46 thoughts on “The Plan or Delay?”

• Scotland would not be seceding. It is not seeking to break from a parent state. It vwould be restoring it’s status quo ante – it’s prior treaty status – that being its former full independent sovereign statehood.

  Alternatives to party political routes are not foolish initiatives or silver bullets. They are constitutional and apply recognised international law . What is foolish is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

  The SNP have had 12 years to get their act together and instead of advancing independence or outright denouncing the treaty due to sustained material bfeaches, Scotland is further away than ever before. Not because the people don’t want it. They do. But because party before country is the default position.

  Scotland is literally about to have its constitutional existence erased via the English “UK Written constitution” . A fundamental material breach of the treaty and a violation of international and Scots law. Not one of Scotland’s MPs or MSPs is pointing out what having a “UK written constitution” actually means for Scots. That you cannot have a Scottish constitution and Scots sovereignty under a UK constitutional framework. That Scots law itself is under threat by attempting to actively replace it with a singular constitution drawn up and enacted by England. Even if Scot gov signed off on it it would be via the ultimate display of constitutional abdication with Scot gov acting under English statute not as the sovereign authority of Scotland. It would turn Scotland into an English region with a perpetual English veto over Scotland and it’s people. The only thing Scot gov have said with regard to the written constitution is, “Will it include an exit clause?” That tells you everything you need to know about our captured delegates and their administration.

  Seeking these same people, who have consistently capitulated to English parliamentary overreach and violations to Scotland’s territorial, economic and constitutional sovereign authority, to find a backbone and actually assert Scotland’s authority is beyond ludicrous.

  This push by SNP members may be meant with good intentions but it comes across as a desperate attempt to save the party as it spirals into free fall.

  I may not agree with every route taken but I applaud those who are doing something especially when it is not relying on a party political system that has been shown to have failed repeatedly. What Scotland needs are what you deem to be “foolish initiatives and silver bullet” alternatives because more of the same is not only not cutting it but actively seeing the extinguishment of Scotland.

  Reply

  • Tell me which nations that have secedded from London that didn’t use the ballo box or the barrel of the gun?
    Name the country that was ‘given’ its independence from a court or institution?
    You say, “It is not seeking to break from a parent state. It vwould be restoring it’s status quo ante – it’s prior treaty status – that being its former full independent sovereign statehood.
    Who decides that,how do we arrive at thatdestination? The courts? The UN? The EU? The Supremme Court? The ICJ where and how does this happen?
    I repeat only two ways the ballot box or the gun.

    Reply

    • Again, Scotland would not be seceding. Scotland entered an international treaty as a sovereign independent nation state with its full legal personality intact. Treaty breaches are dealt with via international law. So your question regarding secession is completely irrelevant.

      States party to a treaty do not ask to be “given” their independence. They already are. They formally denounce the treaty and restore their full sovereign statehood.

      This is the problem with Scotland. It is acting as though it requires permission to do what it already has the constitutionally lawful and legal right to do. End an international contract.

      I often hear and see folk ask “who does England ask if it wants to leave?” with folk rightfully pointing out it needs no-ones approval. It beggars belief that when the same is applied to Scotland suddenly it changes to Scots must act like circus animals and jump through every conceivable loop imaginable. The truth is Scotland already possesses all the authority it needs. It is a sovereign nation state and equal peer in a bilateral international treaty not an English region breaking away from England. As such it only needs to formally denounce the treaty. It can cite a multitude of reasons from constitutional overreach, economic vandalism, unjust enrichment to territorial theft and contamination and everything in between. Or it can simply state that after 319 years it isn’t working due to fundamental material breaches that began just 6 months after the treaty’s signing and continuing through to the present.

      The problem here is that Scottish government itself is compromised and constitutionally abdicating. As such it is up to the people to assert their sovereign authority. That authority rests with the people not the monarch, it’s commissioners, Parliament nor institutions.

      The other week you claimed there was only one route. Today you cite 2. Neither of which is required when a bilateral treaty has been fundamentally, materially and continuously breached. Bad faith has been proven repeatedly. The SNP Scot government don’t want to end the union. That is why they continually ignore the people or outright deny it when they get an almost unanimous mandate to end the treaty as the 56/59 MPs AND majority administration proved.

      While you cite ballot or violence there are others taking an international route where the sovereign authority of the people, the constitutional authority they possess is exercised.

      Just because it is not your preferred method does not make it any less valid.

      Reply

      • I ask again,who enforces it and in which jurisdiction?

        Reply

        • WHO:

          The full power rests with the sovereign people’s of Scotland and is exercised either through their government MP delegates who are imbued with SUPREME AUTHORITY as their delegated plenopitentiary or directly via international channels if their government constitutionally abdicates as that authority reverts back to its source, the people. In this way, you have 2 routes, either gov delegates assert their authority and directly denounce or hold a plebiscite which merely acts as a vote of confidence but not actually required, or the black letter law route where the people themselves use international law to establish legal standing for the exercise of their authority.

          How: Step 1

          Route 1- Government acts as delegated plenopitentiary (VCLT Art 60)

          1. Formally denounces the treaty citing breach of treaty, bad faith and irreconcilable differences. (Status – Continuator state – status quo ante)

          2. Assumes inferior status and seeks permission to leave. (Status – region seceding)

          Route 2 – Petition international organisations and or courts.

          1. Direct petition upholding Scots true legal status as a sovereign independent nation state in a bilateral treaty and legally equal peer. (Status – status quo ante)

          This holds England fully accountable and LIABLE for its multi-trillion-pound debt to Scotland due to 3 centuries of treaty breaches which includes financial, territorial and military siphoning and unnegotiated violations. (ILC Articles on State Responsibility )

          2. Seeking a diminished inferior status. (colony/dependent territory) (Status – seceding region)

          This allows England to walk away from the treaty with clean hands and the 3 centuries of siphoning and violations relabelled as mere internal expenditure. As an inferior status holder Scotland would seek permission to leave rather than exercise it’s sovereign authority.

          Step 2

          Route 1 – Lodges official notice of treaty termination with foreign embassies, organisations, banks, license holders etc (puts everyone on notice) (TIMEFRAME – Immediate)

          Step 3

          Sets up escrow for revenues while reestablishing the Scottish Mint, Treasury and Exchange. Pegs current currency 1:1 to ensure continuity during this phase. (TIMEFRAME 6-12 months)

          Third party state acknowledgement. Scotland takes seat in international arena as a fully reinstated Sovereign independent nation state.

          Route 2 – After petition review and findings declared

          1. Acts as direct plenopitentiary

          – Convention of the Realm signs formal notice and delivers to English government (and Scottish government delegates at Parliament of GB) and international embassies and organisations citing legal grounding. Follows steps above.

          [STEP 1: FORMAL DENUNCIATION / PETITION]
          │
          ▼
          [STEP 2: GLOBAL NOTICE & TITLE CLOUDING]
          • Service of Process to UN Depository, Foreign Embassies, & Global Exchanges.
          • Puts all North Sea energy operators & bond markets on notice of DEFECTIVE TITLE (*ex injuria jus non oritur*).
          │
          ▼
          [STEP 3: FINANCIAL & INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL]
          • Redirection of corporate taxes, energy royalties, & duties into a Scottish Escrow Account.
          • Re-establishment of native Treasury, Mint, & Exchange (6–12 Month Transition).
          • Currency pegged 1:1 for absolute market continuity.
          │
          ▼
          [FINAL OUTCOME: THIRD-PARTY REALIGNMENT]
          • Foreign nations sign direct bilateral trade, energy, & maritime agreements with the true reconvened Scottish Parliament deriving authority from the 1689 Claim of Right.
          • Re-assertion of unbroken State Continuity

      • At the moment, even if what you say is true and the so-called Scottish Government could just assert its sovereign authority (which it actually doesn’t have) and attempt to resile from the treaty, that would be totally ineffective unless a substantial majority of the Scottish people (not just the MPs) were prepared to go along with it. Otherwise it would just be ignored; the powers that be, courts, banks, police, local authorities, major retailers, would just carry on before as if nothing had happened. It would be ignored internationally. Westminster would continue to control the purse strings and nothing would change except that there might be some serious discussions about the future of the Scottish Government.

