Troublesome Natives

37
591

Reader Comment by Andrew Barr

Troublesome Natives Scotland is in the state of the half-nation; where we are half-served, and half-governed, and half-represented from a parliament unfulfilled in its purpose. We are met at the half-way house; at a parliamentary divide, and where the reluctant Unionist compromises for a radical Nationalist vision.

This is not the story of one nation and its people. This is the story of the conquest of Wales. This is the story of British Africa and Ghandi’s India, and of Ireland and its partition, and of the disappearance of the Cornish nation, and of America’s Declaration of Independence and Catalonia’s bid for liberty. It is the story of the Basque Country, and of Quebec and Croatia, and of Robert Burns and the Parcel of Rogues, and of every nation ever subdued and of every nation ever set free.

The British policy of ‘all shall enter – none shall leave’ has changed little over the centuries. It has prompted some of the worst brutalities in world history, started countless battles and wars and undermined the very concept of international democracy and self-determination. And yet what would later evolve into the British Empire began right here in these islands from the patterns of conquest and models of colonisation that forged the early ideology of a united Britain.

The sovereignty of Scots was first laid down in the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath which stated that the people would stand loyal to Bruce for as long as he chose to defend their liberty, but would drive him out as an enemy and choose another king should he surrender the defence. The people’s sovereignty was again declared in the 1950 Covenant and again in the 1988 Claim of Right, but today remains the reservation of the Westminster Parliament.In 1953, senior judge Lord Cooper remarked: “Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of England and Scotland and replaced them by a new Parliament, 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, as if all that happened in 1707 was that the Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England.”

He went on to say: “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law,” meaning that in Scotland, Westminster had never been sovereign, and that the Scottish people hold highest authority over the nation. This right to self-determination is not only affirmed by historic Scottish documents but also by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Charter of the United Nations.

The solution to Anglo-Scottish resentment is certainly to forgive and forget old grudges but it is equally important to eliminate the political structures that are remnant of those old powers. In truth the Union is representative of nobody; it does not represent the Celtic nations whose socialist vote is nulified by English conservatism, nor does it represent the English vote which is diluted by politicians from the rest of the United Kingdom being able to vote on solely English matters despite the reverse not being true. Devolution’s flaw has been to make outposts of the Celtic world and to retain the non-devolved status of an English Mother Country.

If the devolution process falls short of the people’s sovereign right then it betrays its own principle and cause for self-determination. If devolved matters should be praised then reserved matters should be questioned. If we are to define democracy as a nation governed by its people then that definition must be universal. This is not the whim of romantic nationhood but the practical, fair, and respectful way in which all the world’s nations should coexist.

In his 1706 speech of opposition to the Act of Union, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun said:  “All nations are dependent; the one upon the many, this we know. But if the greater must always swallow the lesser and so become greater still, then such a logic is released upon this world which can only result in, I know not what. Gentlemen, we are Scotsmen. Let us go forward into the community of nations and lend our own, independent weight to the world.”

Ultimately resistance to the Act proved unsuccessful and the Scottish Parliament was adjourned. Months of rioting and mob rule broke out in the streets of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling and Dumfries until armed forces were sent in to enforce the new constitution. It was a scene we would see replicated again in India and in nations across the globe.

Whilst most territories regained independence during the earlier parts of the 20th century it was not until 1979 that the first devolution referendum was held in Scotland. A majority voted in favour but the verdict was rejected. In protest, folk musician Dick Gaughan wrote that for friendship to “flourish on both sides of the Tweed” then people must respect the rights of their neighbours. The song ends with the words: “Think them poorest who can be a slave, Them richest who dare to be free.”

37 COMMENTS

  1. Yes there was rioting in the streets in 1707, a concept far removed from protests of today. Back then the mood of the people could only be guaged by phyiscal presence nowadays, everyone has had an education and owns a mobile phone or a computer or both.
    Then there was Newsnet. The old order, the MSM or the BBC have been left in the wake of events. Even the SNP haven’t yey woken up to the responsibilities that come with an overall majority.
    The Parliament in the other place cannot itself come to terms with the new reality.
    We have a 5 year parliament now to make all the ‘changes’ necessary to flex our muscles as a new and independent Scotland, a nation amongst nations.
    Our relations with the English ought to be cordial and benificial to both. Sadly,the barriers they will place before us and the frustration, delay, and obfuscation at home and abroad call for a strident appraoch from the SNP. Whilst I have respect for Salmond and his team, I by no means believe that they can and will lead us forward towards independence by bringing us along with them. I feel we must point the way and hopefully, they will catch up.
    Now we have 4 years and 10 months to go, with a referendum coming along say in 2014/15. There is much to do and we are not yet doing it.
    My best hope and my hope will be heightened by Mr. Salmond addressing the Scots people with a ‘Master Plan’ for the future. By doing so he will lay out the ground plan which we can all follow. Each step will be seen for what it is, another step forward.
    Reactive politics should be dead now in Scotland, we will set the agenda, not have the agenda set for us by another place whose roll in any event is not to do so. The Scots, with a new found confidence, need take lassons nor ‘instructions’ from no-one. Our profile on the wider world stage depends entirely on how we portray ourselves externally. Alex Salmond is the consumate politician, he needs to learn how to become also the consumate statesman. Adding gravitas and loosing the smirk may well go a long way to achieving that image. If Mr. Salmond feels he does not have all the ‘answers’ then he should start by reaching out to those willing to help !.

  2. Yes there was rioting in the streets in 1707, a concept far removed from protests of today. Back then the mood of the people could only be guaged by phyiscal presence nowadays, everyone has had an education and owns a mobile phone or a computer or both.
    Then there was Newsnet. The old order, the MSM or the BBC have been left in the wake of events. Even the SNP haven’t yey woken up to the responsibilities that come with an overall majority.
    The Parliament in the other place cannot itself come to terms with the new reality.
    We have a 5 year parliament now to make all the ‘changes’ necessary to flex our muscles as a new and independent Scotland, a nation amongst nations.
    Our relations with the English ought to be cordial and benificial to both. Sadly,the barriers they will place before us and the frustration, delay, and obfuscation at home and abroad call for a strident appraoch from the SNP. Whilst I have respect for Salmond and his team, I by no means believe that they can and will lead us forward towards independence by bringing us along with them. I feel we must point the way and hopefully, they will catch up.
    Now we have 4 years and 10 months to go, with a referendum coming along say in 2014/15. There is much to do and we are not yet doing it.
    My best hope and my hope will be heightened by Mr. Salmond addressing the Scots people with a ‘Master Plan’ for the future. By doing so he will lay out the ground plan which we can all follow. Each step will be seen for what it is, another step forward.
    Reactive politics should be dead now in Scotland, we will set the agenda, not have the agenda set for us by another place whose roll in any event is not to do so. The Scots, with a new found confidence, need take lassons nor ‘instructions’ from no-one. Our profile on the wider world stage depends entirely on how we portray ourselves externally. Alex Salmond is the consumate politician, he needs to learn how to become also the consumate statesman. Adding gravitas and loosing the smirk may well go a long way to achieving that image. If Mr. Salmond feels he does not have all the ‘answers’ then he should start by reaching out to those willing to help !.

