The Union is the constitutional device by which the people of Scotland are denied the full and proper exercise of their sovereignty. The Union imposes the alien principle of parliamentary sovereignty and gives it precedence over Scotland’s tradition of popular sovereignty.
Independence can only be restored by means of an impeccably democratic event which stands as a formal exercise of the right of self-determination which is bound up with the sovereignty of Scotland’s people.
The Union does not permit the formal exercise of our right of self-determination because the Union does not permit the full and proper exercise of our sovereignty, instead imposing the principle of parliamentary sovereignty which gives the British state lawful authority to overrule the will of the sovereign people of Scotland. Thus, the people of Scotland are sovereign no longer.
There is no democratic route to independence because the British state reserves the right to overrule the will of Scotland’s people using the power afforded it by the Union.
The Union stands between the people of Scotland and the sovereignty that is ours by absolute right. The Union stands between the people of Scotland and democracy as we understand it. The Union stands between the people of Scotland and the independence which is the rightful constitutional status of all nations.
The Union must be breached in order to open up a democratic route to independence.
Any breach of the Union which might open a democratic route to independence will be deemed unlawful by the British state wielding the grotesquely asymmetric power of the Union.
There is only one course of action which will allow the restoration of Scotland’s independence. Prompted by the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament must assert its competence in all constitutional matters and proceed with facilitating a formal exercise of Scotland’s right of self-determination in accordance with internationally recognised standards.
There is only #ScottishUDI.
Peter A Bell 
So simply stated Peter. Where is the politician with the guts to start the process before it is too damned late.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Where is our Martin Luther King?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well the person delivering the truths that are self-evident would appear right here. Step forward Peter “I have a dream” Bell.
OK, I have a question for the sovereignty/union nerds here. If parliamentary sovereignty existed with Westminster before the Union was established, was it demonstrated to be thus? If so was this declared in the Treaty of Union. In other words did the Parcel of Rogues enter into a treaty where it was known in advance that, short of taking matters into our own hands, it was impossible to get out of?
LikeLiked by 3 people
1689 the Claim of Right in Scotland, the Bill of Rights in England. In Scotland we legislated for the Sovereignty of the People. In England they legislated for the Sovereignty of Parliament.
They knew what they were doing, by inserting CoR into the legislation as a pre-nup or get out clause, they had a way out – and it’s still there!
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s the Claim of Right. It is not a magic spell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1689/28
Where in the Claim of Right does it “legislate for the Sovereignty of the People”?
I can’t even find the word “sovereignty”.
LikeLike
Its an act which had the purpose of confirming the principle of the people’s sovereignty, that had that result
LikeLike
Peter , hope you get the opportunity to develop the UDI option at the SSRC conference in Dunfermline at the end of this month . Good that you’ve opted to take part .
LikeLiked by 5 people
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“the Union is the constitutional device by which the people of Scotland are denied the full and proper exercise of their sovereignty”
I have to question this as a basis to your argument. You don’t differenciate between the two Acts and the Treaty of Union, and I would direct you to the SSRG publication “The Treaty of Union 1706”, in particular, the foreword by Prof. Alan I MacInnes, which states the matter concisely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I intentionally don’t specify any treaty or Act because I have no interest in getting bogged down in a mire of different interpretations of this or that piece of text. What I am talking about is the general effect of the Union as a whole. We surely aren’t looking to revise or amend existing Acts and treaties. So why discuss the detail? What we have to do is sweep away everything that the Union has come to represent..
LikeLiked by 4 people
The way we have to do that is to withdraw from the Treaty, and there you need to use detail.
LikeLike
You absolutely DON’T want to get bogged down in detail. That’s the British tactic. Wear you down by disputing every point. We do not need a reason or an excuse or a legal justification for restoring Scotland’s independence. We need only the will of Scotland’s people. Start citing legal points and you’re in court for decades.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The biggest British activity is covering up for their ignorance, mostly they don’t know much – all because we Scots used to and still do their dirtry work for them.