        And Roddy is right – far and away the best way to achieve independence is to show that a substantial majority of voters support it. At present I think it’s fair to say that less than 50% of voters living in Scotland support independence. I know that polls currently put the figure at a little over 50%, but that’s when don’t knows are excluded, and in my experience don’t knows, if pressed, will all too often just accept the status quo rather than any risky change. And as I think we all agree, the SNP, the so-called party of independence, is doing very little indeed to convince voters that independence is not just desirable but necessary. And of course the established internationally accepted way of showing the will of the people is by a genuine democratic referendum and the ballot box. If that right is denied, then a plebiscite election might be considered but I fear that its result, even if favourable, would be ignored by Westminster. And of course we all know what can all too easily happen if the democratic route is denied.

        There’s one other method I haven’t seen mentioned and that’s if the UK tried to rejoin the EU, the members of which are by and large sympathetic to Scotland’s case. Back in 2006 Montenegro held a referendum to secede from Serbia. Serbia had initially refused to permit a referendum but was also hopeful of joining the EU and that body had made it plain that if it wanted to do that it would have to permit an independence vote. The result was in doubt from the start particularly as the EU had insisted on a success threshold of 55% for independence. In the event the threshold was just reached with 55.5% voting in favour of independence, and this was accepted both by Serbia (reluctantly) and by Montenegro’s own Yoons. So may be if (when?) the UK applies to rejoin the EU, Scotland could insist on something similar to Montenegro’s case.

        Reply

        • This argument relies on three major legal and commercial fallacies:
          ​1. ‘Banks and markets would ignore it’:
          Capital markets and global corporations do not ignore law—they run on legal risk. The moment an Instrument of Denunciation (VCLT Article 60) is served internationally, every North Sea energy lease and treasury bond issued by England over Scottish territory carries an uninsurable defective legal title (ex injuria jus non oritur). Banks and energy giants will not risk billions under clouded title.
          ​2. ‘You need an English-approved referendum first’:
          You even admit that England would ignore a plebiscite! That proves the trap. Under international law, a state party enforcing a defaulted contract does not ask the defaulting party for permission to terminate it. The vote of confidence is optional; the sovereign authority under the Claim of Right 1689 is permanent.
          ​3. The ‘Montenegro/EU’ Fantasy:
          Montenegro had a specific constitutional exit clause under the 2003 Belgrade Agreement. Scotland is an unbroken sovereign state party to a 1707 international treaty. Waiting around for the England acting as UK to rejoin the EU so we can beg foreign diplomats to force England’s hand is the ultimate expression of colonial submission.
          ​
          Scotland is not a passive province hoping for a referee. It is an equal state party enforcing a defaulted treaty.

    • The leadership will water down and replace the draft resolution with John Swinney secret plan.

      The SNP leadership wants Holyrood and the Yes movement wants Independence here lies or problem.

      Reply

    • I would caution against framing things as either/or, Roddy.

      I agree, ultimately, it will almost certainly be some kind of ” ballot box ” decision that will lead to the restoration of our autonomy, ie there will have to be some clear demonstration of majority support for Independence. Though surely the work of Gayle, Salvo, Liberation in bringing to – raising – Scottish public awareness of the full implications, eg conditions, rights, obligations etc of the T.O.U – and, crucially, the many breaches of the latter – can play a vital part in achieving victory in any future electoral event.

      For this reason, I believe there should be just as much emphasis given to these – not alternative, but supplementary, ” lines of attack ” as the more overtly/ conventionally political ones.

      As Gayle, says, the lack of even the most meagre references to the historical factors that have kept Scotland, effectively, imprisoned in this dysfunctional * Union * by successive SNP incarnations is one of the gravest failures of the latter.

      I also agree with Gayle, that many Scots ARE interested in this aspect of our * condition *, and that many more would be greatly interested if only they had leaders and prominent, influential commentators doing the work of A) educating themselves about these aspects and B) bring that information to the people who will ultimately be making Independence a reality. She’s also right about the grave threat from these recent burblings about a * new * ( ie first ever ) ‘ U.K ‘ Constitution.

      One thing we can be absolutely certain of is that if this idea gets enacted it will be solely in the interests of England-as-UK/Britain and must be resisted at all costs and by ” whatever means necessary “; if not, the only possible route to our Liberation WILL be by the gun. And frankly, as things stand, I can’t see that ever happening: ergo, we can forget about ever restoring our Independent Nationhood

      But sur

      Reply

      • * that ” but sur ” is part of an abandoned sentence I meant to erase

        Reply

• We are agreed that there needs to be a democratic event.
  We are agreed that electoral events come round regularly, so are hard to boycott.
  We are agreed that we should use the ballot box, because without that the alternative is the bomb, the bullet and the gun.
  If the next election upcoming election were to be attempted to be framed as a plebescite, a demonstration of the will of those who voted, the question then naturally arises:
  What Next?

  THAT is the important question. What happens Next?
  HOW do we get from that (assumed) electoral ‘win’ to restoration of Scotlands ancient sovereignty?

  When people vote, they vote for the proposal(s) in front of them.
  What is the proposal? What is the plan?
  What next?

  Reply

• ​Why the Holyrood Administration Avoids the Continuator State Path

  ​1. The Comfort of the Devolution Industry

  ​Decades inside the Scotland Act 1998 framework have created a comfortable political economy.

  Operating as a devolved administration provides substantial salaries, pensions, and titles without the heavy geopolitical responsibility of statecraft.

  ​Asking England for a referendum creates an infinite loop: campaign, lose or get refused, ask for a mandate, repeat.

  ​Enforcing VCLT Article 60 requires immediate, high-stakes international confrontation—something a risk-averse political class is desperate to avoid.

  ​2. Institutional Capture & The Statutory Mindset

  ​The administration at Holyrood views itself through the lens of English statutory law. Because they treat the Scotland Act as their birth certificate rather than an administrative convenience, they have conditioned themselves to believe that England’s permission is legally required for everything. They are mentally trapped inside the system they claim to oppose.

  ​3. Fear of Confronting the Multi-Trillion Restitution Claim

  ​Asserting State Continuity (status quo ante) means demanding full financial accountability under the ILC Articles on State Responsibility.

  ​Taking England to task for 300+ years of siphoned oil revenues, land conversions, and tax surpluses requires playing hardball on the international stage.

  ​The political class prefers a “polite administrative separation” where past debts are quietly forgiven, rather than doing the hard legal work of auditing three centuries of defaulting state liability.

  ​4. The Loss of Political Control

  ​Invoking the Claim of Right 1689 shifts power away from political parties and back to the Sovereign Principal: The People of Scotland.

  ​If a Convention of the Realm or a convened sovereign assembly takes the lead, party bosses lose their monopoly over the independence movement.

  ​By insisting that independence can only happen through their party winning domestic elections within England’s rules, they protect their own gatekeeping authority.

