This week may go down as one of the most important weeks in the Scottish independence struggle. It was this week that the dominant ‘independence party’, the SNP, proved it had lost its sense of purpose. I have often said that there are no such things as coincidences in politics.
So when, early in the week, senior SNP MP Brendan O’Hara responded to last week’s opinion poll on Scotland holding a successful plebiscite election followed by UDI, I suspected he had been sent out with a mission. Brendan told us that such a route was “just not feasible”; this was the opening gambit by the leadership to control the narrative.
Then we heard that the SNP Conference Committee had rejected all motions to conference this year that were in any way around routes to independence. Just as last year the leadership had headed off the 43 ‘rebel branches’ that wanted a motion passed advocating unity of the movement and a plebiscite election, this year the leadership were stopping any talk of any meaningful steps to independence.
Last year the leadership pushed their position: ‘in the event of an SNP outright majority at Holyrood, the party would demand a second referendum.’ This strategy was bound to fail. Perhaps that is why the leadership proposed it. Nobody, not even the leadership, believed for a second that the SNP would get either a majority of seats or a majority of the votes. The cynical, like me, knew this was a ruse by the devolutionist SNP leadership to maintain the status quo.
Then on Friday, John Swinney showed us his famous ‘secret plan B’; it turns out it is the same as Plan A, the failed policy of the past 12 years: begging Westminster for a Section 30 referendum. The proposed Referendum Bill about to go through Holyrood is almost verbatim the exact same wording as the Bill Sturgeon took to the Supreme Court of England! The same fate awaits this performative nonsense by Swinney. Burnham will quickly reject this and then ‘honest John’ can say, “Well we tried; bad Westminster said no, nothing to see here, let us carry on doing nothing as before.”
Lest anyone hasn’t been paying attention, the English Prime Minister, Burnham, this week has ruled out calling a referendum on Irish unification, describing a border poll as “off the table.” That sure sounds familiar. Does anyone in Scotland with half a brain truly believe that if Burnham is willing to ignore an international treaty ratified by the USA, Irish, UK, and EU governments, he will give his approval to a Bill from the colonial assembly in his Scotch colony? If anyone believes that, I have a bridge with your name on it and a nice Nigerian General that will fund the purchase for you!
Every single Anglo PM from Cameron through to this latest charlatan has said “NO!” to a second referendum. Let me say quite clearly from now till the end of time, no Anglo PM will ever again agree to a second Scottish Independence referendum. We are the goose that keeps laying the golden eggs for England. England has always been a parasitical nation living off of others. It is time for it to stand on its own two feet.
Let me counter Brendan O’Hara and the SNP leadership. The only prospect for Scottish independence does not involve asking our coloniser for his permission to leave this so-called ‘Union of equals.’ The very thing Brendan rejects is the only feasible and legal route to independence. We require a single-line manifesto at EVERY general election on both sides of the border that states quite clearly a vote for us is a vote for independence, nothing less! Subject to winning a majority, you then go to a neutral venue, not Holyrood, and declare UDI. That place could be the Royal High School, a venue that the unionists term a ‘Nationalist Shibboleth’, Scone Palace, Bannockburn Field, Dunfermline Abbey, we have lots of historical relevant locations to make that declaration.
If you are serious about independence it is time to wake up to this fact, the SNP has lost its way. Since Sturgeon took the reins the party has fallen into line and become a British party protecting the union with their actions and policies not projecting our independence.
Those of you that disagree with my assessment answer me this; can you name three practical measures the SNP have taken since November 2014 to advance the cause of independence? The reality is the SNP are now just a British devolutionist party, a British Labour Party with a kilt, nothing more.
It is time for those of us who believe in the cause to unite as one and take our independence. I say take, because for sure England and nobody else will grant or give us freedom, we need to take it, my preferred option is the ballot box. The only other option is the barrel of the gun. No court or international body can or will hand us our independence.
The SNP have shown their hand, status quo and lots of Edinburgh gravy, compliments of our imperial masters in London is their choice of outcome. I say to hell with that, Independence nothing else, Independence nothing less! I know how hard it is to face the reality. I was in the SNP for decades, to this day I have never voted for any other party. We all have to accept they no longer operate in the best interests of the independence cause.
For those that doubt we can ring the changes can take heart from history. Look to the UK General Election of 1918 and the demise of the then dominant Irish ‘independence party’ the IPP, just like the SNP when the IPP got to Westminster they settled down, they did not settle up! The Irish voters took matters into their own hands and replaced the then dominant party in Ireland. Independence followed shortly thereafter!
The 1918 election is probably best known in Britain as being the first election in which women could vote. In Ireland, it is remembered for something quite different. The general election in December that year saw Sinn Féin – a revolutionary independence party, which had not contested the previous general election – win 73 out of 105 seats in Ireland.
https://theconversation.com/sinn-feins-sudden-rise-to-power-in-1918-was-long-seen-as-a-youthquake-now-theres-a-different-explanation-107819
This is the main topic in today’s podcast, the SNP refusal to seriously advance our cause. I am joined by Phil Boswell, Eva Comrie, Terry Howson and a newbie to Prism; Chris Wilson an SNP member and activist of long standing,
So please like and share our blog and podcast this week. It is time for us to take back control of our destiny. Saor Alba gu brath!
Oh dear Roddy, What now for ATLS and unity?
What do you mean?
Brendan O’Hara is up his own firmament just like his beloved Nicola Sturgeon
At long last it appears that SNP no longer reflect the hopes of real Independent Scots.
Let’s move on, at pace, with the intelligent, independence-loving groups and Parties dedicated to our goal.
This post on substack might be informative and relevant to people who want to be kept informed and up to date on what is happening in fellow independence seeking Wales
https://markacollett.substack.com/p/the-town-that-chose-to-commit-suicide
While I agree that the SNP leadership is no longer fit for purpose and the English establishment will never agree to mutual termination, treating the PM of England and its occupation of the State parliament as having legitimate authority compounds the foundational error.
We see this exact defeatism in SNP Foreign Affairs spokesperson Brendan O’Hara claiming that alternative routes or asserting independence without England’s consent are “just not feasible”—a lazy, blanket excuse used to systematically refute every strategy put to him, treating a defaulted 1707 trade contract as immutable, while reducing Scotland’s sovereign statehood to internal political polling.
Furthermore, framing Scotland’s position as “decolonization” misdiagnoses our legal status. Scotland is not a colony seeking self-determination; it is an unbroken, sovereign contracting party enforcing the terms of a breached bilateral agreement.
The Parliament of Great Britain was never designed or legally constituted as a governing body of a unitary state. It was established strictly as a council of delegates with equal peer status, empowered only for the limited purposes of trade, taxation, and associated law alignment.
To address the core points:
1. Within Mandate: Plenipotentiary Delegation, Not State Creation
The 1707 Articles were drawn up by Queen Anne’s Commissioners and ratified by Parliament. Because neither the Monarch nor the Estates possessed the constitutional competency to extinguish Scottish sovereignty—which is rooted in the sovereign people and predates the formation of Scotland itself, as reiterated under the Claim of Right 1689—they acted strictly within their legal mandate by limiting the Treaty to a commercial trade compact between two equal sovereign state peers.
Under this structure, Scottish delegates act strictly as plenipotentiary agents sent to represent the Sovereign Principal in the state council, possessing no authority to surrender state sovereignty or submit to external majoritarian rule.
Under the governing legal maxim quod non apparet non est (what is omitted does not exist in law), look at the fundamental architecture OMITTED from the text because it was beyond their power to grant:
No Constitution of Great Britain (The constitutions of each state remained intact)
No Parliamentary Sovereignty (A purely English legal concept that was never delegated by Scotland and was not transferred onto the state council)
No Simple Majority Voting (Deliberately omitted)
No Executive, Prime Minister, or Cabinet
No Singular Treasury State Apparatus (Article XVI explicitly enshrined the continuation of the Mint in Scotland alongside England’s; only revenue alignment and equal representation were agreed)
No Government, Law, Nation, Capital, Border, or Religion of Great Britain
No Party Political System
2. Active English Breach vs. The “UDI / Election” Fallacy
Because simple majority rule and state executive power were omitted—and could never be legally granted—England’s post-1707 imposition of majoritarian rule was an active, unnegotiated unilateral usurpation (ultra vires). Following 1707, England systematically dismantled Scotland’s financial infrastructure by shutting down the Scottish Mint, Treasury, and Exchange—hobbling a debt-free Scotland and forcing its plenipotentiaries to temporarily accept simple majority rule rulings on the ground.
When Scottish delegates formally moved to denounce the Treaty in 1713 due to England’s continuous foundational material breaches (culminating in the Malt Tax), they were outvoted by an English majoritarian proxy bloc.
Scotland was not afraid of the English military, but after the destruction of its financial apparatus, enforcing the denunciation on the ground meant facing a ruinous war on two fronts simultaneously: an external conflict with England and an internal Scottish civil war. Scotland could handle one or the other, but not both. Adhering to the vote was a tactical necessity to prevent total internal collapse, not a legal acceptance of simple majority rule.
The 1713 attempt confirms the historical fact: Scotland formally exercised its legal right as a Sovereign Principal to denounce the contract, but was illegally overridden by English majoritarian usurpation.
BarrheadBoy’s counter-proposal—running a single-issue election as an “agreement to denounce” leading to a UDI—falls into the exact same legal trap. An election returning plenipotentiary agents to an assembly is an event operating entirely within that unnegotiated overlay.
Denunciation is not a platform or an electoral mandate sought from an unnegotiated state council; it is a formal legal notice executed under customary international law by the Sovereign Principal. Scotland does not need a UDI election, party permission, or approval from England.
3. Why the UN Petition is the Feasible International Tool
While BarrheadBoy dismisses international mechanisms and relies on UDI or the “barrel of the gun,” arguments, those routes keep the conflict trapped inside that unnegotiated framework. Likewise, O’Hara’s assertion that 75–80% polling support is required (much like English political party Labour’s home rule percentage that counted the dead) misrepresents international law: treaty breach and sovereign statehood are black-letter legal rights, not matters of polling percentages.
My formally lodged petition under customary VCLT Article 60 serves as the legitimate, formal route to international recognition because:
It Establishes Black-Letter Legal Standing: It proves that Scotland’s statehood was never extinguished, framing the issue not as “secession” or “decolonization,” but as the termination of a defaulted bilateral trade contract by the Sovereign Principal.
It Hand-Delivers the International Verdict: An Article 60 petition is not asking an international body to “hand out” independence as a favor or concession. It provides the exact legal instrument needed to serve formal notice on the UN, foreign governments, and global capital markets. Neutral third parties are thereby provided with the bulletproof legal justification required to accept Scotland’s true, unbroken original status (status quo ante).
Commercial & Financial Leverage: Terminating a breached treaty under public international law instantly clouds England’s defective legal title over Scottish territory, energy assets, tax capture, and debt on global markets (ex injuria jus non oritur).