LikeLike
As soon as you start citing centuries old (or even modern) legal interpretations, you get lawyers coming out the woodwork who will state “ah but if you look at this way, apply the Ass v Butt findings of 1832, divide it by Tuesday and …. look, a shiny thing”. The legal system really is a lottery with nothing guaranteed …. other than it is stacked against who ever has the least money.
Politics will decide Scotland’s future, not the law.
LikeLike
“Deachdaireachd” is Scottish Gaelic for the following:
dictatorship
(act of) dictating
dictation
You are FREE to use it in any form that you wish…
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you get bogged down with legal arguments, it will drag on forever and the side who can afford the most expensive lawyers always be ahead. And we know who that side is. And we know they will add insult to injury by paying for this stalemate with money extracted from Scotland!
Surely there is a precedent here. When Ireland gained her independence, the Irish MPs elected to Westminster refused to take their seats or swear an oath of allegience to the UK Monarchy. They declared their independence instead, opened their own parliament and started to rebuild a country long colonised.
If we have a plebiscite election, the MPs we elect MUST do the same. They are the Scottish Parliament and their job will be to remain in Scotland and run the new country. The decision should be taken on the number of seats won, not on the total votes. If it’s good enough to allow the Tories to take a wrecking ball to everything in their path, it should be good enough to dissolve the union.
If our elected MPs decide to play the English long game – and take their seats and fat salaries at Westminster and take an oath of allegience to the English Monarchy (Elizabeth took the title Elizabeth II, in Scotland there has never been an Elizabeth I) – we will know we have been had again by an SNP content to remain Governors General and with no real interest in returning Scotland’s independence.
There are currently 46 MPs at Westminster who support independence. So perhaps what we really need is 46 Martin Luther Kings!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not throwing away laws which are powerful and in my interest and the Constitutional interest of my country.
Not when so much effort has been done to keep them hidden from us. Including within the last month, an attempt by Hansard to edit out the passing of the Claim of Right (in 2018) in Westminster. As far as I am aware, fiddling with Hansard is new low, even for Westminster, and I’m not aware of it EVER being done before.
Coincidence. Lets not be naive.
I’m not discarding those laws, which empower me, and every other Scot in the country (including new ones) with legal levers to regain our Self Determination and sack corrupt Governments, Kings and Queens and High Court Judges – for the sole reason that some (on our side) are too lazy to learn them, use them, and fight with them.
That’s called doing our enemies work for them. It’s also called 2 steps back and no steps forward. Stupid doesn’t even begin to call it.
Empowering our People, is the most likely way to Enthusing our people, and the Claim of Right does this.
It will take majority drive of the People of Scotland to get this done, but I will not have them do so with both hands tied behind their back, not with such a powerful tool in our toolbox.
Repeatedly, Europe and other countries have said, they will support an Independent Scotland, provided it is achieved via legal methods.
It will not be the English court who adjudicate this, it will be the International community. And those historic legal documents have clout.
And lastly, for now, we currently have major issues within Scotland’s COPFS, Police, Civil Service (allthough this is a UK institute), and our elected reps…. when we gain independence, I want robust laws already in place in order to have a damned good clean out, not have to start inventing them from scratch, and relying on them to write them! Cause that would be a problem.
Scotland’s Written Constitution / Claim of Right contains some of the most far seeing and robust laws I’ve seen with regards sorting out institutional corruption.
If it’s not your bag, fine, but don’t go rubbishing it, and don’t for one second think you have the power to discard them. They’re my rights and I will fight for them.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Weel done, Daisy. I hope Peter’s done his homework before 29th July.
LikeLike
Are you claiming to have made some sense of that rambling rant about ‘throwing away laws’? If so, maybe you could precis it for me.
LikeLike
voice erra peeple! tak th ruff wi th smueth.
LikeLike
Your keyboard appears to be defective. Or… No! Let’s assume it’s the keyboard!
LikeLike