Scottish Independence is restoration NOT secession (Part 1)

Introduction:

'Independence for Scotland; that is the restoration of Scottish national sovereignty by restoration of full powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that its authority is limited only by the sovereign power of the Scottish People to bind it with a written constitution and by such agreements as it may freely enter into with other nations or states or international organisations for the purpose of furthering international cooperation, world peace and the protection of the environment.'

SOURCE: Constitution of the Scottish National Party.

The case for Scottish independence is better understood when it is put in the context of actual historical facts and not the negative, distorting and selective arguments of its opponents. I have attempted to provide such a better understanding by spreading the most pertinent historical facts (mainly using extracts and specifying sources) over five periods of time -

Part 1: 1603 - 1702

Part 2: 1703 - 1802

Part 3: 1803 - 1902

Part 4: 1903 - 2002

Part 5: 2003 - 2012

1603 - 1702:

Union of the Crowns

The so-called Union of the Crowns is a misnomer which the following extract will clarify -

'...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.

At this point it would perhaps be useful to explain why it was that a Scottish king was able also to become king of England. In 1503 James IV of Scots married Margaret Tudor, the daughter of Henry VII of England. Henry wanted James to end the 1295 Treaty with France (the Auld Alliance).

'However, James IV...did ultimately marry Margaret, the elder of the two daughters of Henry VII. When it was pointed out that such a marriage might lead to a union of the two kingdoms, Henry sagely observed that the greater would always draw the less and that England would be the predominant partner.

...

When James IV married Henry VII's daughter in 1503, he refused to accede to Henry's request that he should renounce the French alliance, for that would have meant the loss of freedom of action and the danger of complete domination by England.'

SOURCE: 'Scotland The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, pp 38-39.

In 1509 Henry VII died and he was succeeded by his son, Henry VIII.

'...in 1512 Henry joined the Holy League which the Pope and the Emperor Maximilian had formed against France. The French naturally appealed to the Auld Alliance...'

SOURCE: 'The Lion in the North' by John Prebble, p. 160, ISBN 0 1400 3652 0.

In response to an appeal from Louis XII of France in 1513 James IV invaded England with a Scottish army. On Friday, 9 September 1513 James and the overwhelming majority of that army were slaughtered at the battle of Flodden.

'When Henry VIII joined the Holy League, King Louis was lavish with promises of what he would do to further James's crusade, and the Scots formally renewed their alliance with France (1512). Next year an English army invaded France, and James could not stand aside. The outcome was a disastrous defeat at Flodden (9 September 1513). Although James IV was under papal censures for opposing the pope's league and for breaking the English treaty, Scottish bishops and abbots stood by him as they had stood by Robert Bruce, and some fell at Flodden alongside king and nobles.'

SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p. 40.

'...and Elizabeth undertook to do nothing to prejudice any claim he had to the English succession unless he provoked her.'

SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p. 46.

When queen Elizabeth died James VI succeeded to the throne of England because he was her only living relative.

Parliamentary Union

Between 1603 and 1702 there were several attempts at a parliamentary union between Scotland and England.

Commonwealth

The first attempt, which occurred during the English Civil War (also known as the War of the Three Crowns) following military conquest by Oliver Cromwell, was also the most violent.

'The result of this breakdown of the personal union was the conquest of Scotland by English armies (1651). This was a union of a kind - a union by force such as had not been known since the days of Edward I. The Scottish government had collapsed in the face of the English invaders, who declined to recognize any authority not derived from their own commonwealth...The members who went from Scotland to the commonwealth and protectorate parliaments at Westminster were, almost by definition, collaborators, and a good many of them were actually officers in the English army.'

SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p. 53,

'1652-4            SCOTLAND AND THE COMMONWEALTH

The union of Scotland with the Commonwealth of England became effective through conquest in 1651. There could be no genuinely negotiated union, and when, in 1652 Scottish commissioners gave their consent to terms of union they had in truth no alternative...'