While England’s 1713 financial sabotage forced temporary compliance on the ground, modern international capital markets and public international law operate on legal title: the moment notice is served, England’s ability to pledge Scottish revenues or back debt against Scottish assets is legally paralyzed.
Yet more brilliant exegesis of the whole * Union * of ( un ) Equals ” fiction, Gayle.
My concern is that the U.N – like every other International ( ‘ Globalist ‘ ? ) Institution these days – is, effectively, controlled by, let’s call them…” Interested Parties “, we see this, eg in it’s feeble attempts to penalise Israel for it’s Genocide of Palestinians: it’s inability to even impose sanctions, never mind prosecute the perpetrators of this truly evil pogrom ( oh the terrible irony ! ). Given this state-of-affairs, what’s the likelihood that body would A) properly address the aspects of Scotland’s * condition * and B) take the appropriate action, ie declare Scotland’s right to take whatever action it deems necessary to right this historic, 300+ years injustice?
It’s not impossible that it may; I’m just not confident it would. Nonetheless, this does not diminish the work/efforts and value of what people like yourself & Salvo/Liberation et al are trying to do to bring, at the very least, International awareness and, ideally, pressure to our situation
My concern completely
@Rober Hughes @Barrheadboy
You raise a fundamental operational question regarding how international institutions function in practice. If this strategy relied on the UN acting as a discretionary body to grant statehood or enforce a political resolution, your skepticism would be entirely justified. International bodies are frequently constrained by geopolitical interests and procedural deadlocks.
However, the architecture of this approach relies on self-executing legal mechanics and market title rules, rather than a request for UN intervention.
Here is the objective legal framework governing the process:
1. Depository Registration vs. Political Adjudication
Lodging a formal Notice of Denunciation under VCLT Article 60 with the UN Secretary-General in their capacity as treaty depository is a procedural act under public international law. Its legal function is not to request a political vote, but to formally register an active, state-level dispute between the original contracting parties. Registration formally establishes that England’s claim of sole title over Scottish territory and revenues is contested under customary international law.
2. The ICJ Jurisprudential Precedent
As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) confirmed in its 2010 Kosovo Advisory Opinion, public international law contains no prohibition on assertions of statehood or treaty repudiations executed directly by a sovereign body. International law recognizes statehood as a factual and legal assertion, rather than an administrative privilege conferred by international organizations.
3. Commercial Title and Capital Market Leverage
The operational leverage relies on commercial law and international bond markets, which operate strictly on title certainty. Serving the Notice of Denunciation and Escrow Directive directly to international credit rating agencies (Moody’s, S&P, Fitch), the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and institutional underwriters executes the rule of ex injuria jus non oritur (unlawful acts cannot establish legal title).
Once a formal title dispute is registered over Scottish asset yields and tax capture, credit rating agencies and underwriters must record the contested legal status of those assets. This restricts the capacity to pledge Scottish revenues against debt accumulated by England under the unnegotiated administrative overlay without incurring direct legal and financial liability, independent of UN political deliberations.
4. The Function of the Sovereign Principal
Under the Claim of Right 1689, the right to terminate delegated authority resides inalienably with the Sovereign Principal (the People of Scotland). Appointing a Plenipotentiary Diplomatic Commission under the law of necessity (negotiorum gestio) provides the legal standing (persona standi) required to execute these instruments internationally.
The UN filing serves as the formal international notification of an exercise of sovereign right. The strategy uses public international law and commercial title mechanisms to secure Scottish assets, establishing the legal basis for status quo ante while the treaty denunciation takes effect.
Thanks for this clarification, Gayle. I’m not at all au fait with legal issues – domestic or international – in any depth, anyway, but from what you say, our case is coming from a different direction than, eg other situations the U.N has been requested to adjudicate on. It’s something of a relief to know that ……
” However, the architecture of this approach relies on self-executing legal mechanics and market title rules, rather than a request for UN intervention; particularly the latter part, ie ” ……rather than a request for UN intervention ” – for the reasons I gave in the previous comment
Let’s hope this makes does make all the difference.
I know these types of things tend to move at a glacial pace, but do have any kind timeframe in which you – we! – hope see some development, ideally, progress?
The petition was lodged as an urgent appeal due to England drawing up the “UK” Written Constitution which would retroactively validate the material breaches and legitimise the unnegotiated English “uk” overlay while extinguishing Scotland’s legal personality by removing the Scottish constitution, sovereignty and Scots law, granting England a permanent veto over Scotland.
From the day the English government is served with the Letter of Allegation they have 60 days to answer (period of silence) then it is lodged formally on the UN record. At the moment I am watching not just the UN for movement but the English government and how it behaves during this period.
” ….do you have…..”
I thoroughly enjoyed the podcast and whole-heartedly agree that the movement must unite around a strategy anchored in our true legal status. Rather than remaining trapped in the unnegotiated overlay of electoral processes or treating a defaulted trade compact as immutable, we must execute a coordinated, international action as the Sovereign Principal.
My proposal is to form a unified coalition of representatives across the full breadth of Scottish society to sign a formal Notice of Denunciation under customary international law (VCLT Article 60), terminating the defaulted 1707 Treaty of Union.
1. The Coalition of Signatories (Establishing Legal Standing)
Under the Claim of Right 1689, sovereignty resides inalienably in the People of Scotland. When elected delegates default or submit to an ultra vires framework, legal capacity reverts directly to the Sovereign Principal. Signing the notice via a broad cross-section of Scottish society replicates the historic precedent of the 1689 Convention of Estates, establishing unassailable persona standi before international bodies:
Constitutional & Legal Research Groups:
Salvo, Liberation, Scottish Sovereignty Research Group (SSRG), Lawyers for Independence.
Civic & Grassroots Movements:
Business for Scotland (BfS), Believe in Scotland, Independence Forum Scotland (IFS), Pensioners for Independence.
Pro-Independence Political Representation:
Elected representatives and leadership from the Scottish Green Party, Independence for Scotland Party (ISP), and sovereign-focused SNP parliamentarians.
Key Prominent Figures & Constitutional Experts:
Endorsements from respected legal scholars, trade unionists, cultural figures, and community leaders to demonstrate the full depth of Scottish consent.
2. Simultaneous Diplomatic Delivery
To bypass internal political blockades and administrative interference:
The UN Depository: Formal filing submitted directly to the United Nations Secretary-General and recorded with international treaty depositories.
Direct Embassy Delivery in Switzerland: Simultaneous physical and digital delivery to foreign embassies in Geneva and Bern (particularly neutral nations, EU member states, and key trading partners).
The International Determination:
The formal filing creates an undeniable legal dispute under public international law, providing neutral foreign states with the exact black-letter justification required to acknowledge Scotland’s unbroken original status (status quo ante).
3. Economic Leverage: The Neutral Escrow Account
Under the legal maxim inadimplenti non est adimplendum (a party failing to meet its obligations cannot demand performance from the other), Scotland is under no legal obligation to remit revenues to a defaulting co-signatory:
Ring-Fencing Capital: Establish an international escrow account—either directly or via a neutral third-party jurisdiction (such as Switzerland)—to collect Scottish energy royalties, tax capture, and resource revenues pending international resolution.
Clouding Title on Global Markets:
Serving the Denunciation Notice and Escrow Directive directly to global credit rating agencies (Moody’s, S&P, Fitch), the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and international bond markets puts third parties on formal notice: England’s title over Scottish revenues and territorial assets is legally clouded (ex injuria jus non oritur). Because England has been sole custodian of the treasury apparatus since its unilateral 1708 usurpation, this paralyzes England’s capacity to pledge Scottish territorial assets or revenues against England’s national debt without firing a shot.
4. Transitional Governance & Reconvening Assembly
To ensure zero administrative vacuum or commercial disruption:
Provisional Council of State: The signatory coalition can simultaneously form a provisional administrative body under the emergency law of necessity (negotiorum gestio) to steward public affairs and manage international relations.
Reconvening Parliament: This temporary administration will oversee national elections to reconvene our Scottish Parliament—liberating it from the unnegotiated 1998 English statute (the Scotland Act) and fully restoring it to its authentic constitutional foundation under the Sovereign People.
The ball is already rolling. The direction and speed it goes in is up to us. By uniting under this airtight legal framework, we can secure Scotland’s unbroken statehood smoothly, peacefully, and decisively.
To address any practical questions regarding how this strategy is executed on the ground, three operational mechanics ensure the plan moves forward seamlessly without relying on defaulted political delegates:
1. Mobilization: The Convention Signing Protocol
Gathering our civic and constitutional bodies does not require organizations to merge or surrender their distinct identities. Following the historic precedent of the 1689 Convention of Estates, organizations and individuals sign a single, black-letter instrument—the Notice of Denunciation—in their specific capacities:
Constitutional Research Bodies as Legal Advisors.
Civic & Business Associations as Economic Trustees.
Elected Representatives as Plenipotentiary Delegates.
Individual Citizens as the Sovereign Principal.
Hosting this instrument on a unified, secure physical and digital registry allows every branch of our movement to endorse the same international notice without becoming bogged down in party politics.
2. Execution: The Plenipotentiary Diplomatic Commission
Under the Claim of Right 1689, sovereignty resides inalienably in the People of Scotland. When elected delegates default or submit to an ultra vires framework, their delegated agency immediately terminates and capacity reverts directly to the Sovereign Principal. Under the emergency law of necessity (negotiorum gestio), the signatories directly appoint a Plenipotentiary Diplomatic Commission—composed of trusted legal scholars, civic representatives, and international couriers—empowered strictly to deliver the VCLT Article 60 instrument to the UN Secretary-General and neutral embassies in Switzerland. Delivery cannot be blocked by defaulted representatives.
3. Day-1 International Realism & Market Leverage
While foreign state departments initially prefer administrative stability, global capital markets require unassailable legal title. Serving the Denunciation Notice and Escrow Directive directly to international credit rating agencies (Moody’s, S&P, Fitch), the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and global bond underwriters immediately executes ex injuria jus non oritur (illegal acts cannot create law):
England’s defective title over Scottish territorial assets, energy yields, and tax capture is formally registered as a financial dispute.
Capital markets cannot underwrite sovereign debt backed by contested assets without severe liability.
Pledging Scottish revenues against debt accumulated under the state treasury apparatus—over which England has illegally maintained sole custodianship since 1708—becomes legally paralyzed, forcing third-party foreign states to engage with Scotland’s unbroken status out of direct economic necessity.
This 3-part operational structure bridges constitutional theory with international execution, ensuring our unbroken statehood is enforced peacefully, legally, and decisively.
Immediate Action Plan
Crucially, this strategy does not require us to wait passively for an international verdict. The mobilization of signatories, the establishment of the neutral escrow framework, and the direct notification of global credit rating agencies can be put into motion immediately. Executing these steps now exerts instant, real-world economic pressure on England’s treasury apparatus, actively enforcing our sovereign title on the global stage while the formal UN treaty process proceeds.