  3. Yes there was rioting in the streets in 1707, a concept far removed from protests of today. Back then the mood of the people could only be guaged by phyiscal presence nowadays, everyone has had an education and owns a mobile phone or a computer or both.
    Then there was Newsnet. The old order, the MSM or the BBC have been left in the wake of events. Even the SNP haven’t yey woken up to the responsibilities that come with an overall majority.
    The Parliament in the other place cannot itself come to terms with the new reality.
    We have a 5 year parliament now to make all the ‘changes’ necessary to flex our muscles as a new and independent Scotland, a nation amongst nations.
    Our relations with the English ought to be cordial and benificial to both. Sadly,the barriers they will place before us and the frustration, delay, and obfuscation at home and abroad call for a strident appraoch from the SNP. Whilst I have respect for Salmond and his team, I by no means believe that they can and will lead us forward towards independence by bringing us along with them. I feel we must point the way and hopefully, they will catch up.
    Now we have 4 years and 10 months to go, with a referendum coming along say in 2014/15. There is much to do and we are not yet doing it.
    My best hope and my hope will be heightened by Mr. Salmond addressing the Scots people with a ‘Master Plan’ for the future. By doing so he will lay out the ground plan which we can all follow. Each step will be seen for what it is, another step forward.
    Reactive politics should be dead now in Scotland, we will set the agenda, not have the agenda set for us by another place whose roll in any event is not to do so. The Scots, with a new found confidence, need take lassons nor ‘instructions’ from no-one. Our profile on the wider world stage depends entirely on how we portray ourselves externally. Alex Salmond is the consumate politician, he needs to learn how to become also the consumate statesman. Adding gravitas and loosing the smirk may well go a long way to achieving that image. If Mr. Salmond feels he does not have all the ‘answers’ then he should start by reaching out to those willing to help !.

  4. Yes there was rioting in the streets in 1707, a concept far removed from protests of today. Back then the mood of the people could only be guaged by phyiscal presence nowadays, everyone has had an education and owns a mobile phone or a computer or both.
    Then there was Newsnet. The old order, the MSM or the BBC have been left in the wake of events. Even the SNP haven’t yey woken up to the responsibilities that come with an overall majority.
    The Parliament in the other place cannot itself come to terms with the new reality.
    We have a 5 year parliament now to make all the ‘changes’ necessary to flex our muscles as a new and independent Scotland, a nation amongst nations.
    Our relations with the English ought to be cordial and benificial to both. Sadly,the barriers they will place before us and the frustration, delay, and obfuscation at home and abroad call for a strident appraoch from the SNP. Whilst I have respect for Salmond and his team, I by no means believe that they can and will lead us forward towards independence by bringing us along with them. I feel we must point the way and hopefully, they will catch up.
    Now we have 4 years and 10 months to go, with a referendum coming along say in 2014/15. There is much to do and we are not yet doing it.
    My best hope and my hope will be heightened by Mr. Salmond addressing the Scots people with a ‘Master Plan’ for the future. By doing so he will lay out the ground plan which we can all follow. Each step will be seen for what it is, another step forward.
    Reactive politics should be dead now in Scotland, we will set the agenda, not have the agenda set for us by another place whose roll in any event is not to do so. The Scots, with a new found confidence, need take lassons nor ‘instructions’ from no-one. Our profile on the wider world stage depends entirely on how we portray ourselves externally. Alex Salmond is the consumate politician, he needs to learn how to become also the consumate statesman. Adding gravitas and loosing the smirk may well go a long way to achieving that image. If Mr. Salmond feels he does not have all the ‘answers’ then he should start by reaching out to those willing to help !.

  5. Yes there was rioting in the streets in 1707, a concept far removed from protests of today. Back then the mood of the people could only be guaged by phyiscal presence nowadays, everyone has had an education and owns a mobile phone or a computer or both.
    Then there was Newsnet. The old order, the MSM or the BBC have been left in the wake of events. Even the SNP haven’t yey woken up to the responsibilities that come with an overall majority.
    The Parliament in the other place cannot itself come to terms with the new reality.
    We have a 5 year parliament now to make all the ‘changes’ necessary to flex our muscles as a new and independent Scotland, a nation amongst nations.
    Our relations with the English ought to be cordial and benificial to both. Sadly,the barriers they will place before us and the frustration, delay, and obfuscation at home and abroad call for a strident appraoch from the SNP. Whilst I have respect for Salmond and his team, I by no means believe that they can and will lead us forward towards independence by bringing us along with them. I feel we must point the way and hopefully, they will catch up.
    Now we have 4 years and 10 months to go, with a referendum coming along say in 2014/15. There is much to do and we are not yet doing it.
    My best hope and my hope will be heightened by Mr. Salmond addressing the Scots people with a ‘Master Plan’ for the future. By doing so he will lay out the ground plan which we can all follow. Each step will be seen for what it is, another step forward.
    Reactive politics should be dead now in Scotland, we will set the agenda, not have the agenda set for us by another place whose roll in any event is not to do so. The Scots, with a new found confidence, need take lassons nor ‘instructions’ from no-one. Our profile on the wider world stage depends entirely on how we portray ourselves externally. Alex Salmond is the consumate politician, he needs to learn how to become also the consumate statesman. Adding gravitas and loosing the smirk may well go a long way to achieving that image. If Mr. Salmond feels he does not have all the ‘answers’ then he should start by reaching out to those willing to help !.

  6. Yes there was rioting in the streets in 1707, a concept far removed from protests of today. Back then the mood of the people could only be guaged by phyiscal presence nowadays, everyone has had an education and owns a mobile phone or a computer or both.
    Then there was Newsnet. The old order, the MSM or the BBC have been left in the wake of events. Even the SNP haven’t yey woken up to the responsibilities that come with an overall majority.
    The Parliament in the other place cannot itself come to terms with the new reality.
    We have a 5 year parliament now to make all the ‘changes’ necessary to flex our muscles as a new and independent Scotland, a nation amongst nations.
    Our relations with the English ought to be cordial and benificial to both. Sadly,the barriers they will place before us and the frustration, delay, and obfuscation at home and abroad call for a strident appraoch from the SNP. Whilst I have respect for Salmond and his team, I by no means believe that they can and will lead us forward towards independence by bringing us along with them. I feel we must point the way and hopefully, they will catch up.
    Now we have 4 years and 10 months to go, with a referendum coming along say in 2014/15. There is much to do and we are not yet doing it.
    My best hope and my hope will be heightened by Mr. Salmond addressing the Scots people with a ‘Master Plan’ for the future. By doing so he will lay out the ground plan which we can all follow. Each step will be seen for what it is, another step forward.
    Reactive politics should be dead now in Scotland, we will set the agenda, not have the agenda set for us by another place whose roll in any event is not to do so. The Scots, with a new found confidence, need take lassons nor ‘instructions’ from no-one. Our profile on the wider world stage depends entirely on how we portray ourselves externally. Alex Salmond is the consumate politician, he needs to learn how to become also the consumate statesman. Adding gravitas and loosing the smirk may well go a long way to achieving that image. If Mr. Salmond feels he does not have all the ‘answers’ then he should start by reaching out to those willing to help !.