  ​Once you dismantle the standard economic scare stories—resolving currency via a native Treasury 1:1 peg and resolving national debt via ILC State Responsibility—only one question remains:

  ​Why isn’t the Scottish Government taking the Continuator State path?
  ​The answer is institutional capture. For 25 years, Holyrood has operated inside an English statutory cage (Scotland Act 1998). It is far easier for captured delegates to manage devolution, collect salaries, and beg England for a permission slip than it is to step onto the international stage, invoke VCLT Article 60, and demand full financial restitution for three centuries of treaty breaches.

  ​They aren’t ignoring the Continuator State path because it’s invalid—they are ignoring it because it exposes their own compliance.

  Reply

  • Gayle

    I have read this post and the comments with great interest, having had my attention drawn to it by a couple of commenters on my own blog at peterabell.scot. I don’t know if you are aware, but for several years now I have been advocating a strategy I call #ScottishUDI. Much of what you write seems to gibe rather nicely with this strategy. The point on which I think we part company – but where I find myself in agreement with others commenting here – is that I am firmly persuaded that there must be a referendum. The question is not whether there should be a referendum but what kind of referendum it is and at what point in the process it takes place.

    Where I disagree with a great many people, including some commenting here, is the idea of a de facto referendum on independence. I disagree for a number of reasons which all boil down to the fact that it simply won’t work, and when it fails, it fails disastrously. An election pretending to be a referendum can never be conclusive enough to settle a matter as momentous as restoring Scotland’s independence. A Yes result will always be contested, and a de facto referendum leaves far too strong grounds on which to mount such a challenge. A No result, on the other hand, will be portrayed as decisive and final.

    I don’t know what the character limit is here, so I won’t get into a long explanation of how your thinking coincides with my own. I shall simply say that, like myself, you decline to put Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue. Unfortunately, our political leaders do. And so does the largest part of the independence movement, even if they would protest that they do not. The mindset with which the constitutional issue is being approached is just plain wrong.

    Reading your comments, it is clear that you are very well informed regarding the legal aspects of Scotland’s cause. With respect, however, I don’t think you have quite such a good handle on the political and psychological aspects. As with the UN initiative, I see your approach as augmenting or complementing the #ScottishUDI strategy. I don’t think it overly controversial to say that your legalistic arguments will not play well with the electorate. In fact, they will not play at all. The legalities of the process are important. But it doesn’t work as the basis of a campaign. It’s background stuff.

    I feel an exchange of ideas might be fruitful. If you agree, I can be contacted through my Substack or by emailing contact@peterabell.scot.

    Reply

    • Nice yin, P.

      I think this is an almost irrefutable – albeit untestable in the absence of such a scenario arising…….

      ” A Yes result will always be contested, and a de facto referendum leaves far too strong grounds on which to mount such a challenge. A No result, on the other hand, will be portrayed as decisive and final.”

      Realism re just how urgently the Brit State wants/needs to prevent Scottish Independence – those needs/wants being existential, and knowledge of the ” perfidiousness ” of Albion, even when it’s compelled by external forces to relinquish it’s grip on it’s ” possessions “, eg in the instance of U.S pressure to accede to Indian Independence, means we MUST assume EaB would contest even a Referendum they might sanction ( granted THAT scenario is just about impossible to imagine, why would they? ) how much easier would it be for them to contest – actually, I don’ t think they’d even bother contesting anything, they’d simply ignore it – a S.E/G.E-as- Plebiscite?

      I hope Gayle and yourself can have a productive exchange of thoughts/ideas. Likewise with Roddy, and all the genuine fighters for our Liberty. I have the sense that we’re not maximizing our potential because of degrees of isolation within that genuine demographic.

      Reply

    • ​Hi Peter,

      ​Thank you for your comment.
      ​Our views align in a number of ways, especially regarding upholding the Scottish constitution and sovereign authority. While you are pursuing Scottish UDI, I have formally lodged an urgent appeal petition with a dossier which includes executable remedy with the UN under VCLT Article 60 and await their response.
      ​This initiative is not mere theory or background philosophy. The petition formally invokes the 1707 Treaty’s own terms to enforce its termination, upholding Scotland’s unbroken statehood and demanding its immediate recognition by the international community.
      ​The time for waiting and hoping the Scottish delegates sitting in the State Parliament uphold and exercise their Scottish constitutional duty is long past. Scotland faces an existential crisis with immediate threat due to England drawing up an unnegotiated “UK written constitution” that will extinguish the legal personality of Scotland by replacing the Scottish constitution, sovereign authority, and laws. Immediate action was and is essential to protect and preserve the sovereign state of Scotland from unmitigated extinguishment.
      ​England is attempting to finalise its systemic erasure of Scotland’s statehood which began in 1707 with the unnegotiated unilateral imposition of simple majority voting on the State Parliament.
      ​The lodged dossier chronologically exposes the foundational material breaches and puts global capitals and markets on formal notice. By invoking VCLT Article 60 and ex injuria jus non oritur, it upholds Scotland’s true status as a sovereign independent nation state and legally equal peer in a bilateral treaty, clouds defective legal title over North Sea energy licenses, tax capture, and debt issued under England’s sole custody, and establishes the grounds for Scottish revenue interception via escrow accounts.
      ​The UN dossier provides the international shield, commercial leverage, and state-to-state standing; physical execution provides the force on the ground to restore our status quo ante.
      ​I would welcome an exchange of ideas—let’s connect via email.

      Reply

      • Doesn’t the VCLT only apply to treaties entered into after it came into force? (Art. 4)

        Reply

        • Hi Graz,

          ​Short answer: No.

          ​Article 4 explicitly states that its non-retroactivity rule applies “without prejudice to the application of any rules… to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention.”

          ​As the International Court of Justice has repeatedly affirmed (e.g., Namibia, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros), Article 60 is a codification of pre-existing Customary International Law (adimplenti non est adimplendum). Because it is customary law, the rule on material breach applies to the 1707 Treaty independent of the 1969 text, as well as to the ongoing, present-day execution of those breaches.

  • ” They aren’t ignoring the Continuator State path because it’s invalid—they are ignoring it because it exposes their own compliance.”

    This is clearly the truth. I’d only add to your list, above, the infiltration of intentionally divisive, diverting ( ie from the SNP’s historic mission ) * Gender * Agenda + ever-more obscurantist Identity Politics navel-gazing: which have usurped any other issue to become the main focus of that hopelessly – and deliberately – screw-up entity

    Reply

    • Oh, I fully agree, Hugh. They have lost all sense of what their actual purpose was.

      Reply

• Supplementary Comment:

  Dismantling the Economic Fallacies (Deficit, Debt & Cross-Border Trade)

  ​Since economic concerns are routinely raised to bypass black-letter law, it is vital to demonstrate how State Continuity (status quo ante) under VCLT Article 60 completely reverses the standard unionist economic narrative:

  ​1. Addressing the “Deficit Black Hole” and GERS

  ​The claim that because the Scottish Government uses GERS figures they must be valid is a complete non-sequitur:

  ​It Measures English Apportionment, Not Scottish Reality: GERS does not track what Scotland produces, receives, or spends. Because England exercises unlawful sole custody over the shared Treasury, GERS merely records what English departments choose to attribute to Scotland using population formulas, estimated tax allocations, and English central overheads.

  ​Compliance with an Illicit Trespass: The Holyrood administration’s first and only lawful constitutional duty is to the sovereign state delegates and the Sovereign People of Scotland under the Claim of Right 1689. Operating under the English Scotland Act 1998 and publishing its custodian’s accounting estimates is not a “legitimate duty”—it is compliance with an unnegotiated, illicit English statutory trespass.