I assume that you accept that this can only happen if a majority of people in Scotland support it and are willing to go along with it. How do you propose ascertaining that?
Oh, and incidentally you claim that “Under the Claim of Right 1689, sovereignty resides inalienably in the People of Scotland”. It doesn’t. I think that by passing the Act of Union the Scottish Parliament had effectively adopted the English doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty and in the unlikely event of sovereignty ever having resided with the people of Scotland the Claim of Right was effectively extinguished as a legal instrument by the Act of Union. The Claim of Right was not in fact mentioned in the Act of Union and save and except for its references to the Kirk any legal or constitutionl importance it might have had was effectively cancelled by Clause XXV of the Act which unequivocally stated that any law inconsistent with the Articles of Union became void and much of the Claim if Right was indeed inconsistent.
There was a mention of the CoR was in the Tenor to the Act which was printed at the foot of the Scottish Act of Union and comprises the full text of the 1707 Act for Securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government, and that Act itself contains the references to the Claim of Right. So the Claim of Right is mentioned only because the Protestant Religion Act is annexed to the Union Act, only as part of the Church settlement, not as a general constitutional principle. It is not part of the Treaty itself; it is part of the entrenched Church settlement appended to the Treaty and its only relevance is to its religious aspect.
DaveyTee19,
Your response applies English constitutional assumptions to an inter-state treaty contract between two sovereign state peers. This requires addressing under strict public international law and Scots constitutional law:
1. Ascertaining Consent vs. Breach of an Inter-State Treaty
Seeking an electoral majority or conducting a referendum is legally irrelevant to terminating a defaulted inter-state contract.
Breach Mechanics vs. Voting Tallies: The 1707 Treaty of Union is a bilateral contract between two sovereign state peers: Scotland and England.
Contractual termination due to material breach is governed exclusively by public international law (VCLT Article 60), not by voting tallies, polling, or local electoral popularity. A material breach by one contracting state peer (England) gives the injured state peer (Scotland) the immediate legal right to denounce the contract, regardless of whether a voting majority has been formally counted via elections.
Prohibited Statutory Machinery: Requiring a vote or referendum forces the injured party to utilize an English administrative overlay (such as the Scotland Act 1998) that was omitted from the Treaty itself. Conceding to an English statutory voting process directly contradicts the legal reality that the Treaty of Union has been breached and is subject to denunciation under international law.
Inherent Title of the Sovereign Principal: Popular sovereignty under the Claim of Right 1689 resides inalienably with the People of Scotland as an established legal fact, not as a political preference subject to periodic majoritarian approval within an English administrative framework.
Rule of Law vs. Excuses of Unrest: Invoking international treaty rights under black-letter law is a strictly legal, non-violent, rule-of-law mechanism. Attempting to dismiss international breach mechanics by demanding majorities or raising the spectre of civil disorder is simply a tactic to divert away from international law and force the injured state back into an unnegotiated administrative overlay.
VCLT Article 62 (Rebus Sic Stantibus / Fundamental Change of Circumstances):
Furthermore, the complete alteration of the administrative architecture through unnegotiated English statutory overlays constitutes a fundamental change of circumstances (VCLT Article 62), reinforcing the right of the injured state peer to denounce the Treaty.
2. Misapplication of Clause XXV, the Claim of Right 1689, and Sovereignty
Asserting that the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament adopted English parliamentary sovereignty (Dicey), or that Clause XXV of the Treaty extinguished the Claim of Right 1689, reflects a fundamental misinterpretation of Scots constitutional law and the legal scope of the Treaty:
Limited Competence of the Commissioners: The Treaty was drawn up by commissioners appointed by the monarch acting strictly in her Scottish constitutional capacity. Under Scots constitutional law, the monarch’s authority is limited, conditional, and contractual under the Claim of Right 1689. Neither the monarch nor her appointed commissioners possessed the legal competence to extinguish Scotland’s statehood, constitution, sovereignty, or laws.
Scope of Parliamentary Ratification:
The pre-1707 Scottish Parliament merely ratified the compact drawn up within the commissioners’ strictly limited competence—namely, an international trade and administrative agreement between sovereign peers, not a unitary state amalgamation.
Proportionate Scope of the Articles:
The text of the Treaty itself proves its functional nature: 15 out of the 25 Articles deal strictly with trade, customs, taxation, and coinage. This characterization as a trade agreement between sovereign state peers is recognized in state records (Hansard) and modern parliamentary analysis alike.
Strict Scope of Clause XXV: Clause XXV rendered void only those statutes that were inconsistent with the specific agreed Articles of Union.
Clause XXV applied strictly to trade, customs, and fiscal laws that conflicted with these harmonized market rules—it did not, and could not, void the underlying constitutional foundation defining the lawful authority of the Scottish state.
Deliberate Omission of Unitary Architecture: All architecture required to construct a centralized, unitary state was deliberately omitted from the Treaty text.
Preservation of Private and Public Right (Article XIX):
Article XIX of the Treaty explicitly guarantees that the College of Justice and Scots Law remain intact and free from English judicial oversight, proving on the face of the Treaty itself that English legal supremacy was never established over Scotland.
Absolute Legal Incapacity (Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet): Under the Claim of Right 1689, the Scottish Parliament was a conditional delegate of the Sovereign Principal (the People of Scotland). Under the fundamental legal maxim nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what they do not possess), a delegate possesses no legal capacity to alienate, surrender, or extinguish the underlying title of the Principal, nor to adopt an English doctrine of absolute parliamentary supremacy. Any such act would have been ultra vires and void ab initio.
3. The Protestant Religion Act and Dual Crown Capacities
Referencing the Act for Securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government does not establish a unitary state merger or diminish the constitutional authority of the Claim of Right 1689:
Separate Crown Capacities: Scotland and England shared a monarch in two distinct, legally separate capacities under two independent constitutional frameworks. In England, the Crown operated under English parliamentary supremacy (Dicey); in Scotland, the monarch remained limited, conditional, and bound by contract under the Claim of Right 1689. The monarch held zero legal competence to merge or alter these two distinct capacities through an administrative treaty.
Preservation of Distinct State Foundations: The inclusion of entrenched church settlements as fundamental conditions annexed to the Treaty confirms that the compact was designed to regulate specific inter-state terms while explicitly preserving distinct state pillars.
Annexing an act securing the Kirk did not surrender Scottish statehood—it was an explicit legal reservation to protect a foundational institution from English legislative interference.
Absence of Unitary State Merger: An inter-state trade and administrative agreement that explicitly preserves separate legal systems (Article XIX), separate church structures, and distinct constitutional foundations is not a unitary state amalgamation. The sharing of a crown across two separate state capacities does not extinguish the underlying legal title of the Sovereign Principal (the People of Scotland).
Summary
The 1707 Treaty of Union remains an inter-state bilateral contract between two equal sovereign state peers. Because both sets of administrative delegates have constitutionally abdicated by deferring to unnegotiated English overlays, the Sovereign Principal acts directly under public international law. Material breaches are terminated via VCLT Article 60, and under VCLT Article 27, English statutory provisions cannot be cited to restrict or override international treaty rights.
I’m late to the party, and most if not all disagree with DaveyTee19, but this caught my eye:
“… the Claim of Right was effectively extinguished as a legal instrument by the Act of Union.”
Nope, absolutely not. First it is still enacted and not repealed as on the legislation website:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1689/28
Second it has been referred to in several court cases, including in the UKSC judgement for “Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union”
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2016_0196_judgment_ce390bd976.pdf
multiple times – just find in page “claim of right”. It is considered alongside the English Bill of Rights.
Haven’t got time to look at the rest, but I suspect Gayle has fully covered it, and that I’d agree.
Another interesting article by the way is this:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/12/12/robert-craig-report-of-proceedings-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union-supreme-court-day-3/
I was rather hoping, Gayle, that you’d answer my query, i.e. how would you go about ascertaining that the people of Scotland agreed with your proposals and were prepared to go along with them? It also strikes me that if the people of Scotland are sovereign, then that applies to Yoons just as it does to Independence Supporters and they too would have to be consulted. Incidentally, and a bit off topic, I always find it rather sad that people want to change the franchise because, it is claimed, 53% of indigenous Scots voted for independence while a majority of incomers didn’t. This seems to ignore the fact that 47% of indigenous Scots voted No, and they’re the ones I’d be blaming – they should have known better. But I digress.
The 1707 Act was indeed an international treaty between two sovereign states, but it was never a unification of equals – it was in fact a straight takeover of a small rather weak country in dire financial straights by its much larger, stronger and wealthier neighbour. But as soon as the Treaty had been ratified by the two parliaments and the new state of Great Britain came into being it ceased to operate as a treaty in international law and instead became part of the internal constitutional framework of the newly created state of Great Britain. International law stopped applying because the treaty’s parties stopped existing. Once Scotland and England merged into Great Britain, the treaty became domestic law inside the new state. As such its provisions therefore became subject to parliamentary sovereignty which enabled such revisions to take place as parliament thought fit.
Like any takeover, the laws and rules of the larger party were adopted by the new state save for a couple of stated exceptions, in this case the Scottish legal system and the Kirk. So the new Parliament sat in London, it ran to English rules, it applied the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. The Scots never objected to that. So basically you can’t argue about breach of treaty as the treaty ceased to exist once union was ratified.
As to the scope of ratification and your insistence that the treaty was no more than a trade agreement, let me once again refer you to Article 1: “That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain. — And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land”. That seems pretty conclusive to me. And Article II provides for the succession to the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain – a new state, new provisions for The Crown. No more monarchs of Scotland or of England. The fact that the treat also contained a number of provisions relating to trade, largely bringing Scotland into line with English practices, is irrelevant. Clause 1 says it all and, indeed, ever since then the new state has been treated domestically and internationally as an integrated United Kingdom. We may not like it, but that’s how it is.
As to Clause XXV, you say without any foundation at all that “Clause XXV applied strictly to trade, customs, and fiscal laws that conflicted with these harmonized market rules—it did not, and could not, void the underlying constitutional foundation defining the lawful authority of the Scottish state.” That’s not so – had it been so it would have said so. What Clause XXV said was that “That all laws and statutes in either kingdom, so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the terms of these articles, or any one of them, shall, from and after the Union cease and become void”. All laws. All the terms of the Articles. Anything in either kingdom that is inconsistent with them. And the Claim of Right was inconsistent in several ways.
Of course, you base your assertions in the belief that following the Union Scotland’s constitution and sovereignty survived. I might go some way to accepting that if there was any evidence to show it, but there isn’t. Before 1707, Scotland was a sovereign state, with its own Crown (in a personal union since 1603), its own Parliament, and its own constitutional tradition. The Union dissolved the Scottish state as an international legal person. That is why Scotland’s constitution could not survive as a constitution of a sovereign state. A constitution requires a state to anchor it. Once Scotland ceased to exist as a state, its constitution ceased to exist as a constitution. Such aspects that Scotland was desperate to keep, i.e. its legal system and the Kirk, were specifically laid in the Act of Union. The constitution was not and indeed there’s no way it could have done – two separate opposing constitutions could not exist in one sovereign state.