SOURCE: 'Scottish Historical Documents' by Professor Gordon Donaldson, p. 222, ISBN 1-897784-41-4.

'For the first time since the early fourteenth century Scotland had been conquered, and Cromwell meant to make this conquest total...But it was national dignity that spoke most effectively. Glasgow showed that the separate units could not give national assent...Under the Instrument of Government at the end of 1653 Scotland was to have thirty members (the same number as Ireland) to sit with 400 English. Not even this bare allowance came to the first Parliament and those that did were largely hand-picked...'

SOURCE: 'A History of Scotland' by Rosalind Mitchison, pp. 233-234, ISBN 0 416 27940 6.

Charles II

Following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 Charles II put forward proposals for a formal union between Scotland and England.

'...and there was on the whole a sense of relief when, with the restoration of Charles II in 1660, the existing union was dissolved...However, the conditions in which a personal union could operate successfully were not restored...In 1670 the two parliaments did appoint commissioners to consider union, but the Scottish demands for equal representation in a united parliament were quite unrealistic and the English were not ready to concede the trading rights which the Scots demanded. Negotiations broke down.'

SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p. 54.

'...the end of army rule would mean the restoration of Scottish courts and law.'

SOURCE: 'A History of Scotland' by Rosalind Mitchison, p. 241,

'The most immediate issue was the relationship between the two nations. If the Protector's Union was to be dissolved, then, Lauderdale insisted there could be no return to the Commonwealth position with Scotland as a conquered country. Scotland must be freed from English rule, English law, and English troops.'

SOURCE: 'A History of Scotland' by Rosalind Mitchison, p. 242,

'The abortive attempt of Charles and Lauderdale to carry through a parliamentary union with England in 1669-70 had given the first big chance for opposition to develop. It was a policy that Lauderdale had known would be unpopular...'You cannot imagine what aversion is generally in this kingdome,' he told Charles. The memory of Cromwell and his fortresses was green, and England had done nothing since his time to appease Scottish feeling...Lauderdale carried out his part and got the right to nominate the Scottish commissioners, but the whole thing broke down when the Scots claimed seats in the future Parliament for every member of the Scottish Parliament.'

SOURCE: 'A History of Scotland' by Rosalind Mitchison,pp. 258-259.

William II of Scotland and III of England

'In February William accepted the throne of England for himself and his wife Mary...Even then the Scots made no offer of their crown, only a request that he undertake the administration of the country until it could decide its future.'

SOURCE: 'The Lion in the North' by John Prebble, pp. 270-271,

'A proposal to treat with England for a political union had been one of the earliest resolutions put before the Conventions of the Estates in 1689, and although it had been rejected the small support for the idea slowly grew,'

SOURCE: 'The Lion in the North' by John Prebble, p. 274.

'William's administration was unpopular in Scotland for many reasons...William found himself king over two countries with divergent economic policies and even divergent foreign policies, for the Darien venture involved a quarrel with Spain, a country which William had special reasons for wanting to keep the peace. Shortly before his death he recommended an attempt to find a solution by a closer union. It was becoming increasingly evident that Scotland was in danger of subjection not to a king of England who was also - though he sometimes seemed to forget the fact - king of Scots, but to the English ministry of the day which advised him.'

SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p. 55.

'The series of wars that started in 1689 sent up all forms of taxation, and transformed minor customs dues into a protective wall...Scotland entered the biggest trade slump, the worst economic crisis she had ever known, and nothing was done because, as the irascible Fletcher of Saltoun said,  she was 'a farm managed by servants and not under the eye of the master'. Because of her bondage to English foreign policy, she had to let slip her overseas connections...Even the maintenance of her existing low level of economic activity depended on the English deciding that this was in their interests.'

SOURCE: 'A History of Scotland' by Rosalind Mitchison, p. 304,

'In 1689 William III had suggested Union without anything coming of it, and in 1702 the English had appointed Commissioners for it, but then allowed the meetings to fail.'

