Regular columnist Mia answers a few questions “You have not established that the Convention of Estates was a “higher” authority than Parliament” Does she have to?  Let’s see: What is the Claim of Right 1689 in layman terms?A document that removes the crown from the head of one monarch and puts it on the headContinue reading "CONSIDER THIS."

Photo by Mike Greer on

Regular columnist Mia answers a few questions

“You have not established that the Convention of Estates was a “higher” authority than Parliament”

Does she have to? 

Let’s see:

What is the Claim of Right 1689 in layman terms?
A document that removes the crown from the head of one monarch and puts it on the head of another. It is also a document that states that imposing absolute rule over Scotland is unlawful. In today’s terms, and in the context of the political union with England, absolute rule means imposition of policies in Scotland that are rejected and not approved by a majority of Scotland’s legitimate representatives in Westminster – our MPs, which happen to be the custodians of our old parliament.

Did the document have legal validity when written?
Yes, it did. Actually, it became part of Scotland’s constitution.

Was it important at the time of entering into the Treaty of Union?
It was so important that the records of the old Parliament of Scotland show that at the time the treaty of union 1707 was being debated in Scotland’s Parliament it was mentioned by several members of parliament that not abiding by the Claim of Right was an act of treason. It is because of this that it was included as a fundamental condition in the Treaty of Union.

Does it have legal validity today?
Yes, it does. It was for example mentioned during the resolution of the England as the Uk supreme court in January 2017 in relation to brexit. In fact, abiding by it in perpetuity and without modification was established as a permanent and fundamental condition of the treaty of union,

Did the monarch in 1689 had to abide by that document?
Yes. the crown was removed from the monarch and that was that. If the monarch had to abide by this document it means the monarch is not sovereign over Scotland, and they are in fact below the entity producing the document.

Did the Parliament of Scotland prepare that document?
No. Some other organism did. This means an entity different to parliament had in Scotland the capability to write laws, pass them, enforce them and incorporate them into the body of Scotland’s constitutional law. If another entity other than the parliament of Scotland had the power to write constitutional law, this can only mean Scotland’s parliament was not sovereign.

Did the Scotland parliament have to abide by that Claim of Right?
Yes, it did. As I said above, it had to include it as a fundamental condition in the Treaty of Union. 

If Scotland’s parliament did not write or pass that document, if it had to abide by that legal document, if that legal document is part of Scotland’s constitution, if that legal document is so important that it constitutes a fundamental condition of the treaty of union and, in line with the treaty of union, that legal document cannot be modified by the UK parliament which is where the successors of the Old Parliament of Scotland sit, what does that tell you? 

It tells you that Scotland’s old parliament was not sovereign and its representatives today (our 59 MPs) cannot undo what it the Parliament of Scotland did not do itself. It tells you Scotland’s MPs sitting in Westminster do not hold the sovereignty of Scotland either. But it tells you something else. Scotland’s government could not possibly transfer to the parliament of Great Britain what it never had itself. Hence the UK parliament cannot possibly be sovereign in Scotland. It may be in England and Wales, but not in Scotland.

And this in turn tells you something else. If Westminster is not sovereign, then England MPs, even if in overwhelming majority, cannot lawfully impose anything on Scotland unless a majority of Scotland’s MPs vote for it.

In other words: all those things England MPs have forced upon us since 8 May 2015 against a majority of Scotland’s MPs explicitly opposing (dragging Scotland into wars, the WMD, EU withdrawal bill, re-writing of the Scotland Act to steal our powers and assets, the vote in June 2015 rejecting FFA for Scotland, the vote in July 2015 for England MPs to self-award themselves a right to veto Scotland’s vote in the EU referendum, the passing of A50 and its triggering, etc, etc, etc), for which the monarch was ill-advised to put a stamp on, are, in practical terms imposing absolute rule over Scotland and therefore a direct violation of the Claim of Right 1689 and by default, a violation of the treaty of union within which respecting in perpetuity the Claim of Right as it is written is a fundamental condition for its existence.

Should we have had a real FM instead of a Westminster puppet, and our MPs would have been recalled already in June 2015 after FFA was trashed by England MPs in direct opposition of an overwhelming majority of Scotland’s MPs. AFter it, the FM should have demanded the situation to be immediately mended in line with the Claim of Right. If rejected, those MPs should have reconvened the old parliament of Scotland and repealed the Act of Union with England and the ratification of the Treaty.


I greatly welcome Mia’s contribution here as I believe it helps illustrate the true impact the Claim of Right 1689 is having on the Independence campaign already. I am aware that back in 2014 Better Together got away with decrying everything the YES side advocated while offering nothing of substance to defend the Status Quo position. That must not be allowed this time so I offer any Unionist the opportunity to write an article of up to 1500 words setting out their view that the Claim of Right 1689 is irrelevant and that the issue of sovereignty does not rest with the Scottish people but with Westminster. I am now going to use a phrase which I think will prove unnecessary. First come, first served. If unionism is incapable of challenging Mia’s views then that should be interpreted as great weakness in the Union’s position on this issue.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland


Unfortunately some pro Indy sites operate censorship if a blogger dares to criticise the SNP, no matter how justified that criticism might be. This transforms them from being pro Indy sites to being only propaganda sites for one Party. By this very act they damage Independence by limiting freedom of speech. Never a very wise action. Sensible people enjoy debate and like to decide for themselves and not have this determined for them by others. This site promotes Independence and does not censor except in exceptional circumstances where abuse or known falsehoods are submitted. Please share articles from this site to overcome all attempts to close down free speech in Scotland.


Free subscriptions are available on this site from both the Home and Blog pages. This will ensure you will be notified every time a new article is posted. Each article already gets posted to many thousands of people, I hope you will come and join us. You will be most welcome.


Now that Salvo has been launched it needs everybody to join and get behind this important, vital even, development. I have never encouraged readers to donate to Yours for Scotland indeed I operate a limit that even when people are overcome and demand the ability to donate I operate a strict limit of £3 per donation. I said that any excess to the costs of running this site would go to worthy Yes events. I have made some donations in the past but yesterday I gave a three figure sum to Salvo. I want to do more so while I am keeping, at this stage, the maximum donation to £3 I am now encouraging readers of Yours for Scotland to donate regularly with the assurance that every penny raised, over the running costs of this site, will be donated to Salvo. Salvo is a people’s movement and it needs us, the people of Scotland, to give them the funds they need. Thank you.