  ​Definitive Evidence of Institutional Capture: The Scottish Government’s passive acceptance of these English estimates proves how deeply captured the Holyrood administration is. Instead of rejecting England’s unilateral accounting assumptions and auditing true Scottish wealth and resource extractions under public international law (VCLT Article 60), they choose to comply with the trespasser’s rules.

  ​2. Zero Sovereign Debt

  ​Scotland entered the Union debt-free in 1707 and has held zero authority under English governance to issue sovereign national debt. Under public international law (Vienna Convention on State Succession) and the Treasury’s own 2014 legal declaration, all debt belongs legally to the issuing authority—the Kingdom of England, which has exercised sole custody over the shared state accounts. Attempting to saddle Scotland with England’s debt while ignoring three centuries of siphoned wealth is legally baseline invalid (ex injuria jus non oritur).

  ​3. Cross-Border Trade Reality

  ​The “trade barrier” scare assumes Scotland is a landlocked province begging for market access. In reality, England is structurally dependent on Scottish electricity, gas, fresh water, and food exports. International trade law (GATT Article V) guarantees Freedom of Transit, and UNCLOS protects maritime corridors. England cannot impose trade barriers without plunging its own industrial grid into darkness and violating international law.

  And since inevitably Defence will be raised,

  ​4. Defense, Territorial Waters, and Geopolitical Reality

  ​Unlawful Custody of Shared Military Assets: Just as with the Treasury, the military infrastructure, naval fleets, bases, and weaponry built over 300+ years are shared assets created by the joint state. England’s unilateral control of these forces is an unlawful sole custody. Under ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Scotland is owed its proportionate share of physical military assets or financial compensation for their retention.

  ​Geopolitical & Maritime Control (GIUK Gap): Scotland holds the most critical maritime choke point in the North Atlantic: the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) Gap. NATO and global allies cannot secure the North Atlantic or protect underwater energy and telecommunication infrastructure without access to Scottish waters, deep-water ports, and airspace (such as RAF Lossiemouth and HMNB Clyde). Scotland does not beg NATO or foreign allies for defense—foreign allies rely on Scottish territory for North Atlantic security.

  ​Faslane & Nuclear Disarmament Leverage: England’s entire strategic nuclear deterrent (Trident) is stationed at Faslane/Coulport in Scottish sovereign waters. Trident cannot simply be “moved” to England—there is no alternative deep-water facility ready in England, and building one would take decades and hundreds of billions of pounds.
  ​Under VCLT Article 60, Scotland holds immediate legal title over its territory and maritime domain.
  ​Faslane becomes Scotland’s ultimate geopolitical bargaining chip. Scotland can demand immediate, safe decommissioning alongside multi-trillion-pound financial restitution, or charge exorbitant lease terms during a strictly timed phase-out period.

  ​Shipbuilding and Military Manufacturing: The claim that Scottish yards (e.g., on the Clyde) would collapse without English defense contracts ignores global commercial realities. English naval shipbuilding is already severely constrained by capacity. More importantly, an independent Scottish defense procurement strategy—focused on maritime patrol vessels, air defense, coastal security, and cyber infrastructure—would directly fund and sustain native Scottish shipyards and defense industries without relying on English procurement whims.

  Reply

  • Great posts Gayle. 🙂

    For the benefit of all who may be interested in the background detail I shall post here links that I used to read up on those international law references.

    “VCLT Article 60”

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 60

    https://trans-lex.org/500600/_/vienna-convention-on-the-law-of-treaties-of-1969/#head_16

    Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Succession_of_States_in_respect_of_Treaties

    “ex injuria jus non oritur”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_injuria_jus_non_oritur

    “GATT Article V”

    The General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade

    Article V Freedom of Transit

    https://www.marxists.org/history/capitalism/gatt/ch05.htm

    “UNCLOS”

    United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

    Reply

    • Thank you for adding the links.

      For accuracy regarding the legal framework:

      ​Binding Text vs. Drafts: The final ratified text of VCLT Article 60 represents the established codification of customary international law governing treaty termination, as confirmed by the International Court of Justice (Namibia 1971; Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros 1997). Preliminary draft notes do not supersede the final convention text or customary practice.

      ​Article 60 vs. Article 62: Article 62 (Rebus Sic Stantibus) addresses passive, unforeseen shifts in external circumstances. The UN petition relies strictly on Article 60 (Material Breach), which applies to deliberate structural breaches of a treaty by a contracting state party. Additionally, Article 62(2)(b) specifies that a party cannot rely on changed circumstances resulting from its own breach.

      ​Ex Injuria Jus Non Oritur: While ex factis jus oritur acknowledges de facto administrative control, public international law maintains that an unlawful act cannot generate valid legal title (ex injuria jus non oritur). Unilateral statutory overlays do not extinguish the underlying sovereign legal personality of a treaty partner.

      Reply

• Well said Gayle.

  and a reference for the
  “ILC Articles on State Responsibility”

  ILC (International Law Commission) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts

  https://jusmundi.com/en/document/rule/en-ilc-draft-articles-on-responsibility-of-states-for-internationally-wrongful-acts-ilc-draft-articles-on-responsibility-of-states-for-internationally-wrongful-acts

  Reply

• In reply to Gayle, all these initiatives are good, and thanks for the hard work.

  But in no particular order, firstly the VCLT of 1969 is not retroactive:

  https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

  “Article 4
  Non-retroactivity of the present Convention
  Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.”

  It can not be used directly, therefore, even though the UK signed and ratified, but in the right circumstances could be considered as good practice – similar to the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts 1983 – which is not in force, and which the UK has neither signed nor ratified; it can still be quoted and even observed – in the right circumstances.

  Secondly “… when they get an almost unanimous mandate to end the treaty as the 56/59 MPs AND majority administration proved.”

  But they didn’t get any such mandate. They did not stand on that manifesto, they stood on “STRONGER
  FOR SCOTLAND”

  https://web.archive.org/web/20150518172922/http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf

  “Everyone agrees Westminster needs to change. The SNP is ready to play a constructive role, to challenge the old order with new and progressive ideas. It’s time to put fairness and equality back at the heart of government. With a strong SNP team at Westminster we can use our influence to end the needless pain of Tory cuts. And we can campaign to secure more money for health, education and childcare. Here are our key priorities to make Scotland
  stronger at Westminster: etc etc etc“.

  Nothing about Independence, or the treaty, or UDI. Therefore they had no democratic remit from the Sovereign People of Scotland for anything but “Scotland stronger at Westminster”.

  Reply

  • Aye.
    This was the reality of the Sturgeon era.

    And even more explicitly than that, before that Westminster election Nicola Sturgeon said that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence!

    And here we are after 10 wasted years.
    Some people still think the sun shines out of her arse and that John Swinney is not a deceitful devolutionist. 🙁

    Reply

• Thank you for the detailed reply. You raise two important points, but both rest on misinterpretations—one of international law, and one of constitutional mandate.

  ​1. The VCLT and Customary International Law (Codification vs. Creation)

  ​Citing VCLT Article 4 on non-retroactivity is a standard domestic legal defense, but under public international law, it misses the fundamental operation of the 1969 Convention:

  ​Codification of Existing Customary Law: The preamble of Article 4 explicitly includes the saving clause: “Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention…”

  ​Customary Status of Article 60: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) explicitly ruled in the landmark Namibia Advisory Opinion (1971) and the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project Case (1997) that Article 60 (Material Breach) is a codification of pre-existing customary international law

  ​The Legal Mechanism: Customary international law governing termination for material breach (lex non-scripta) has applied to bilateral contracts between sovereign states for centuries. The VCLT merely codified these pre-existing rules. Scotland is not applying a 1969 statute retroactively to 1707; Scotland is invoking the customary international law rule of material breach, codified in Article 60, to an ongoing, living treaty currently being breached in real time by England’s attempt to draft an unnegotiated written UK constitution.