SOURCE: 'A History of Scotland' by Rosalind Mitchison, p. 307.

Queen Anne

'Anne was dominated by her English ministry, and through her it could order the Scottish ministers about, and expect them to obey, but there were limits to what these ministers could do when Parliament was insubordinate. There was still one solution open to the Scots that the Crown would not readily accept, a political separation. Scotland could reverse the decision of 1689, which had not been made by her anyway, and go back to the main line of the Stewarts in the person of James VIII, James Edward, the child born in 1688...and the country would have her own king again. She would still be poor. It would take at least two generations to build up a new pattern of export trade, but she would be independent...In 1702 Anne was forced to dissolve the Parliament that had brought William to the throne and been kept on into her reign with dubious legality...'

SOURCE: 'A History of Scotland' by Rosalind Mitchison, pp. 304-305.

  



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.

Hypocrisy, Manipulation and Misrepresentation of Facts

Citing from an article, book or letter as part of a blogpost, comment, letter or another article is a standard practice. However, it is sometimes the case that such a citation is done as a method of manipulating or misrepresenting information in order to support a different interpretation than was intended by the original author.

A blogpost to which I recently submitted a comment is an example of this. The following is the post If Kadhafi goes, can al-Megrahi be far behind? on the Free Frank Warner blog and all the subsequent comments to it -

February 22, 2011

If Kadhafi goes, can al-Megrahi be far behind?

Wouldn't it be lovely if, in the Libyan revolt against Moammar Kadhafi, Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi were captured and returned to Scotland?

Yes, Scotland. I would enjoy watching the power-drunk government of Scotland take back the murderer of 270 people and try to free him again. It would be satisfaction enough to hear them explain again how they released him in 2009 because he had just 3 months to live.

Frank Warner

***

See also: Kadhafi and the magic umbrella. Or as the kids say: "See ya! Wouldn't wanna be ya!"

Comments

'the power-drunk government of Scotland'

'because he had just 3 months to live'

Those remarks, Mr Warner, clearly show that you just don't have a clue about what you are commenting on. No specific time-scale was ever given in which the death of al-Megrahi would have happened. The three month period was an estimate NOT a definitive statement as to life expectancy.

I challenge you to conduct your own investigation of ALL the actual facts. Here are some suggested links -

http://grendelreport.posterous.com/still-no-explanations-for-the-lockerbie-bombe http://jayhoneycutt.posterous.com/the-lockerbie-deal-vanity-fair-david-rose http://realmofscotland.com/scolandpage.aspx?Cat=13&menu=Lockerbie%20evidence%20that%20was%20ignored http://www.sehd.scot.nhs.uk/publications/ppcr/ppcr-03.htm http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/ http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/legal/lockerbie http://www.polfest.co.uk/s3/committees/justice/or-09/ju09-3302.htm http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2011/01/saunders-spinsulation.html
http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/roblack2.html
http://knol.google.com/k/robert-black/the-lockerbie-trial-and-appeal/178khla0op77w/2

"Just remember, especially in politics, that people who make statements as fact without knowing what they are talking about are just opening their mouth and letting their belly rumble."

Posted by: Michael Follon ‌ February 22, 2011 at 03:53 PM

Here's a fact: that is far too many links to read on a topic that is ridiculous anyway.

Posted by: CJW ‌ February 23, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Ha!

So let's try to figure out the REAL REASON the power-drunk government of Scotland released al-Megrahi. Was it his reward for killing 270 people, including 11 Scots?

Here is the Aug. 20, 2009, explanation from The [London] Guardian:

"Why is Abdelbaset al-Megrahi being released now?

"The official answer is that his health has deteriorated to such an extent that he is not expected to live much longer, so he has been granted release on compassionate grounds - the Scottish government having rejected a prisoner transfer to Libya that would have kept him in jail there.

"Megrahi's decision to drop his appeal against conviction - which his supporters had previously indicated his family could pursue even after his death - fuelled speculation of a deal having been struck."

