Independence: Scotland is VERY different from Quebec

Whenever the subject of Scottish independence occurs in any debate the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is compared to that between Quebec and the rest of Canada. These comparisons are inaccurate as they inevitably depend on assumptions and not facts. So what are the actual facts?

Scotland was an internationally sovereign country prior to 1 May 1707 when it joined with the realm of England, through the Treaty of Union in 1707, to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The precursor to that treaty occurred over one hundred years earlier in 1603 in what is erroneously called the Union of the Crowns when James VI of Scotland became James I of England.

'...on 25 March 1603, James VI of Scotland became James I of England. It was a purely personal union. There were still two kingdoms, each with its own parliament, administration, church and legal system.'

SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p.46, ISBN 0 7153 6904 0, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 74-15792.

Prior to 1763 Quebec was the capital of New France, the territory of which was divided into 5 colonies. The French colony of Canada, in which Quebec was located, was ceded to Britain in 1763 following military conquest. The former French colony was renamed as the Province of Quebec then in 1791 it became Lower Canada. In 1840 Quebec became part of the Province of Canada through an Act of Union then in 1867 as a province of the Canadian Confederation and eventually of present-day Canada.

Union of Parliaments

In any debate about the Treaty of Union in 1707, also known as the Union of Parliaments and which provided for one parliament (Article III), there are certain inconvenient facts which British Unionists prefer to omit -

• that in the three months that the Articles of Union were being debated by the Scottish Parliament there were riots throughout Scotland,
• that, during the same period, English troops were moved to the Scotland/ England border,
• that the majority of the Scottish commissioners appointed to negotiate the Articles of the proposed Treaty of Union were chosen because they were in favour of an incorporating union,
• that the Equivalent, the financial recompense for Scotland's contribution to payment of the English national debt (Article XV of the Treaty of Union in 1707) was grossly underestimated.

In his book 'The Lion in the North' (on page 238) John Prebble writes -

'Another English spy, less considerate of his masters' feelings, reported that most Scots cursed the nobles who had betrayed them into the Union, and that for every man who supported the Treaty there were fifty against it. 'I never saw a nation so universally wild'.'

Although it was dissolved by proclamation on 22 April 1707 the Scottish Parliament never actually dissolved itself. The last meeting of that Parliament was on 25 March 1707 when it was adjourned. That is why, in her speech to the initial meeting of the devolved Scottish Parliament Dr. Winnie Ewing MSP (Scottish National Party), now retired, was able to say -

'...the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on 25 March 1707, is hereby reconvened'

SOURCE: Scottish Parliament Official Report, Vol. 1, No. 1, 12 May 1999.

United Kingdom. Secession and Dissolution

The United Kingdom is purported to have first been formed in 1801 through the Treaty of Union which formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Close examination of the Articles of the Treaty of Union in 1707, however, shows that reference is made a number of times to the United Kingdom even though Article I states -

'...be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain...'

Generally when a new country is formed from a part of an existing country it is usually described as being a secession. In the specific instance of Scottish independence, however, the word secession is both inaccurate and incorrect. For a secession to occur the parent country/state, which with regard to the current constitutional status of Scotland is Great Britain/ United Kingdom, would have to continue, albeit in a modified form - that would not be the case. The country of Great Britain was created by the joining of the realms of Scotland and England through the Treaty of Union in 1707. When Scotland regains its independence that treaty will effectively be DISSOLVED and Great Britain will CEASE to exist. Scottish independence, therefore, would NOT be a case of secession but would, in fact, be one of DISSOLUTION - referring to Scottish independence as secession would not change that fact. That is why Scottish independence would not be secession whereas the independence of Quebec from Canada would be.

'In contrast, Lane says, Scotland cannot break away like Ireland as it was 'one of the basic building blocks of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain"' (Lane 1991: 146). Without Scotland there is no 'Great Britain' and without Great Britain there is no 'United Kingdom'.'

SOURCE: 'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: A Practical Guide' by Jo Eric Murkens with Peter Jones and Michael Keating, p.109, ISBN 0-7486-1699-3.

When Scotland regains its independence the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom will remain Head of State, in accordance with the Union of the Crowns in 1603, until such time as the people of Scotland decide otherwise in a referendum in an independent Scotland.

