What The Papers Say - Scotland Backed Into Referendum Corner - News

Senior Scottish Government minister claims Scotland is backed into a referendum corner by the FM of Scotland.

Western Isles minister, Angus MacNeil MP, said that the Scottish parliament had as much authority to hold a vote on dissolving the treaty of 1707 as the Western Isles council had of voting on the 1266 Treaty of Perth to rejoin Norway.

Last week Scottish government minister and parliamentary leader, Ian Blackford MP, defended the Scottish government's policy to hold a referendum. When asked about the publication of their policies for a Scottish state he said he didn't know when a white paper would be published and had yet to meet members of his party to discuss a campaign strategy.

Scottish government minister, Mr MacNeil MP, has campaigned for an alternative route to Scotland's full statehood stating that a referendum would be blocked by the English government regardless of which political party was in Scotland and has claimed that the English government did not want the Scots making a constitutional decision on their future. 

Mr MacNeil's preferred route is to make the General Election a plebiscite, a tactic that the SNP government and its members have previously voted down at conference.

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