When A Foreign Country's Government Determines Who Can Stay In Your Country

"The Scots are sovereign," is a phrase you will hear come out of the mouths of Scotland's representatives while they permit a foreign country's government to determine who can live, work, study and train in Scotland. Many families have been deported, denied permission to stay and even split due to the policies of a foreign country being imposed on Scotland. Businesses that have been up and running for decades have been closed and their owners who have invested and lived in Scotland told to leave. While the locals are up in arms and protesting at this treatment to one of their own the Scottish government bury their heads or write letters to the English government asking "gonnae no?" So far that has worked spectacularly well. So much so that even the Hobbit franchise used it in a scene in The Five Armies film. Haud on a minute, that went disastrously! Pretty much the same way it actually does when the Scottish government writes to the Prime Minister of England who has no obligation whatsoever to acquiesce to the requests of the Scots or their representatives. So why does the Scottish government treat the English government as their superiors rather than trading partners? Put bluntly, because the Scottish government view Scots sovereignty as empty rhetoric. A phrase to be used to stir up the people while they actively trample all over it. 

"Harm to one is harm to the whole."

But what exactly is Scots sovereignty and how does it apply to its citizens and people? 

First, we must understand what sovereignty is. Sovereignty, put plainly, is the highest authority one can wield whether it be of a person, a nation, a country or a state. The most important being that of a person for it is the cumulative effect of the sovereignty of the people that gives credence to the nation, country and state. As such no-one and nothing can supercede that authority. 

Sovereignty of a sovereign nation state

Prior to the treaty of 1707, Scotland was a sovereign nation state. Its sovereignty had been enshrined in its ancient laws and customs, various declarations, international treaties and the Scottish constitution itself. Scotland's sovereignty was not mere empty rhetoric but expressed and exercised. It was the exercise of this sovereignty that permitted the ratification of the trade Agreement of 1707 even though many ordinary Scots were against it. And rightly so given the English government, its monarch and its Spanish allies had not only deliberately thwarted the Darian expedition but had killed many Scots as a direct result of placing an international embargo on Scottish fleets preventing them from getting any aid or supplies when they were most needed. In short, it was nothing less than economic terrorism accompanied by an act of violence. And to add insult to injury, the English Alien Act sought to confiscate the property and assets in England belonging to wealthy Scots. It was in part due to fear of losing these assets and properties that the signatories ratified the trade Agreement but it was also the extent of which the English controlled key export routes. A trade agreement was necessary at the time to ensure that supplies could be met. And while some may have had reservations at the time they never the less put their name to it. Only after, when they realised the English government had no intention of upholding their end of the deal, did they seek to have it nullified. Sadly, their attempt failed and the rest is history. 

Today the greatest exports are humans. They are the leverage against currencies which are no longer backed by gold and other physical assets. It is folks labour and the worth attributed to it that determines the value. And so the economic terrorism continues only this time on land instead of at sea. The English government acting as sole authority of the trade Agreement determines who can live, work, study and train in Scotland and thus the value of the Scots. The English government's policy is determined by the needs of England and the value they attribute to the English.

But what is worse is that due to the Scottish government and indeed all of Scotland's representatives treating the English government as the sole authority of the state instead of their equals and mere trading partners, they have permitted this atrocity, this economic terrorism, to not only take place but to continue on through sheer abdication of responsibility and duty.

The English government, its establishment and its courts, to give them their dues, all recognise Scots sovereignty. They may bluff and bluster when Scots seek to assert their statehood but they nonetheless acknowledge and accept it. 

"No sovereign state can be held in a treaty against its will." - Attorney General, England.

It is merely the Scottish government who refuse to assert and exercise Scots sovereignty. A sad reflection of the situation in Scotland today which Scots and those seeking to become or remain Scots are forced to endure. 

Is there a way out of this ghastly situation? 

Yes, Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on treaties states:

Article 60 

Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:

(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either: (i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or (ii) as between all the parties; (b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State; (c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.

The treaty of 1707 has been fundamentally breached repeatedly. Even in recent years and months the English government sought to impose English parliamentary sovereignty onto the parliament of Great Britain and in enacting the English IM Act which gives the English government a veto over Scotland turning them from being legally an equal partner with equal authority to the state into the sole authority of Great Britain. Fundamental breaches which completely alter the treaty and the position of the parties to it not least with respect to the further performance of their obligations under the treaty. In essence, the English government has enacted the new English Act of Union (2017-2019) Bill in all but name creating a Greater England under the name of UK with England being a sole continuator state and Scotland subsumed into it. Where previously this was merely a narrative they were promoting they have now enacted it while the Scottish Government and all of Scotland's representatives have kept schtum. For though Scotland's statehood, just like England's, was temporarily ceded, the right to assert and exercise that sovereignty remains a fundamental, inalienable, right.

And so, when a foreign country's government determines who can stay in your country, you must ask why this has been permitted by those representing your country especially when they are imbued with the sovereignty of a sovereign nation state.