  7. upspake

    I agree we take instructions from no one.

    I do not agree with your description or observations on the team in government. I think comments such as AS loosing the smirk are unhelpful (I don’t see it either) – If we do not respect our elected representatives how can we expect others to do so?

    I may disagree with individuals / I may not understand their stance on a particular topic. However in stepping back and looking at the personal contribution they have made, and if it is significant with conviction, then they will have my respect.

    Let’s get past the Scottish disease of pulling ourselves down!

  8. upspake

    I agree we take instructions from no one.

    I do not agree with your description or observations on the team in government. I think comments such as AS loosing the smirk are unhelpful (I don’t see it either) – If we do not respect our elected representatives how can we expect others to do so?

    I may disagree with individuals / I may not understand their stance on a particular topic. However in stepping back and looking at the personal contribution they have made, and if it is significant with conviction, then they will have my respect.

    Let’s get past the Scottish disease of pulling ourselves down!

  9. upspake

    I agree we take instructions from no one.

    I do not agree with your description or observations on the team in government. I think comments such as AS loosing the smirk are unhelpful (I don’t see it either) – If we do not respect our elected representatives how can we expect others to do so?

    I may disagree with individuals / I may not understand their stance on a particular topic. However in stepping back and looking at the personal contribution they have made, and if it is significant with conviction, then they will have my respect.

    Let’s get past the Scottish disease of pulling ourselves down!

  10. upspake

    I agree we take instructions from no one.

    I do not agree with your description or observations on the team in government. I think comments such as AS loosing the smirk are unhelpful (I don’t see it either) – If we do not respect our elected representatives how can we expect others to do so?

    I may disagree with individuals / I may not understand their stance on a particular topic. However in stepping back and looking at the personal contribution they have made, and if it is significant with conviction, then they will have my respect.

    Let’s get past the Scottish disease of pulling ourselves down!

  11. upspake

    I agree we take instructions from no one.

    I do not agree with your description or observations on the team in government. I think comments such as AS loosing the smirk are unhelpful (I don’t see it either) – If we do not respect our elected representatives how can we expect others to do so?

    I may disagree with individuals / I may not understand their stance on a particular topic. However in stepping back and looking at the personal contribution they have made, and if it is significant with conviction, then they will have my respect.

    Let’s get past the Scottish disease of pulling ourselves down!

  12. upspake

    I agree we take instructions from no one.

    I do not agree with your description or observations on the team in government. I think comments such as AS loosing the smirk are unhelpful (I don’t see it either) – If we do not respect our elected representatives how can we expect others to do so?

    I may disagree with individuals / I may not understand their stance on a particular topic. However in stepping back and looking at the personal contribution they have made, and if it is significant with conviction, then they will have my respect.

    Let’s get past the Scottish disease of pulling ourselves down!

  13. Andrew Barr quoting Lord Cooper:
    “He went on to say: “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law,” meaning that in Scotland, Westminster had never been sovereign, and that the Scottish people hold highest authority over the nation.”

    I think Lord Cooper was mistaken; “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament” is not “a distinctly English principle”.

    It is an evolved principle, of the unwritten, non codified constitution of the UK. It is the principle, which enables the political parties to operate as they do.

    The UK unwritten constitution:
    Has been high jacked by the UK political parties and parliament cannot be held to account by the people other than at the time of a general election. In parliament, the party leader with the most seats is appointed by convention, not elected by Parliament or the electorate, and as Prime Minister, controls and appoints the executive, and thus essentially a party controls parliament. The situation is further exacerbated and democracy diminished, by the “Whip system” on party MPs to ensure the outcome of a vote suits the party line. The fusion of powers currently controlled by the party leader in effect results in an elective dictatorship.

    In the 2010 GE the Conservatives did not win a majority, nor did the Lib/Dems and Labour certainly did not win. But convention not constitution allowed the present coalition to form a government without a mandate to rule.

    The democratic accountability and citizen involvement with the present system is minimal at best, resulting in apathy and indifference and a justifiable lack of trust in government by the voters. The solution for this is a written codified constitution.

  14. Andrew Barr quoting Lord Cooper:
    “He went on to say: “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law,” meaning that in Scotland, Westminster had never been sovereign, and that the Scottish people hold highest authority over the nation.”

    I think Lord Cooper was mistaken; “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament” is not “a distinctly English principle”.

    It is an evolved principle, of the unwritten, non codified constitution of the UK. It is the principle, which enables the political parties to operate as they do.

    The UK unwritten constitution:
    Has been high jacked by the UK political parties and parliament cannot be held to account by the people other than at the time of a general election. In parliament, the party leader with the most seats is appointed by convention, not elected by Parliament or the electorate, and as Prime Minister, controls and appoints the executive, and thus essentially a party controls parliament. The situation is further exacerbated and democracy diminished, by the “Whip system” on party MPs to ensure the outcome of a vote suits the party line. The fusion of powers currently controlled by the party leader in effect results in an elective dictatorship.

    In the 2010 GE the Conservatives did not win a majority, nor did the Lib/Dems and Labour certainly did not win. But convention not constitution allowed the present coalition to form a government without a mandate to rule.

    The democratic accountability and citizen involvement with the present system is minimal at best, resulting in apathy and indifference and a justifiable lack of trust in government by the voters. The solution for this is a written codified constitution.

  15. Andrew Barr quoting Lord Cooper:
    “He went on to say: “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law,” meaning that in Scotland, Westminster had never been sovereign, and that the Scottish people hold highest authority over the nation.”

    I think Lord Cooper was mistaken; “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament” is not “a distinctly English principle”.

    It is an evolved principle, of the unwritten, non codified constitution of the UK. It is the principle, which enables the political parties to operate as they do.

    The UK unwritten constitution:
    Has been high jacked by the UK political parties and parliament cannot be held to account by the people other than at the time of a general election. In parliament, the party leader with the most seats is appointed by convention, not elected by Parliament or the electorate, and as Prime Minister, controls and appoints the executive, and thus essentially a party controls parliament. The situation is further exacerbated and democracy diminished, by the “Whip system” on party MPs to ensure the outcome of a vote suits the party line. The fusion of powers currently controlled by the party leader in effect results in an elective dictatorship.