Anyway, I think that’s enough from me for the moment!
DaveyTee, not liking the answer to the “majority question” does not equate to it not being answered. For the benefit of others, I will break down your fundamental errors regarding international treaty law, constitutional capacity, and the historical facts of the 1707 text.
On the “Majority Question” and the Trade Pact
You ask how the will of the people of Scotland is ascertained, attempting to drag a black-letter international law challenge down into local political franchise debates.
The 1707 Treaty was drafted primarily as a limited trade, customs, and economic market pact between state peers—not a political or constitutional merger surrendering Scottish statehood. Under public international law and treaty mechanics (VCLT Article 60), a continuous, material breach of a bilateral trade contract is a matter of legal fact and default, not a domestic popularity contest managed by the breaching party.
The Sovereign Principal (the People of Scotland under the Claim of Right 1689) is not a sub-national electorate begging England for a referendum permission slip. The capacity of the Sovereign Principal to declare a breached trade contract null and void pre-dates the 1707 text and was never surrendered by conditional delegates who lacked the legal capacity to alienate popular sovereignty (nemo dat quod non habet).
Furthermore, your reliance on “polling majorities” ignores history: in 1713, 100% of the Scottish delegate peers in the joint parliament voted to repudiate the Treaty following early trade and tax breaches (such as the Linen and Malt Taxes). The unanimous, 100% will of Scotland’s representatives was explicitly expressed—and was blocked by an unnegotiated majoritarian structure using English proxy votes. You cannot cite a 300-year majoritarian lockout as proof that Scotland “consents” to an ongoing contractual default.
The “Dissolution” Fallacy (VCLT Article 60)
Your claim that the 1707 Treaty “ceased to exist” upon ratification and converted into English domestic law relies on a complete distortion of public international law:
Agreements Do Not Extinguish Contracting Peers: In international treaty law, entering an inter-state trade compact does not dissolve the legal personality of the contracting state peers unless an explicit, valid constitutional instrument surrenders that underlying sovereignty. No such surrender exists in the 1707 text.
Non-Extinction under International Law: A bilateral treaty remains an active inter-state contract. One contracting peer (England) cannot unilaterally declare that a bilateral agreement has become “English domestic law” simply to exempt itself from performance, breach, or accountability. If the parties “stopped existing,” as you claim, there would be no legal entities holding the residual rights, liabilities, or obligations of the agreement.
No Self-Executing Dissolution: Domestic ratification of an economic agreement by a delegate body does not grant those delegates the legal power to destroy the Sovereign Principal that created them. An agent cannot unilaterally extinguish its principal to hand sole administrative control to the other contracting party.
The Total Omission of State Architecture
Your assertion that a new, unitary corporate state was brought into being is refuted by the text itself. Under international treaty interpretation (VCLT Article 31), what was omitted defines the legal boundaries of the agreement.
The 1707 Treaty contains zero state architecture. The text explicitly omitted:
No Constitution of Great Britain
No doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty
No Government of Great Britain
No Prime Minister or Cabinet Executive
No unified Law or Legal System of Great Britain (Article XIX explicitly preserved Scots Law)
No party political system
No provision for simple majoritarian voting rules
No defined national border of Great Britain
No single “Nation” of Great Britain
No designated Capital City of Great Britain
No unified Defense Force architecture of Great Britain
”Great Britain” was established as an international name (Article I) and a shared economic market, not an incorporating corporate state with an absolute executive.
Parliaments, Delegations, and Foundational Breaches
Your assertion that the new state simply “adopted the laws and rules of the larger party” is a total rewrite of history and black-letter law:
Why the Scottish Parliament Was Merely Adjourned: Under the Claim of Right 1689, the monarchy in Scotland is not absolute or sovereign; it is strictly limited and contractual, deriving its authority from the Sovereign Principal (the People of Scotland). By extension, the monarch’s commissioners and parliamentarians were conditional delegates who possessed zero legal capacity to extinguish, surrender, or alienate Scottish statehood or sovereignty in any shape, size, or form (nemo dat quod non habet). Recognizing these constitutional limits, the Estates of Parliament did not—and could not—abolish Scotland or its institutions. They merely ratified the limited trade agreement before them and adjourned (“sederunt until the next call of Parliament”), preserving the unbroken legal continuum of the Scottish state. By contrast, Article III required the formal dissolution of the English Parliament to make way for the new joint venue.
A Council of Delegates, Not English Continuity: The Parliament of Great Britain was designed strictly as a joint council of delegates representing two legally equal state peers, convened to administer a shared trade and economic compact. Both states sent their delegations as equal peers—there were no electoral rules written on the treaty for a singular state apparatus because no such overarching entity was ever negotiated or created.
Foundational Material Breaches:
When England unilaterally resurrected its own pre-1707 municipal rules, sat in its old Westminster chamber, imposed English Standing Orders on 23 October 1707 (placing 45 Scottish members beneath a 513-member English majority), and seized sole custody of the Treasury in 1708, it was committing foundational material breaches.
The 1998/1999 Statutory Cage: When the Scottish Parliament reconvened, England framed the Scotland Act 1998 as a domestic statutory “gift” of conditional powers under English Diceyan parliamentary supremacy. But before doing so, England unilaterally gifted itself 6,000 square miles of Scottish territorial waters (SI 1999/1126), imposed the d’Hondt electoral system to prevent a Scottish majority, and sealed the foundational legal records under state secrecy.
England did not “inherit” the right to run Great Britain under English rules—it seized that authority through an unnegotiated administrative hijack. You cannot cite 300 years of illegal, unilateral overreach as proof of a constitutional merger. Under public international law, a continuous material breach conveys zero legal title (ex injuria jus non oritur).
2. The Fallacy of Articles I and II (Name, Succession, and the Shared Crown)
DaveyTee, your reliance on Articles I and II as “conclusive” proof of a constitutional merger conflates maritime branding and dynastic succession rules with the surrender of sovereign statehood.
Article I Establishes a Maritime Ensign and Name, Not an Absolute State:
Article I mandates that the kingdoms be united by the “Name of Great Britain” and adopt conjoined ensigns (“Crosses of St Andrew and St George”). The textual and practical purpose of this clause was maritime trade—establishing a unified civil and naval ensign to identify shipping operating within the joint customs and economic market. Under international treaty interpretation (VCLT Article 31), establishing an international trade name and a shared maritime flag does not constitute the creation of an incorporating, unitary corporate state. A maritime shipping flag does not extinguish the distinct legal personality of the contracting state peers.
Article II Regulates Succession, Not Sovereignty:
Article II specifies the Protestant line of succession (the House of Hanover) for the shared monarch. Sharing a head of state constitutes a Personal Union—a recognized mechanism under public international law where sovereign states share a monarch without merging their underlying constitutional structures. Article II regulated the individual holding the office; it did not alter the constitutional nature of the office itself. Under the Claim of Right 1689, the Crown in Scotland is limited, contractual, and subordinate to the Sovereign Principal (the People of Scotland). A statutory succession clause regulating dynastic inheritance lacks the legal capacity to overwrite the foundational constitutional rule of Scottish popular sovereignty.
Unilateral Alteration of Article II (1800):
Article II defined the monarchical framework for the state of Great Britain. In 1800, England unilaterally altered the Crown through the Act of Union with Ireland, altering the title, scope, and constitutional structure to create the “United Kingdom” framework without negotiating a new bilateral treaty or securing the consent of Scotland. Under public international law, the unilateral modification of core terms in a bilateral treaty constitutes a material breach (VCLT Article 60).
Articles I and II established an international trade name, a maritime shipping ensign, and a line of monarchical succession for an economic pact. They did not extinguish Scottish sovereignty or establish an absolute, English-dominated statutory empire.
3. The Fallacy of “Parliamentary Sovereignty” and the Diceyan Absolutist Trap
DaveyTee’s argument relies heavily on the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, asserting that the Parliament sitting in London possesses absolute, unlimited power to alter, override, or extinguish any term of the 1707 agreement at will.
This position commits a fatal error: it attempts to apply a purely English municipal legal concept to an international bilateral agreement between two distinct state peers.
Parliamentary Sovereignty is an English Municipal Concept, Not a Principle of Great Britain:
The doctrine of absolute Parliamentary Sovereignty—famously codified by Albert Venn Dicey—is a product of English domestic common law. It asserts that Parliament can make or unmake any law whatever and that no body can override its legislation. This doctrine existed in English domestic law prior to 1707, but it was never incorporated into the 1707 Treaty, nor was it part of Scottish constitutional law.
The Scottish Constitutional Counter-Principle (Claim of Right 1689):
Scotland’s constitutional system explicitly rejects absolute parliamentary supremacy. Under the Claim of Right 1689, sovereignty resides with the Sovereign Principal (the People of Scotland). The Scottish Estates were conditional delegates with limited, enumerated powers. They lacked the legal capacity to grant absolute, unlimited authority to the joint Parliament of Great Britain (nemo dat quod non habet). The doctrine of absolute parliamentary supremacy could not be inherited or assumed by the Parliament of Great Britain because one contracting party (Scotland) never recognized or possessed such a concept to transfer.
Judicial Recognition of Limited Sovereignty (MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953):
This limit was explicitly recognized by the highest civil court in Scotland. In MacCormick v Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396), the Lord President (Lord Cooper) stated as a matter of authoritative law:
”The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law… Considering that the Union Agreements contain plain powers and plain prohibitions… I have not satisfied myself that the State of Great Britain has ever had an absolute unlimited Parliamentary sovereignty.”
The International Law Prohibition (VCLT Article 27):
Even if England treats its domestic parliament as supreme within its own borders, public international law strictly prohibits a state from invoking its internal municipal law to justify non-performance or breach of an international treaty.
Codified in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Internal law and observance of treaties):
”A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”
By asserting that English parliamentary supremacy permits England to alter, breach, or ignore the terms of the 1707 economic agreement, DaveyTee invokes domestic municipal law to validate a breach of an international treaty—a direct violation of VCLT Article 27.
Summary of the Black-Letter Legal Reality
The assertion that the Parliament in London possesses absolute sovereignty to rewrite or ignore the 1707 agreement is legally void under both international and constitutional law:
Internationally, domestic statutes cannot override bilateral treaty obligations (VCLT Article 27).
Constitutionally, the Parliament of Great Britain was never granted absolute sovereignty, as Scotland’s constitutional framework (Claim of Right 1689) prohibits absolute statutory power over the Sovereign Principal.
England’s ongoing reliance on Diceyan parliamentary supremacy to override Scottish interests represents the unilateral imposition of an English domestic doctrine onto a bilateral international compact—constituting a continuous material breach under VCLT Article 60.
