I have been saying for some time now, the British Union has never been weaker. Since 2010 we have had seven PMs. Each and every one has been removed as the Union lurches from one unmitigated disaster to another. Indeed, I would contend that the UK has been in terminal decline since 1945.
The internal purchasing power of the British pound sterling has declined by roughly 98% since 1945 due to cumulative domestic inflation. Since 1979 and the onset of neoliberalism, manufacturing in the UK has shrunk to negligible degrees. The massive job providers like British Telecom, British Gas, British Railways, British Steel, British Coal, British Shipbuilding, British Leyland, Royal Mail all are now either gone or shadows of their former selves.
Those giant state-owned assets not only employed around 1.7 million workers, they were also the glue that united and tied the entire union together. Collective bargaining and huge British Trade Unions gave a true sense of belonging as one. These were the very things that neoliberal Thatcher despised; she set about destroying all of those bonds that she and her cronies viewed as workers having too much power and leverage over ruthless employers. Today, of those entities that remain, less than 250,000 are employed today.
As each day passes, the neoliberalism experiment is failing in the UK. The poverty gap in the UK is significantly greater in 2026 than it was in 1978.
Whether measuring the overall poverty rate, the depth of poverty (how far below the line poor families sit), or income inequality (the gap between the richest and poorest), the UK is a drastically more unequal society today than it was in the late 1970s.
Before 1979, poverty rates in the UK were at a historical low point. “Poverty rates ranged between 12% and 17% before 1979” and “levels of poverty had been broadly flat at around 14%.” Following a massive surge in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher, poverty rates leveled off but never returned to 1970s levels. As of 2026, the overall poverty rate hovers around 20%. The shift is even more severe for children: child poverty skyrocketed from 13% in 1979 to 31% today.
At present, our autocratic, thieving leaders are trying to blame all our financial woes on Russia, China and Iran, as well as asylum seekers and immigrants. Since 1979, the economic policy of all the major English parties has been the same: control the money supply and use interest rates to try and control inflation.
Since the bank crash, we have had continuous austerity. From 2008, cumulative inflation has devalued the British Pound’s purchasing power by roughly 42% (with prices rising by about 73%), while living standards have been severely squeezed by an unprecedented era of wage stagnation and weak economic growth.
Purchasing power: £100 in 2008 has the same buying power as about £173.20 today. The pound has lost roughly 42.2% of its real purchasing power over this 18-year period. As reported by the House of Commons Library “median weekly pay for full-time employees in the UK was £767 in April 2025. After adjusting for CPI inflation this is… 2% lower than in 2008.”
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8456/
This has resulted in a great deal of unrest throughout the English Union. As always, our politicians are blaming everyone and anything other than their own ideological neoliberalism and governance: immigrants, NATO aggression, the left, the Russians, Muslims, and Scottish, Welsh, and Irish independence supporters and parties.
This has also resulted in support for independence being the clear choice in Scotland over the past several years. Every opinion poll is showing that YES support is higher than the naysayers. It is why the English government refuses point-blank to contemplate a Section 30 order for Holyrood. Scotland is England’s cash cow. The English economy is so fragile that the loss of Scotland would probably tip the RUK into default.
This makes it doubly annoying that the SNP refuses to advance the cause of independence. Their continued acquiescence to Westminster rule defies logic. This is why do many other independence parties and organisations have sprung up throughout Scotland. Frustration has triggered this division in our movement.
We have new parties, Yes United, developing a comorehensive manifesto for independence. Salvo/Liberation taking the case of Scotland’s colonial status to the UN. Others, like one of my guests today are taking a similar if somewhat different petition to the UN. Others are holding seminars and marches. Some are advocating civil disobedience. Others are promoting our history and historical figures that have campaigned since 1707. They remind us of the lots of our lost and untaught history. For example: The 1820 Scottish Rebellion, also known as the Radical War or Scottish Insurrection, was a week of strikes and armed unrest in early April 1820 aimed at achieving parliamentary reform and establishing a radical Scottish republic. There are others reminding us to remember heroes like James McLean, Jimmy Reid.