    In the 2010 GE the Conservatives did not win a majority, nor did the Lib/Dems and Labour certainly did not win. But convention not constitution allowed the present coalition to form a government without a mandate to rule.

    The democratic accountability and citizen involvement with the present system is minimal at best, resulting in apathy and indifference and a justifiable lack of trust in government by the voters. The solution for this is a written codified constitution.

  16. Andrew Barr quoting Lord Cooper:
    “He went on to say: “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law,” meaning that in Scotland, Westminster had never been sovereign, and that the Scottish people hold highest authority over the nation.”

    I think Lord Cooper was mistaken; “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament” is not “a distinctly English principle”.

    It is an evolved principle, of the unwritten, non codified constitution of the UK. It is the principle, which enables the political parties to operate as they do.

    The UK unwritten constitution:
    Has been high jacked by the UK political parties and parliament cannot be held to account by the people other than at the time of a general election. In parliament, the party leader with the most seats is appointed by convention, not elected by Parliament or the electorate, and as Prime Minister, controls and appoints the executive, and thus essentially a party controls parliament. The situation is further exacerbated and democracy diminished, by the “Whip system” on party MPs to ensure the outcome of a vote suits the party line. The fusion of powers currently controlled by the party leader in effect results in an elective dictatorship.

    In the 2010 GE the Conservatives did not win a majority, nor did the Lib/Dems and Labour certainly did not win. But convention not constitution allowed the present coalition to form a government without a mandate to rule.

    The democratic accountability and citizen involvement with the present system is minimal at best, resulting in apathy and indifference and a justifiable lack of trust in government by the voters. The solution for this is a written codified constitution.

  17. Andrew Barr quoting Lord Cooper:
    “He went on to say: “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law,” meaning that in Scotland, Westminster had never been sovereign, and that the Scottish people hold highest authority over the nation.”

    I think Lord Cooper was mistaken; “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament” is not “a distinctly English principle”.

    It is an evolved principle, of the unwritten, non codified constitution of the UK. It is the principle, which enables the political parties to operate as they do.

    The UK unwritten constitution:
    Has been high jacked by the UK political parties and parliament cannot be held to account by the people other than at the time of a general election. In parliament, the party leader with the most seats is appointed by convention, not elected by Parliament or the electorate, and as Prime Minister, controls and appoints the executive, and thus essentially a party controls parliament. The situation is further exacerbated and democracy diminished, by the “Whip system” on party MPs to ensure the outcome of a vote suits the party line. The fusion of powers currently controlled by the party leader in effect results in an elective dictatorship.

    In the 2010 GE the Conservatives did not win a majority, nor did the Lib/Dems and Labour certainly did not win. But convention not constitution allowed the present coalition to form a government without a mandate to rule.

    The democratic accountability and citizen involvement with the present system is minimal at best, resulting in apathy and indifference and a justifiable lack of trust in government by the voters. The solution for this is a written codified constitution.

  18. Andrew Barr quoting Lord Cooper:
    “He went on to say: “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law,” meaning that in Scotland, Westminster had never been sovereign, and that the Scottish people hold highest authority over the nation.”

    I think Lord Cooper was mistaken; “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament” is not “a distinctly English principle”.

    It is an evolved principle, of the unwritten, non codified constitution of the UK. It is the principle, which enables the political parties to operate as they do.

    The UK unwritten constitution:
    Has been high jacked by the UK political parties and parliament cannot be held to account by the people other than at the time of a general election. In parliament, the party leader with the most seats is appointed by convention, not elected by Parliament or the electorate, and as Prime Minister, controls and appoints the executive, and thus essentially a party controls parliament. The situation is further exacerbated and democracy diminished, by the “Whip system” on party MPs to ensure the outcome of a vote suits the party line. The fusion of powers currently controlled by the party leader in effect results in an elective dictatorship.

    In the 2010 GE the Conservatives did not win a majority, nor did the Lib/Dems and Labour certainly did not win. But convention not constitution allowed the present coalition to form a government without a mandate to rule.

    The democratic accountability and citizen involvement with the present system is minimal at best, resulting in apathy and indifference and a justifiable lack of trust in government by the voters. The solution for this is a written codified constitution.

  19. I like this article – penned from the heart & Upspake’s comment from the head.
    Our National development is coinciding with a major international social change – the battle between high finance and democracy. It is to be seen in Ireland and Greece, in the in the dark caverns of Wall Street and The City, in the privatizations of public utilities, in your food & fuel bills, in the corruption of press barons, senior politicians and bankers already as rich as Croesus.
    Not easy to reform, you can finger the culprits but if the Parliaments and Senates and EU bureaucrats can’t or won’t act, what’s to do?
    Could there ever be a better reason for Scots to vote YES? To start over, ditch the corruption and set our own boundaries – not to decent people but to these white collar criminals….
    A Newsnet poll showed a substantial majority in favour of our own currency in Scotland. I believe that is a ‘gut’ response and it is absolutely correct. But ask our pro independence politicians and they jump at keeping the pound or diving into the euro. That closes down all the meaningful economic options that come with Independence. There’s No Independence Without Financial Independence – that’s the title of a new booklet which not only explains why we need our own currency but also how it would work and how it would be put in place. It may not be the last word on the subject, but it should certainly be the first – you can read it online by clicking the Scottish Independence page at
    http://www.scottishmonetaryreform.org.uk

  20. I like this article – penned from the heart & Upspake’s comment from the head.
    Our National development is coinciding with a major international social change – the battle between high finance and democracy. It is to be seen in Ireland and Greece, in the in the dark caverns of Wall Street and The City, in the privatizations of public utilities, in your food & fuel bills, in the corruption of press barons, senior politicians and bankers already as rich as Croesus.
    Not easy to reform, you can finger the culprits but if the Parliaments and Senates and EU bureaucrats can’t or won’t act, what’s to do?
    Could there ever be a better reason for Scots to vote YES? To start over, ditch the corruption and set our own boundaries – not to decent people but to these white collar criminals….
    A Newsnet poll showed a substantial majority in favour of our own currency in Scotland. I believe that is a ‘gut’ response and it is absolutely correct. But ask our pro independence politicians and they jump at keeping the pound or diving into the euro. That closes down all the meaningful economic options that come with Independence. There’s No Independence Without Financial Independence – that’s the title of a new booklet which not only explains why we need our own currency but also how it would work and how it would be put in place. It may not be the last word on the subject, but it should certainly be the first – you can read it online by clicking the Scottish Independence page at
    http://www.scottishmonetaryreform.org.uk