4. The Fallacy of English Municipal Remedies and Adjudication (Ex Injuria Jus Non Oritur)
DaveyTee attempts to defeat a black-letter international law challenge by arguing that Scotland must seek recourse through internal statutes and institutions operated by the other contracting party—specifically via votes at Westminster, local referendums authorized by England, or rulings from an unnegotiated UK Supreme Court.
This argument relies on a fundamental jurisdictional fallacy: it demands that one party to a breached international treaty submit to the exclusive, unilateral adjudication of the defaulting party’s own municipal courts and unnegotiated administrative overlays.
1. The Principle of Nemo Judex In Causa Sua (No One Shall Be Judge in Their Own Cause)
Under fundamental principles of natural justice and public international law, a defaulting contracting peer (England) cannot appoint its own municipal institutions—such as its Parliament or an unnegotiated UK Supreme Court—to act as the sole arbiter of whether its own administrative overlay has breached an inter-state treaty. Demanding that Scotland validate its legal status through an English statutory mechanism (e.g., demanding a Section 30 order under the English Scotland Act 1998) or abide by rulings from an unnegotiated court sitting in London converts an international treaty dispute into a permission framework controlled entirely by the breaching party.
2. The Tip of the Iceberg: Three Centuries of Unilateral Material Breaches
DaveyTee’s reliance on “established UK state architecture” ignores the fact that this architecture was never negotiated, agreed upon, or codified in the 1707 Treaty. The “UK” itself is an unnegotiated English administrative overlay, systemically imposed by England through a continuous sequence of foundational material breaches (VCLT Article 60):
1707 (Legislative Hijack): Unilateral imposition of pre-existing English Standing Orders on 23 October 1707, trapping 45 Scottish members beneath a 513-member English majority.
1708 (Fiscal Hijack & Financial Theft): Unilateral abolition of the Scottish Privy Council and Scottish Mint, followed by the complete seizure of fiscal control. The 1707 Treaty required a shared state treasury with legally equal representation; instead, England absorbed all fiscal governance into its own pre-existing municipal structures.
1711–1713 (Taxation Breaches & Overridden Repudiation): Unilateral imposition of duties on Scottish linen (violating Article VI) and the Malt Tax (violating Article XIV). When 100% of Scottish representatives voted to repudiate, denounce, and terminate the Treaty on 1 June 1713, England used its majoritarian voting block and English proxy votes to block the termination of the bilateral compact.
1721 (Executive Branch Fabrication): Unilateral creation of the office of Prime Minister and Cabinet Executive under Sir Robert Walpole—an unnegotiated administrative apparatus added to the trade pact without a treaty amendment or Scottish consent.
1800 (Monarchical & State Alteration): Unilateral modification of the Crown, regalia, and state scope via the Act of Union with Ireland (violating Article II).
1968 & 1999 (Territorial Theft): Unilateral excision and reallocation of Scottish maritime boundaries and 6,000 square miles of North Sea territorial waters (SI 1968/892 and SI 1999/1126).
1998 (Statutory Cage & Electoral Manipulation): Unilateral enactment of the Scotland Act 1998 to frame Scottish parliamentary authority as an English statutory “gift,” alongside the imposition of the d’Hondt electoral system to prevent a Scottish majority.
2005 (Judicial Hijack & Unnegotiated Court): Unilateral creation of an unnegotiated “UK Supreme Court” under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, breaching Article XIX protections that preserved the absolute independence of Scots Law and guaranteed that Scottish causes would never be subject to courts sitting in England.
These documented violations represent merely the visible tip of an ongoing structural breach. Unilaterally adding an administrative overlay and foreign judicial bodies that were explicitly omitted from the original text does not build legitimacy; it compounds the default.
3. The Illegitimacy of English Municipal Title (Ex Injuria Jus Non Oritur)
The legal maxim ex injuria jus non oritur dictates that legal right and valid title cannot arise from an unlawful act. An unnegotiated English administrative overlay operating out of London cannot rely on three centuries of its own continuous, unnegotiated structural additions, fabricated courts, and material breaches to establish exclusive, binding jurisdiction over the state peer it contracted with.
4. Inapplicability of Internal Remedies to Void Contracts
Under public international law and treaty mechanics (VCLT Article 60), when a treaty is rendered default or void due to material breach, the injured state peer is not required to seek leave from the breaching party’s municipal legal system or its unnegotiated statutory courts. The determination of breach under a bilateral inter-state pact between state peers is an international legal fact, operating completely outside municipal statutes and court rulings enacted by either party.
5. The Status of the Sovereign Principal Remains Extramunicipal
The ultimate authority in Scotland resides with the Sovereign Principal (the People of Scotland under the Claim of Right 1689). The Sovereign Principal operates above and outside statutes passed by an English delegate assembly or rulings issued by an unnegotiated UK Supreme Court. Consequently, municipal electoral mechanics, court judgments based on English common law, or local franchise definitions passed by England cannot modify, restrict, or extinguish the unextinguished international legal personality of Scotland.
Summary of Section 4
The claim that Scotland’s legal standing or contractual remedies are subject to authorization from England or rulings from an unnegotiated UK Supreme Court is legally invalid:
A breaching contracting peer cannot act as the court of final appeal over its own contractual breaches, nor can it impose an unnegotiated court to do so (nemo judex in causa sua).
Unilateral municipal statutes, unnegotiated courts, and an unnegotiated English administrative overlay convey zero international legal title over an injured contracting peer (ex injuria jus non oritur).
International treaty challenges operating under VCLT Article 60 exist outside English municipal jurisdiction and do not require permission slips from the defaulting party.
Gayle
I love your writings and your approach.
If I were you though I’d ignore mister DaveyT he used to pop up on the late Iain Lawsons blog, same nonsense then, pretends the wants independence but so graceful to show us, alas, how it just isn’t doable.
Cuckoo in the nest then, Cuckoo in the nest now, best not to feed it.
Thank you, Paul.
The cuckoo nest is the perfect analogy for these people. His comment was meant as an obvious bad-faith trap, but it gave me the exact pretext I needed to dissect and dismantle the entire Unionist argument using black-letter treaty law for the benefit of everyone else reading
Hi Paul, Indeed I did post every now and again on Iain Lawson’s blog and fell into some disfavour as I really felt it necessary to provide some counter to much of the historical rubbish that was being spouted by Salvo’s followers. I did have some support!
You may not like what I write, but if you disagree why don’t you point out where I’m wrong? You rather typify the sad state of affairs nowadays where people take entrenched positions and genuine debate becomes very difficult and is all too often replaced by abuse. So please, if you think I’m wrong, tell me why, hopefully with some evidence to substantiate your conclusions. I’m concerned that if as a movement we put forward theories that are patently wrong it will do us more harm than good.
As an extra wee thought by the way, it seems to me that using the Treaty of Union which was effected via commissioners (including dodgy ones) with Queen Anne, means that the Monarchy should remain in place until AFTER Independence, and that the Independence movement which contains many Republicans should in no way work with Republic which wants to get rid of the Monarchy. And also by the way, replace it with a BRITISH Republic. Scotland should in no wise sign up to that.
I’m no monarchist either, but the question of the monarchy belongs in a post-restoration referendum once Scotland has reasserted its status quo ante. Sovereign power rests with the people under the Claim of Right 1689—so establishing our restored legal status comes first, and the people decide the head of state after.
Exactly.
I don’t mind Charlie, but Billy, Prince of Wales, head of the English FA and supporting England can do one!
Gayle, I think we’ve reached the point where our disagreement isn’t really about history or law anymore — it’s about the difference between what can be shown and what can be believed.
My position is based on sources that can be checked: the actual text of the Acts of Union, the UK Supreme Court judgments, the nature of parliamentary sovereignty, and how international recognition works in practice. None of these support the idea that the Union was just a trade agreement, that Scotland retained a separate sovereignty or a constitution with legal force, or that international bodies can dissolve the Union, take action against England, or recognise Scotland as a colony.
I completely respect your commitment to independence – notwithstanding what some may think I have long shared the goal. The danger is that arguments which can be easily disproven don’t strengthen the independence movement – they weaken it. They give opponents an easy target and distract from the real, hard work of building a democratic mandate that the international community will actually recognise. I sympathise completely with the frustration resulting from lack of progress, Westminster’s denial of democracy and the feebleness of the SNP. But independence won’t come from theories that neither the Scottish people nor any court, government, or international body will accept. It will come from political strategy, democratic legitimacy, and sustained public support. That’s why I think it’s important to stay grounded in what can be demonstrated, not what we wish were true.
I’ll leave it there.
“My position is based on sources that can be checked”
But you haven’t given any in detail. You’ve quoted bits of the Act of Union with England and given your opinion without a reference or link to any judgements, or any opinion by a respected constitutional expert – which would still be an opinion. You’ve referred to “the UK Supreme Court judgments”, but have not referred to any specific judgement, nor quoted from it, not given a link for anyone to check for ourselves. You also referred to Clause XXV and gave your opinion on it which is fine, but have not backed it up with a judgement or even a qualified opinion. You also said about Parliamentary sovereignty “I think that …” which is the very definition of an opinion.
So when you say “My position is based on sources that can be checked“, no, it is based solely on your opinion of any sources. And indeed, you claimed earlier: “I think that by … the Claim of Right was effectively extinguished” which I disproved above, by giving the link to the actual still live 1689 legislation on the UK legislation website, and quoting the UKSC judgement on Miller, with a link, and that “Claim of Right” was mentioned and discussed several times in the judgment, proving it is very much alive, and indeed, clearly pertinent. Some including me would claim that it was the underlying factor.
You’re entitled to an opinion of course, but not to give the idea it is in any wise definitive – it ain’t.
Meanwhile here’s an article (long) from “Ian Campbell CMG, former circuit judge and former Honorary Visiting Professor at the University of Liverpool“:
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-64-issue-11/the-queen-could-be-bemused/
Guys,this is a very controversial and contentious topic. I think it is one that needs aired, discussed and debated for the good of the cause.Many independence supporters (that are so desperate for indy)have allowed themselves to believe that by some UN edict or some European Court intervention will result in Scotland becoming independent without any need for political input or an electoral event.
Indeed, some less than honest(not referring to anyone in this discussion) and for their own egotistical or financial reasons have allowed this falsehood to go unchallenged.
I was recently approached by a couple of prominent independence supporters to have a Prism Special to debate this very matter.
I think all three of you involved in this exchange would be ideal for such a podcast. Please let me know if you are all or any of you are willing to participate.
I personally see the worth in both Gayle and Salvo’s efforts and are all integral to the cause,just as is the work of Jim Sillars and his team in Yes United. Just as I believe that all independence parties,organisations and individuals need to unify and attack the union on as many fronts as possible. We need to stop this spiral of people thinking “my way is the only way.” Unity,is the key. I know that neither Alliance To Liberate Scotland or Through A Scottish Prism realise they cannot do it on their own,we need everyone in favour of Scottish independence to wake up to this fact too and unite as one in common cause,
No thanks, I’m a below the line or one to one in yer face sort of person!