Posted by: Frank Warner ‌ February 23, 2011 at 07:16 PM

It is interesting that you should quote an article from 'The Guardian'. Like so many of the 'UK' newspapers it also produces a 'Scottish Edition'. That edition is not available online and often contains significant differences. The following is an extract from an article in 'The Scotsman', 21 August 2009, (not sympathetic to the SNP) -

"All of those versions of history are possible, but when they do look back, historians should consider something more important, more fundamental, more significant: that at 1pm on Thursday, 20 August 2009, justice secretary Kenny MacAskill did what we hope and expect our elected leaders to do: he made the right decision.

...

This newspaper has been critical of the process that led up to that decision - the leaks, the hints and the spin, the delays and the signs of hesitation - but that should not detract from giving Mr MacAskill the credit he deserves for articulating a fundamental tenet of modern Scottish justice: the showing of mercy and compassion.

It is in that context that the criticism from the United States of the decision to allow Megrahi to return to Libya should be viewed. That a country which executes so many people, some of them undoubtedly innocent, and appears to hold to the principle that revenge equates with justice, should criticise Scotland's legal system is rich.

...

There are still so many unanswered questions that a public inquiry remains necessary and the intransigent UK government, which has refused to release papers, should co-operate fully. The search for truth must go on."

Perhaps in the United States elected governments, both at Federal and State level, are not expected to uphold the law.

Posted by: Michael Follon ‌ February 24, 2011 at 02:24 PM

Jibberish, Michael. The Scottish government just wanted to do something to make them feel powerful, even if it meant spitting on the memory of 11 Scots killed on the ground.

No one was talking about giving Megrahi the death penalty. He had the equivalent of a life sentence for murdering 270 people. In the article you cite, The Scotsman was changing subject to cover for this most childishly irresponsible undoing of justice.

What does the Scottish government do with murderers of 10 people? Give them a medal? You might enjoy rewarding murders, but thank goodness most people don't.

And even The Scotsman, on Aug. 21, 2009, was talking up Megrahi's alleged "three months to live."

The Scotsman published this column by a prostate cancer specialist that day:

Megrahi will need large amounts of morphine to ease pain

Published Date: 21 August 2009

By Chris Parker

WHEN men are in the final stages of prostate cancer nothing happens suddenly.

The average patient who has three months to live may be walking around talking to people. But that same patient might well be bed-ridden for a period of weeks before his death.

On the whole, symptoms can be fairly well controlled for men with prostate cancer in these final few months. This cancer's distinguishing feature, more so than other cancers, is that there is extensive involvement of many or most of the bones.

Typical symptoms include bone pain, tiredness and weakness and loss of appetite. ...

However, when men are first diagnosed they are typically fit and well and face a gradual deterioration.

Megrahi's deterioration is the most gradual in the history of three-month-to-live patients.

Five days after the doctor's article, The Scotsman seemed to be having second thoughts about Megrahi's health:

Medical advice on Libyan bomber in doubt

Published Date: 26 August 2009

by DAVID MADDOX

JUSTICE secretary Kenny MacAskill was last night under pressure to reveal more details of the medical evidence that led to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, after it emerged that only one doctor was willing to say Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had less than three months to live.

Labour and Conservative politicians have demanded the Scottish Government publish details of the doctor's expertise and qualifications, amid suggestions he or she may not have been a prostate cancer expert.

The parties have also raised questions over whether the doctor was employed by the Libyan government or Megrahi's legal team, which could have influenced the judgement.

The evidence provided by the doctor is crucial as compassionate release under Scots law requires that a prisoner has less than three months to live.

Posted by: Frank Warner ‌ February 25, 2011 at 01:10 AM

When I attempted to submit a reply to this comment a window appeared with the following message -

"We cannot accept this data"

When I submit a comment I normally do so under my own name. Because of this message I decided to comment using the pseudonym 'We The People' - that comment was accepted.

David Maddox is known to be a Labour Party 'hack'. The Labour Party is well aware of the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 and its effect on the publication of personal medical records. It was the UK Labour Party that presented it as a Bill to the UK Parliament.