  21. I like this article – penned from the heart & Upspake’s comment from the head.
    Our National development is coinciding with a major international social change – the battle between high finance and democracy. It is to be seen in Ireland and Greece, in the in the dark caverns of Wall Street and The City, in the privatizations of public utilities, in your food & fuel bills, in the corruption of press barons, senior politicians and bankers already as rich as Croesus.
    Not easy to reform, you can finger the culprits but if the Parliaments and Senates and EU bureaucrats can’t or won’t act, what’s to do?
    Could there ever be a better reason for Scots to vote YES? To start over, ditch the corruption and set our own boundaries – not to decent people but to these white collar criminals….
    A Newsnet poll showed a substantial majority in favour of our own currency in Scotland. I believe that is a ‘gut’ response and it is absolutely correct. But ask our pro independence politicians and they jump at keeping the pound or diving into the euro. That closes down all the meaningful economic options that come with Independence. There’s No Independence Without Financial Independence – that’s the title of a new booklet which not only explains why we need our own currency but also how it would work and how it would be put in place. It may not be the last word on the subject, but it should certainly be the first – you can read it online by clicking the Scottish Independence page at
    http://www.scottishmonetaryreform.org.uk

  22. I like this article – penned from the heart & Upspake’s comment from the head.
    Our National development is coinciding with a major international social change – the battle between high finance and democracy. It is to be seen in Ireland and Greece, in the in the dark caverns of Wall Street and The City, in the privatizations of public utilities, in your food & fuel bills, in the corruption of press barons, senior politicians and bankers already as rich as Croesus.
    Not easy to reform, you can finger the culprits but if the Parliaments and Senates and EU bureaucrats can’t or won’t act, what’s to do?
    Could there ever be a better reason for Scots to vote YES? To start over, ditch the corruption and set our own boundaries – not to decent people but to these white collar criminals….
    A Newsnet poll showed a substantial majority in favour of our own currency in Scotland. I believe that is a ‘gut’ response and it is absolutely correct. But ask our pro independence politicians and they jump at keeping the pound or diving into the euro. That closes down all the meaningful economic options that come with Independence. There’s No Independence Without Financial Independence – that’s the title of a new booklet which not only explains why we need our own currency but also how it would work and how it would be put in place. It may not be the last word on the subject, but it should certainly be the first – you can read it online by clicking the Scottish Independence page at
    http://www.scottishmonetaryreform.org.uk

  23. I like this article – penned from the heart & Upspake’s comment from the head.
    Our National development is coinciding with a major international social change – the battle between high finance and democracy. It is to be seen in Ireland and Greece, in the in the dark caverns of Wall Street and The City, in the privatizations of public utilities, in your food & fuel bills, in the corruption of press barons, senior politicians and bankers already as rich as Croesus.
    Not easy to reform, you can finger the culprits but if the Parliaments and Senates and EU bureaucrats can’t or won’t act, what’s to do?
    Could there ever be a better reason for Scots to vote YES? To start over, ditch the corruption and set our own boundaries – not to decent people but to these white collar criminals….
    A Newsnet poll showed a substantial majority in favour of our own currency in Scotland. I believe that is a ‘gut’ response and it is absolutely correct. But ask our pro independence politicians and they jump at keeping the pound or diving into the euro. That closes down all the meaningful economic options that come with Independence. There’s No Independence Without Financial Independence – that’s the title of a new booklet which not only explains why we need our own currency but also how it would work and how it would be put in place. It may not be the last word on the subject, but it should certainly be the first – you can read it online by clicking the Scottish Independence page at
    http://www.scottishmonetaryreform.org.uk

  24. I like this article – penned from the heart & Upspake’s comment from the head.
    Our National development is coinciding with a major international social change – the battle between high finance and democracy. It is to be seen in Ireland and Greece, in the in the dark caverns of Wall Street and The City, in the privatizations of public utilities, in your food & fuel bills, in the corruption of press barons, senior politicians and bankers already as rich as Croesus.
    Not easy to reform, you can finger the culprits but if the Parliaments and Senates and EU bureaucrats can’t or won’t act, what’s to do?
    Could there ever be a better reason for Scots to vote YES? To start over, ditch the corruption and set our own boundaries – not to decent people but to these white collar criminals….
    A Newsnet poll showed a substantial majority in favour of our own currency in Scotland. I believe that is a ‘gut’ response and it is absolutely correct. But ask our pro independence politicians and they jump at keeping the pound or diving into the euro. That closes down all the meaningful economic options that come with Independence. There’s No Independence Without Financial Independence – that’s the title of a new booklet which not only explains why we need our own currency but also how it would work and how it would be put in place. It may not be the last word on the subject, but it should certainly be the first – you can read it online by clicking the Scottish Independence page at
    http://www.scottishmonetaryreform.org.uk

  25. I posted this on the other site before I realised it [i]was[/i] the other site. Then found I couldn’t comment on this site till today. I daresay this is not the best time to try to communicate via Newsnet, but the offer stands.

    # 1314 2011-07-07 11:56
    [b]Good article Andrew[/b] –

    I posted the comments below (or similar) on at least two previous occasions but with zero response. Quite a number of people, in comments or articles in Newsnet, have expressed their opinion that the people are sovereign but nobody seems to be willing to put it to the test. My own minor effort got nowhere but at least I tried.

    How about you? I have another more radicle idea (i.e. not the one suggested below) – I would be happy to discuss this with you. I am assuming that Newsnet have my email address and will allow you to contact me. If necessary I can write in and give them permission.

    Should anybody think that the idea expressed below is of no importance, just think about the uproar it would cause and why even the SNP would not countenance such a move.

    # 1314 2011-04-16 09:26
    I wrote, some time ago, to George Reid in his position as Presiding Officer.

    I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.

    I also suggested that that instead of the oath taking by individual MSPs the parliamentary session should be opened by a member of the electorate reading out a statement which would affirm our trust in our most recently elected [i]representative[/i][i]s[/i].

    I didn’t get far.

    I would be happy to send all the correspondence to anyone who might be interested.

    # 1314 2011-04-16 09:48
    The reason for representatives in italics above is that I have, long since, had little regard for politicians who, once elected, see themselves as being ‘in power’ and superior to the rest of us.

    We should, in a proper democracy, be able to ditch them at any time if sufficient numbers of us consider that they have abused the power that we, the electorate, have delegated to them.

    • Hi 1314,

      [quote]I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.[/quote]

      I’ve always been of the opinion that any oath taken by MSPs should not be to a monarch, but to the people – to serve the people to the utmost of their ability. Swearing an oath to a monarch infers that the monarch is superior to, and has suzerainty over, the people’s parliament.

    • Hi 1314,

      [quote]I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.[/quote]

      I’ve always been of the opinion that any oath taken by MSPs should not be to a monarch, but to the people – to serve the people to the utmost of their ability. Swearing an oath to a monarch infers that the monarch is superior to, and has suzerainty over, the people’s parliament.