  ​2. The Mandate Fallacy (Delegates vs. The Sovereign Principal)

  ​Regarding your point on the 2015 “Stronger for Scotland” manifesto: you are precisely proving my point regarding defaulted delegates.

  ​Delegates Cannot Alter Constitutional Supremacy: A political party’s election manifesto written for a domestic election within an unnegotiated statutory overlay (the State Parliament) cannot override or alter the Claim of Right 1689.

  ​The Sovereign People, Not MPs:

  Under Scottish constitutional law, sovereign authority resides in the People of Scotland, not in delegates sent to London under municipal party badges. The failure of SNP delegates to stand on a treaty-termination manifesto does not extinguish Scotland’s sovereign statehood—it simply confirms that those delegates defaulted on their fiduciary duty to their principal.

  ​Ongoing Breaches Require Executive Remedy: A material treaty breach committed by one state party (England) does not wait for a municipal election cycle. It requires immediate, active legal reservation of rights on the international stage to prevent unmitigated extinguishment and cloud defective title over sovereign assets.

  ​The UN petition does not ask delegates for permission, nor does it rely on a municipal party manifesto. It is an active exercise of public international law enforcing a defaulted bilateral treaty to restore our status quo ante.

  Reply

  • Yes, but it’s not directly using the VCLT, it is as it says: “under international law independently of the Convention“. It’s similar to Article 52 which from my readings, would almost certainly apply to the Treaty and Act ratifying it – threat to the members, country party and the quadrone, to spouses and members of the families, and doubtless pointing out that members of the family were “resident” in London and the south of England and couldn’t just hop on a shuttle to escape. Plus some army and navy positionings. But the VCLT itself can not directly be used, only indirectly where indeed, centuries old law allows.

    As for the SNP mandate, you’re now saying “sovereign authority resides in the People of Scotland, not in delegates” which is fine, but that is not the same as when you said “when they get an almost unanimous mandate to end the treaty as the 56/59 MPs AND majority administration proved“. The 56 SNP MPs had no more mandate then the 3 rump Unionist MPs had, to end the treaty.

    And in any case, the sovereign People of Scotland gave no such mandate to end the treaty by any other means. It would need the ballot box – or some sort of privately organised constitutional referendum (which could of course NOT be blocked under the Scotland Act which applies to the ScotParl, not us, the people).

    Reply

    • Your counter-argument continues to substitute English constitutional assumptions and historical misunderstandings for the ratified text, the legal competence of the parties, and public international law:

      ​1. Descriptive Terminology vs. Designated Sovereign State

      In Article I, “united kingdom” functions as a descriptive adjective phrase (“united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain”). The legal entity created under public international law was Great Britain (GB). There is no constitution—full stop. Imposing an English constitutional framework operating under English parliamentary sovereignty (Dicey) is an unnegotiated English claim with zero standing in the ratified text.

      ​2. Competence of the Commissioners and the Ratified Terms

      The Commissioners appointed to draw up the articles acted strictly within their legal competence to negotiate a treaty. Parliament held no role in drafting the terms; it merely ratified the instrument presented to it. Under the Claim of Right 1689, the Estates possessed no legal competence (ultra vires) to alter the sovereign status of the Scottish people or construct a unitary state.

      ​Consequently, the ratified terms established only four specific items: trade, a shared parliament, a shared treasury, and representation for Scottish Lords. The text omitted all foundational elements of a unitary state:

      ​No Parliamentary sovereignty, no executive at all—there was no singular cabinet, central ministry, or executive body.
      ​No office of Prime Minister (unilaterally created within English convention in 1721—14 years post-treaty—and never submitted to or ratified by Scotland). No constitution, No whipped, party-political system or simple-majority voting supremacy over treaty terms.
      ​No unified legal system (explicitly rejected by Article XIX preserving Scots Law), no single statutory capital, no unitary religion, no redrawn border, and no single nationality.

      ​3. Misapplication of Historical Coercion vs. Ongoing Material Breach (VCLT Article 60)

      Your reference to economic threats, troop positioning, and political coercion invoking Article 52 / customary duress relies on a modern 20th-century standard of coercion that classical international law in 1707 did not recognize as invalidating a treaty. This is precisely why the UN petition does not rely on historical duress, but on VCLT Article 60 (Material Breach)—which governs the real-time, continuous violation of the ratified terms caused by the ongoing imposition of an English constitutional framework over a shared treaty pact.

      ​4. Mandate and the Legal Function of Referendums

      Under the Claim of Right 1689, sovereignty resides inalienably in the People of Scotland, meaning any direct expression by the people is inherently sanctioned by their supreme authority. However, in strict legal taxonomy, a referendum—whether organized municipally or independently—is merely an advisory opinion poll. It possesses no self-executing legal mechanism under public international law to terminate a treaty.

      ​The failure of elected delegates (such as the 56 MPs in 2015) to stand on a treaty-termination manifesto merely reflects a default of fiduciary duty by agents; it does not extinguish the inalienable legal rights of the principal. Ending the 1707 pact requires the sovereign principal to formally invoke VCLT Article 60 (Material Breach) on the international plane to enforce the repudiation of the ratified terms, completely independent of domestic municipal machinery like the Scotland Act 1998.

      Reply

    • A way around that by the way, instead of saying something like “invoking Article 60 of the VCLT“, which asks for the “it’s not retroactive” response, is to say “using Article 60 of the VCLT as a template bringing together various pre-existing international law“. And similar could be used about Article 52 for a different approach or even a parallel one. It could help make the political argument and get away from the purely legal one.

      Anyways these are only suggestions, you are of course the owner of your work and can use or ignore any and all suggestions!

      Reply

      • The purely legal standing of VCLT Art 60 is not an “advisory template” which grants equal standing to Article 52 or article 4 but the legal mechanics under public international law:

        ​1. Article 60 as Codified Customary Law

        The International Court of Justice (ICJ) confirmed in Namibia (1971) and Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (1997) that VCLT Article 60 is the formal codification of pre-existing customary international law (lex non-scripta). Because customary law governing material breach has applied to sovereign state contracts for centuries, invoking it does not rely on retroactive application under Article 4. It applies directly to ongoing, present-day breaches of the 1707 ratified terms.

        ​2. Distinction Between Material Breach (Art. 60) and Historical Duress (Art. 52)

        Article 52 addresses coercion surrounding a treaty’s initial ratification (1707). In contrast, Article 60 addresses present factual non-compliance. Relying on continuous Material Breach focuses strictly on active violations—such as the imposition of an unnegotiated English constitutional framework.

        ​3. Preserving State Standing

        Maintaining the invocation of Article 60 as binding customary law preserves Scotland’s standing as an equal sovereign state party enforcing a defaulted bilateral treaty. Frame shifts towards “advisory” treat the issue as an internal matter, whereas black-letter customary law asserts unbroken State Continuity (status quo ante) and the immediate clouding of defective title (ex injuria jus non oritur).

        Reply

        • Well, good luck with that. The more initiatives to shake the pot, the better.

