Reasons to Withdraw From The Treaty of Union

It is often said that Scotland was annexed and subsumed into a Greater England, but that was never the case. While Scotland may act like it due to both Scots and their representatives treating Scotland as such, Scotland and England were and are legally equal partners with equal authority to the state, retaining all their rights prior to and after the signing including their sovereignty and independence. The language Scots use would suggest they buy into the English narrative of Scotland being extinguished and subsumed into a greater England albeit under the new name of UK. 

How did this come about?

In the 1700s Scotland had a government who, in order to maintain their wealth and assets in a foreign country, permitted a fundamental breach of the treaty of union under the guise of quelling any uprisings by banning all things Scottish.

To this day most Scots, their government and indeed all of their representatives, act as though this breach is 1) legitimate and 2) still in place. Whenever a Scot, their government or representative talks about Scotland and its authority it is through the prism of being an English region under English dominion. The excuse of “greater MP/population/parliamentary sovereignty” is trotted out as though that proves their point. Yet, the trade Agreement that was ratified in 1707 by both parliaments ensured that both countries were legally equal partners with equal authority to the state of GB and that both countries upheld ALL of their rights prior to and after the signing.The English establishment referring to itself as “UK”, which was a mere descriptive for the formation of the state as drawn up by the queen's commissioners, did not alter that fact nor did it bestow upon them absolute dominion. In fact, they have none in and over Scotland bar that which the Scots themselves grant and therein lies the problem. The Scots are all too happy to bestow that authority on a foreign country and then whinge when that country’s government enacts policies that are detrimental to Scotland and to the Scots. Instead of demanding that their own government and representatives act in the capacity they were elected – to govern the sovereign country of Scotland as the equal partner with equal authority to the state, excuses are made in an attempt to transfer blame. But the buck stops here, in Scotland! When the French government acts against the people do the French complain about the government of Germany, Luxembourg or Spain? About those countries policies? No, they hold their own to account because as a COUNTRY the buck stops with the French. So too, in Scotland. The difference is Scots have been trained not to rock the boat. Not to question, and simply to do as they are told like compliant children. This has to change. 

First, the Scots must recognise that they are a nation, a sovereign nation. Next, that they are in a sovereign country, and last, that they have all the authority they can ever need. That they only need apply it. Not ask, not win, not gamble. Simply assert the authority that they already have.

It should also be noted that the Declaration of Arbroath was not a declaration of independence but of war. Its stated aim was to inform the pope that if England should dare to infringe upon the sovereign people of Scotland and their country that they would go to war to protect their independence at all costs. The ancient laws and customs of Scythia (from whom the Scots descend) were made clear:

 “it is not for riches, honour nor glory that we fight but for freedom alone which no honest man gives up but with life itself.” 

This was no mere threat but a statement of action. Over the years the Scots Scythian ancestry has been omitted from their education and very few Scots actually know about their Scythian heritage. As part of this omission the history of the declaration has been revised to claim it as a declaration of independence. The fact is though it was the union of the Scythians and Picts that created Scotland and its independence as a country has been enshrined since the 800s. Long before the declaration was ever penned.

While I agree that the removal of the Scottish government from the parliament of GB should take place it should be done after making a proclamation but with immediate effect. The gradualist approach only permits the English establishment to further damage Scotland and folks lives whether they work, study, train, or are unable to do so for any number of reasons. It also permits the English government to REMOVE citizens from Scotland because the Scottish government that Scotland has is beholden to the English government, viewing them as their superiors and not their equals. Even with the climate conference which is coming up, IN SCOTLAND, the Scottish government are acting as though they need the English government's permission to attend! One must ask why Scots bother voting at all for a Scottish government if they are NOT going to act in the capacity they were elected? Why pretend to be a Scottish government if they are going to defer governance to the English government? It is utter madness!

Supporters of the English establishment and its narrative (of GB being a greater England under the new name of UK) falsely claim that Westminster is sovereign yet as myself and many others have pointed out over the years this is simply not true. There is absolutely nothing in the treaty Articles that transfer English parliamentary sovereignty onto the parliament of GB. In fact, the English ceded their sovereignty when the parliament of England was ABOLISHED in order to create the binary parliament of Great Britain. Scotland, however, retained its sovereignty as the sovereignty of the Scots did not and does not rest with parliament but the people and is enshrined in perpetuity in its ancient laws and customs which are also held in the Scottish constitution. (One can read the old parliamentary records of Scotland to learn this and more.) It was also reiterated by Carwyn Jones who represented Labour in Wales who in a recorded session on clause 38 pointed out that parliament is not sovereign and it is only now that the English government are/were seeking to write it into law and that they sought agreement from Wales and Scotland to do so but that he was unable to back it as the Welsh are sovereign as are the Scots but that it was a fight for the Scots to take up. He also pointed out that it was a fundamental breach of the treaty of union. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNawcGqBWc4 And yet, the Scots act as though English sovereignty which was ceded takes precedence over Scots.

One cannot be sovereign and be ruled over as sovereignty is the highest authority. The English government and its establishment know this and exercise their sovereignty on a daily basis. It is a strange affair when  the English government and their courts recognise Scots sovereignty but the Scots government fails to assert it. As such, the English government set about enacting the new English Act of Union (2017-2019) Bill which looked unlikely to pass and has enacted it in all but name. The last piece they needed was the IM Act which fundamentally breaches the treaty of union by giving a veto over Scotland to the English establishment making them the sole authority of GB and not equal partners with equal authority to the state. A clear violation of Scots law, Scots constitution and the terms of the treaty itself.

Scotland not only should but must assert its sovereignty. Treating Scots sovereignty as empty rhetoric does not cut it. The Scots must act, and they must demand that their government and representatives do likewise with immediate effect.