I personally do not believe any single one of these good-intentioned initiatives will result in our independence. United and acting as one and attacking the Union together is a different matter altogether. The Union has never been weaker. The global south is flexing its muscles. BRICS is seeing that power and influence is slipping away from the Northern Hemisphere European and American imperial nations. A new multipolar world order is forming. There has never been a better time for Scotland to free itself from the English millstone
Join me and my guests today; Craig Murray and, Gayle Miller as I ask them how do we join the threads of independence into one cohesive unit via the UN route. I found the conversation interesting, however, it was a bit like a John Grisham book for me. Grisham writes very interesting engaging stories. The problem I find with his novels is his endings seem rushed as if he hadn’t really thought about the conclusion and ties up the novel with an ending that reaches a conclusion however, in many instances those endings leave more questions than answers.
https://youtu.be/ckzEluI2Q8k?is=0nKNK86LOMrhX_LD
Related
Just to clarify the ending.
THE POST-60-DAY MASTER PLAN FOR SOVEREIGN RESTORATION
A Step-by-Step Execution Strategy Following the Perfected VCLT Treaty Default
STEP 1: INITIAL UN DOCKETING & LETTER OF ALLEGATION (DAYS 0–60)
Multi-Mandate UN Docketing:
The petition and complete legal dossier are formally lodged across three UN Special Procedures:
UN Special Rapporteur on Self-Determination (Asserting constituent popular sovereignty under the Claim of Right 1689 and direct locus standi).
UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development (Submitting a complete forensic economic accounting of unauthorized resource extraction).
UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights (Documenting the unconsented, hazardous imposition of nuclear/Trident assets and toxic waste).
UN Transmittal of Letter of Allegation:
Upon preliminary review and acceptance, the UN formally transmits a Letter of Allegation directly to the state party of England, demanding an international legal response to the documented treaty breaches and triggering the 60-day procedural window (reflecting VCLT Article 65).
Dissection of the 60-Day Response Outcomes:
Option A: The Domestic Defense (The Legal Trap): If England cites domestic statutes, Westminster acts, or English Parliamentary Sovereignty, the defense is immediately nullified under VCLT Article 27 (internal law cannot justify a treaty breach).
Option B: Substantive Rebuttal: If England attempts a substantive legal justification under international law, a formal dispute (différend) crystallises under VCLT Article 65(3)—elevating the issue to international arbitration/tribunals and locking in the cloud on title.
Option C: Silence / Non-Response: If England remains silent, their failure to rebut constitutes default by acquiescence (tacit consent) under Public International Law (qui tacet consentire videtur).
STEP 2: POPULAR CONSTITUENT AFFIRMATION & DIRECT SERVICE ON ENGLAND
Constituent Signature Mobilization (The Popular Mandate):
Simultaneously during the 60-day window, a nationwide campaign collects formal, verified signatures and declarations from sovereign individual Scots. This constituent roll demonstrates that the repudiation is executed directly by the sovereign constituent principal under the Claim of Right 1689, bypassing the abdicated devolved statutory framework.
Notarisation & Direct Formal Service on England:
The verified constituent signatures are attached as a bound, certified appendix to the formal Notice of Default and Treaty Termination. Upon expiration of the 60-day window, this notarised legal instrument is served directly on the state party of England (via formal legal process service on the foreign/legal ministry).
Deposit with the UN Secretary-General:
The perfected, notarised Declaration of Repudiation and Termination—complete with the certified constituent signature roll and proof of direct service—is deposited directly with the UN Secretary-General (under UN Treaty Series depositary principles), permanently establishing the default on the international record.
Global Diplomatic Notification:
Formal diplomatic notices of statehood re-assertion and treaty termination are served directly on foreign ministries, international embassies, central banks, and credit rating agencies (S&P, Moody’s, Fitch).
PHASE 3: FINANCIAL ENCLOSURE & ESCROW ENFORCEMENT
Service of Commercial Notices of Defective Title:
Serve formal Notices of Defective Title and mandatory Escrow Directions on all multinational oil, gas, offshore wind, carbon-capture, and energy grid operators active within Scottish territorial lands, waters, and continental shelf limits.
Mandatory Royalty Diversion to Escrow:
Enforce the diversion of all licensing fees, land leases, seabed rents, and resource royalties directly into an international, multi-jurisdictional Scottish Sovereign Escrow Account established under Public International Law.