Sovereignty

The locus of sovereignty in Scotland has been disguised since 1707 and only since the late 1960's has it gradually come out of the shadow that was cast over it. A common misconception has been that sovereignty resided with the UK Parliament (parliamentary sovereignty/ supremacy of parliament). In 1688 the decision was made that in English constitutional law parliament was sovereign. Nowhere in the Treaty of Union in 1707 or at anytime since then has the UK Parliament ever been deemed to be sovereign.

'Yet the Scots made a grave miscalculation. They thought of the treaty as a written constitution, and, even with all the concessions they had obtained they would not have accepted that an omni-competent parliament had power to abrogate provisions which they fondly imagined to be 'fundamental and essential'...But the theories of English constitutional lawyers prevailed and the union has proved to have no more sanctity than any other statute.'

SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p.58.

Sovereignty in Scotland has evolved since the death of Alexander III in 1286.

'Besides, in the years when Scotland was kingless, another concept emerged besides that of the impersonal crown: ultimate power or sovereignty was seen to lie with what was called 'the community of the realm'.'

SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p.64.

The sovereignty of the Scottish people has now developed into a more democratic form and now rests with the registered electorate in Scotland.

'...greater power can only be granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament and here there is potential for conflict. To take the extreme example,constitutional matters are reserved but it is hard to see how the Scottish Parliament could be prevented from holding a referendum on independence should it be determined to do so. If the Scottish people expressed a desire for independence the stage would be set for a direct clash between what is the English doctrine of sovereignty and the Scottish doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.'

SOURCE: 'The Operation of Multi-Layer Democracy', Scottish Affairs Committee Second Report of Session 1997-1998, HC 460-I, 2 December 1998, paragraph 27.

A 1954 legal finding by Lord Cooper in the Scottish Court of Session contained the following -

'The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.'

- MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1954 (1953 SC 396).

'Yet whatever the protestation of Westminster politicians and the wording of the Scotland Act, almost nobody in Scotland believes that the Parliament is a mere subordinate legislature, a creature of Westminster statute. Its claims to original authority are twofold: its basis in the referendum of 1997 as an act of self-determination; and the residual traditions of Scottish constitutional law and practice which never accorded untrammelled sovereignty to Westminster.'

SOURCE: 'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: A Practical Guide' by Jo Eric Murkens with Peter Jones and Michael Keating, p.296.

Scots Law and legal system

'There are striking similarities between Quebec and Scotland. As Mark D. Walters, Professor of Constitutional Law at Queen's University in Canada, notes, 'efforts by Canadian and British judges to identify constitutional rules and principles of a common law nature are analogous, even though one system has a written constitution and the other does not' (Walters 1999: 383).'

SOURCE: 'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: A Practical Guide' by Jo Eric Murkens with Peter Jones and Michael Keating, p.15.

The following are extracts from the Wikipedia entry for 'Common Law' -

'Scotland is often said to use the civil law system but it has a unique system that combines elements of an uncodified civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis with an element of common law long predating the Treaty of Union with England in 1707...Scots common law differs in that the use of precedent is subject to the courts' seeking to discover the principle that justifies a law rather than searching for an example as a precedent, and principles of natural justice and fairness have always played a role in Scots Law...Scots common law covers matters including murder and theft, and has sources in custom, in legal writings and previous court decisions.'

The following are extracts from the 'Kilbrandon Report' -

'74. ...By the time of the Union a well-defined and independent system of Scottish law had been established. This was recognised in the Union settlement, which provided for the preservation of the separate code of Scots law and the Scottish judiciary and legal system. Under Article XIX the two highest Scottish courts - the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary - were to continue, and were not to be subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts. These bodies have remained respectively the supreme civil and criminal courts in Scotland, while beneath them there is a completely separate Scottish system of jurisdiction and law courts, with a justiciary, advocates and solicitors, none of whom are interchangeable with their English counterparts...

76. ...Nevertheless the two systems remain separate, and - a unique constitutional phenomenon within a unitary state - stand to this day in the same juridical relationship to one another as they do individually to the system of any foreign country.'

SOURCE: 'Royal Commission on the Constitution, 1969 - 1973', Volume I, Cmnd. 5460.

United Kingdom: Scotland is NOT part of England

Recently I came across a blog post Scotland May Split with the United Kingdom on the blog Enduring Sense. This short post about the results of the Scottish Parliament elections in May contained the following sentence -

'This Party ran on a platform that included calling a referendum to determine if Scotland will remain part of England or become an independent country.'

