What is the Treaty of Union?

Prior to the signing of the Treaty of Union, England committed economic war upon Scotland. Its rulers who had been, and continue to be, power hungry and with a constant desire for conquest looked to the north and saw a country that was resource rich. Its wealth then, like now, was abundant though not fully exploited. The English rulers knew from previous interactions with the Scottish monarchy and governments that Scotland would pay ransom after ransom in order to maintain some semblance of peace. The union of the crowns in 1600 should have brought amity between the two countries but the monarch, English government and its establishment saw a way to further increase their hold over Scotland. Then came the gift they could only have wished for. Darien. A scheme that would have taken the Scots to far away lands where they could resettle some of their kin. Unfortunately, for the Scots, the English and Spanish colluded to bring about the failure of that enterprise. Many Scots died, many lost their investment but Scotland resilient and rich in resource was not bankrupt. Far from it. As was the way in those days, folk bought land and other possessions. Many of the wealthy families in Scotland had invested in England. A mistake that would be their undoing for the English, a collective of Germanic conqueror tribes, were always looking for the next opportunity to strike. And so it was the English began their economic war on Scotland. With threats of confiscating lands and other possessions that the wealthy Scots families had in England the Scots were held once again to ransom. The Alien Act, as it was referred to, brought into motion what was to be the beginning of the Treaty of Union.

In 1706 the queen’s commissioners acting in their separate capacities drew up a TRADE AGREEMENT. The parliaments then read the articles and ratified the agreements in 1707 with the express condition that they would be equal partners with equal authority.

This most folk have learnt in some form or another. However, the most common interpretation of those events which has been promoted by the English government and its establishment is that Scotland failed on its own accord with the Darian expedition, that it became bankrupt as a result and that the trade agreement was the Scots saving grace. Had this version of events been true then the Articles of the treaty which state that Scotland would take on England’s debts would not be in the agreement, for how could a bankrupt country take on the debts of another country? And why would they agree to such terms? It is England’s debt that is repeatedly mentioned in the Articles not Scotland’s.

But what makes it a TRADE AGREEMENT rather than a political union as has been espoused by the English government and its establishment? Apart from the Articles themselves, one has to look at what is specifically omitted from the Agreement.

The Treaty of Union begins with the creation of the binary parliament of Great Britain in which both countries governments are to sit as equal partners with equal authority. But,

there is NO state:

Government of Great Britain (named UK or otherwise)

Institutions bar a shared treasury with equal representation.

Military.

Border.

Religion.

Constitution

Legal System.

Parliamentary sovereignty nor clause transferring English parliamentary sovereignty onto the parliament of Great Britain.

Party political system.

Majority Rule nor clause granting dominion based on majority of MPs or population.

Capital.

However, there is a termination clause which includes violation to:

The territory of either country

Their legal systems

Combining of their religions

Failure to uphold their rights in full as held and exercised prior to and after the signing.

Held within the treaty: 

Both countries are legally equal partners with equal authority to the state

Both countries retain all their rights prior to and after the signing. - In Scotland's case these included sovereignty and independence as they are held in perpetuity as part of its ancient laws and customs and are enshrined in the Scots constitution as well as in various international declarations, treaties and covenants.

What can't the treaty do:

Abolish other international treaties and declarations entered into prior to the treaty of union by either country.

Abolish the constitutions of either country.

Impose dominion.

Impose laws of either country on the other.

Create laws that change the nature of the treaty (Breaches to the treaty).

Here it must be noted that a convention is not law and while the English government and its establishment may claim to have repealed Articles to the treaty it does not follow that they ever had the right to do so.

"Obvious mistakes in legislating is not a good reason to follow the practice". - Professor Regius Emeritus of law, David Walker

In short, everything that would have made it a political union was specifically omitted from the Agreements leaving only an agreement of trade between the two countries (Wales having been brought in under England as a Principally at the time) with conditions that would bring both countries trade laws into alignment with one another and provision to adapt the terms of the treaty with regards to trade at a later date in order to maintain economic cohesion.

This however, is not what the English government and its establishment promote.