Conversion & Defective Title Liability:
Operators or financial institutions failing to divert funds after formal notice face severe commercial liabilities, maritime liens, and claims of asset conversion under Scots Common Law and international commercial tribunals.
Asset-Backed Credit Facility:
Utilize the escrow balance and verified natural wealth title as backing to underwrite independent national credit facilities, securing immediate financial autonomy independently of the UK Treasury and Bank of England.
PHASE 4: CONSTITUTIONAL RE-CONVENING & TRANSITIONAL GOVERNANCE
Re-convening the Estates of Scotland (Adjourned Sine Die 1707):
Asserting direct constituent standing under the Claim of Right 1689, the sovereign constituent principal formally re-convenes the adjourned Estates of Scotland as a provisional sovereign assembly, bypassing the abdicated devolved statutory framework.
Provisional Executive Council:
Establish an interim administrative executive tasked strictly with domestic transitional management, border enforcement, asset control, public service continuity, and international representation.
Bilateral Transition & Separation Talks:
Open direct bilateral transition negotiations with the state party of England to manage shared infrastructure severance, debt allocation (re-evaluating “The Equivalent” and centuries of historical extraction), and peaceful regulatory separation under international supervision.
Wee correction on how it was lodged. It was not Person of Necessity but Locus Standi (as an individual constituent of the sovereign realm of Scotland).
THE UN-SUBORDINATED CONSTITUTIONAL & INTERNATIONAL LAW DOSSIER
A Cohesive Legal Framework for the Repudiation of the 1707 Bilateral Compact
1. THE CONTRACTUAL FOUNDATION: BILATERAL COMPACT vs. SINGULAR STATE
The 1707 Treaty of Union is an international, bilateral trade, fiscal, and regulatory agreement between two co-equal sovereign peers—the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.
The Comprehensive Omissions: The 25 Articles of the Treaty contain no provision establishing a singular state architecture. Explicitly omitted from the text are:
No Government of Great Britain
No Constitution of Great Britain
No Parliamentary Sovereignty
No Unified Code of Law
No National Border (the geographical boundary between the two realms remained intact)
No Executive
No Party Political System
No Simple-Majority Voting Rule
No State Religion (the distinct Kirk of Scotland and Church of England were explicitly preserved separately)
No Unified Nation
No Single Capital
No Joint Military/Defence Architecture (regimental structures and territorial identities remained un-amalgamated)
Regulatory Trade Framework: Great Britain is purely a geographical descriptor for the shared regulatory trade framework established by the compact—it is not a singular political state, a unified nation, or a domestic merger.
Preservation of Core Institutions: The Treaty explicitly preserved distinct, un-amalgamated national institutions—including the Court of Session, Scots Common Law, municipal burghs, and the national Church—proving that Scotland’s underlying constituent statehood remained separate, distinct, and unextinguished.
2. DEFINITION & FUNCTION OF A “COUNCIL OF DELEGATES”
To understand why the assembly in London lacks legal title to act as an absolute legislature over Scotland, one must define the precise legal nature of a Treaty Council of Delegates:
What a Council of Delegates Is: A Council of Delegates is a limited, joint administrative body created by an international treaty between two or more co-equal sovereign states. Its sole, strictly defined mandate is to execute the specific, enumerated regulatory, commercial, and fiscal terms of that treaty.
Jurisdictional Boundaries: A Council of Delegates possesses zero inherent sovereignty, holds no statutory authority over either state party, has no power to act as a supreme single-state parliament, and cannot alter or override the foundational constitutional baselines of the contracting sovereign principals.
Article III Designation: Under Article III of the 1707 Treaty, Scotland and England agreed to be represented by a shared administrative body styled the “Parliament of Great Britain.” This was created as a limited Treaty Council of Delegates—not a single-state parliament with plenary statutory dominance.
3. DISSECTION OF QUEEN ANNE’S OPENING SPEECH (1707)
Queen Anne’s address opening the first meeting of the joint assembly provides explicit historical and legal proof that the 1707 agreement was a transactional, economic, trade, and regulatory alliance between two distinct sovereign peers, built upon mutual respect, parity, and good faith—not a domestic merger surrendering statehood:
Trade Compact, Not Extinguishment: The speech appeals directly for mutual good faith in a trade alliance; it contains zero language surrendering Scottish statehood or surrendering Scots sovereignty.