I submitted a comment and received a reply from the author in which he wrote -

'Thanks for your clarification on the status of England and Scotland.'

The following is the comment which I submitted -

'...to determine if Scotland will remain a part of England...'

That is factually incorrect. Scotland is NOT part of England and NEVER has been. This post shows that there is a clear misunderstanding about what the United Kingdom actually is. The following is a brief history of it from the so-called Union of the Crowns in 1603.

'on 25 March 1603, James VI of Scotland became James I of England. It was a purely personal union. There were still two kingdoms, each with its own parliament, administration, church and legal system.'

SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p.46, ISBN 0 7153 6904 0, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 74-15792.

It was James who first used the term 'Great Britain' to describe his combined kingdoms of Scotland and England. By this time Wales was already part of the kingdom of England, initially through the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 then more formally by a statute of the parliament of England in 1536. What unites the 'United Kingdom' is the fact that the same person is the monarch of three kingdoms - Scotland, England and Ireland. In relation to Scotland the term 'United Kingdom' first occurred in the Treaty of Union in 1707 which established, as from 1 May 1707, the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' (Article I). In 1801 it was expanded to include Ireland in the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. Following the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 it became the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' in 1927. As well as being a descriptive term of the territory of which it is comprised, 'United Kingdom' is also an abbreviation of the formal name. When Scotland regains its independence the 'United Kingdom' will continue, as it did between 1603 and 1707, until the people of Scotland decide otherwise in a referendum in an independent Scotland.

Scottish independence is often referred to as being a case of secession. It is, in fact, incorrect to use the words 'secede' or 'secession' with regard to Scottish independence. For a secession to occur the parent country, which with regard to the current constitutional status of Scotland is Great Britain, would have to continue, albeit in a modified form - that would not be the case. The country of Great Britain was created by the joining of the kingdoms of Scotland and England through the Treaty of Union in 1707. When Scotland regains its independence that treaty will effectively be DISSOLVED and Great Britain will CEASE to exist.

'In contrast, Lane says, Scotland cannot break away like Ireland as it was 'one of the basic building blocks of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain"' (Lane 1991: 146). Without Scotland there is no 'Great Britain' and without Great Britain there is no 'United Kingdom'.'

SOURCE: 'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: A Practical Guide' by Jo Eric Murkens with Peter Jones and Michael Keating, p.109, ISBN 0-7486-1699-3.

I would appreciate it if you would submit a post which clarifies the actual status of Scotland in relation to other parts of the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' for the benefit of your readers.

UK General Election 2010: In Scotland the Politics of Fear Prevail

There are currently 650 Constituency seats in the Westminster Parliament in London. A Member of Parliament (MP) is elected for one of these seats if he/she receives the most votes in the Constituency in which they seek election (First Past The Post or Simple Majority method of voting).

The results for the Scottish National Party (SNP) might possibly be described as a '1997 moment'. In the 1997 General Election the Tories (Conservative Party) were 'wiped out' in Scotland and most of the anticipated rise in the vote for the SNP stalled and went to the Labour Party, but it was the extent to which electoral support in England turned to the Labour Party that resulted in a Labour Government.

A rise in the number of Tory MP's and the corresponding fall in the number of Labour MP's in England has resulted in a 'hung parliament' (no single Party has an outright majority) necessitating the need for an accommodation with the Liberal Democrats (LD) in order to get a majority and form a government. To get a majority and form a government a Party or a combination of Parties must have at least 326 seats.

In Scotland there is an automatic fear of a Tory government (especially because of the depredations of Tory governments in the 1980's and early 1990's) and this fear is often used by the Labour Party to persuade people that they should vote for it - even though doing so would not have any effect on the outcome of an election where Tory gains in England were greater than the number of Westminster seats in Scotland.

'Darling concedes cuts could be tougher than 1980s

Alistair Darling has conceded that if Labour is re-elected public spending cuts will be "tougher and deeper" than those implemented by Margaret Thatcher.'

"There may be things that we don't do, that we cut in the future."

SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8587877.stm.

UK - GENERAL ELECTION 2010 - RESULTS(1)

PARTY	SEATS	SEATS%	VOTE%
CON	306	47.2	36.0
LAB	258	39.7	29.0
LD	57	8.8	23.0
OTHER	28	4.3	12.0
TOTALS	649	100.0	100.0

NOTE: Election in 1 constituency has been deferred until 27 May due to death of a candidate.

