing that conversation aside for the moment,
If we do uphold the treaty of union has merit today and captured and included the sovereign Scots via the colonisation route,
We then have to presume that a treaty union parliament union of Great Britain entity is- and has become a Colonial parliament when it refuses the Scots nation that were not asked or invited into the treaty of union a dictatorship when it outright refuses that Scottish nation the right to self determination.
Especially as the Scots do not hold a treaty of union agreement with the created “entity Westminster parliament of Great Britain and Ireland or the UK parliament,
Only with England.
jeezo, are we finally arrived? Have you folks finally got it?
– it’s the AMBIGUITY that kills you – allowing the UK to make it up as it goes along citing “unwritten constitution” needs to be stopped.
Either
– we are a colony; and if so then UN decolonisation exists, the tools are already there, use them (and at least someone has started)
or
– you aren’t (strictly, technically); the treaty is just another treaty and you can tear it up without asking the others permission. Win the election, fly to the UN, tell them the treaty is no longer active and the UK NO LONGER EXISTS.
This is where “realpolitik” kicks in, because what really counts (and the english will be going nuts) is what america thinks. The UK is not really “sovereign”, it has been a vassal state since the day it signed the deal for the war loans off the yanks, and at suez they got their noses rubbed in it, pretending to be an empire; we rent “our” nukes from the yanks.
If america supports indy, and you make sure to tell them you wish to remain in NATO, there is fuckall england could do about it; we are both in NATO.
So what of america? It only has a HALF SCOTTISH GOLF NUT for president who owns a lot of “real estate” here … how many OPEN FUCKING GOALS DO YOU NEED?
Not only that, but we have one of the weakest “toom tabard” UK PM’s in history, the hilariously compromised Kid Starver who may be a bummer, or was cavorting with rentboys, or doing coke on a train, or was a Savile bumboy, or was even responsible for Southport Stabber’s dad – a Rwandan genocidiste – not being deported … in any case, he had to have his backbone removed before he got the job (courtesy of the issy lobby which did for corbyn) … then, in opposition, the ugliest little englander ideologue imaginable, farage, a person so disgusting to the average scot he seems like a caricature …
– what more help do you want? Reminds me of that old joke about the guy on top of his house during a flood claiming God will save him …
@ Confused says: 26 May, 2025 at 11:16 am
“Have you folks finally got it?”
“(courtesy of the issy lobby which did for corbyn)”
It’s Da Dews. Capiche?
Hows your mobile gas chambers coming along, Confused? You ready to make a start?
link to archive.ph
you are worried about the assisted dying bill just in case your relatives get all the forms filled in without telling you
– then one day you skip out for an ice cream (and cheers erupt)
I see on the other thread you are very concerned with the sovereignty of pretendy madeup non countries, but not Scotland so much.
The parliament of Great Britain, the parliament of the united kingdom and Ireland, etc cannot take on the belated mantle of Englands parliament or the parliament of a successor state to negotiate new terms and conditions with Scotland should Scotland decide to leave,
Only the parliament of England could still do that,
Because the Westminster Great Britain uk parliament would be presuming it was the active successor ( prior) to any negotiations taking place, or Scotland having left.
It would be self declaring itself as the owner of the 1707 treaty from the position of Englands old parliament. That was supposedly dissolved. To create its very existence,
The created and invented parliament of Westminsters parliament of Great Britain of the two joined Countries only in a political parliamentary union of united kingdom/s would be negotiating with Scotland as if it was officially in the context Englands parliament,
Through a devolved parliament sent to Scotland from the English parliament from the Westminster parliament of…..England?
This is a serious error and glitch for the parliament of Great- Britain,
As it appears as if it owns the treaty of union from all multiple stances,
The Westminster parliament of England,
The Westminster English parliament of the united kingdom/s
The Westminster English parliament of Great Britain and Ireland. As stated in the Anglo – Irish treaty,
The Westminster parliament of Englands Great Britain parliament of Scotland
The Westminster English parliament of all the devolved parliaments.
What room is there for Scotland to negotiate and with Whom, if the Westminster Parliament of Great Britain UK take on all the roles, as the negotiator.
But suddenly steps backs from its position in Scotland to negotiate against Scotland as a inheritable successor to the created entity state and invented parliament of Great Britain.
Confused,
I have understood the Scots position for a long time,
But not everyone does in Scotland, there are some still learning, and still some that are in denial,
The more it is spoken or wrote about and discussed the quicker everyone will be on the same page,
Some are new to wings over Scotland, one of the few places that does allow people to hold those discussions regarding the position of the Scots,
Most of their history was not taught to them in the education system in Scotland, only the English version of the treaty of union,
Which limited information to Scotlands people with intentional consequences.
Keep the natives ignorant, and control is easier.