Petition/Demand for the Suspension of the Treaty of Union

It is my contention that the treaty of Union should be suspended with immediate effect. The fundamental breaches themselves are reason enough. The argument cited by SNP is that they need  to convince folk. Well you are not going to convince folk through inaction. Folk only know the system as it currently is. They are not going to change their minds without hard proof that Scotland is better served through full governance of its statehood. So suspend the treaty. Take full responsibility and accountability. Demonstrate that Scotland’s statehood is best.

While Scots wait they could be setting up petition stalls all across Scotland for the suspension of the treaty. Princes Street in Edinburgh usually has some petition or other being campaigned for on it. Its street has numerous folk handing out flyers for X,y,z so let’s organise. Get folk backing the suspension. Doesn’t need to be half the population that backs it. Utilise town and village halls, pubs and other places for the collection of signatures. Where there is a will there is a way. Alba has about 7,000 members let alone supporters. If even 10% of them mobilised to get signatures that is 700 people from just one pro-indy party who could be collecting them. Once a good number of signatures have been collected have the petition/demand handed to each and every pro-indy MP and MSP. Make each handing of the petition/demand public. Let folk see where their truly loyalties lie and whether they are all talk no action. How many on this site would be willing to sacrifice a day or two of their week collecting the signatures? I am. Are you?

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