SCOTLAND - GENERAL ELECTION 2010 - RESULTS

PARTY	SEATS	SEATS%	VOTE%
LAB	41	69.5	42.0
CON	1	1.7	16.7
LD	11	18.6	18.9
SNP	6	10.2	19.9
OTHER	0	0.0	2.5
TOTALS	59	100.0	100.0

In terms of seats there is no change on 2005.

UK RESULTS(2) - IF ALL SCOTTISH MP's WERE LABOUR

PARTY	RECALCULATION	SEATS
LAB	258 - 41 + 59 =	276
CON	306 - 1 =	305
LD	57 - 11 =	46
OTHERS	28 - 6 =	22

SEATS SHORT OF MAJORITY

PARTY	NOTIONAL	ACTUAL
LAB	50	68
CON	21	20

Whilst the Conservatives could obtain a majority with the support of the Liberal Democrats, Labour would require the support of the Lib Dems AND other Parties to do so. A Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition would have a greater majority than a Labour/Liberal Democrat/Others one would. A pact would not enable a majority government to be formed but would be an arrangement, in return for certain concessions, whereby junior parties to such an arrangement would abstain from parliamentary votes in which a minority government faced possible defeat.

Currently the election of an overall majority of SNP MP's to Westminster in a UK General Election would constitute a mandate for the negotiation of the withdrawal of Scottish MP's from Westminster and the dissolution of the Treaty of Union of 1707 resulting in Scotland regaining its independence. The current number of MP's elected from Scotland is 59. A mandate for Scottish independence would be gained with the election of 30 SNP MP's.

The Sovereignty of the Scottish People

'If the Scottish people expressed a desire for independence the stage would be set for a direct clash between what is the English doctrine of sovereignty and the Scottish doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.'

- 'The Operation of Multi-Layer Democracy', Scottish Affairs Committee Second Report of Session 1997-1998, HC 460-I, 2 December 1998, paragraph 27.

Between the Treaty of Union in 1707 and the establishment of the devolved Scottish Parliament in 1999 constitutional law in Scotland developed into its present form where 'the sovereignty of the Scottish people' now rests with the total registered electorate. During this intervening period sovereignty lay with the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster, and to a certain extent it still does - but not for long. The Treaty of Union did NOT abolish Scots Law as Article XIX makes clear. This temporary loss of sovereignty has to be seen against the background of where the Parliament of Great Britain is located. The siting of that Parliament at Westminster, the location of the Parliament of England, meant that it was within the jurisdiction of English Law and beyond the reach of Scots Law. In his book Gordon Donaldson writes -

'But the theories of English constitutional lawyers prevailed, and the union has proved to have no more sanctity than any other statute. From time to time attempts have been made to appeal to the terms of union, but always without success. The list of violations of the treaty is already a long one and always growing longer.'

- 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation', by Gordon Donaldson, pp 58-59, ISBN 0 7153 6904 0.

In an important 1954 legal finding in the Scottish Court of Session Lord Cooper wrote -

'The unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.'

- McCormick v Lord Advocate 1954 (1953 SC 396).

Against this background the view that 'the sovereignty of the Scottish people' has 'merely been unavailable' is the only possible explanation. British Unionists who still insist that Scottish independence is a matter of 'NEVER' or 'IF' are in denial - Scotland WILL regain its independence and international sovereignty. Only through independence will 'the sovereignty of the Scottish people' become fully available.

Only one country has ever created a form of government based on popular sovereignty (sovereignty of the people) - the United States. The opening words to the Constitution of the United States, 'WE THE PEOPLE', clearly imply popular sovereignty, which was most likely the intention of James Wilson when he penned the phrase.

'Jefferson, concerned that the state legislatures were assuming executive and judicial power, as well as legislative, was prompted to observe..."An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."'

- 'The Federalist Papers', Penguin Classics Edition edited by Isaac Kramnick, p. 25, ISBN 0-14-044495-5.

'...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone...'

- James Madison, Federalist 46

The following quotations were all found at this URL: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0300.htm -

"[The people] are in truth the only legitimate proprietors of the soil and government."

- Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1813. ME 19:197.

"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs."

- Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:328

"The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union."

- Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1853. ME 15:451.