Posted by: We The People ‌ February 25, 2011 at 02:48 PM

In other words, the power-drunk government of Scotland blindly freed the murderer of 270 people.

Posted by: Frank Warner ‌ February 26, 2011 at 03:51 PM

The following is the full text of the article by Chris Parker that Frank Warner cites in his penultimate comment. The text of the article in bold print is that which Frank Warner omitted -

Megrahi will need large amounts of morphine to ease pain

Published Date: 21 August 2009

By Chris Parker

WHEN men are in the final stages of prostate cancer nothing happens suddenly.

The average patient who has three months to live may be walking around talking to people. But that same patient might well be bed-ridden for a period of weeks before his death.

On the whole, symptoms can be fairly well controlled for men with prostate cancer in these final few months. This cancer's distinguishing feature, more so than other cancers, is that there is extensive involvement of many or most of the bones.

Typical symptoms include bone pain, tiredness and weakness and loss of appetite.

The pain, which needs to be controlled, can cause damage to the bone marrow which produces blood cells. In turn, the side effects mean the patient is likely to be anaemic, vulnerable to infection and often in need of blood transfusions.

Such patients can sometimes be more susceptible to bone fractures and are very often given bone strengthening medication.

The medical emphasis is on keeping them comfortable and controlling the symptoms. Pain-killing medication will be given for the bone pain and also possibly radiotherapy. Blood transfusions may well be needed to deal with the anaemia.

Normal bodily functions are not usually affected.

Sometimes the cancer can spread to the lung or liver via the blood. In that case hormone therapy is required but if that is not working chemotherapy can be used.

The bone pain is usually well-controlled but requires larger amounts of morphine as time goes on. The morphine can cause constipation which in turn requires medication to deal with that. Prostate cancer almost never involves the brain so a man's mental abilities are unlikely to be affected.

Occasionally there can be spinal chord compression which can lead to paralysis and the man may end up in a wheelchair.

However, when men are first diagnosed they are typically fit and well and face a gradual deterioration.

• Dr Chris Parker is a prostate cancer oncologist at the Institute of Cancer Research and works at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London.

In July 1988 an Iranian civilian airliner (IR655) was shot down, while it was still in Iranian airspace, by the USS Vincennes, which was itself in Iranian waters, killing 290 people (including 66 children). The captain, Commander William C. Rogers III submitted a false report of the incident. It is a criminal offence under United States Code: Title 18, § 1001 for an officer of the United States to submit a false report. The then Vice-President of the United States, George H. W. Bush, said -

"I will never apologize for the United States; I do not care what the facts are."

In 1990 President George H. W. Bush awarded Commander William C. Rogers III the Legion of Merit.

Now what was that that Frank Warner wrote about giving a medal to murderers?

Facts are chiels that winna ding. - Facts cannot lie.

An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t-Saoghail! - The Truth against the World!

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.

Understanding Scottish Independence

'Understanding Scottish Independence' was originally written, in March 2009, as a guest post for the blog 'New England Tartan Day Initiative' which is now no longer available.

------------------------------------

After over 300 years it is no surprise that the idea of an independent Scotland should be considered, by many Scots, as a matter of wishful thinking or fantasy. However, that opinion has to be viewed against the background of the neglect of Scottish history to the extent that most Scots, including the most vociferous advocates of the British Union, are now unaware of the history of their own country -

'Equally, the study of English history and the comparative neglect of Scottish history led to the acceptance of the false idea that the two countries share the same historic background. How far this can go was illustrated in 1965, when it was proposed that the seven hundredth anniversary of Simon de Montfort's parliament and the seven hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Magna Carta - both events which took place in what was at the time a foreign country - should be commemorated in Scotland...Scotland's past tends to be viewed through the eyes of English historians, who regard anything not English as quaint, backward or even downright barbarous.'

SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p.117,

the blow to the national self-confidence of the Scots resulted from the rigged referendum in 1979 -

'Labour MP George Cunningham succeeded in amending the bill to ensure that a referendum required the support of 40 per cent of the electorate (not those voting), for devolution to become law.' - p.149

'...but the 40 per cent rule was to have a decisive impact on the outcome of the referendum. Whilst 51.6 [per cent] of the votes cast supported the establishment of a Scottish Assembly, they represented only 32.9 per cent of the [electorate]: well short of the requirement for 40 per cent of the electorate to vote 'YES' before devolution could be instituted.' - p.152

SOURCE: 'SNP - The History of the Scottish National Party' by Peter Lynch,

and the way in which one particular political party, the Labour Party, has exploited the support of voters in Scotland for its own political self-interest -

'However, while the Labour party paid lip-service to Home Rule while out of office, its promises were forgotten when it was in office. Many of the Labour men were not only internationalists in principle, but had so fallen under the spell of England as to have little sympathy with Scotland.' - p.127,

'It was even harder to believe that the Labour party could decide to further Home Rule - even apart from the practical advantages to it of Scottish support at Westminster. The party's philosophy is based on the division of men into social classes rather than into nations, and the whole structure of organized 'Labour' stands for the negation of nationalism.' - p.130

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

Fortunately there is a political party in Scotland, the Scottish National Party, which has as its aim the restoration of an independent Scotland in today's modern world and has, since May 2007, formed the elected government of Scotland in the devolved Scottish Parliament.

In any debate about the Treaty of Union in 1707 there are certain inconvenient truths that 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 had been 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.

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...I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all 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 late Professor Gordon Donaldson wrote in his book 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation', pp. 58-59 -

'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...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 scrap of paper, to be torn up at the whim of any British government.'

The following is an extract from the book 'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: A Practical Guide' by Jo Eric Murkens with Peter Jones and Michael Keating, p.296 -

'In his White Paper on Scotland John Major declared that 'no nation can be can be kept in a union against its will', implying the right of self-determination, but then refused to accept broad consensus on favour of home rule as a condition for remaining within the Union (Major 1992). Labour has been equally inconsistent, signing the Claim of Right asserting that the sovereignty rested with the Scottish people (Campaign for a Scottish Assembly 1988), but then insisting in its devolution legislation that the sovereignty of Westminster remained unabridged. Yet whatever the protestations of Westminster 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.

The Scotland Act 1998 contains the following sub-section in section 28 which concerns Acts of the Scottish Parliament -

'(7) This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.'

In other words the United Kingdom Parliament can still make laws for Scotland EVEN on devolved matters.

The benefits of independence

Independence for Scotland would allow the people of Scotland to determine their own future by being able to elect a government which would put the national interests of Scotland foremost, limited only by such international agreements as are freely entered into by it. Scotland would be able to participate at an international level as a sovereign nation with other nations at European Union and United Nations level as well as in any other international organisations of which it chose to be a member. Decisions affecting Scotland could no longer be made without direct representation. An example of how this is currently done without any Scottish representation exists in the meetings of the Council of Ministers of the European Union. Representation in the Council of Ministers is restricted to the official delegations from member states, which as far as Scotland is currently concerned is the United Kingdom. Tiny land locked Luxembourg is a member state, has a population less than the city of Edinburgh, has no fishing fleet but has the power to influence decisions that could have a significant impact on the fishing industry in Scotland. Independence would place Scotland among the other independent nations throughout the world - in other words NORMALITY. What independent country, anywhere in the world, would seek a return to a union from which it had previously gained independence? After her victory for the Scottish National Party at the Hamilton by-election in 1967 Winnie Ewing - later a Member of the European Parliament (in which she was known as Madame Ecosse) and then Member of the Scottish Parliament (now retired) said:

"Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on."

Clarification and explanations

In order to assist the understanding of the case for Scottish independence and to avoid misunderstanding and confusion some clarification of certain matters and an explanation of the arguments, most frequently used against the case for independence to create confusion, is required.