    • Hi 1314,

      [quote]I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.[/quote]

      I’ve always been of the opinion that any oath taken by MSPs should not be to a monarch, but to the people – to serve the people to the utmost of their ability. Swearing an oath to a monarch infers that the monarch is superior to, and has suzerainty over, the people’s parliament.

    • Hi 1314,

      [quote]I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.[/quote]

      I’ve always been of the opinion that any oath taken by MSPs should not be to a monarch, but to the people – to serve the people to the utmost of their ability. Swearing an oath to a monarch infers that the monarch is superior to, and has suzerainty over, the people’s parliament.

    • Hi 1314,

      [quote]I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.[/quote]

      I’ve always been of the opinion that any oath taken by MSPs should not be to a monarch, but to the people – to serve the people to the utmost of their ability. Swearing an oath to a monarch infers that the monarch is superior to, and has suzerainty over, the people’s parliament.

    • Hi 1314,

      [quote]I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.[/quote]

      I’ve always been of the opinion that any oath taken by MSPs should not be to a monarch, but to the people – to serve the people to the utmost of their ability. Swearing an oath to a monarch infers that the monarch is superior to, and has suzerainty over, the people’s parliament.

    • Hi 1314,

      [quote]I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.[/quote]

      I’ve always been of the opinion that any oath taken by MSPs should not be to a monarch, but to the people – to serve the people to the utmost of their ability. Swearing an oath to a monarch infers that the monarch is superior to, and has suzerainty over, the people’s parliament.

  26. I posted this on the other site before I realised it [i]was[/i] the other site. Then found I couldn’t comment on this site till today. I daresay this is not the best time to try to communicate via Newsnet, but the offer stands.

    # 1314 2011-07-07 11:56
    [b]Good article Andrew[/b] –

    I posted the comments below (or similar) on at least two previous occasions but with zero response. Quite a number of people, in comments or articles in Newsnet, have expressed their opinion that the people are sovereign but nobody seems to be willing to put it to the test. My own minor effort got nowhere but at least I tried.

    How about you? I have another more radicle idea (i.e. not the one suggested below) – I would be happy to discuss this with you. I am assuming that Newsnet have my email address and will allow you to contact me. If necessary I can write in and give them permission.

    Should anybody think that the idea expressed below is of no importance, just think about the uproar it would cause and why even the SNP would not countenance such a move.

    # 1314 2011-04-16 09:26
    I wrote, some time ago, to George Reid in his position as Presiding Officer.

    I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.

    I also suggested that that instead of the oath taking by individual MSPs the parliamentary session should be opened by a member of the electorate reading out a statement which would affirm our trust in our most recently elected [i]representative[/i][i]s[/i].

    I didn’t get far.

    I would be happy to send all the correspondence to anyone who might be interested.

    # 1314 2011-04-16 09:48
    The reason for representatives in italics above is that I have, long since, had little regard for politicians who, once elected, see themselves as being ‘in power’ and superior to the rest of us.

    We should, in a proper democracy, be able to ditch them at any time if sufficient numbers of us consider that they have abused the power that we, the electorate, have delegated to them.

  27. I posted this on the other site before I realised it [i]was[/i] the other site. Then found I couldn’t comment on this site till today. I daresay this is not the best time to try to communicate via Newsnet, but the offer stands.

    # 1314 2011-07-07 11:56
    [b]Good article Andrew[/b] –

    I posted the comments below (or similar) on at least two previous occasions but with zero response. Quite a number of people, in comments or articles in Newsnet, have expressed their opinion that the people are sovereign but nobody seems to be willing to put it to the test. My own minor effort got nowhere but at least I tried.

    How about you? I have another more radicle idea (i.e. not the one suggested below) – I would be happy to discuss this with you. I am assuming that Newsnet have my email address and will allow you to contact me. If necessary I can write in and give them permission.

    Should anybody think that the idea expressed below is of no importance, just think about the uproar it would cause and why even the SNP would not countenance such a move.

    # 1314 2011-04-16 09:26
    I wrote, some time ago, to George Reid in his position as Presiding Officer.

    I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.

    I also suggested that that instead of the oath taking by individual MSPs the parliamentary session should be opened by a member of the electorate reading out a statement which would affirm our trust in our most recently elected [i]representative[/i][i]s[/i].

    I didn’t get far.

    I would be happy to send all the correspondence to anyone who might be interested.

    # 1314 2011-04-16 09:48
    The reason for representatives in italics above is that I have, long since, had little regard for politicians who, once elected, see themselves as being ‘in power’ and superior to the rest of us.

    We should, in a proper democracy, be able to ditch them at any time if sufficient numbers of us consider that they have abused the power that we, the electorate, have delegated to them.

  28. I posted this on the other site before I realised it [i]was[/i] the other site. Then found I couldn’t comment on this site till today. I daresay this is not the best time to try to communicate via Newsnet, but the offer stands.

    # 1314 2011-07-07 11:56
    [b]Good article Andrew[/b] –

    I posted the comments below (or similar) on at least two previous occasions but with zero response. Quite a number of people, in comments or articles in Newsnet, have expressed their opinion that the people are sovereign but nobody seems to be willing to put it to the test. My own minor effort got nowhere but at least I tried.

    How about you? I have another more radicle idea (i.e. not the one suggested below) – I would be happy to discuss this with you. I am assuming that Newsnet have my email address and will allow you to contact me. If necessary I can write in and give them permission.

    Should anybody think that the idea expressed below is of no importance, just think about the uproar it would cause and why even the SNP would not countenance such a move.

    # 1314 2011-04-16 09:26
    I wrote, some time ago, to George Reid in his position as Presiding Officer.

    I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.

    I also suggested that that instead of the oath taking by individual MSPs the parliamentary session should be opened by a member of the electorate reading out a statement which would affirm our trust in our most recently elected [i]representative[/i][i]s[/i].

    I didn’t get far.

    I would be happy to send all the correspondence to anyone who might be interested.

    # 1314 2011-04-16 09:48
    The reason for representatives in italics above is that I have, long since, had little regard for politicians who, once elected, see themselves as being ‘in power’ and superior to the rest of us.

    We should, in a proper democracy, be able to ditch them at any time if sufficient numbers of us consider that they have abused the power that we, the electorate, have delegated to them.

  29. I posted this on the other site before I realised it [i]was[/i] the other site. Then found I couldn’t comment on this site till today. I daresay this is not the best time to try to communicate via Newsnet, but the offer stands.

    # 1314 2011-07-07 11:56
    [b]Good article Andrew[/b] –

    I posted the comments below (or similar) on at least two previous occasions but with zero response. Quite a number of people, in comments or articles in Newsnet, have expressed their opinion that the people are sovereign but nobody seems to be willing to put it to the test. My own minor effort got nowhere but at least I tried.