Unfortunately, in the United States, the concept of popular sovereignty has become corrupted and defiled by elitism and political self-interest by both major political parties. In his book John T. Noonan, Jr. writes -

'Nowhere in the entire document are the states identified as sovereigns. The claim that the sovereignty of the states is constitutional rests on an audacious addition to the eleventh amendment, a pretense that it incorporates the idea of state sovereignty...But not one of the fifty states, nor the United States itself, is such a sovereign...It is not directly or indirectly ascribed to the states by the constitution of the United States.'

- 'NARROWING THE NATION'S POWER' , by John T. Noonan, Jr., pp 151-152, ISBN 0-520-23574-6.

In 1787 popular sovereignty was an idea that was ahead of its time but now, in the 21st century, it is an idea whose time has come. Popular sovereignty belongs to all people and not just a select few.

'It's coming yet for a' that That Man to Man, the world o'er Shall brithers be for a' that.'

- 'For A' That and A' That' by Robert Burns (1759 - 1796)

Scotland's Political Awakening

NOTE: SORRY ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF THE TABLES. I THINK I KNOW WHAT THE CAUSE IS. IN THE MEANTIME I HAVE INSERTED "/" BETWEEN THE HEADINGS AND FIGURES.

"ask not what your country can do for you, rather ask what you can do for your country."

- President John F. Kennedy (from his Inauguration Speech - January 20, 1961)

The Scottish Parliament elections in May 2007 changed the political map of Scotland in a way that showed that the people could no longer be taken for granted - particularly by the Labour Party. Many years ago the Labour Member of Parliament (MP) for Central Fife said that "the people of Fife would vote for a turnip if it had a red label". In the years following the unsuccessful referendum in 1979, for a devolved Scottish Assembly, political confidence amongst the electorate in Scotland plummeted. In Central Fife support for the Scottish National Party (SNP) fell from over 30% to just over 11%.

The voting method for the Scottish Parliament elections is a hybrid of the First Past The Post method and a 'top-up' from a Closed Regional List using the d'Hondt Formula to produce a broadly proportional result. There are 73 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSP's) elected by FPTP and 56 from the Regional Lists. Here is an overall breakdown of the results of last year's elections to the Scottish Parliament -

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS - MAY 2007

PARTY

VOTE%

SEATS%

SEATS%

TYPE: [A]/ FPTP [B]/ ALL SP [C]

SNP 32.70 /28.77 /36.43

LAB 32.26 /50.68 /35.66

LIBDEM 16.23 /15.07 /12.40

CON 16.65 /5.48 /13.18

OTHER 2.16/ 0.00 /2.33

TOTALS 100.00 /100.00 /100.00

PARTY DIFFERENCE /SEATS

TYPE: [B-A]/ [C-A] /FPTP /ALL SP

SNP -3.93 /+3.73 /21 /47

LAB +18.42 /+3.40 /37 /46

LIBDEM -1.16 /-3.83 /11 /16

CON -11.17 /-3.47 /4 /17

OTHER -2.16 /0.00 /0 /3

TOTALS -/-/73 /129

The FPTP results show that the Labour Party benefits disproportionately from that method of voting. Average voter turnout was 51.46%, hopefully the Scottish Parliament election results, combined with those for the Councils, will bring about an increase in voter turnout which was regularly 65%-75% about 25 years ago. Before the election campaign the Labour Party was in a state of panic, during the campaign it became absolute panic and since the elections they've been completely clueless.

The election results for Central Fife since the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999 are as follows -