Scottish independence is NOT secession

It is incorrect to use the word 'secession' with regard to Scottish independence. The 'Concise Oxford Dictionary' defines 'secession' as -

'the act of seceding from a federation or organization'.

The United Kingdom is neither a federation nor is it an organization. For a secession to occur the parent state, 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 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.

There is NO such thing as 'British law' or a 'British legal system'

It is possible to get confused when reference is made to either 'British law' or the 'British legal system'. The simple fact is that there is no one thing that can be called British law or the British legal system. The phrases 'British law' and 'British legal system' are generally understood to encompass both Scots law and English law and their respective legal systems. Although there is also Welsh and Northern Irish law and corresponding legal systems they are essentially variants of English law. The following extracts from the 'Kilbrandon Report' should help clarify the status of Scots law -

'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.

"Don't break-up the United Kingdom"

This argument exposes the misunderstanding that exists about what the United Kingdom actually is. The United Kingdom is NOT and NEVER has been a country. This misunderstanding has its origins in the Union of the Crowns in 1603, a misnomer which the following extract will clarify -

'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.

It was James who first used the term 'Great Britain' to describe his combined kingdoms of Scotland and England. 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 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.

"Scotland is too small and too poor to be independent"

This particular argument is an offshoot of a view that was prevalent in the 1960's and early 1970's that 'bigger is better'. However, the argument is puzzling - how can 'too small and too poor' be put forward as a justification when no basis for the argument is given? How is 'too small' or 'too poor' to be defined? - both are relative terms. Using population size as a measure there are a number of countries throughout the world with a comparable population to Scotland that are independent nations. The population of a country is often referred to as its best resource. The suggestion that population size should determine whether or not a country should be independent insults the people of Scotland as well as the peoples of those countries with a similar size of population to Scotland.

Compared to some countries Scotland would be considered to be affluent. In comparison to other parts of the United Kingdom there are parts of Scotland where relative poverty exists (it is also the case that there are parts of the United Kingdom outwith Scotland that are also affected by this relative poverty). The reason for this can be found in the large support that the Labour Party had in Scotland. As long as the Labour Party could rely on that support then it had no reason to do anything to alleviate that poverty - anything it did do was an illusion. As far as it was concerned it's own political self-interest took precedence.

The Scotland Act 1998 which led to the creation of the Scottish Parliament reserved economic powers to the UK Parliament. Despite this fact the British Unionist political parties in the Scottish Parliament persist in their malicious accusations that the Scottish Government is failing to address the economic problems affecting Scotland. After the Scotland Act had been passed, but before the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 was approved. It removed a substantial area of the North Sea from Scottish waters and included them in English waters. This meant that Scottish fishing boats which had previously landed their catch from that area at a Scottish port had to land it at an English port thereby removing part of the economic contribution of the fishing industry from Scotland.

"Scotland cannot be independent in the European Union"

For some peculiar reason proponents of this argument appear to forget or dismiss the point that the same criteria they apply to an independent Scotland could equally and logically be applied to what is termed 'remainder of the United Kingdom' (rUK). Basically what is being suggested is that an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU but that 'rUK' would not. The following is an extract regarding 'The European Union and Succession' from the book 'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: A Practical Guide' by Jo Eric Murkens with Peter Jones and Michael Keating, pp. 115-116 -

'French Advocate Maitre Xavier de Roux summarises the argument in the following terms:

'Scotland is part of the Common Market territory by virtue of the United Kingdom's accession to the Treaty of Rome and by application of the Treaty of Union 1707. If the Treaty of Union was revoked and if Scotland recovered its international sovereignty, it would be accepted within the Common Market without any formality.'

...

As the EU includes Scotland within its remit and because Community law directly affects the Scots, de Roux concludes that Scotland is not a third party to the Treaty. On independence it could not be regarded as a new applicant state as the United Kingdom acted on behalf of Scotland when it joined the European Communities in 1973. According to de Roux's argument, a change in Scotland's political status would have no bearing on the legal status of Scotland in Europe.