    How about you? I have another more radicle idea (i.e. not the one suggested below) – I would be happy to discuss this with you. I am assuming that Newsnet have my email address and will allow you to contact me. If necessary I can write in and give them permission.

    Should anybody think that the idea expressed below is of no importance, just think about the uproar it would cause and why even the SNP would not countenance such a move.

    # 1314 2011-04-16 09:26
    I wrote, some time ago, to George Reid in his position as Presiding Officer.

    I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.

    I also suggested that that instead of the oath taking by individual MSPs the parliamentary session should be opened by a member of the electorate reading out a statement which would affirm our trust in our most recently elected [i]representative[/i][i]s[/i].

    I didn’t get far.

    I would be happy to send all the correspondence to anyone who might be interested.

    # 1314 2011-04-16 09:48
    The reason for representatives in italics above is that I have, long since, had little regard for politicians who, once elected, see themselves as being ‘in power’ and superior to the rest of us.

    We should, in a proper democracy, be able to ditch them at any time if sufficient numbers of us consider that they have abused the power that we, the electorate, have delegated to them.

  30. I posted this on the other site before I realised it [i]was[/i] the other site. Then found I couldn’t comment on this site till today. I daresay this is not the best time to try to communicate via Newsnet, but the offer stands.

    # 1314 2011-07-07 11:56
    [b]Good article Andrew[/b] –

    I posted the comments below (or similar) on at least two previous occasions but with zero response. Quite a number of people, in comments or articles in Newsnet, have expressed their opinion that the people are sovereign but nobody seems to be willing to put it to the test. My own minor effort got nowhere but at least I tried.

    How about you? I have another more radicle idea (i.e. not the one suggested below) – I would be happy to discuss this with you. I am assuming that Newsnet have my email address and will allow you to contact me. If necessary I can write in and give them permission.

    Should anybody think that the idea expressed below is of no importance, just think about the uproar it would cause and why even the SNP would not countenance such a move.

    # 1314 2011-04-16 09:26
    I wrote, some time ago, to George Reid in his position as Presiding Officer.

    I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should do away with the oath taking/swearing in ceremony on the grounds that the people are sovereign and, having been elected by the people as our representatives , there is no higher authority which can stop MSPs from taking their seats in parliament.

    I also suggested that that instead of the oath taking by individual MSPs the parliamentary session should be opened by a member of the electorate reading out a statement which would affirm our trust in our most recently elected [i]representative[/i][i]s[/i].

    I didn’t get far.

    I would be happy to send all the correspondence to anyone who might be interested.

    # 1314 2011-04-16 09:48
    The reason for representatives in italics above is that I have, long since, had little regard for politicians who, once elected, see themselves as being ‘in power’ and superior to the rest of us.

    We should, in a proper democracy, be able to ditch them at any time if sufficient numbers of us consider that they have abused the power that we, the electorate, have delegated to them.

  31. The most important facts affecting Scottish ambitions of independence are that Scottish Law remains independent and the people of Scotland are Sovereign.

    The linked fact that the people of Scotland retain the legal right to replace an under-performing monarch is the next most significant legal matter.

    In effect the Scottish government, with a mandate for independence from the people of Scotland, can legally go to the Scottish High Courts and sack the Wastemonster Members Of UK Parliament.

    After all the United Kingdom is a, “Constitutional Monarchy”, where the monarch’s powers have passed to, “The Commons”, and from the, “Declaration Of Arbroath”, “The people would stand loyal to [s]Bruce[/s] The Government, for as long as [s]he[/s]/they, chose to defend their liberty, but would drive [s]him[/s], them, out as an enemy and choose another [s]king[/s], Government, should [s]he[/s], they, surrender the defence”.

    Then, as English Law does not apply, we are home and dry.

  32. The most important facts affecting Scottish ambitions of independence are that Scottish Law remains independent and the people of Scotland are Sovereign.

    The linked fact that the people of Scotland retain the legal right to replace an under-performing monarch is the next most significant legal matter.

    In effect the Scottish government, with a mandate for independence from the people of Scotland, can legally go to the Scottish High Courts and sack the Wastemonster Members Of UK Parliament.

    After all the United Kingdom is a, “Constitutional Monarchy”, where the monarch’s powers have passed to, “The Commons”, and from the, “Declaration Of Arbroath”, “The people would stand loyal to [s]Bruce[/s] The Government, for as long as [s]he[/s]/they, chose to defend their liberty, but would drive [s]him[/s], them, out as an enemy and choose another [s]king[/s], Government, should [s]he[/s], they, surrender the defence”.

    Then, as English Law does not apply, we are home and dry.

  33. The most important facts affecting Scottish ambitions of independence are that Scottish Law remains independent and the people of Scotland are Sovereign.

    The linked fact that the people of Scotland retain the legal right to replace an under-performing monarch is the next most significant legal matter.

    In effect the Scottish government, with a mandate for independence from the people of Scotland, can legally go to the Scottish High Courts and sack the Wastemonster Members Of UK Parliament.

    After all the United Kingdom is a, “Constitutional Monarchy”, where the monarch’s powers have passed to, “The Commons”, and from the, “Declaration Of Arbroath”, “The people would stand loyal to [s]Bruce[/s] The Government, for as long as [s]he[/s]/they, chose to defend their liberty, but would drive [s]him[/s], them, out as an enemy and choose another [s]king[/s], Government, should [s]he[/s], they, surrender the defence”.

    Then, as English Law does not apply, we are home and dry.

  34. The most important facts affecting Scottish ambitions of independence are that Scottish Law remains independent and the people of Scotland are Sovereign.

    The linked fact that the people of Scotland retain the legal right to replace an under-performing monarch is the next most significant legal matter.

    In effect the Scottish government, with a mandate for independence from the people of Scotland, can legally go to the Scottish High Courts and sack the Wastemonster Members Of UK Parliament.

    After all the United Kingdom is a, “Constitutional Monarchy”, where the monarch’s powers have passed to, “The Commons”, and from the, “Declaration Of Arbroath”, “The people would stand loyal to [s]Bruce[/s] The Government, for as long as [s]he[/s]/they, chose to defend their liberty, but would drive [s]him[/s], them, out as an enemy and choose another [s]king[/s], Government, should [s]he[/s], they, surrender the defence”.

    Then, as English Law does not apply, we are home and dry.

  35. The most important facts affecting Scottish ambitions of independence are that Scottish Law remains independent and the people of Scotland are Sovereign.

    The linked fact that the people of Scotland retain the legal right to replace an under-performing monarch is the next most significant legal matter.

    In effect the Scottish government, with a mandate for independence from the people of Scotland, can legally go to the Scottish High Courts and sack the Wastemonster Members Of UK Parliament.