          It’s been considered generally that Scotland becoming (again) Independent happens basically in one of 3 ways:

          https://web.archive.org/web/20120304132425/https://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN06110

          “There are at least three different possibilities under international law for a newly-independent Scotland: continuation and secession (the rest of the UK would retain its treaty obligations and membership of international organisations, but Scotland would not); separation (both entities would retain them); and dissolution (both would lose them)”

          It’s been worded other ways, but for simplicity I use the terms secession, separation and dissolution. Voiding the Treaty of Union in any way would in itself generally be dissolution which means Scotland would start from scratch, but the rUK, EWNI or whatever it wanted to call itself, would be in the terrible situation of having to try to reinstate all the treaties it actually wanted, and though some parties might say “That’s fine, where do I sign?” it’s hugely uncertain.

          And THAT is why the rUK would almost certainly run to the negotiating table if there was any chance of something like an Artlcle 52 or even a more gentle Article 60 (which in theory could allow repair as a solution).

          In reality as far as the international community is concerned, if the rUK and Scotland agreed to virtually anything, they’d heave a sigh of relief and carry on regardless. There are more problems in the world than Scotland – or the rUK for that matter. Hence it could all even be a mixture of secession, separation or dissolution as long as it was agreed. Preferably quickly.

          And that’s probably my final contribution for the time being!

        • I forgot to say, that one of the main reasons for referring to Article 52 even though it would not be retroactive, is that if it could be proven to apply in substance, it would strongly strengthen the case for Scotland to be added to the list of NSGTs.

        • Yesindytef2

          I completely understand why you are drawn to highlighting the coercive reality of the Union and seeking international oversight. However, addressing both of your comments together exposes why conflating municipal administrative models with public international law creates fatal legal errors:

          ​1. Statehood vs. Colony Status (The NSGT Trap)

          Pursuing Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT) status inadvertently implies that Scotland’s legal standing was diminished. Scotland entered the Union as a sovereign nation-state and an equal legal peer. It does not need to downgrade its identity to a UN administrative dependency to end a defaulted contract.

          ​2. Municipal Succession vs. Contract Repudiation

          The House of Commons Briefing Paper (SN06110) you cited outlines municipal scenarios for territorial secession or state dissolution (like Yugoslavia). It does not govern the repudiation of an international bilateral treaty under VCLT Article 60. Terminating a breached contract does not mean Scotland “secedes” or “starts from scratch.” Under customary international law (Namibia, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros), repudiating a defaulted treaty invokes status quo ante—the resumption of Scotland’s unbroken sovereign jurisdiction.

          ​3. The “rUK Continuity” Fallacy

          Assuming “rUK” automatically survives as a continuing state entity adopts England’s core myth. “rUK” is not an ancient sovereign state—it is an administrative construct created through unnegotiated and unilateral statutes of England. When the foundational 1707 Treaty is repudiated under Article 60, that overlay collapses (ex injuria jus non oritur). “rUK” does not magically inherit continuing international title; legal reality reverts to the constituent sovereign parties (England and Scotland), instantly clouding England’s legal title over Scottish territory, assets, and revenues on global capital markets.

          ​4. Article 60 is Termination, Not a “Gentle Repair”

          Article 60 is not a request for a negotiation tactic or “repair.” It explicitly grants the injured State Principal the unilateral right to terminate or suspend a treaty due to continuous, active material breaches. Furthermore, England’s ongoing push to codify a written “UK” constitution represents an immediate, existential threat to Scotland’s distinct legal personality.

          ​Rather than competing over frameworks, relying on secession myths, or implying a loss of statehood, all elements—whether Salvo, Liberation, UDI proponents, constitutional legal researchers, or individual petitioners—can unite under one collective umbrella representing the Sovereign Principal. Together, we can present an unassailable, unified Instrument of Denunciation directly to the UN Secretariat and international depositories.

        • Working together is always good, even if it’s just to critique each other’s work to effect improvements and correct errors, to share research and insights, perhaps contacts and resources, but do your own thing at the end. Personally I see no harm in parallel initatives even if they disagree with each other. It also helps to rehearse the counter-arguments!

        • Hi yesindyref2,

          ​Agreed—rigorous critique sharpens every initiative.

          ​The core distinction comes down to why decolonization models (NSGT lists, C-24) miss the actual constitutional defect:

          ​Decolonization Implies Subunit Status: Seeking decolonization treats Scotland as a non-sovereign territory asking external administrative bodies for a new legal status.

          ​Total Omission of State Architecture (Quod Non Apparet Non Est): The 1707 Articles function strictly as a commercial and economic trade compact.

          The Treaty contains zero state architecture: no provision for a Prime Minister, Cabinet, central executive government, party political system, national sovereignty transfer, or simple majority rule. Under public international law, what is omitted does not exist in law.

          ​The Fraud of Implied Majoritarianism:

          Because state governance architecture was omitted and could not be legally granted by the Estates, England unilaterally constructed an executive and majoritarian model post-ratification by internal procedure. What does not exist in the foundational treaty cannot be legally assumed by procedure.

          ​Every subsequent act of this unnegotiated executive and majoritarian assembly overriding Scottish rights is a continuous ultra vires act. Scotland does not need a decolonization process; as a Sovereign Principal, it holds absolute grounds under customary VCLT Article 60 to denounce an unnegotiated usurpation and assert status quo ante.

          ​Parallel initiatives keep pressure on the union from every angle, but grounding our international standing on unbroken statehood and customary treaty law ensures our legal position remains unassailable.

          ​Best of luck with your work as well!

        • Well, from that point of view of course, the UK Government’s first Independence paper

          https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a796041ed915d0422067ebf/Scotland_analysis_Devolution_and_the_implications_of_Scottish_Independan…__1_.pdf

          should have been used in court a long time ago. The UK Gov say this in its executive summary for instance:

          “The UK Government, along with many others, believes that both Scotland and the UK are better served by maintaining their partnership.

          and “The UK Government believes that this partnership can and should continue into the future.” – both of these “partnership”. Which I guess acknowledges implicitly the Treaty and implies dissolution (or an agreed separation).

          But: “… of Scotland has flourished as part of the UK family of nations within a single state” and “Scotland benefits from its close integration within a major global power.” – within not partnership. Which implies secession or perhaps separation.

          And this follows in the very first point 1: “whether to stay in the UK, or leave it and become a new, separate and independent state ” – which is secession. It’s very confused! Or deliberate.

          Plus in Annex A Crawford & Boyle (similar to QCs with a remit to establish the UK as the continuing state from the point of view of EU membership ironically) try to extinguish the Treaty:

          “2. First of all, the status of Scotland before the union of 1707 would be of little or no
          relevance. In particular, the Treaty of Union, considered with or without the Acts of Union,
          does not currently sound as a treaty in international law.”

          which conversely actually shows just how important the Treaty is, and how much of an impediment it is to any idea that the UK Government is in control. They’re not really.

          You’ll know all this; sadly most people concentrated on the red herring:

          “35. An alternative view is that as a matter of international law England continued, albeit under a new name and regardless of the position in domestic law, and was simply enlarged to incorporate Scotland.”

          How very dare they! Well, that red herring (possibly accidental) took attention away from the Treaty – the real obstacle to the Continuing UK concept. and the duo’s attempt to belittle it.

          So yeah – the Treaty itself is of paramount importance. It’s a TREATY.

        • Incidentally, as far as Crawford & Boyle’s infamous “does not currently sound as a treaty in international law” is concerned, at the very least the UK acnowledges it does –

          “(6) In this Act “the Scottish Seal” means Her Majesty’s Seal appointed by the Treaty of Union to be kept and used in Scotland in place of the Great Seal of Scotland.“

        • Yesindyref2,

          You have hit on the exact reason why Crawford & Boyle’s 2013 Annex A opinion is legally defective: it was specifically engineered to extinguish the Treaty of Union because the Treaty is the one legal instrument England cannot overcome under public international law.

