Excuse me if I’m not greatly exited by Nicola Sturgeon declaring “It’s time for independence!” in reaction to a poll about Brexit. Most folk in the Yes movement will, I suspect, immediately latch on to the word “independence”. In reality, what is significant here is, not the mention of independence, but the fact that, yet again the First Minister is reacting rather than taking the lead. And that her focus is on England’s Brexit woes rather than Scotland’s constitutional issue.
It was time for independence long before there was Brexit. It was time for independence long before the UK joined what was to become the EU. It was time for independence long before the European project was launched. The fact is, there has never been a time when it wasn’t time for independence. Because, since it was imposed on Scotland over three centuries ago, there has never been a time when it was not a foul affront to our nation and people.
My heart will stir when I hear Nicola Sturgeon declare, “It is time to end the Union!”. My pulse will race when she says this, not in reaction to some event which on the scale of a nation’s history is trivial, but in recognition of the inherent injustice of the Union.
My spirits will soar when I hear that Nicola Sturgeon’s stated purpose is to rectify the grotesque constitutional anomaly of the Union rather than merely address an incidental consequence of the continuing denial of the sovereignty of Scotland’s people.
It is time to end a political union that should never have been.
If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.
Peter A Bell 
What really gets me is that there a wealth of evidence out there, within the Treaty articles themselves, and in the writings of noted Scottish jurists, that the Treaty has been misinterpreted (deliberately?) by Westminster and the English law officers since day one. Scotland could build a case today to show that the Treaty has been interpreted to suit England every step of those 312 years. This is what Cameron discovered when he commissioned the Crawford and Boyle Report (which he did not dare use against us for fear of the truth becoming evident to all of us) for the 2014 indyref. The point of it was to ensure that England (rUK) remained the continuator state so that it could remain in the EU if Scotland gained its independence – and how ironic is that in light of Brexit? That Westminster would not hesitate to revive C&B to try and prove that Scotland was subsumed in 1707, essentially, in the event of a second indyref, should be a given for the Scottish Government. All the work has been done by the late Professor David Walker, not to mention Ian Campbell, who has backed his every word on the subject of the Treaty of Union. Neither jurist was making a political statement, but a legal one. It is that legal argument that demolishes C&B comprehensively and which should be the basis of a case in the international courts. This would force Westminster to come out into the light and try to defend the Union on legal grounds, rather than political grounds, which it can manipulate.
I have submitted to ‘The National’ an interpretation of the Professor’s and Ian Campbell’s, works to show the political implications of their own interpretations of the Treaty of Union, and I hope that the editorial staff will publish it soon, in full. I am not claiming any special experience or knowledge or trying to claim any limelight for myself; all I want is for everyone associated with the independence movement across the board to understand how the Articles of the Treaty have been subverted and suborned by Westminster and Whitehall for their own ends. People will be astounded at the duplicity involved in keeping this from the general public.
Both Professor Walker and Ian Campbell show how the Treaty is an international one, liable to interpretation, and to ‘sound’, in international law, and to be still extant. I draw out the political nuances from their legal knowledge and expertise, and hope I have shown just how underhand successive British governments have been down through the 312 years, and I would claim that they have acted ultra vires in most of their political dealings with Scotland. Devolution does not alter the Treaty’s basic legal premise, but Westminster has been using both devolution and the Treaty to undermine Scotland’s protected institutions by interpreting (backed by the Supreme Court) devolution as malleable and conforming to Westminster’s constitutional expectations rather than those of Scotland at any time, and by treating the Treaty of Union as disposable in much the same way. Nothing could be farther from democracy and decency, yet Westminster continues to get away with this arrogance and high-handed attitude that translates into action that actually hinders Scotland in almost every area.
LikeLiked by 2 people
All of the above.
LikeLike