So am I usually. I stepped back from it all for a long time because it is a never ending loop
What prompted me to take direct action was, and is, the immediate existential threat to Scotland’s very existence. England drawing up the UK written constitution is not a benevolent act. It is the final piece they need to extinguish Scotland’s legal personality by overriding the Scottish constitution, sovereign authority and Scottish laws. All would be inferior to England who would have a permanent veto over Scotland.
The time for waiting it out and hoping Scot gov delegates step up is long gone. The fact that Swinney merely asked if it would include an “exit clause” says it all. He has openly abdicated his constitutional and solemn duty to the people and country. If we wait any longer it will be literally too late. Not just a turn if phrase “too late” but the cold hard reality.
The timeline I included in my petition (a mere tip of the iceberg) shows how they have been systematically dismantling Scotland on the international stage. Playing nicely and by their rules does us no favours. This is why it is now imperative to take direct action.
BHB,
Thank you for the invitation and for offering a platform on Prism to discuss these crucial issues. I am more than happy to participate alongside Salvo, Yes United, and the others to lay out these concepts clearly for the movement.
I want to make it clear from the start that I respect the work Salvo and others are doing. We all share the same goal, and different approaches can operate in parallel. My intention is not to dismiss anyone’s efforts or claim a single monopoly on how we move forward, but rather to ensure viewers understand the hard, real-world mechanics required to execute statehood.
Establishing a formal paper trail and serving international notifications is not a competing strategy or a matter of personal preference—it is an essential, non-negotiable prerequisite regardless of the route taken:
The International Paper Trail & Financial Record: Before any route can succeed in the real world, the petition process must establish the formal evidentiary record, forcing the English administration to attempt to justify its material breaches. Serving the Master Instrument of Denunciation and Termination upon UN depositaries, international banks, and credit rating agencies is not asking for permission—it is the mandatory step to formally place the treaty’s legal termination on the global financial and diplomatic record.
Domestic Execution: Once that international legal foundation is locked in, practical domestic mechanics become viable—such as withholding revenues via escrow accounts from England (which has held sole custody of the state treasury), establishing internal administrative structures, and re-establishing national defence.
These are the practical, real-world steps required under international law to transition from political rhetoric to lawful execution.
I look forward to a constructive discussion on Prism where we can explore how these practical realities underpin the entire cause. Count me in.
Davey,
Let’s be clear: this isn’t a subjective difference over “what can be shown and what can be believed.” That is an evasion used when primary legal evidence cannot be refuted. On treaty law, constitutional law, and customary international law, the evidence proves the 1707 compact was a functional trade agreement between two independent, sovereign nation-states operating as legally equal peers—not an English expansion, despite the flawed Crawford and Boyle narrative you espouse.
1. Unnegotiated Courts Cannot Grant Authority
You claim your sources can be checked, yet you rely on English Acts rather than the underlying Treaty of Union. Statutes passed by one party cannot alter an international compact between sovereign peers. Pointing to UK Supreme Court rulings to claim authority for a central assembly is a fatal logical loop: a court created through an unnegotiated English overlay—itself a material breach of the treaty—possesses no lawful jurisdiction over Scotland. It cannot give, revoke, or validate authority over a realm where it had no legitimate standing in the first place.
2. Explicit Omissions in the Treaty
Under public international law, what is omitted from a treaty is every bit as legally binding as what is included. The 1707 Treaty created no state government, nor did it merge the two realms. The text explicitly omits:
A Constitution of Great Britain
Parliamentary Sovereignty / Absolute Supremacy
A Government of Great Britain
An Executive of Great Britain (including a Prime Minister)
A unified Law of Great Britain
A simple majority voting rule
A party political system
Territorial borders of Great Britain
A capital city of Great Britain
A national religion of Great Britain
A unified Defence of Great Britain
A nation of Great Britain
3. Delegated Trade Mechanics vs. Inalienable Popular Sovereignty
What the Treaty DOES explicitly include is strictly functional: a shared council of delegates with fixed numbers of representatives and lords, a shared treasury and taxation framework, and a Union Flag for naval and merchant ships.
Absolute parliamentary supremacy is a purely English concept. No treaty article transferred English parliamentary sovereignty to the parliament of GB nor could it alienate Scottish Popular Sovereignty, which remains inalienably with the people (the Community of the Realm). English delegates attempting to exercise absolute power over Scotland is acting ultra vires—an extraterritorial assertion of authority completely outside the scope of the treaty.
4. Public International Law is Not “Theory”
Attempting to dismiss international law as mere “theory” while steering the conversation back into English permission loops and political majority narratives ignores the reality of how treaty obligations function. Public international law is not an abstract concept; it is the governing framework for agreements between sovereign peers. Depositaries, tribunals, and international bodies operate on formal records of treaty compliance, material breach, and the exercise of unextinguished sovereign rights—not on the mere assumptions of one signatory party.
We will leave it there. The formal, notarized Master Instrument will speak for itself on the international stage where it belongs.
DaveyTee19 by the way, might be as opinionated as I am, and an awkward sod like me, but is as certainly as you can get, a fulltime supporter of Independence.
Please accept my apologies. I was so busy thinking of what next to say to Gayle that I completely overlooked your post.
Yes the Claim of Right is still listed in its entirety on the government website under the heading “Acts of the Old Scottish Parliament”. No it hasn’t been formally repealed but would have fallen foul of Article XXV. or Article XVIII. It is of historical interest but of no legal significance.
Yes it was referred to several times in the Miller case, but played no part in the eventual judgment in which it was not mentioned. Two relevant interesting points arose. The first was a reference to Article 18 of the Act which stated “That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Customs and such Excises to which Scotland is by virtue of this Treaty to be liable be the same in Scotland from and after the Union as in England and that all other Lawes in use within the Kingdom of Scotland do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in the same force as before (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain ” The interesting point in that is that it is clearly stated that Scottish laws can be altered by the new parliament. In essence, this was an acknowledgment of the sovereignty of parliament.
The second interesting point was Lord Reed’s (a Scottish judge) statement that “I entirely accept the importance in our constitutional law of the principle of Parliamentary supremacy over our domestic law” (it’s at paragraph 177).
I’m afraid I didn’t go through it in any greater detail because I got fed up.
But there you are – there’s some sources that can be checked. The Act of Union and its wording is a source that can be checked. If you’d like to delve deeply into the archives of the working of the Scottish Parliament in the years preceding the Union, they can be checked (I confess I got some of my stuff from there). Some of the players at the time recorded their views and I read some of them. But in dealing with history when there’s no-one around to give direct evidence, usually the best one can do is to look at what was said or written at the time and form an opinion. I may have been guilty of that to some extent, but so certainly has Gayle.
(Oh, and by the, way thanks for your confirmation as to my independence credentials)
In closing her last posting Gayle (for whom I have the utmost respect as someone working hard for independence) said “The formal, notarized Master Instrument will speak for itself on the international stage where it belongs”. I am not really sure what she means, but if it brings Scottish independence I’ll be among the first to applaud (and maybe recant!).
(As an aside: Dave Dougan MP recently said that he would work with Nigel Farage and Reform if it meant we’d get a binding referendum on independence. Naturally this didn’t go down well with Swinney and Co and he was forced to retract somewhat. Personally I totally agreed with him – Independence is the top priority and and if working with another democratic albeit right wing party brings it about, go for it. If it leaves the rUK in the hands of Farage and Co that’s tough.
If you look at the index pages of the aosp section, you will see several repealed with dates after the Acts of Union for instance
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp?page=2
“Oaths of Minors Act 1681(repealed 25.9.1991)” (some would even argue wrongly repealed, without authority)
but for the Claim of Right is not repealed and the changes to legislation says: “There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Claim of Right Act 1689.” which if you hover the “i” or click on it, just says “… At the current time any known changes or effects made by subsequent legislation have been applied to the text of the legislation you are viewing by the editorial team …” which means therefore it has NOT been repealed.
The UKSC link I gave with so many references was to the full judgement itself. The judgement would not have referred to them in substance if it had been repealed, only to say it was irrelevant as it was repealed. So clearly it was NOT repealed in the eyes of the UKSC, it’s not just my opinion.
Whether it was or not instrumental in the result is immaterial – you originally said: “the Claim of Right was effectively extinguished as a legal instrument by the Act of Union” – well, it clearly was not. That is not supported by any judgement.
The context of 177 and your Lord Reed parliamentary sovereignty quote was this, it seems to me (to use Lord Reed’s at times non-specific and ambiguous words):
“(7) This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.
(8) But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”
That’s “devolved”, not the original Scottish Parliament!
As for your interpretation of the Act of Union with England – different people would make a different interpretation. Those opinions are only opinions until a court judgement – which can be overruled later on. And every Clause needs to be considered with every other Clause – a judgement would not take each one in isolation, as long as the KCs made their case competently and thoroughly.
Anyways, this is getting old and going round in circles. Opinion vs opinion.
I was just checking the Articles again now I’ve got a little time, and when you (Davey) say:
“No it hasn’t been formally repealed but would have fallen foul of Article XXV. or Article XVIII”
Actually it’s completely the opposite, as XXV specifically refers to the Claim of Right as an affirmative reference, XVIII says: “… except such as are contrary to or inconsistent with this Treaty” and XXV says similar: “… so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them”
and then that clause XXV says: “… shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms… ” (my bold)
which “seems to me” (a la Lord Reed) to imply that the Scottish Parliament continued, albeit suspended, just waiting to be reawoken by an election and then reconvened. As in 1999.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/section/XXV
I hereby declare that the Scottish Parliament has the full power to dissolve the Union at any time it wants. Or, of course, to hear Salvo from the People regarding infringements of our Rights.
I love it when a plan comes together.
Spot on. Article XXV explicitly preserves and incorporates the Claim of Right, confirming that popular sovereignty remains in Scottish hands.
Furthermore, the “contrary or inconsistent” clause in Articles XVIII and XXV actually cuts the other way: it means any English domestic statute passed after 1707 that attempts to unilaterally alter or subjugate Scottish constitutional rights is legally void under the Treaty itself.
The Scottish principal never surrendered its sovereignty, and reconvening the Parliament was simply the re-activation of an unextinguished organ. Under VCLT Article 60, because England continuously operates in breach of those foundational terms, the Scottish Parliament—backed by the popular sovereignty of the Claim of Right—holds the absolute legal authority to declare the defaulted contract terminated (status quo ante).
1. On the Foundational Misconception of Articles I and III
”The Act of Union and its wording is a source that can be checked… In essence, this was an acknowledgment of the sovereignty of parliament.”