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS IN CENTRAL FIFE

PARTY VOTE% /VOTE%/ VOTE%

YEAR: 2007 /2003 /1999

SNP 44.20 /30.59 /30.91

LAB 39.88 /41.38 /57.31

LIBDEM 8.49 /6.74 /5.94

CON 7.43 /7.04 /5.84

SSP - /5.43 /-

IND - /8.82 /-

TOTALS 100.00 /100.00 /100.00

An aspect of the elections in Scotland, last year, that was overlooked by the media outwith Scotland was the fact that there were Council elections in Scotland on the same day. They were overshadowed by the fiasco of rejected ballot papers in the Scottish Parliament elections, which was mainly due to political interference by a UK Government Minister (Labour) in the design of the ballot paper. The Labour/Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive was also warned of the confusion that would result from having the Scottish Parliament and Council elections on the same day using three different voting methods - they chose to ignore it. For the first time the Single Transferable Vote (STV) method of Proportional Representation was used for the Council elections in Scotland. The introduction of STV was met with strong resistance from within the Labour Party. The local 'fiefdoms' and 'one-party states' of the Labour Party in Scotland have been ended forever and the 'politics of fear' as well as the 'control freakery' that permeates that Party no longer work. In the media reporting of the Council elections in Fife mention was made of the dominance of Scottish politics by the Labour Party for the last 50 years saying "however, in parts of Fife it is nearer 100 years". The table below shows the comparison to the number of Councillors (by Party) that were elected in 2003 when FPTP was used -

COUNCILLORS ELECTED IN SCOTLAND

PARTY 2007 /CHANGE / 2003

METHOD: STV / +or- /FPTP

SNP 363 / +182 /181

LAB 348 / -161 /509

IND 192 / -39 /231

LIBDEM 166 / -9 /175

CON 143 / +20 /123

All of the SNP candidates in Central Fife who stood for election to Fife Council were elected. In Central Fife it used to be suggested that in the Levenmouth part of the constituency it would be easier to weigh the Labour vote than count it. Inevitably, at the count, a Labour activist would shout across the hall - "Someone in Methil voted Tory [Conservative]" - not any longer.

After having witnessed the significant changes in elected political representation achieved by the use of STV I have no hesitation in recommending its use in multi-member constituencies. Using STV the 'political virility' symbol of the size of a majority and the 'wasted vote' argument cease to exist. The Alternative Vote (AV) method is also a majoritarian method like FPTP, however, it has the advantage that, unlike FPTP, the winner has to obtain 50% of the vote. In a genuine democracy an electoral system (method of voting, constituency boundaries etc.) exists for the benefit of the people. The electoral system and the people DO NOT exist for the benefit of political parties.

Scottish Sovereignty and Independence

"Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law."

- Thomas Jefferson

Originally sovereignty was considered to be the absolute power of monarchs but through time that idea has developed in various ways. In Scotland the concept of popular sovereignty first emerged following the death of Alexander III in 1286 when Scotland was without a king. The original concept was called 'the community of the realm' but has evolved into a democratic style where 'the sovereignty of the Scottish people' now rests with the total registered electorate. As far as I am aware the first written example of it is in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 -

'...But after all, if this prince shall leave these principles he hath so nobly pursued, and consent that we or our kingdom be subjected to the king or people of England, we will immediately endeavour to expel him as our enemy and as the subverter both of his own and our rights and we will make another king, who will defend our liberties...'.

Popular or democratic sovereignty is the very antithesis of parliamentary sovereignty (the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament) which has existed in English constitutional law since it was established through the English Bill of Rights in 1689. Up until the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 the constitutional and legal effect on 'the sovereignty of the Scottish people' was that it had merely been unavailable. A specific example of the contradiction between popular sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty can be found in a 1954 legal finding by Lord Cooper in the Scottish Court of Session -

'...The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law...I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all of the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done...'

- (MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1954 (1953 SC 396))

The Treaty of Union in 1707 abolished neither the Parliaments of Scotland or England as clarified by Article 3 -

'III. That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by One and the same Parliament, to be stiled, the Parliament of Great Britain.'

In her speech to the initial meeting of the devolved Scottish Parliament Dr. Winnie Ewing MSP (Scottish National Party), now retired, said -

'...the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on 25 March 1707, is hereby reconvened...'

- Scottish Parliament Official Report, Vol. 1, No. 1, 12 May 1999.

In 1989 the Members of the Westminster Parliament in Scotland for the Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties were part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, one of them was Gordon Brown MP (now the British Prime Minister). They all signed a document, 'A Claim of Right for Scotland', which reaffirmed 'the sovereignty of the Scottish people' and their right to choose the type of government best suited to their needs. From the first elections to the Scottish Parliament up until the elections in May this year they formed a coalition which represented the majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament and as such were in control. They are now part of the opposition and are opposed to any referendum on, or which includes the option of, independence.

Several weeks ago a White Paper, which is based on 'the sovereignty of the Scottish people', was launched by Alex Salmond MSP, MP, First Minister of Scotland, as a consultation with the people of Scotland, it is called 'Choosing Scotland's Future: A National Conversation - Independence and responsibility in the modern world'. In an Opinion column in 'The Scotsman' newspaper Aileen Campbell MSP (Scottish National Party) asked the following question -

'...And what is so scary about fostering a national debate on the future of the country anyway?...'

