Add Comment

Good to have you back Bob. The supreme sovereignty of Westminster was based not on law or efficiency or the quest for good governance but on power and the use of that power by elites to enrich themselves. The decline of Westminster is irreversible. Each day, each week they are weaker and their ability to hold Scotland diminishes. This is a good time to come home.

The European Union has already all but destroyed the legal basis of UK constitutional nationalism and the associated convention of the supreme sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament.

The concept is just that - an idea - there is no absolute sovereignty at westminster - just cos they say so doesn't make it true. But, good grief, do they go on about it! On and on and on.

In a democracy sovereignty lies with the people, not with its Parliament. The Treaty of Union is a contract between 2 equal Nation States and, as such, can be dissolved by either. Therefore, if the people of Scotland decide on Independence, Independence it will be. No ifs, buts, maybes or Westminster Parliamentary sovereignty.

Why should our collective futures be dictated by the actions taken by a minority hundreds of years ago to protect their own positions of power which in turn was influenced by a distribution of wealth and power that was based on events hundreds of years before that? The time for fundamental change is here and the real reason why “The Establishment” is against devolution is that it opens up a can of worms as to who has the real power in the country, us or them. Choose what side you are on, ours or theirs.

If and / or when Scotland achieves Independence - and I sincerely hope the aspirations come true, can I suggest that the 'Border', which surely must be 'fenced' off - if only for historic purposes, and, no matter the material used for the fence, and ignoring the 'Elf and Safety' orders of the day, it should be 'topped' with very sharp objects and appropriate signage (in both languages( if thought necessary!) stating that it is - ' Not for the use of politicians for sitting on!' - no matter who - or where from! In view of the amount of time it has taken to construct, penalties will be awarded - most seriously, to anyone abusing it in any manner or form!

Hi Bob! It'll be good to have you back. When we met at the Spring Conference, Anne told me you were moving soon. Make sure you send me your new address.

Potted history (Extracted from the House of Elmslie of Scotland web site) A visitor to the House of Elmslie of Scotland web site has asked for an explanation of "the sovereign people of Scotland" as used in the context of our "Potted History of Scotland". Another visitor asked for an explanation of the assertion, "There was no Union of Crowns" (in 1603), in the same article, when we are all taught at school that the Union of Crowns between Scotland and England took place in 1603. We asked the author responsible for our "Potted History of Scotland", John J G McGill FSA Scot., for his explanation. Here is his reply. "Let me take the so called Union of Crowns first since that is the easiest and simplest to answer of both questions. Prior to the death of Queen Elizabeth of England in March 1603 there were two separate nation states, Scotland and England, each with their own separate monarch, each with their own separate Crowns and Jewels of State. Through a previous dynastic marriage, Scotland’s House of Stewart and England’s House of Tudor were interrelated. Upon the death of Elizabeth of England, James V1 of Scotland inherited the Crown of England and thereafter the Crowns of two separate nation states, Scotland and England, were held simultaneously by one and the same person. James V1 of Scotland became James 1st of England at one and the same time. To this day there are two separate Crowns being held by one and the same person, Queen Elizabeth 1st of Scotland and Queen Elizabeth 2nd of England. Two Crowns and one Monarch is quite a different position from saying there was a "Union of Crowns" when patently there was no such thing. At the opening of Scotland’s recalled Parliament on July 1st 1999 in Edinburgh by the Queen it was the Crown of David 1st of Scotland that was presented to Her Majesty by the Duke of Hamilton for the opening ceremony. Scotland’s Regalia of State, the Crown Jewels, are the oldest in Europe. The question of Scottish Sovereignty is as old as the nation itself with its roots deep in our Pictish / Celtic past but it is nevertheless a fact in reality to this day. In earlier times on those occasions when the vacant crown of Scotland had to be filled by a process of selection of contenders and a final election, the officers of state always acted in the name of and on behalf of, "the people of the Realm of Scotland". No Monarch could ascend the Scot’s throne without the "expressed will and wishes of "The People of Scotland". Another example is "The letter of the Barons of Scotland to Pope John XX11" penned on their behalf by the Abbot of Arbroath, Bernard de Linton, in April 1320. This letter is commonly referred to as "The Declaration of Arbroath". Here again we read that the letter is in the name of the people of the realm of Scotland with references to their "sovereignty" in as much that if he, "the King", did not act according to their will and wishes that they, "the people of Scotland", would elect another who would act in accordance with their wishes, albeit through the officers of state (representatives from Church and Nobility). At that time the Pope was the final arbiter between States in dispute; if you like, he was the equivalent to the Secretary General of the United Nations today. The Declaration of Arbroath is a legitimate written Constitutional document in Scottish constitutional terms. On April 11th 1689, the Scot’s Parliament passed into Scot’s Constitutional Law on behalf of the people of Scotland, The Claim of Right, (not to be confused with England’s Bill of Rights). The Claim of Right reiterates the established rights of the Scots Parliament in relation to the Crown, the monarch reigned whereas parliament legislated while sovereignty remained with the people of Scotland as the supreme constitutional authority. Again this is a fundamental written constitutional document which is still in force to this day. Neither Scotland’s Claim of Right nor England’s Bill of Rights was affected by the Act of Union of 1707. It is worth noting that some of the negative clauses in Scotland’s Claim of Right are under consideration for review by the recently recalled Scot’s Parliament to bring the Claim of Right into keeping with the new situation and changed attitudes of the 21st century. In 1707, when the Act of Union was passed in the Scots Parliament, Article 3 shows quite clearly that the Parliaments of Scotland and England were held to be in abeyance ad interim and that a new Union Parliament was to be elected. It is important to note that both English law and Scots law were excluded from this Treaty of Union designed to set up a completely new United Parliament. What this means is that Scottish Civil Law and Scottish Constitutional Law were left un-compromised and that Scotland retained popular sovereignty. The people of Scotland remained the superior constitutional authority in Scotland and that is still the case today as we approach the year 2000. It was with the foregoing in his mind that in 1953 Lord Cooper of Cardross as Lord President of The Court of Session in the case of "McCormick v The Lord Advocate" pronounced that, "The unlimited sovereignty of Parliament has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law". Thus Lord Cooper reaffirmed that Scotland not only has a written constitution but that it is alive and well. Extant in 1953, Scottish Constitutional Law now has an in situ Legislature ensuring that Scottish Sovereignty remains un-compromised and that only the will of the registered electorate in Scotland can change the status quo. Scottish sovereignty was not subsumed by English sovereignty in 1707. In the case of MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1954 (1953 SC 396), Lord Cooper stated that "The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.... I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament...." This case dealt with the styling of the current monarch as the "second" of the United Kingdom (there never having been a previous Queen Elizabeth of the UK). There is a section on the nature of Scottish constitutional law within the UK in G Mitchell's 'Constitutional Law' (2nd Ed. Wm Green and Son, Edinburgh 1968(ish)) "We are sovereign within the Union and we can walk out any time we want". Those are the exact words once uttered by Michael Forsyth, an arch-unionist and Secretary of State for Scotland under the last Conservative government, uttered January 1997 [bold]The logical argument[/bold] Sovereignty equates to supremacy. If the people are supreme, then it follows that no smaller group or individual within the people can be supreme or sovereign. Therefore: An elected monarch is to be regarded only as an unique representative, to the rest of the world, of the people; A parliament or council of elected representatives, either national or local, is subordinate to the people; Being subordinate, neither monarch nor parliament has the power unilaterally to coerce the people. Everything that concerns the people as a whole belongs to the people.