War Debt & “The Equivalent”: The address explicitly targets the Commons regarding England’s spiraling Spanish Succession war debt. Scotland assumed liability for a portion of this foreign war debt in direct exchange for “The Equivalent” (financial compensation)—proving that 1707 was a transactional financial bargain between contracting parties, not a constitutional surrender.
Geopolitics & Naval Alliance: Stresses presenting a unified external front to European rivals without merging internal state architecture, domestic laws, or sovereign title.
Coinage Alignment: Calls for currency standardization (Sterling) for trade leverage while explicitly preserving Scotland’s Mint under Article XVI, proving the continued existence of distinct national mechanics within a shared commercial space.
4. ARTICLE XXV & TEXTUAL EVIDENTIARY PROOF
The legal text of Article XXV of the Treaty contains explicit proof destroying any claim of a unified single state:
”Respective Parliaments” & “Said Kingdoms”: The future-tense plural phrasing in Article XXV confirms that both Parliaments and Kingdoms continued legally post-1707. The Scottish Parliament was suspended sine die, not destroyed.
Claim of Right Preserved: Article XXV explicitly incorporates and preserves the Claim of Right 1689, keeping popular sovereignty strictly in Scottish hands and preventing any transfer of sovereign title to a parliamentary assembly.
English Overreach is Void: Clauses voiding all laws “inconsistent with or contrary to the Articles” mean that any subsequent English domestic statute attempting to override treaty terms or claim statutory supremacy is legally void ab initio under the Treaty itself.
5. THE FOUNDATIONAL BREACH (OCTOBER 23, 1707)
The Structural Usurpation: The material breach occurred just six months after the treaty took effect, on October 23, 1707, when the state party of England ignored the Monarch’s opening address calling for respect and good faith, and unilaterally imposed an unnegotiated simple-majority voting rule within the assembly.
Neutralization of Parity: By exploiting a 513-to-45 numerical advantage never authorized in the Treaty text, England committed an ultra vires act (acting beyond legal authority). This structural imposition neutralized Scotland’s co-equal voice, usurped the limited Treaty Council of Delegates, and breached the bilateral compact from day one of its operation.
6. DOCTRINAL DIVIDE & THE DOUBLE DEFECT OF “PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY”
Extinction of the English Instrument: The doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty was an exclusively English constitutional concept belonging solely to the Parliament of England. When the Parliament of England was abolished in 1707, its internal doctrines vanished with it. No clause in the 25 Articles revived, transferred, or conferred English Parliamentary Sovereignty upon the newly created Treaty Council of Delegates.
Territorial and Constitutional Inapplicability to Scotland: Under the Claim of Right 1689, sovereignty in Scotland resides inalienably in the constituent individual people. The Scottish assembly was merely a limited trustee possessing delegated authority. An abolished English doctrine could not be exported across an international border to subordinate the sovereign Scottish constituent principal.
The Unlawful Assertion: On October 23, 1707, when the English majority imposed an unnegotiated simple-majority vote and asserted absolute statutory supremacy, they attached a non-existent, abolished English doctrine to a limited international Treaty Council. This act was ultra vires from inception, void under Public International Law, and constitutes a foundational material breach under VCLT Article 60.
7. THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESERVATION: ADJOURNMENT vs. ABOLITION
A fundamental fallacy of the English statutory narrative is the assertion that both kingdoms abolished their parliaments in 1707 to form a singular state.
The Extinction of the English Body: The Parliament of England was legally abolished and dissolved to make way for the new treaty arrangement.
The Adjournment of the Scottish Estates: Under Scots Constitutional Law and the Claim of Right 1689, the Estates of Parliament possessed no authority to extinguish Scottish sovereignty or abolish the realm. Consequently, on March 25, 1707, the Scottish Parliament was adjourned sine die—not abolished.
Unextinguished Title: The adjournment preserved Scotland’s constituent statehood and constitutional architecture in dormant reserve.
When the state party of England usurped the shared Council of Delegates on October 23, 1707, and when the modern administrative tier committed total constitutional abdication, the adjourned constitutional authority did not disappear—it reverted directly to the sovereign individual constituents of the realm of Scotland.