The Textual & Structural Error:
DaveyTee misunderstands both ratifying Acts (Edinburgh and Westminster) by assuming Articles I and III created an absolute, centralized “unitary state.”
Article I Reality: Article I merely names the incorporating trade union (“Great Britain”) for specific economic and succession purposes. It does not extinguish the constituent identities of the two sovereign peer states, nor does it create an absolute state apparatus.
Article III Reality: Article III creates a shared assembly—the Parliament of Great Britain—to represent the union for enumerated treaty functions. It operates strictly as an Article III Council of Delegates between two legally equal peer nation-states. It contains zero text endowing that delegate assembly with absolute, omnipotent sovereignty over either state party.
2. On the Claim of Right 1689
”Yes the Claim of Right is still listed in its entirety on the government website under the heading “Acts of the Old Scottish Parliament”. No it hasn’t been formally repealed but would have fallen foul of Article XXV. or Article XVIII. It is of historical interest but of no legal significance.”
Adjournment vs. Abolition: The Scottish Estates were never dissolved; they were merely adjourned sine die on 25 March 1707. The English Parliament was abolished by the treaty arrangements. Carrying over English parliamentary session numbering was a mere administrative manoeuvre—not a lawful continuation of the English Parliament.
The Sovereign Bound: The Claim of Right 1689 is Scotland’s foundational constitutional instrument setting the absolute legal bound that popular sovereignty resides inalienably in the constituent people of Scotland. The adjourned Estates operated under its authority and possessed zero legal competence to alter, breach, or surrender it.
Preservation via Article XXV: Article XXV explicitly incorporates and preserves fundamental Scottish legal rights; it does not nullify them. Under Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Article 27, statutory assertions or administrative positions taken by one state party cannot extinguish fundamental constitutional titles or excuse a treaty default.
3. On Article XVIII (“Alterable by Parliament”) & Article XIX
”The interesting point in that is that it is clearly stated that Scottish laws can be altered by the new parliament. In essence, this was an acknowledgment of the sovereignty of parliament.”
The Ghost Body Void: This assertion relies on a non-existent clause. No “Government of Great Britain” or supreme state apparatus exists anywhere in the text of the 25 Articles. Sovereignty cannot be surrendered to a body that the treaty text never created.
Trade Harmonization vs. Sovereign Surrender: Article XVIII explicitly limits adjustments to “Regulation of Trade, Customs and such Excises.” Delegating derivative authority to align commercial and customs rules across trading peers is routine enumerated contract management—it is not an acknowledgment of “Parliamentary Sovereignty.” A delegate body cannot use an administrative trade clause to grant itself absolute sovereignty over a co-equal contracting state.
The Structural Barrier of Article XIX: DaveyTee’s reading ignores Article XIX, which explicitly guarantees the permanent, independent operation of the Scottish Courts (Court of Session and Justiciary) free from external judicial jurisdiction. Article XIX proves the treaty explicitly rejected a single, centralized legal order in favor of preserving distinct sovereign legal domains.
4. On Relying on Lord Reed and the Miller Case
”The second interesting point was Lord Reed’s (a Scottish judge) statement that ‘I entirely accept the importance in our constitutional law of the principle of Parliamentary supremacy over our domestic law’ (it’s at paragraph 177).”
The English Legal Overlay: “Parliamentary Supremacy” is a distinctively English constitutional doctrine with no counterpart in Scots Constitutional Law (MacCormick v Lord Advocate [1953] SC 396, per Lord Cooper: “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle”). Lord Reed’s statement represents a court operating within an unnegotiated English administrative overlay.
VCLT Article 27 Override: Assertions of supremacy by one state party’s courts carry zero legal weight under Public International Law. A state party cannot cite its own court rulings or administrative practices to justify a material breach of an international treaty (VCLT Article 60).
To sum up, DaveyTee’s entire position rests on a fundamental misreading of both ratifying Acts and a reliance on an unnegotiated English administrative overlay:
The Unitary State Fallacy (Articles I & III): DaveyTee assumes Articles I and III created a single, supreme unitary state. The text of both Acts proves otherwise: Article I merely named the trade union (“Great Britain”), while Article III created a shared assembly operating as a limited Council of Delegates between two sovereign peer states.
The Non-Existent State Body & No Sovereignty Clause: DaveyTee claims Article XVIII acknowledged “Parliamentary Sovereignty,” but no “Government of Great Britain” or supreme state apparatus exists anywhere in the 25 Articles. Neither the treaty nor the ratifying Acts contain an enacting clause transferring absolute parliamentary sovereignty to the shared delegate body.
Trade Harmonization is Not Sovereignty Surrender: Article XVIII permits the Article III Council of Delegates to adjust “Regulation of Trade, Customs and Excises.” Aligning commercial rules across two sovereign peers is routine contract management, not an acknowledgment of parliamentary omnipotence.
The Claim of Right 1689 Remains Sovereign Title: The Scottish Estates were merely adjourned sine die; they operated under the Claim of Right and had zero legal competence to alienate popular sovereignty. Article XXV explicitly incorporated and preserved fundamental Scottish legal rights.
State Party Courts Cannot Override Treaties: Citing Lord Reed in Miller relies on a judge applying an English doctrine within an administrative overlay. Under VCLT Article 27, a state party cannot cite its own court decisions to justify a treaty default or rewrite a bilateral compact.
Applying an unnegotiated English overlay to a bilateral international compact is a fundamental legal error. Under Public International Law, the 1707 Compact remains a bilateral trade treaty between equal peers, the shared body established under Article III remains a limited Council of Delegates, and English statutory assertions remain an active material treaty default under VCLT Article 60.
Gayle, you’re always on about black letter law, but have yourself failed to provide any. If you are persisting in your contention that “On treaty law, constitutional law, and customary international law, the evidence proves the 1707 compact was a functional trade agreement” please lets have some of this evidence, ideally of the black letter variety. My major source is the Act itself, and a common sense reading of the Act, Where things are clear, I have taken them as read is normal legal practice. Only if things are unclear will the courts usually then try to find out what people were actually thinking at the time. I don’t think that much is unclear.
But if you want to go back to what people thought at the time, they believed, rightly, that it was an incorporating Act. Some, the unionists, were gleeful. “A perfect union”, said Lord Queensberry. Those who opposed the union had no doubt what it meant. The Opposition leader, the Marquess of Annandale said “This nation seems generally averse to this incorporating union in the terms now before us, as subversive of the sovereignty, fundamental constitution and Claim of Right of this kingdom, and as threatening ruin to this church as by law established.” Lord Belhaven of the Country Party: “When I consider the Affair of an Union betwixt the two Nations, as it is expressed in the several Articles thereof, and now the Subject of our Deliberation at this Time……..I think I see a free and independent kingdom delivering up that which all the world hath been fighting for since the days of Nimrod – its liberties and independence!” It’s pretty clear that they didn’t think it was a trade agreement.
Nor did the people who rioted in the streets, something they would not have done had the Act merely been a trade agreement. Certainly there was quite a lot about trade in the Act, most of it very favourable to Scotland – why on earth do you think that England would have offered such terms to the irritant north of their border unless they were getting something in return?
But I think its notable that less than 20 years earlier the Scots were asking England for a union. Back in 1689 the Convention of the Estates (the same lot responsible for the Claim of Right) wrote a letter to King William III recommending a full incorporating union with England. And not just vaguely: they explicitly proposed one parliament, one political body, one nation. Here’s what they said: “We are most sensible of your majesties’ kyndnes and fatherly care to both your kingdomes in promoveing ther union, which we hope hath been reserved to be accomplished by yow, that as both kingdomes are united in one head and soveraigne so they may become one body pollitick, one nation to be represented in one parliament, and to testifie our readines to comply with your majestie in that matter we have nominated commissioners to treat the termes of ane intire and perpetwall union betwixt the two kingdomes, with reservatione to us of our church government, as it shall be established at the tyme of the union” Their entreaties were in fact rejected by England which was not yet ready for union.
So why did England want the union in 1707? The primary reason was security. England feared Scotland becoming a hostile or French‑aligned state during a major European war, wanted to secure the Protestant succession, and sought to eliminate the political and economic risks of having an independent kingdom on its northern border. At the time England was fighting the War of the Spanish Succession against France. An independent Scotland could choose its own foreign policy — and France was the obvious partner. A Franco‑Scottish alliance would have opened England’s northern border to invasion. As far as England was concerned that would always remain a threat.
Secondly, England wanted to secure the royal succession. As long as Scotland remained independent it could choose a different monarch, potentially restored the Stuarts, or align with France. This would have created two rival crowns on the same island — a constitutional nightmare England was determined to avoid.
I hope that you will accept that a mere trade agreement would have done nothing to annul these fears. Of course there was a lot about trade in the Act; England had to give Scotland something that it would make the deal worthwhile for Scotland. Almost all the provisions as to trade are favourable to Scotland – do you really think that England, already irritated by Scotland, would have given these out of the kindness of its heart? They gave Scotland what it most wanted, full access to England’s protected imperial markets, equal trading rights, and unified customs rules, which later powered the economic boom of Glasgow, the Clyde, and the Lowland burghs. Certainly some taxes, e.g. on malt, were unpopular in Scotland, but they were minor compared to the advantages.
Gayle, it seems to me that your arguments are based on four main points. First, that the Act of Union was nothing more than a trade agreement between equals, that the provisions of the Claim of Right particularly with reference to Scottish popular sovereignty remain legally effectivve, that England has so frequently breached the terms of the Act that international intervention is justified, and that the English doctrine or Parliamentary Supremacy should not be applied to Scotland. It does seem to me that if your claim that the Act of Union was merely a trade agreement fails, as it surely must, and the Act of Union was indeed an incorporating union creating a new state and dissolving two old ones, then so do the rest of your arguments fail.
Oh, and one more time I ask: I assume that you accept that this can only happen if a majority of people in Scotland support it and are willing to go along with it. How do you propose ascertaining that?
1. The Fallacy of “Parliamentary Supremacy” in International Treaty Law
Davey relies on Lord Reed’s statement in R (Miller) v Secretary of State [2017] regarding “parliamentary supremacy.” However, Lord Reed was addressing municipal legal mechanics within the co-signatory’s judicial hierarchy. Under Public International Law, municipal doctrines carry zero force over an international treaty.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) explicitly mandates:
”A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”
Citing parliamentary supremacy to justify the unilateral revision or breach of the 1707 Articles is an explicit admission of a material breach under international law. The shared council of delegates created by the treaty—not a unitary internal parliament—cannot deploy municipal rules to destroy the very contract that established its mandate.
2. Substantive Contract Clauses vs. Historical Speeches
Davey quotes 18th-century speeches (Lord Belhaven and the Marquess of Annandale) to claim an “incorporating union.” In contract and treaty law, political speeches delivered during debate do not define the legal nature of an agreement; the substantive clauses do.
