Gayle's Scottish Blog

 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 ...

 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 monarc...

Having worked a double shift on Friday 10th September 2021, I got home around midnight exhausted and needing sleep. Instead of resting my eyes I had a quick bite to eat and prepared my bag for heading through to Greenock for my first ever party political conference. I wasn't sure what to expect. Hype, yes, to some extent, but I hoped to see and hear passionate folk who, like myself, firmly believe in Scotland's right to assert its authority and statehood.  I spent the next couple of hours lazing about before going to freshen up and get dressed. By 4am I was ready to go. Another hour and I would be heading to get a bus to the train station. The journey was pleasant enough and I arrived in Greenock just after 8am. I waited for a few minutes outside the conference hall unsure who anyone was bar the Alba representative who stopped to say hello before heading inside.   The hall was a fairly decent size and able to accommodate the number of potential delegates who could attend....

Prior to the signing of the Treaty of Union, England committed economic war upon Scotland. Its rulers who had been, and continue to be, power hungry and with a constant desire for conquest looked to the north and saw a country that was resource rich. Its wealth then, like now, was abundant though not fully exploited. The English rulers knew from previous interactions with the Scottish monarchy and governments that Scotland would pay ransom after ransom in order to maintain some semblance of peace. The union of the crowns in 1600 should have brought amity between the two countries but the monarch, English government and its establishment saw a way to further increase their hold over Scotland. Then came the gift they could only have wished for. Darien. A scheme that would have taken the Scots to far away lands where they could resettle some of their kin. Unfortunately, for the Scots, the English and Spanish colluded to bring about the failure of that enterprise. Many Scots died, many los...

 Why do English establishment supporters support the union? Supporters of Scotland's statehood often ask their detractors to give them a positive case for the union. There is seldom ever anything positive put forward in its defence rather it is the same old lies that have been used against every country that sought to re-establish it's statehood that are often parroted back. But there is a positive case to be made. One that they have made in various guises. RESPONSIBILITY. The English government, love them or loathe them, take responsibility. They exercise their sovereignty and treat England as an independent country. They make international treaties, join international organisations and represent themselves in international trade agreements. They go where they view themselves as needed to promote England's needs, desires and policies. They determine their own budget and spending priorities. They use all the levers of a sovereign country and assert their right to do so. Whe...

"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 Englan...

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...