          ​As the late Regius Professor Emeritus of Law, David Walker, pointed out, Crawford & Boyle’s entire argument is foundationally wrong. Their assertion that the Treaty “does not currently sound as a treaty in international law” is an ex parte opinion commissioned by one party to a dispute. It holds zero binding weight before international depositories or the ICJ for four black-letter reasons:

          ​Reliance on a Foundational Material Breach (The “UK Government” Assumed Premise)

          Crawford & Boyle’s paper relies entirely on an unnegotiated, foundational material breach by consistently referencing a “UK Government.” The ratified 1707 text contains no provision for a “UK Government,” nor Government of GB, a Cabinet, a Prime Minister, or a singular national executive. By treating an unnegotiated administrative creation—unilaterally constructed by England post-1707—as an established legal baseline, Crawford & Boyle use an ongoing material breach to justify the continuation of the breach itself.

          ​An International Compact Cannot Be Unilaterally Demoted to Domestic Statute

          Under public international law, an inter-state bilateral treaty between two equal sovereign state peers (Scotland and England) does not lose its character as a treaty simply because one co-signatory subsequently passes legislation or unlawfully usurps administrative control. An assembly operating under an unnegotiated overlay cannot legislatively extinguish an international treaty to which it was merely a council.

          ​The “Continuator State” Fallacy (Ex Injuria Jus Non Oritur)

          Crawford & Boyle’s claim that England automatically continues while Scotland must “secede” relies on accepting centuries of English ultra vires breaches as lawful. Under the governing international law maxim ex injuria jus non oritur (illegal acts cannot create law), a defaulting co-signatory operating in continuous material breach of a compact cannot derive legitimate “continuator” state title or authority from its own unlawful acts.

          ​Fatal Error in Private & Public Contract Law

          Professor Walker correctly identified the fatal flaw in treating a bilateral treaty as a domestic statutory merger that could magically extinguish its own foundational agreement. However, even Prof. Walker succumbed to a subtle error: by characterising the union as both “trade and political”—and thus complex to extract from—he, too, overlooked the strict significance of what was omitted from the ratified text itself (quod non apparet non est). Because the treaty omitted all political state architecture (no executive, no Prime Minister, no national sovereignty transfer, no single nationality, no Constitution, no parliamentary sovereignty, no law of GB, nor border, capital, religion), there is no complex “political union” to denounce—only an unnegotiated administrative overlay to repudiate.

          ​The English establishment’s papers intentionally frame the issue as domestic “secession” or “dissolution” to keep the conflict trapped inside an unnegotiated English constitutional framework operating under English parliamentary sovereignty (Dicey).

          ​As you noted, even England is forced to acknowledge the ongoing legal force of the Treaty (such as the Scottish Seal).

          ​By stepping entirely outside their “secession vs. continuation” framing and standing firmly on VCLT Article 60 (Material Breach), the Sovereign Principal enforces the termination of a defaulted contract under customary international law, asserts unbroken State Continuity (status quo ante), and immediately clouds defective title on global capital markets.

          ​Glad we agree on the paramount importance of the Treaty—that is precisely why an international Notice of Denunciation is the only legally binding way forward.

        • I’m delighted someone is actually tackling the Treaty itself, and you’ve clearly read your stuff. Yes, I read some Walker, and about Walker as in this I found quickly (need to organise my multiple browser bookmarks if I can be bothered) for anyone still following:

          https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-59-issue-07/the-union-and-the-law-revisited/

          and here’s an article from SCFF via wayback, about Crawford & Boyle

          “Dauvit Broun: By Publishing the Legal Opinion in Support of Their Position, Has the UK Government Created a Threat to rUK’s Position as a Continuing State?”

          https://web.archive.org/web/20151221184515/http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1767&articleType=ArticleView&articleId=2514

          All this stuff was out there before the Referendum itself, and nobody did diddly-squat about it.

          That did make me angry! Still does.

          Anyways, my feeling is that if this initiative even looks like succeeding (or the NSGT one), the UK Gov would come running to the negotiating table just as fast as their little legs could carry them.

          And then it would be up to Swinney to say “No to a Section 30, we will only accept the permanent transfer of powers to hold a referendum at any time, without any external interference“.

          Would he have the courage and determination? Well, WOULD YOU, JOHN LAD?

        • Yrsindyref2,

          Your frustration is entirely justified. The legal reality of the Treaty—and the vulnerabilities of Crawford & Boyle’s opinion highlighted by scholars like Prof. Walker and Prof. Dauvit Broun—was omitted from political discussions prior to 2014.
          ​Rather than relying on public international law and unbroken sovereign constitutional rights, the political movement operated within an English municipal legal framework (the Scotland Act and Section 30 orders).

          ​However, this highlights a critical legal distinction that governs the strategic objective:

          ​The “Section 30 / Devolved Referendum” Fallacy

          ​If England seeks negotiation because global credit markets are freezing and England’s title over Scottish yields is formally contested, requesting a Section 30 order or devolved referendum powers contradicts the legal claim.

          ​The legal reasons are definitive:

          ​Conceding Sovereignty:

          Requesting a Section 30 order—or a statutory transfer of referendum powers under the Scotland Act—implies that the Parliament of Great Britain, which England usurped, possesses sovereign authority over Scotland. It submits to English parliamentary sovereignty (Dicey) operating through an unnegotiated administrative overlay.

          ​Municipal Statutory Limits & VCLT Article 27:

          While administrative authority in Scotland was originally delegated by the Sovereign Principal to representatives at the state parliament, the current Scottish Parliament was reconvened under the Scotland Act 1998—an English municipal statute drawn up, signed, and enacted exclusively by England. Under VCLT Article 27, internal municipal law cannot be invoked to override or govern international treaty rights. This structural limitation is precisely why the unnegotiated Supreme Court ruled that MSPs lack the legal power to hold a referendum. Because the devolved administration is fundamentally tainted by its origin in an English statute, it possesses no legal standing (persona standi) under public international law to represent the Sovereign Principal or terminate an inter-state bilateral treaty. For any Scottish administrative representatives to acquire genuine standing on the international plane, they would first have to formally repudiate and deny the authority of the Scotland Act in and over Scotland.

          ​The Inalienable Sovereign Principal:

          Under the Claim of Right 1689, ultimate sovereign authority resides inalienably with the People of Scotland, not with the usurped parliament operating in London and not with tainted devolved administrative assemblies.

          ​Negotiating Framework and De-merger Mechanics

          ​When the international Notice of Denunciation (VCLT Art. 60) and Escrow Directive force a resolution, the objective is not to request a municipal referendum through devolved politicians.

          ​The legal requirement is for a Plenipotentiary Diplomatic Commission (appointed directly by the Sovereign Principal under negotiorum gestio) to oversee the administrative mechanics of de-merger, full asset accounting under unjust enrichment, and the transition to status quo ante.

          ​Statehood is not requested through municipal administrative statutes. It is asserted through the formal termination of a defaulted international contract under public international law.

        • Anyways, this was very enjoyable, nice to have a civilised conversation for a change. Too much pointless strife within the Indy movement. If you don’t come back or I disappear (I’m trying to wind down), I might do something about my useless wordpress – https://yesindyref2.wordpress.com/ – like assemble some of the constitutional links. Or not!