As officially recorded in the co-signatory’s own legislative journal (Hansard), 15 out of the 25 Articles of Union deal strictly with economic duties, taxation, customs, and trade parity. Under international contract rules, an agreement structured around conditional economic provisions and mutual obligations remains a conditional, bilateral trade compact—not an irrevocable political extinction.
3. The Unrepealed Status of the Claim of Right 1689
Davey asserts that the Claim of Right was “effectively extinguished.” As confirmed directly by official databases (legislation.gov.uk), the Claim of Right Act 1689 remains unrepealed, active, and legally binding.
Under Scots Constitutional Law (MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953):
Sovereignty in Scotland resides perpetually with the people (Community of the Realm), not with any council or assembly.
Scottish delegates possessed zero legal competence to alienate or extinguish popular sovereignty in 1707. Any attempt by delegates to execute an absolute “incorporating union” would have been ultra vires (beyond their legal power) ab initio.
4. Treaty Termination Is an International Sovereign Remedy
Davey concludes by asking how public support is “ascertained,” assuming a local administrative mechanism is required. This confuses local political mechanics with Public International Law.
When an international treaty is catastrophically and continuously breached by a co-signatory peer, the injured principal does not seek permission or authorization through administrative mechanisms controlled by the defaulting party. Under VCLT Article 60, contract termination is a direct legal remedy executed by the sovereign principal due to material default. It enforces pre-existing, unextinguished legal title on the international stage.
5. The “Would Have Been” Fallacy
Davey’s argument treats an international treaty dispute as if it were subject to the co-signatory’s municipal legal rules. He argues from a purely hypothetical premise:
assuming that if the 1707 Act was an absolute incorporating union, then Scottish popular sovereignty would have been extinguished, and the resulting assembly would have been a standard domestic parliament governed by English parliamentary supremacy, capable of altering or overwriting any law at will.
However, that hypothetical “would have been” never became legal reality (de jure):
The Absence of Authority: For Scottish popular sovereignty to have been extinguished, the Scottish delegates in 1707 required the legal capacity to surrender it. Under the unrepealed Claim of Right 1689, they held no such power. Any attempt to execute an absolute incorporating union would have been ultra vires (beyond their lawful competence) ab initio—and therefore void from the start.
A Council of Delegates, Not a Domestic Parliament:
Because the principal (Community of the Realm) never surrendered its underlying title, the assembly sitting in London was never a unitary domestic parliament with absolute supremacy. It was—and remains—a shared council of delegates bound by the express terms of a bilateral international treaty.
Treaties Are Not Standard Domestic Bills:
A council of delegates cannot treat a treaty created between two sovereign Creator States as a “standard English bill passed in Westminster” that can be altered or overwritten at will.
Under VCLT Article 27, a co-signatory party cannot deploy its internal statutory habits or domestic common-law doctrines to rewrite or justify the breach of an international contract.
6. Diametrically Opposed Systems & The Standing of the Principal
Finally, Davey’s argument begs the fundamental question by assuming English constitutional law is superior to Scots constitutional law. The two systems are diametrically opposed: English legal theory posits an absolute, omnipotent Parliament; Scots constitutional law (Claim of Right 1689) dictates that sovereignty resides perpetually in the people (Community of the Realm), rendering any parliament a mere limited council of delegates. English common law holds zero legal jurisdiction to overwrite or assimilate the constitutional baseline of its co-signatory peer.
Furthermore, questioning whether the petitioner holds the authority to lodge a Master Instrument relies on top-down statutory thinking. Under Scots Constitutional Law, when delegated assemblies operate ultra vires or fail to defend the constitutional pact, the legal standing to protect national title recurs directly to the constituents of the sovereign principal. The Master Instrument lodged with the UN is not a statutory request for England ‘s permission—it is an explicit, lawful invocation of VCLT Article 60 executed by the unextinguished Creator State principal on the international stage.
Davey’s argument fails because it relies on an unverified assumption that municipal English law sits at the top of an international hierarchy. The 13th August 2026 Master Instrument lodged with the UN operates strictly on the international plane—establishing the 1707 pact as a breached bilateral contract and executing formal termination under Public International Law.
The unitary state thesis regarding Scottish statehood relies on substituting the name of the treaty framework with an unnegotiated English overlay to treat “Great Britain” and “the UK” as interchangeable. They are not legally synonymous.
In Article I of the 1707 Treaty of Union, Great Britain is explicitly defined as the stipulated name of the bilateral trade agreement between Scotland and England.
The official English parliamentary record (Hansard) confirms on record that the 1707 agreement is an international trade compact between two sovereign nations. When aligned directly with the English Command Paper (Scotland Analysis: Devolution and the Implications of Scottish Independence), the official baseline is established:
”Scotland is an independent country within Great Britain…”
Combining the official entry in Hansard with the English Command Paper delivers a decisive legal blow to the unitary state narrative through two distinct admissions:
Acknowledgment of Co-Equal Country Status: The combined official records confirm that the English administration acknowledges Scotland is an independent country—not was, and not an administrative region. An independent country operating within a bilateral trade agreement is an equal entity, completely unsubjected to the municipal constitution or laws of its contracting partner.
The Compounding Fraud and Exposed Substitution: The text exposes England’s deliberate substitution of the trade agreement (Great Britain) with an unnegotiated English overlay (“the UK Government”) within the exact same passage.
Because England knows by law and through its own Hansard record that no “Government of Great Britain” exists in the 1707 treaty text—only a joint council of delegates to manage the trade compact—it intentionally replaces “Great Britain” with “UK Government.” This maneuvers around the total absence of a joint governing entity, inserting an illegitimate English overlay to replace the trade agreement itself—a deliberate breach of treaty engineered to obscure the reality under international law.
This admission completely undermines both the “unitary state” defense and the false narratives that Scotland was absorbed, annexed, or reduced to a colony:
Eradication of the Absorption/Annexation Narrative: An absorbed or annexed territory loses its international legal identity and is reduced to a domestic province. England’s official admissions in Hansard and its own Command Paper that Scotland remains an independent country inside the trade agreement prove that Scotland’s statehood was never extinguished, annexed, or legally merged into an expanded English state.
The Legal Impact: A colony must petition its colonial power for decolonization or self-determination. A co-equal Creator State operating within a bilateral trade agreement is a sovereign principal. Scotland does not petition England for statehood—it simply enforces contract termination against a defaulting treaty partner under international law.
With the unnegotiated English overlay stripped of its presumed legitimacy, the legal framework operates under standard international contract principles:
Absence of Consent Requirement: Because Scotland is acknowledged as an independent country bound by a bilateral trade agreement between Scotland and England, it does not require permission, consent, or statutory authorization (such as a Section 30 order) from its co-signatory peer to address a defaulted contract. Under VCLT Article 60, a material breach by England entitles Scotland to unilaterally suspend or terminate the treaty.
The 23rd October 1707 Procedural Breach: The joint council of delegates was altered on 23rd October 1707 when English delegates unilaterally implemented an unnegotiated simple-majority voting rule. This procedural adjustment permitted the larger English delegation to outvote the Scottish co-signatory peer, leading to subsequent statutory alterations in breach of Articles XVIII and XIX.
Multi-Trillion Pound Liabilities Under Status Quo Ante: In a domestic secession, a region petitions for asset allocation and debt division. Under international contract termination due to material breach (status quo ante), both original states revert to their pre-contract positions. Scotland entered the 1707 trade agreement debt-free and reverts to that baseline as a debt-free state. England—as the defaulting co-signatory peer that usurped the joint framework—remains solely liable for the entire multi-trillion pound state debt mountain, in addition to being liable to Scotland for multi-trillion pound restitution for three centuries of unnegotiated asset extraction.
The sovereign title of Scotland resides inalienably with the Community of the Realm (Claim of Right 1689). England, as the defaulting party to a bilateral trade agreement between Scotland and England, possesses no legal standing under international law to grant, restrict, or negotiate the pre-existing statehood of its co-signatory.
I just found an interesting thing I never noticed before in the Act of Union with England 1707:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/section/XXV
“… shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms… ”
“from and after the Union … the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms” – BOTH PLURAL.
Which implies the Scottish Parliament continued after the Union even if it didn’t reconvene (until 1999). And the Kingdom of Scotland, whatever monarch we choose.
I wonder if, browbeaten and threatened into submission into voting for the Act, some of them managed to put in an escape route unnoticed …
Spot on. The use of ‘respective Parliaments’ and ‘said Kingdoms’ in the future tense after the Union proves that neither parliament nor statehood was extinguished. It was and is a bilateral treaty between two continuing principals meaning the Scottish Parliament was suspended, not destroyed, and was validly reconvened as an unextinguished sovereign assembly.
The Acts of Union were merely the domestic legislative instruments meant to give effect to that bilateral treaty. The Commissioners knew how untrustworthy England was, so they intentionally omitted state architecture from the bilateral treaty while inserting explicit protective clauses that—once breached—render the entire compact defaulted and terminated under international law.
The timeline was this, and I’ve rearranged it to make the point I remember being made, somewhere!
25th March 1707 – Parliament adjourned and the Estates ordered to reconvene on 22nd April 1707
22nd April 1707 – No such meeting appears to have taken place
1st May 1707 – Treaty and Act of Union would come into effect after Scottish Parliament dissolved
but
28th April 1707 – Scottish Parliament dissolved by proclamation on instruction by Queen Anne.
1st May 1707 – The Treaty and Act of Union came into effect having swiftly passed through both Houses of Parliament in England.
So the obvious question is – did Queen Anne have the authority to dissolve the Scottish Parliament BEFORE the Treaty and Act of Union came into effect on 1st May 1707? I think not. The thing is the Treaty and Act of Union could not come into effect without the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament. If the Scottish Parliament had reconvened before the 1st May 1707 it could simply have repealed the Act of Union before it came into effect – No legal Union.
Dissolution was neither legally achieved, constitutionally possible, nor necessary. The 1707 Union was never a unitary state or unified government—it was a bilateral trade agreement administered by a limited Council of Delegates. Because both nations preserved their distinct constitutional identity, dissolving the Scottish Parliament was completely unnecessary; the body was simply adjourned on 25 March 1707. Furthermore, under the Claim of Right 1689, neither Queen Anne nor the delegates possessed the constitutional competence to dissolve it, rendering Queen Anne’s 28 April decree ultra vires and void ab initio.
On 12 May 1999, the unextinguished Parliament of Scotland WAS reconvened.
England breached the treaty when, acting ultra vires, they drew up, signed off, and enacted the Scotland Act 1998—an external statutory enclosure designed to subvert the reconvened Parliament of Scotland and man its administration with an executive bound to English statutory control.
Under VCLT Article 27, a state party cannot invoke its domestic statutes to alter, subordinate, or govern the sovereign organs of a co-contracting treaty partner. The Scotland Act 1998 is an unauthorized, extraterritorial imposition and an ongoing material breach of a defaulted bilateral compact under Public International Law.