8. CONSTITUTIONAL SOURCE vs. THE USURPED ENGLISH STATUTE
The Genuine Constitutional Source: The Scottish Parliament reconvened in 1999 derives its true, un-extinguished authority directly from the Scots Constitution (Claim of Right 1689) and the sovereign constituent principal—not from any external legislature.
The Unlawful English Imposition: England attempted to usurp and capture this reconvened parliament by framing it through an English statute (Scotland Act 1998). An English statute imposed over a reconvened Scottish constitutional body does not confer legitimacy; it is an ultra vires act of usurpation and a breach in and of itself.
The Act of Abdication: The failure of elected representatives in Holyrood lies in their submission to this usurped framing—swearing allegiance to an English statutory framework and begging for permissions (such as Section 30 orders). By surrendering their constitutional duty to assert Scots Law and Public International Law, they committed total constitutional abdication.
Reversion to the Principal: Under the Claim of Right 1689, when an administrative trustee abdicates or submits to an unlawful foreign imposition, delegated authority immediately reverts directly to the constituent principal—the sovereign individual Scots.
9. TARGETED UN MANDATE HOLDERS & THE THREE CORE SUBMISSIONS
The initial petition and dossier are lodged directly with three specialized UN Special Rapporteurs and Human Rights Council Mandate Departments, establishing explicit international jurisdiction over the three core pillars of the Scottish repudiation:
Primary Mandate — Self-Determination & Legal Standing:
Submitted to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples & Self-Determination Mandates. Formally establishes that under the Claim of Right 1689, sovereignty resides in the constituent principal, asserting direct locus standi to repudiate a defaulted bilateral compact outside statutory controls.
Forensic Economic Mandate — Resource Siphoning & Development:
Submitted to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development. Presents a complete forensic accounting of unauthorized economic extraction, documenting how centuries of capital siphoning, offshore energy licensing, and revenue diversion to the English treasury violate the constituent principal’s right to freely manage its natural wealth.
Environmental Mandate — Nuclear & Toxic Material Imposition:
Submitted to the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights. Documents the unconsented imposition of toxic and nuclear risk (such as the Trident nuclear submarine base at Faslane and radioactive waste storage) upon Scottish territory without the free, prior, and informed consent of the sovereign constituent principal, constituting a direct violation of international environmental standards.
10. SEQUENCED UN SPECIAL PROCEDURES & RESPONSE DISSECTION
Step 1: UN Mandate Docketing & Letter of Allegation:
The petition and complete legal dossier are lodged across the three UN Special Procedures. Upon review and acceptance, the UN formally serves the Letter of Allegation directly on the government of the state party of England, demanding a formal response to the documented treaty breaches under international law and initiating the 60-day procedural window (reflecting VCLT Article 65).
Dissection of the Three Possible Responses During the 60-Day Window:
Option A: The Internal Domestic Defense :
If England responds by citing domestic acts, Westminster statutes (e.g., Scotland Act 1998), or English Parliamentary Sovereignty, the defense is immediately nullified under VCLT Article 27, which explicitly prohibits invoking internal law to justify a treaty default. This self-invalidates their response under Public International Law.
Option B: Substantive Rebuttal or Justification:
If England attempts a substantive legal or factual justification of the breach under treaty law, a formal international legal dispute (différend) is crystallised under VCLT Article 65(3). Under international law procedures, this forces the issue out of domestic jurisdictions and into international dispute settlement (e.g., International Court of Justice, UN arbitration, or UN General Assembly advisory proceedings), formally locking in the cloud on title over Scottish assets while the international tribunal adjudicates the treaty repudiation.
Option C: Silence / Non-Response:
If England fails to provide a valid international law rebuttal within the 60-day window, their silence constitutes default by acquiescence (tacit consent) under Public International Law (qui tacet consentire videtur), perfecting the legal default without further impediment.
Step 2: Direct Default Service & UN Secretariat-General Deposit:
Following the conclusion of the 60-day response process, the constituent principal executes direct formal service of the notarised Notice of Default and Treaty Termination upon the state party of England. Simultaneously, the perfected Declaration of Repudiation and Termination is deposited directly with the UN Secretary-General (under UN Treaty Series depositary principles), permanently establishing the legal default on the global international record.