          The SNP leadership doesn’t seem to engage with its own membership (I was a member between 2014-2017), let alone the Indy movement. A lot of my postings elsewhere were in the almost certainly vain hope that some SNP researcher might read them and think “hey, these are moderate and some interesting ideas”. Well, Swinney as far as I’m concerned is on a timetable, request an amendment to the Scotland Act so that the Scottish Parliament can hold a referendum whenever it wants. Publish the Bill is fine, it can’t debate it yet, and then follow up with a further request, then a demand, then an ultimatum.

          What the ultimatum is, could be one of resile treaty or report violations, NSGT, declare the ScotParl free of the Scotland Act and responsible only to the People of Scotland, UDI – whatever! If Swinney is on course there’s not any more I can do in the hope somebody reads it, so I’m off to explore even more of Scotland’s history through its buildings and people.

          Good luck, keep up the good fight!

        • “For any Scottish administrative representatives to acquire genuine standing on the international plane, they would first have to formally repudiate and deny the authority of the Scotland Act in and over Scotland.”

          Exactly. And this parliamentary session could have done that if the SNP had put it in its manifesto and been elected to do so. But it might still be able to, claiming that 7 successive elections mean that it has evolved beyond the Scotland Act and can no longer be restricted by it – repudiating the Scotland Act directly or indirectly. To some extent Aidan O’Neill made this argument in his opinion to Keatings but unfortunately it was not argued in court – at the time.

          Dicey implied the evolution of Parliament – I’m always in favour of using the “enemy’s” tools against him – the principle of parliamentary sovereignty turned on its head.

          Perhaps it’s Swinney’s “secret plan” to do just exactly that …

          Personally by the way I don’t think the ScotParl can do any constitutional harm – precisely because currently it is the creation of Westminster and only partially represents the People of Scotland. And it can’t remove powers or choices from the People of Scotland without our express permission.

• Don’t worry, I won’t make a habit of posting; I’m winding down not up! But I know a lot of bits of Scottish history, including “names”. I always like it when normally “hostile” sources like the BBC and the UK Parliament give us information that isn’t easy to come by, which normally we have to glean from a bit here and a bit there. Like this which puts it in one place:

  https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/negotiating-the-articles-of-union-1705—06/

  “On 1 September, one of the chief opposition figures, the Duke of Hamilton, having done his best to obstruct the introduction of a treaty act, proposed that the commissioners be nominated by the Queen.

  Stunned by Hamilton’s inexplicable behaviour, most of the opposition leaders left the chamber in dismay, and the motion was passed by eight votes.”

  Hence the one-sided Act of Union which was forced on us.

  Oh – probably the worst of these commissioners was Queensbury (James Douglas). My opinion.

  Research was shite during the first indyref, just a handful of maverick eager beavers like myself. Electric Scotland is a great source though – underused and not known enough.

  Reply

• And the third villain forcing the Union through of course was Godolphin, though since he was English he was just doing his patriotic best for his country, unlike the other two.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_1705

  Reply

• Hi Gayle.
  Thanks for all of your work and for taking the time to explain in detail.
  For those of us who are not committed legal researchers, all of this does require explanation in detail for our understanding.

  I have only one thing to add, which is that, as I understand it the salvo approach at the UN is not really entirely aimed at getting Scotlands name entered on to the list of Non Self Governing Territiories. That would not achieve ‘Independence’, but it would aid us in recognising our dominated position both internationally and at home politically.

  I think that the underlying goal is to achieve restoration of the recognition of Scotlands ancient sovereignty.

  So, if I have not misunderstood from absorbing the various available information over the last few years, there appear to be not just three but four separate United Nations pathways in play.

  1) recognition of colonial subjugation by the C-24 entering Scotland on the NSGT list.

  2) representations to the UN due to our (the Scottish people) being denied our fundamental human rights under international law to express our desire for self determination and our legal right under domestic law to express our desires to be governed as we deem most appropriate.

  3) restoration of the recognition of Scotlands ancient sovereignty using the pre existing mechanism, as previously used by the Baltic Republics.

  4) Scotland unilaterally resiles from the Treaty of Union citing ongoing breach and possible historical coercion. Thus restoring/claiming status quo ante i.e. no union with England.

  I have no legal training, so any thoughts on these observations would be most welcome.
  😉

  Some related material.
  “Liberation Scotland Update July 2026”
  IndyScotNews
  

  Reply

  • aLurker,

    ​Thank you for your comment. Taking the time to break these concepts down is vital so we remain focused on our strongest legal ground.

    ​While four options were suggested, under public international law they condense into two primary legal pathways, with human rights playing a supporting role:

    ​1. The Decolonisation / NSGT Umbrella (The Salvo / Liberation Scotland Route)

    ​Entry onto the UN Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) list via the C-24 Committee falls directly under the decolonisation umbrella.
    ​While intended to highlight international domination, this route carries a significant legal flaw: it treats Scotland as a colonial dependency requesting external administrative oversight. Seeking decolonisation inadvertently implies our original statehood was diminished. Scotland did not enter the Union as a colony; it entered as an equal, sovereign state peer to a bilateral treaty.

    Downgrading our legal taxonomy to a “territory” undermines our standing as an equal contracting party.

    ​2. The Baltic Precedent (Distinguishable Legal Standing)

    ​While the Baltic Republics achieved status quo ante in 1991, their legal strategy rested on proving unlawful military occupation. Scotland is not an occupied country; it is an injured treaty partner. Achieving status quo ante for Scotland does not rely on occupation law, but on contract repudiation.

    ​Supporting Role: UNHRC Submissions (Option 2)

    ​Submissions to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) regarding the denial of self-determination do not constitute an independent route to statehood. The UNHRC lacks self-executing jurisdiction to terminate treaties or restore statehood. However, UNHRC filings serve as vital supplementary evidence, adding formal material weight to findings across other UN departments and international depositories.

    ​3. The Treaty Denunciation Route (My Submitted Petition & Execution Plan)

    ​This is Pathway 4—the position established by my currently submitted UN petition and 15-page dossier, which acts as the foundational evidentiary baseline. It relies on the self-executing, black-letter mechanism of customary international law codified under VCLT Article 60 (Material Breach).

    ​Instead of asking external committees for a colonial downgrade, this plan executes a direct, sequential operational strategy:

    ​UN Evidentiary Baseline & Findings:

    My current petition establishes the formal international paper trail, registering the active state-level dispute and securing official UN verification of the material breach.

    ​Cross-Constituent Denunciation:

    Building on those findings, the Sovereign Principal (acting collectively across constituent groups) serves the formal Notice of Denunciation directly to the UN Secretary-General as treaty depository.

    ​Capital Market Execution:

    Serving the Notice alongside an Escrow Directive directly to international credit rating agencies (Moody’s, S&P, Fitch) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) executes ex injuria jus non oritur (unlawful acts cannot establish legal title).

    ​By formally clouding England’s legal title over Scottish tax revenues and energy yields on global capital markets, we exert immediate economic leverage. We do not need to request permission or accept a colonial downgrade; the Sovereign Principal simply enforces the termination of a defaulted contract and asserts unbroken status quo ante.

    In simple terms:

    ​The UN Decolonisation / NSGT route asks the UN to treat Scotland as a former colony needing supervision—which accidentally downgrades our legal standing from an equal, sovereign treaty partner to a dependency.

    ​UN Human Rights (UNHRC) complaints aren’t a standalone route to independence, but they supply vital extra evidence to back up our case.

    ​My UN petition & dossier (Pathway 4) builds the official international evidence of a defaulted contract. Once those findings are set, our combined communities execute a formal Notice of Denunciation (VCLT Art. 60) to freeze England’s ability to borrow against Scottish assets on global money markets, directly restoring our full sovereign status (status quo ante).

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.