Gayle's Scottish Blog

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 monarch...

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 place...

 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...

 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...

 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...

 When we see someone self harming we try to get them help. If it is severe we may have an intervention and draw in support from all quarters. It is not easy to help someone who is in a downward spiral. The physical act of self harm is only the symptom and used to release a greater psychological pain which hides the true cause. It is extremely difficult to stop the act of self harm without addressing the root problem when the one harming will not open up or face their problems. That is not to say the act of grievous self harm cannot be prevented and even stopped but it is something that the person has to live with, scars and all.   But what happens when it is a collective psychologically in pain and actively self harming? How do we get them to address the root problem? We can draw their attention to the fact that they are committing acts of self harm but getting them to face it is even more of a challenge. Not only do you have to contend with helping an individual face the...

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...