11. COMMERCIAL ENCLOSURE: CLOUD ON TITLE & INTERNATIONAL ESCROW
Legal Cloud on Title: The perfected VCLT Article 60 filing establishes an active, legally binding cloud on title over every Scottish oil field, natural gas field, offshore wind lease, maritime boundary, and energy distribution grid under international commercial law.
Commercial Compulsion: Foreign multinationals, energy extractors, and underwriters facing catastrophic liability under Scots Law and international commercial risk models cannot operate under defective title.
International Sovereign Escrow Account: Operators are legally compelled to divert all licensing fees, land leases, and resource royalties directly into a multi-jurisdictional Scottish Sovereign Escrow Account established under Public International Law.
Starving Unauthorized Administrative Control: By cutting off the financial pipeline feeding the English treasury at the commercial source, the constituent principal starves the unauthorized administrative tier, executes effectivité, and completes the restoration of unextinguished sovereign statehood directly under Public International Law.
Gayle, my wife and myself watched on on Scottish Prism and we’d just like to say what you have done is a real game changer, Well done lass, we are so proud of you.
Its people like your self and Salvo who are making progress not political party’s.
Thank you, 100%yes. I’m really glad it resonated with you and your wife.
I genuinely believe that by coordinating the strength of our grassroots, we can put the post-60-day plan into immediate effect. Every part of the movement has a distinct role to play:
Salvo, Liberation Scotland, & Local Groups: Gathering signatures and driving community mobilization.
Lawyers for Indy: Assisting with legal service and establishing escrow and cloud on title frameworks.
Business for Scotland: Guiding aspects of trade, commerce, and economic transition.
Politicians & Representatives: Adding formal signatures/affidavits to the notarized notice of termination.
Broad Civic Coalition: Forming an interim administration to oversee escrow funds so essential services like the NHS run without interruption.
Diplomatic & International Notification: Leveraging figures like Craig Murray and international allies to formally register our notarized notice, serve international notice of our cloud on title, and establish diplomatic recognition of our interim administration.
Our event organizers already prove how quickly our movement can mobilize. By uniting these unique strengths, we turn civic strategy into immediate, structured action by demonstrating effectivité in real time.
Gayle, I would have loved for you to have been able to speak at this SSRG, people need to know what you have done. The more people who knows our rights and our history the better we will be prepared.
I was wondering will you be on Scottish Prism this Sunday, your a natural.
Thank you so much, 100%yes—that means a lot. I generally prefer to write as it allows me to focus in a way my cluttered mind doesn’t when speaking.
Getting folk back to the strict truth of Scots Constitutional Law and Public International Law is vital if we’re going to turn that grassroots strategy into real, structured action. Once people see that the 1707 Compact is simply a limited bilateral treaty between equal peers—and that our popular sovereignty under the Claim of Right was never, and could never be, surrendered—the whole “unitary state” illusion just collapses.
There are no plans for me to be on Scottish Prism this Sunday. Hopefully with Terry back home, if her health allows, she will get back on. If the opportunity comes up in the future, I would definitely consider it.
Spreading knowledge is vital, and with a clear plan to execute, we can galvanise the movement in a truly Scottish way. Christine Grahame comes to mind when she said that the Scots can turn around and say “they did it their way.”
Most most interesting how prime minister Burnham this week has about turned to say he now considered that Scotland could have a referendum if the people wanted it.
Very much seems that the establishment might be recognising that the so called treaty of union is no legal union at all, and that the international institutions would and do recognise that legal position..
But Scots dont actually need a referendum but rather the expressed wishes of the people. Indeed, a referendum granted and set up by Westminster could and would be a rigged affair. The million on or so who have moved to Scotland these last 12 years from England years we know vote around 75% no. And of course the Westminster ” no ” machine in all its parts would be even more active than before. A rigged franchise very much the Trojan tool.
But the change of tack by Burnham reflects that independence could be nearer than we actually realise.
Spot on, Willie. Burnham’s slip at PMQs—and Downing Street’s immediate scramble to walk it back—exposes just how fragile England’s legal stance really is under international scrutiny.