Professor Emile Noel, former Secretary General of the European Commission and Lord Mackenzie Stuart argued that Scottish independence would result in the creation of two Member States of equal status. The rUK would not be more powerful than Scotland...

Former Director General of the European Commission and former EC Ambassador to the United Nations Eamonn Gallagher sees 'no sustainable legal or political objection, to separate Scottish membership of the European Community...'.

"We need the Trident nuclear weapons system"

Nuclear weapons are the cause and subject of protest and great fear. No one, irrespective of their opinion about nuclear weapons, can be in any doubt as to the disaster their use would precipitate. In Scotland there have been protests and demonstrations since nuclear submarines arrived and were based on the River Clyde, initially by the US Navy in March 1961 (from June 1968 on the Holy Loch) until 1992 and by the Royal Navy at the Faslane/Coulport base on the Gare Loch and Loch Long from 1969. That base is approximately 30 miles north-west of Glasgow. Within a radius of 100 miles from the base the vast majority of the population of Scotland live and work. There is an important distinction to be made between opposition to these weapons and the crews of the submarines. Think of it this way - the missiles are the message and the crews are the messenger. Opposition and protest is directed specifically at the nuclear weapons.

"Scotland will be a target for retaliation if the Trident missile should ever be used. The people of Scotland will be the sufferers...the safety of the population of Scotland is the concern of Scotland. The health of the population of Scotland is the concern of Scotland. The welfare of future generations of its population is the concern of Scotland. The purity of the seas and ocean life around Scotland are the concerns of Scotland...gross violations of international obligations are not excluded from the purview of the Scottish Parliament. The absence of power in the former area cannot cancel out its responsibilities in the latter."

- Judge Christopher Weeramantry, former vice-president of the International Court of Justice.

Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, concerning 'RESERVED MATTERS', in Part I reads as follows -

'7 - (1) International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Communities (and their institutions) and other international organizations, regulation of international trade, and international development assistance and co-operation are reserved matters.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not reserve -

(a) observing and implementing international obligations, obligations under the Human Rights Convention and obligations under Community law,

(b) assisting Ministers of the Crown in relation to any matter to which that sub-paragraph applies.'.

"You won't be able to visit relations in England"

This is probably the most ridiculous argument against Scottish independence - it also clearly shows the sort of scaremongering that British Unionists will resort to and the depths to which they will sink. The argument uses the existence of the Schengen Agreement as justification. The Schengen Agreement provides for a borderless zone comprising of the countries which are signed up to it, mostly member states of the European Union and a few countries outside it. Currently the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are the only EU member states which do NOT fully participate in the Schengen Agreement. Border control arrangements still exist between countries that are part of the Schengen Agreement and those that are not. The suggestion that an independent Scotland would be isolated from the rest of the world is not only insulting to the people of Scotland but also reveals the complete lack of vision for Scotland's future which exists among British Unionists.

An independence referendum

An important feature of Scottish democracy is the fact that sovereignty rests with the people and not parliament. This fact was recognised by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs (a committee of the UK Parliament) -

'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 December1998, paragraph 27.

The Scottish Government has launched a consultation document titled 'Choosing Scotland's Future: A National Conversation - Independence and responsibility in the modern world' which includes a suggested Bill for an independence referendum. The following quotation is to be found on the inside front cover of that document -

'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)'

The Unionist parties in the Scottish Parliament have clearly indicated that they will not vote for such a Bill when it is introduced in 2010 denying the people of Scotland the opportunity of a say in their own future. Since 1973 the status of the referendum in the United Kingdom has been the subject of much debate -

'In the last resort, all arguments against the referendum are also arguments against democracy, while acceptance of the referendum is but the logical consequence of accepting the democratic form of government.'

- Professor Vernon Bogdanor, English constitutionalist.

------------------------------------

'Those who would deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves'

- Abraham Lincoln, April 6, 1859

------------------------------------