Terminology is Important

 

TERMINOLOGY IS IMPORTANT


Referring to the electorate as “undecided” or by other terms creates a subconscious “them” and “us” division instead of uniting everyone and focusing on the issues that Scots all share to some extent or another with regards to their country, Scotland.

Furthermore, using the terms Westminster, UK Government, parliamentary sovereignty, power etc rather than the correct terms, Parliament of Great Britain, English Government, English (parliamentary) sovereignty, authority, English political parties, etc. is a consequence of Scotland having been fed a false narrative for 300 years. The last 200 years having had the English continuator state narrative forced on it on a daily basis. This narrative, which was summed up by Crawford and Boyle and promoted by the English government and its establishment, claims that Scotland was extinguished and subsumed into a greater England albeit under the new name of UK. I think it is fair to say most Scots would disagree strongly with that assertion. The late esteemed professor regius emeritus of law, David Walker, certainly did. An essay from the law journal can be found here: https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-52-issue-06/the-union-and-the-law/

Additionally, in the references from I B Campbell in his article The Union and the Law Revisited https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-59-issue-07/the-union-and-the-law-revisited/ you will find a quote from ex-English PM, John Major: 

“That Union is almost 300 years old. As I have said before, no nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will …” 

 “And if the Union is to flourish in the future a more concerted recognition of Scotland’s status as a nation will be necessary. It should be a mark of Scotland’s self-confidence in her own status as a nation that she shares her sovereignty with the other parts of the United Kingdom. But the willingness to share that sovereignty must never be taken for granted.” 

This is important because the Parliament at Holyrood had not been created and as he and other English PMs stated the only thing Scotland needed to reassert its statehood was to elect a pro-indy Scottish government. No referendum, no asking the English government. Simply an assertion of Scots sovereignty. The reference then highlights this by stating: 

“In my submission the United Kingdom Government was entirely correct in this assertion of Scotland’s status as a nation and in its recognition that Scotland was indeed a sovereign nation which was entitled in the exercise of its sovereign will to leave the Union.”

One can then look at the speech by Welsh representative Carwyn Jones regarding sovereignty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNawcGqBWc4 and that of Christine Graham  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ychGT4dslrU.

In the references made by Major, there are basic mistakes. One such mistake is that of Major referring to the Agreement as a political union when what was ratified in 1707 was an international trade agreement between 2 sovereign nation states. As such, both countries retained their sovereignty, independence and all rights prior to and after the signing. Legally they were held to be equal partners with equal authority to the state of GB. It is important to note that there is no written constitution of GB or indeed GB government in the terms and conditions of the treaty because the true nature of the treaty was one of trade. 

The framing of Scotland’s independence and its statehood has been from an English establishment perspective where they claim that Scotland was extinguished and subsumed into a greater England under the name of UK in order to promote the English sole continuator state narrative. Scotland's fight to reestablish its statehood therefore is between Scotland and the English government and its establishment. Using the term Westminster not only includes Wales and Northern Ireland (who come under England) but perversely SCOTLAND as well. It is therefore important to reframe the narrative and bring it back to the true nature of the union treaty.

For too long the Scots have believed that referring to England and the English government and its establishment is somehow xenophobic. This is a common trait shared with many of the nations that reclaimed their statehood from GB. It may on the surface seem inconsequential but the mind is the greatest battlefield and one where Scots will be taking their wounded from for many years after the reassertion of Scotland’s statehood.

Gayle Miller

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Through The Eyes Of The English Establishment - The Treaty of Union

 The Scots complain A LOT. How dare the English establishment mock our representatives they cry. Only they don't say English. Oh no, that would be to admit the truth that they try so hard to hide from themselves. What they say instead is Westminster and UK. It is the UK Government. The UK Supreme Court, UK law, "unwritten" constitution of UK, reserved to Westminster and yet they will call it an English parliament with a majority of English MPs. They even refer to parliamentary sovereignty and rules of parliament. Neither of which are applicable to the state parliament as they were from the English parliament prior to its abolition. So how do the English establishment see it? Let's look through their eyes. Ever since the Scottish civil wars of the 17th and 18th centuries the Scottish government has sought help from their treaty partner in curbing the unruly Scots and bringing them to heel. So much so that English garrisons were set up all over Scotland and all things S...
Read more

An Inconvenient Truth - Treaty of Union 1707

 What do you do when it is publicly pointed out that there is no Government of Great Britain, no constitution of Great Britain and no parliamentary sovereignty among the myriad other features that are missing from the treaty of 1707? When it is publicly pointed out that the current set up is mere convention and that CONVENTION IS NOT LAW? You quietly go about changing that situation. You rename yourself, publicly, you then set about ensuring that others refer to you by your new name giving you credence. The next step is to change the legal situation. EVEL was brought in to give legitimacy to the English government acting and legislating from within the parliament of Great Britain, in essence treating the parliament as English. Clause 38 had English parliamentary sovereignty written into it. The ability for "UK" government to ratify treaties was written into law. Note that the English government had Crawford and Boyle pen a paper stating that England was UK. To quote them ...
Read more

Going Beyond Theory - The Practical Application of a Scottish State

 Practical application demonstrates how theory is applied. Ifs, buts and maybes are addressed through demonstrating the reality. Where there is uncertainty practical application brings certainty through observation.  The argument from the "independence" movement is that people just need to be persuaded. Proponents have cited "facts" regarding Scotland, its wealth and its resources. They have theorised about how Scotland can do x,y,z better if circumstances were different, if only Scotland had full control of its governance yet that is where their arguments end. If someone came at you and said they were or could do x,y,z would you automatically believe them? If you disagreed, would you be persuaded otherwise through statement alone? Most folk would ask you to prove it. And for 53% of the Scottish population, that is precisely what they are saying. Put up or shut up. Stop harping on about something you cannot or will not prove. And who can blame them? Theory only gets...
Read more