His attempt to play gatekeeper by stating he hasn’t seen a clear majority reveals the core constitutional delusion: the assumption that an English Prime Minister holds the personal authority to decide if, when, and how Scots exercise their sovereign rights. It isn’t a genuine belief in self-determination; it’s a defensive reaction to international legal pressure and UN observation.
You’ve hit the nail on the head regarding the referendum trap. Waiting for England’s permission hands them complete control over the franchise, the timing, and the rules. An English-managed vote will always be structured to preserve the status quo.
That is precisely why relying on our inherent popular sovereignty—exercised through an expressed, notarized claim of right and backed by real-time effectivité, escrow and cloud on title frameworks, and international notification—is the path forward. We don’t need an English Prime Minister’s permission to assert what is already legally ours.
Hi Gayle
This is great stuff from you. Any chance you can drop me an email – we have a new project planned at Project Arbroath that I’d like to discuss with you – It’s right up your street I think!
David Heriot
projectarbroath@gmail.com
Hi David,
Thank you very much—I’d be delighted to connect and hear what you have planned at Project Arbroath.
I’ll drop you an email shortly so we can take a look at it together!
And talking about broken Britain with its increasingly tenuous drive to try to hold onto Scotland and its resources how many people realise just how rotten our Trojan Horse Scottish Government is in its actions on behalf of it’s colonial masters.
Suppression of free speech, and fair comment by our elected councillors and elected public body board members has now been underway for some time now. But now the Standards Commission and their Scottish Government masters are in big trouble with the Fiona Higgins judicial review decision recently delivered by Lord Sandison.
In saying this how many people know that in May this year the Standards Commission Scotland announced a change to their documentation policy whereby data relating to hearings and findings against councillors is going to be destroyed after a year instead of being retained,
Whether this is legal is a big question, but the decision to destroy documentary and audio evidence comes in the light of the Fiona Higgins Court of Session judicial review where the Standards Commission Scotland had been found to be acting illegally.
This has caused huge concern with the Standards Commission and the Scottish Government now that many many of the sanctioned councillors are set set to launch appeals in the light of the illegality ruling of Lord Sandison. Denial of admission of evidence, improper procedures, disregard for natural justice and perchance deliberate malfeasance of evidence now look set to be challenged in a tidal wave of legal action.
It is most definitely therefore not a stretch of the imagination to view this revised destruction data policy as an attack on democracy and to frustrate legal remedy. Indeed, can you imagine a court destroying all records of court cases. But that is what is being done by the Standards Commission. Destroy the evidence, stymie legal redress for illegal action – its a very important question that people should be asking about.
And then there is Northern Ireland where just over two weeks ago the ex Chief Executive of Mid and East Antrim Council was found guilty in the Limavady court of attempting to destroy evidence and alter documentation to be provided under freedom of information. Convicted and fined £1,500 the case from across the water in that troubled land is a salutary lesson to any public officials here who would tamper with information. Again, perchance a big consideration when deciding to revise data retention policies and destroy case records lest action be taken against council officials.
I mention the foregoing because this all very much reflects a government in trouble and desperate to cover up illegal judicial abuse. What country destroys court case records. And why would you do that. The stye needs very much to be cleaned out and disinfected.
But in the meantime councillors and members elected onto public bodies who have been sanctioned illegally and unfairly silenced by a “kangaroo Standards Commission will now be making requests for disclosure of documentary case evidence before it is destroyed.
Yes, it is a rotten burgh with a rotten government at the helm.
Quite something Roddy, well done to you all.
As someone at an SSRG conference once shouted – “sometimes it juist taks a wummin tae dae it”.
Gayle has clearly put a great deal of work and thought into her UN initiative. This is more evidence that the Scots are no longer sitting around, we are all working and searching to find the path to liberation. And this may well come through a range of initiatives.Many of us know and are acting as if Scotland is and always has been independent and that us Scots are and remain sovereign, and that we need no permission from people in other countries, and we need no referendum that needs permission either, these are all blockages to liberation.
The UN and its agencies does of course have the option to refer a matter to the international court for an opinion which is what could happen here, and/or also with the Liberation Scotland/Salvo initiative. There is also Mike Fenwick ‘Declaration of Sovereign Scots’ UN initiative. So Scots are knocking on the right door at last and its deffo no 10 Downing St or colonial Bute Hoose!.
The Scots are on the march!