John Roy : An excellent post. Many thanks.

What's all the fuss about? The Lisbon Treaty, which will be a self-amending one, will herald in the supra-national Europe in which the nation state will be destroyed. Scotland, like Wales and Northern Ireland, will preserve her territorial integrity as an EU region while England will be balkanised into nine EU regions. The SNP is complicit in this process, as are the leaders of the three major parties at Westminster, so the SNP's famous "independent Scotland in Europe" is a sham. No nation will be independent in Europe. Scotland could, though, adopt the Norwegian option. As it is, some 80% of all Westminster legislation is Brussels legislation, so the UK is no longer genuinely independent. it won't make any difference whether Scotland detaches herself from England or not. She'll merely exchange Westminster for Brussels. "It'll be ane end tae anither auld sang."

What's all the fuss about? The Lisbon Treaty, which will be a self-amending one, will herald in the supra-national Europe in which the nation state will be destroyed. Scotland, like Wales and Northern Ireland, will preserve her territorial integrity as an EU region while England will be balkanised into nine EU regions. The SNP is complicit in this process, as are the leaders of the three major parties at Westminster, so the SNP's famous "independent Scotland in Europe" is a sham. No nation will be independent in Europe. Scotland could, though, adopt the Norwegian option. As it is, some 80% of all Westminster legislation is Brussels legislation, so the UK is no longer genuinely independent. it won't make any difference whether Scotland detaches herself from England or not. She'll merely exchange Westminster for Brussels. "It'll be ane end tae anither auld sang."

So once we have won our freedom from England, we need another referendum to be free from Europe. All my dreams could yet come true.

I believe, Harry, that a newly independent country would have to negotiate its membership of the EU and not be simply allowed to join. In which case, would Scotland's leaders do so by first consulting the people of Scotland or would the Scottish PM decide that the governing elite knew better? I fear the latter unless Alex Salmond redefines what he means by an independent Scotland in Europe. The EU would want to absorb Scotland into its superstate because Article 176a of the Lisbon Treaty will give the EU control over the field of energy and Scotland's oil and gas reserves. Scotland would also be a contributor nation rather than a beneficiary nation, so the EU would fall over itself to welcome her in.

I hope that you are right, as we would be crazy to jump into Europe without some re-negotiating. Our fishing and farming, destroyed by Europe, costs us as much as the oil and gas that London has robbed us of. In my view we should re-start from square one.

Sadly, too many europhiles see the EU as the Promised Land. I wonder how sympathetic the EU would be to Scotland's desire to renegotiate. The Irish and the Danes also gave away many of their fishing rights to enter the EU.

Cadzow, Uk away back to the Telegraph. You're just regurgitating all that UKIP dross.

Strathturret: there are more than two options for Scotland, i.e. remaining in the Union and the EU or separating from the UK and entering the EU, which would be out of the frying-pan and into the fire. The third option is genuine independence like Norway's and not Alex Salmond's fradulent "independent Scotland in the EU". You've obviously been gulled by all that EU propaganda in the Mirror, Guardian and Independent.