    After all the United Kingdom is a, “Constitutional Monarchy”, where the monarch’s powers have passed to, “The Commons”, and from the, “Declaration Of Arbroath”, “The people would stand loyal to [s]Bruce[/s] The Government, for as long as [s]he[/s]/they, chose to defend their liberty, but would drive [s]him[/s], them, out as an enemy and choose another [s]king[/s], Government, should [s]he[/s], they, surrender the defence”.

    Then, as English Law does not apply, we are home and dry.

  36. The most important facts affecting Scottish ambitions of independence are that Scottish Law remains independent and the people of Scotland are Sovereign.

    The linked fact that the people of Scotland retain the legal right to replace an under-performing monarch is the next most significant legal matter.

    In effect the Scottish government, with a mandate for independence from the people of Scotland, can legally go to the Scottish High Courts and sack the Wastemonster Members Of UK Parliament.

    After all the United Kingdom is a, “Constitutional Monarchy”, where the monarch’s powers have passed to, “The Commons”, and from the, “Declaration Of Arbroath”, “The people would stand loyal to [s]Bruce[/s] The Government, for as long as [s]he[/s]/they, chose to defend their liberty, but would drive [s]him[/s], them, out as an enemy and choose another [s]king[/s], Government, should [s]he[/s], they, surrender the defence”.

    Then, as English Law does not apply, we are home and dry.

  37. The most important facts affecting Scottish ambitions of independence are that Scottish Law remains independent and the people of Scotland are Sovereign.

    The linked fact that the people of Scotland retain the legal right to replace an under-performing monarch is the next most significant legal matter.

    In effect the Scottish government, with a mandate for independence from the people of Scotland, can legally go to the Scottish High Courts and sack the Wastemonster Members Of UK Parliament.

    After all the United Kingdom is a, “Constitutional Monarchy”, where the monarch’s powers have passed to, “The Commons”, and from the, “Declaration Of Arbroath”, “The people would stand loyal to [s]Bruce[/s] The Government, for as long as [s]he[/s]/they, chose to defend their liberty, but would drive [s]him[/s], them, out as an enemy and choose another [s]king[/s], Government, should [s]he[/s], they, surrender the defence”.

    Then, as English Law does not apply, we are home and dry.

  38. I may be corrected about this but I think my memory of scottish history is that Queen Anne the cousin of William III/II after his death was the ruling monarch. She was the one who negotiated the right of accession taking away the rights of the scottish people to crown their monarch.
    I would certainly think that the scots people should have the right to decide. However I also think that monarchy is a an out dated institution Scotland shouldnt pay for, or have.
    I dont see why scotland should mirror any of the european countries by having a monarchy or a president. As said by a previous poster 1314. If the MSP/Representative has embarrassed themselves, then the people should have the right to fire them. I also think the MSP should be barred for a number of years from holding public office. Im one of these people that believes that you should give the deserving a 2nd chance.
    As Nelson Mandela has said:-
    “A saint is a sinner who tries harder” We scots need to stop knocking our own people and recognise that everyone has flaws. Keep talking Scotland up. We know how good Oor wee country is, our people are that good too, they are human sometimes they err.

    Alba gu brath…

  39. I may be corrected about this but I think my memory of scottish history is that Queen Anne the cousin of William III/II after his death was the ruling monarch. She was the one who negotiated the right of accession taking away the rights of the scottish people to crown their monarch.
    I would certainly think that the scots people should have the right to decide. However I also think that monarchy is a an out dated institution Scotland shouldnt pay for, or have.
    I dont see why scotland should mirror any of the european countries by having a monarchy or a president. As said by a previous poster 1314. If the MSP/Representative has embarrassed themselves, then the people should have the right to fire them. I also think the MSP should be barred for a number of years from holding public office. Im one of these people that believes that you should give the deserving a 2nd chance.
    As Nelson Mandela has said:-
    “A saint is a sinner who tries harder” We scots need to stop knocking our own people and recognise that everyone has flaws. Keep talking Scotland up. We know how good Oor wee country is, our people are that good too, they are human sometimes they err.

    Alba gu brath…

  40. I may be corrected about this but I think my memory of scottish history is that Queen Anne the cousin of William III/II after his death was the ruling monarch. She was the one who negotiated the right of accession taking away the rights of the scottish people to crown their monarch.
    I would certainly think that the scots people should have the right to decide. However I also think that monarchy is a an out dated institution Scotland shouldnt pay for, or have.
    I dont see why scotland should mirror any of the european countries by having a monarchy or a president. As said by a previous poster 1314. If the MSP/Representative has embarrassed themselves, then the people should have the right to fire them. I also think the MSP should be barred for a number of years from holding public office. Im one of these people that believes that you should give the deserving a 2nd chance.
    As Nelson Mandela has said:-
    “A saint is a sinner who tries harder” We scots need to stop knocking our own people and recognise that everyone has flaws. Keep talking Scotland up. We know how good Oor wee country is, our people are that good too, they are human sometimes they err.

    Alba gu brath…

  41. I may be corrected about this but I think my memory of scottish history is that Queen Anne the cousin of William III/II after his death was the ruling monarch. She was the one who negotiated the right of accession taking away the rights of the scottish people to crown their monarch.
    I would certainly think that the scots people should have the right to decide. However I also think that monarchy is a an out dated institution Scotland shouldnt pay for, or have.
    I dont see why scotland should mirror any of the european countries by having a monarchy or a president. As said by a previous poster 1314. If the MSP/Representative has embarrassed themselves, then the people should have the right to fire them. I also think the MSP should be barred for a number of years from holding public office. Im one of these people that believes that you should give the deserving a 2nd chance.
    As Nelson Mandela has said:-
    “A saint is a sinner who tries harder” We scots need to stop knocking our own people and recognise that everyone has flaws. Keep talking Scotland up. We know how good Oor wee country is, our people are that good too, they are human sometimes they err.

    Alba gu brath…

  42. I may be corrected about this but I think my memory of scottish history is that Queen Anne the cousin of William III/II after his death was the ruling monarch. She was the one who negotiated the right of accession taking away the rights of the scottish people to crown their monarch.
    I would certainly think that the scots people should have the right to decide. However I also think that monarchy is a an out dated institution Scotland shouldnt pay for, or have.
    I dont see why scotland should mirror any of the european countries by having a monarchy or a president. As said by a previous poster 1314. If the MSP/Representative has embarrassed themselves, then the people should have the right to fire them. I also think the MSP should be barred for a number of years from holding public office. Im one of these people that believes that you should give the deserving a 2nd chance.
    As Nelson Mandela has said:-
    “A saint is a sinner who tries harder” We scots need to stop knocking our own people and recognise that everyone has flaws. Keep talking Scotland up. We know how good Oor wee country is, our people are that good too, they are human sometimes they err.

    Alba gu brath…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here