Prior to the ratification of the trade agreement, and for many years after, the Scots were furious at even the thought of such an agreement and with good cause. Many of their kin had been drowned at sea or killed by various diseases due to the English government, the monarchy and their ally, Spain, preventing much needed supplies and aid reaching them. To then have economic war waged on those who returned or had invested in England was a further insult. One that could not be ignored. The people rose up. The government barricaded itself in the cellar and having taken bribes, titles and been promised financial gain if they signed the agreement they did so. Some under duress with having their lands and possessions in England held to ransom but others with greed and power in their hearts signed the agreement. This agreement was witnessed by international observers, ambassadors from further afield, making it an international treaty ratified between two sovereign nation states.

Following the signing, the Scots continued to wage war on those who had betrayed Scotland. The English government and its establishment on a bequest from the Scottish government placed garrisons all over Scotland in an attempt to end the Scottish civil wars. This act led to the banning of all things Scottish and a fundamental breach of the treaty. Then in 1801 England having broken the agreement proceeded to create a new treaty. One which included Ireland. And thus the start of England calling itself the UK. (Crawford and Boyle later go on to state it was the name the English government and its establishment used to refer to a Greater England in which it is claimed Scotland was extinguished and subsumed into England under the dominion of the English government and its monarch. A stance which has no historic or legal accuracy. Their use of international laws regarding colonies in order to support their thesis is misplaced in the context of the legal situation between Scotland and England.) 

Just over a hundred years after the creation of the treaty with Great Britain the Irish reinstated their statehood but not before the English had managed to annex a portion of the country using tactics that had proven effective with numerous other countries they had colonised. (Noting that no new treaty was drawn up once the 1801 treaty had ceased to be in effect with Ireland reinstating its statehood.)

Fast forward to today, just over a hundred years since Ireland stood up and reclaimed its statehood. Scotland finds itself looking into the reflection of those who had gone before them. To the colonies that had reclaimed their statehood, to their close friends and often allies, Ireland. The difference superficially is almost non-existent. England had either conquered them or had attempted to. However, Scotland is in a unique position. What was ratified in 1707 was only ever a trade agreement. Not a political union. And it retained all the rights prior to and after the signing. These rights included the sovereignty and independence of both countries as the 1707 Agreement did not and does not have the authority to abolish the other international treaties, constitutions or declarations.

So we arrive at the situation Scotland now finds itself in. The English government and its establishment promoted the paper written by Crawford and Boyle and openly stated that they had never enacted the 1707 Agreement and if they ever had it was no longer in effect. The termination clause has been repeatedly broken. As has every single term and condition and as the English establishment state, themselves, they do not consider the 1707 Agreement to be in existence.

Scotland, therefore, does not require a further plebiscite. They have elected a Scottish government to act on their behalf and to put Scotland’s best interests first and foremost. Those include the protection from encroachment, violation of its territory and economic terrorism. The Scottish government that was chosen to deliver on those was outwardly a pro-independence government with independence as its raison d’etre. The people have already spoken. What Scotland needs now is for the Scottish government to act upon the sovereign will that was placed in them. To stand up in the parliament of Great Britain and proclaim once and for all that Scotland’s statehood is hereby reinstated. This is the method that the English government stated was legally suffice prior to devolution.

The idea of a referendum was planted after devolution to ensure that Scotland would remain tethered to the Agreement based upon an English continuator state narrative that has been promulgated for the past 200 years. It is this narrative that some Scots mirror due to a misplaced belief  that due to the garrisons having been placed in Scotland during the Scottish civil wars of the 1700-1800s lead to the claim that Scotland is an English colony and not a sovereign nation state that voluntarily entered into an international trade Agreement. An agreement that is bound by international law and cannot be superceded by subordinate law. As I explain in a further blog the garrisons were placed with the Scottish government's consent. It did not create a colony. What led from it, however, was a breach of the treaty. It is a sad reflection of the abdication of responsibility by various Scottish governments that there is not a Scot alive today who has not been raised to believe the English continuator state narrative. That narrative though false is deeply embedded in many Scots psyches.