The first practical example of popular sovereignty being the basis of a system of government is to be found in the Constitution of the United States. That document starts with the words 'WE THE PEOPLE...' which clearly infers popular sovereignty. Anything which follows those words and contradicts them, no matter how remotely, is therefore unconstitutional.

'...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone...'

- James Madison, Federalist 46

The author of the phrase 'WE THE PEOPLE' was James Wilson who was born in Ceres (Carskerdo) near St. Andrews in Fife.

'No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his country, "Thus far shalt thou go and no further".'

- Charles Stewart Parnell (1846 - 1891).

False Impressions

Professor Gordon Donaldson writes in his book 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' -

'Yet the Scots made a grave miscalculation. They thought of the treaty as a written constitution,...But the theories of English constitutional lawers prevailed, and the union has proved to have no more sanctity than any other statute...The list of violations of the treaty is already a long one and always growing longer...The fact is that, contrary to the beliefs and hopes of those who framed it, the treaty of union has proved to be a mere scrap of paper, to be torn up at the whim of any British government.'

There appears to be an international misunderstanding about the status of Scotland - political and geographic. The use of the name Britain when the subject is England is just one example of this misunderstanding. There is a tendency in certain parts of the British media to say Britain when bad news abroad concerns England, but Scotland when it concerns Scotland. The car of a Dutch tourist was fitted with the most up to date satellite navigation equipment which informed him that he was in England - he was in Fort William, a town on the North West coast of Scotland. He also said that no-one actually considered the northern part of this island (Britain) as anything other than England. When a search on 'Scotland' is performed in US newspapers online the most frequently returned result is about golf, which could give the false impression that Scotland is just a glorified golf course appended to England.

England is not Britain (only the largest part) and Scotland is not part of England. Since 1922 there have been three countries and part of another in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Despite the Union of the Crowns (a misnomer as there were and still are two kingdoms) in 1603 and and the Treaty of Union in 1707, Scotland and England do not have a shared history. The following are extracts from Articles 18 and 19 of the Treaty of Union of 1707 -

'XVIII. ...and that all other laws within the Kingdom of Scotland, do after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in the same force as before (except such as are contrary to, or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain:...

XIX. That the Court of Session, or College of Justice, do after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in all time coming within Scotland, as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom, and with the same Authority and Privileges as before the Union, subject nevertheless to such Regulations for the better Administration of Justice as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain...And that the Court of Justiciary do also after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in all time coming within Scotland, as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom, and with the same Authority and Privileges as before the Union, subject nevertheless to such Regulations as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain, and without prejudice of other Rights of Justiciary...and that the said Courts, or any other of the like nature, after the Union, shall have no power to cognose, review, or alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland or to stop the execution of the same...'

Filtered History

'Until the teaching of history becomes more genuine and less of an 'approved version' it will become increasingly difficult for genealogists to place their family history in context.'

Here in Scotland that applies particularly to politics and political history. An article in 'The Herald' newspaper in 2005 revealed that a secret report was presented, in 1975, to the then Labour government by Dr. Gavin McCrone, a leading economist. The report stated that if Scotland was an independent nation the oil revenue would 'transform Scotland into a country with a substantial and chronic surplus'. This information was also released to the Scottish National Party under Freedom of Information legislation. Back in the mid to late 1970's it was continually said by the UK government that the oil would run out in a few years. This sort of 'sanitization' is nothing new. In the book 'The Scottish Insurrection of 1820' Peter Berresford Ellis writes in the Preface to the 2001 edition -

'...the fact that it was an aim of the Scottish Radicals to set up a separate parliament in Edinburgh has been met with skeptical posturing. Yet this was clearly spelt out by Glasgow Police Chief, James Mitchell, in his letters to the Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, of March 18 and 29, 1820.'

While searching several US newspapers online for items about the Scottish Parliament elections in May this year I found that only one of them made the effort to visit Scotland during that election campaign. The rest had included their coverage as part of the various elections that were being held in the UK, mainly those in England. These newspapers were reporting from London which suggested a London 'filter' was operating. A saying I recall from the 1970's is -

'In order to be an internationalist you must first be a nationalist'.