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 "Scotland was extinguished and subsumed into a Greater England albeit under the new name of UK". 

This is all necessary if the intention is to quietly replace the treaty of 1707 and its conventions which while being respected had no legitimate authority with the English Act of Union (2017-2019) Bill which if you read it along with the IM Act and other legislation highlights that it has been enacted in all but name. Even the identification of Scots abroad as UK - Greater England, not Great Britain - the actual name of the state created in 1707 as stated in the  Article of the 1707 treaty - is a violation of the treaty terms.

As stated above the constitution is also mere convention. The constitutions of both Scotland and England have always been upheld within the treaty while treating the state as having a non written constitution has been the conventional norm. But what happens when that is changed? When it is quietly written into law by the English government who place themselves as arbiters of the treaty and sole authority? When the English courts view English law as supreme within the treaty, even referring to them as "UK" laws despite the fact there is no Great British nor UK law within the treaty itself? That the legal systems of both countries have been separate and are fundamental aspects of the treaty itself and violation of them constitutes a terminal breach? 

Why go to all this bother? Because convention is not law!

Conventions are non-legal rules which are not enforceable by the law courts.

The parliament of Great Britain states this with regard to conventions:

"A convention is an unwritten understanding about how something in Parliament should be done which, although not legally enforceable, is almost universally observed. Occasionally a new convention is agreed in order to resolve a specific procedural issue that has arisen." Emphasis my own.

Note that conventions are typically agreed upon but are not legally enforceable. 

Now ask yourself why the Scottish government does not point out that convention may have been observed but that they will no longer agree to nor recognise it. That Scotland's sovereign authority is paramount and legally enforced. If as they claim they are in favour of reasserting Scotland's statehood surely this is a necessity. You do not wait until the thousandth cut has been made before acting.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In What Way Is Scotland Subjugated?

 This is a question I am often asked. The automatic response is, in which way isn't Scotland subjugated? But that makes the assumption that folk know what subjugation is. So what is subjugation? To Subjugate: to bring under control and governance as a  subject   :  CONQUER to make submissive  :  SUBDUE So which does Scotland fall under?  Well, it was never conquered. Garrisons were set up across Scotland in order to stop the Scottish civil wars at the bequest of the Scottish government and it had then as it does now its version of the Ross's, Davidson's, Blair's and Brown's. Scots who sought to endear themselves to their English counterparts by treating Scotland with utter disdain. Greed, corruption and a desire for power whether imagined or otherwise were their companions even to the detriment of the Scots who would have, given the chance, given them the Wallace treatment.  The Scots then, as now, were not subjects. They were not below the monarch. They granted lim
Read more

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

Office of Prime Minister - A Very English Government Position

Up until the 1600s England had a chief administrator answerable to the monarch but as the role of chief administrator began to grow with more responsibility being devolved and political change started to take hold the claim of  monarchical absolutism was challenged. It wasn't until the 1600s when the English monarch effectively abandoned the throne and was officially removed by parliament through a parliamentary convention and the new monarch, by dint of birth, was contested that the rise of English parliamentary sovereignty began to take hold. It was during this time that the English political parties began to emerge first as factions and then as the political parties that would stand in parliament. The Whigs, who were against monarchical absolutism due to their religious beliefs, were founded in 1678.  In 1859 the party dissolved and merged with the English Liberal Party. The Whigs opposition was the Tory Party which was founded in 1679. The Tories supported the monarchy and obje
Read more