Gayle's Scottish Blog

 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...

 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 ...

     As you know I have pointed out for quite some time that the English Act of Union Bill (2017-2019) was being enacted in all but name. Now it has replaced the original English Act of Union! During indyref the English establishment promoted the paper they commissioned Crawford and Boyle to pen stating that Scotland was extinguished and subsumed into a Greater England albeit under the new name of "UK". They then on 19 September 2014 drew up EVEL and had that enacted creating, in breach of the treaty, in essence an English parliament within the parliament of GB. Then they sought an exit from the EU. During that time though they drew up the English Act of Union (2017-2019) Bill. Facing opposition they let it sit and instead tried to write into law English parliamentary sovereignty via Clause 38. The building blocks were being put in place - the parliament and sovereignty. They then changed how Scots are identified internationally along with the name of the stat...

It is often said that Scotland was annexed and subsumed into a Greater England, but that was never the case. While Scotland may act like it due to both Scots and their representatives treating Scotland as such, Scotland and England were and are legally equal partners with equal authority to the state, retaining all their rights prior to and after the signing including their sovereignty  and independence. The language Scots use would suggest they buy into the English narrative of Scotland being extinguished and subsumed into a greater England albeit under the new name of UK.  How did this come about? In the 1700s Scotland had a government who, in order to maintain their wealth and assets in a foreign country, permitted a fundamental breach of the treaty of union under the guise of quelling any uprisings by banning all things Scottish. To this day most Scots, their government and indeed all of their representatives, act as though this breach is 1) legitimate and 2) still in plac...

  TERMINOLOGY IS IMPORTANT Referring to the electorate as “undecided” or by other terms creates a subconscious “them” and “us” division instead of uniting everyone and focusing on the issues that Scots all share to some extent or another with regards to their country, Scotland. Furthermore, using the terms Westminster, UK Government, parliamentary sovereignty, power etc rather than the correct terms, Parliament of Great Britain, English Government, English (parliamentary) sovereignty, authority, English political parties, etc. is a consequence of Scotland having been fed a false narrative for 300 years. The last 200 years having had the English continuator state narrative forced on it on a daily basis. This narrative, which was summed up by Crawford and Boyle and promoted by the English government and its establishment, claims that Scotland was extinguished and subsumed into a greater England albeit under the new name of UK. I think it is fair to say most Scots would disagree stron...