In years gone by if you wanted to speak to somebody abroad you had to book your call through the London operator as all international call lines were centred there. Times have moved on and of course we can all communicate directly with friends and relatives all over the world through direct dialing. People andContinue reading "CUT OUT THE LONDON OPERATOR"

Old vintage rotary telephone with handset in the air

In years gone by if you wanted to speak to somebody abroad you had to book your call through the London operator as all international call lines were centred there.

Times have moved on and of course we can all communicate directly with friends and relatives all over the world through direct dialing. People and organisations are free to communicate without any interference from London….unless you are the Scottish Government.

You see Scotland is not allowed, under the Scotland Act to negotiate political agreements in the international arena. This is a reserved matter and Westminster goes bananas at any attempt for discussion with foreign representatives even on an informal basis. They get hugely nervous about it. They have good reason to be worried because, as I will explain, Scotland carrying out discussions with foreign governments and entering any formal agreement with any of them would be the last piece in the jigsaw that would enable us to pursue our Independence via the United Nations and would meet all the key requirements to be recognised as a viable independent state.

The UN have a committee that deals with the self determination of peoples who seek Independence. There are four criteria that any aspiring new state must satisfy as part of this process. These are

The UN defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government; and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to it however, an entity’s statehood is independent of its recognition by other states.


The territory designed as Scotland is completely defined and has been established for many centuries. Undoubtably the first of the four criteria is easily satisfied by Scotland.


Scotland has a well established permanent population. It is recognised as one of the oldest nations in the World. There is no doubt a race known as the Scots has lived on this land for an age. It is most certainly a permanent population so again Scotland has no difficulty meeting this criteria.


Since it was reconvened in 1999 as expressed by Winnie Ewing in the Chair ( note now the significance of those words which were not universally understood at the time) Scotland has a Parliament and a well established Government. At the moment is has limited powers, indeed this is one of the overwhelming reasons Independence is required. There is however no question that Scotland has a Government structure that meets this criteria.


This is what Westminster wishes to block. This is exactly why foreign relations is a reserved power and it is exactly why Westminster has kittens anytime the First Minister ever enters discussions with Foreign leaders. Think back to when Nicola was speaking with European leaders during Brexit, she went to great lengths to play down the meetings, they were informal information exchanges, even then Westminster were very incensed.

I am not an expert on this matter but many might think Scotland has already satisfied this criteria anyway as we have a range of foreign embassies and consulates already well established here in Scotland. You might think that as well BUT I remember when I was appointed as the Honorary Consul of the Republic of Estonia (I retired from this post in 2018) my appointment had to be approved by both the Government of Estonia and the Court of St James in London so it probably means that despite my post and responsibilities being confined to Scotland my appointment had to be formally accepted and controlled by London. This is no accident and is designed to ensure this particular qualification can never be obtained via existing diplomatic channels as in the UK all diplomatic posts are subject to approval by the Crown. This neatly provides a mechanism that can be used to stop Scotland bypassing Westminster in terms of foreign affairs. I think we just need a more aggressive strategy from the Scottish Government on taking this point forward. As the above criteria states it is not a disqualification if you do not manage to get another country to recognise your rights to make an international agreement but it greatly speeds and simplifies the process if another country is willing to recognise you are a sovereign state.

As many readers will know I am not slow to criticise the Scottish Government but on maintaining good and regular contract with the formally recognised foreign representatives of Embassies and Consulates in Scotland I am happy to confirm that during the fifteen years I was a member of the Diplomatic Corps in Scotland they recognised the importance of those relations and were active in involving them all with our Scottish Government with regular meetings, briefings and events.


Is another issue that is very important and again I would argue that Scotland is in a strong position to prove conclusively sovereignty lies with the Scottish people. This is a crucial point I believe. To explain, in the Treaty of Arbroath 1320 we have that concept well demonstrated, indeed it is certainly one of, if not the earliest, statement of popular sovereignty in the World. As recently as in the last couple of years this matter has been debated in the House of Commons and was agreed unanimously that sovereignty lies in Scotland with the people. It is established in law that the land of Scotland is not subject to the English belief that sovereignty lies with Westminster indeed the Claim of Right and votes in the Scottish Parliament have made this clear.


We are a nation and our people are sovereign. We are one of the oldest nations in the World.

After a long period of Independence lasting many centuries, a combination of threats, both military and economic alongside extensive bribery of the privileged few who had a vote in the matter the Independent nation of Scotland enter a “voluntary” Union with England in 1707. The ordinary people of Scotland had no say in the matter.

That remained the case until 2014 when a referendum was arranged to determine Scottish Independence. This referendum was flawed in many ways. Firstly the franchise allowed many incomers to Scotland a vote, this included many with holiday homes and there were also many hundreds of thousands from both the rest of the UK AND OTHER NATIONALITIES that altered the result. Credible academic research indicates the majority of Scots voted in favour of Independence but were denied victory in the referendum due to the franchise which was completely unfair and out of line with the normal franchise in all other European countries and in referendums organised and run by the United Nations themselves in similar situations. Other matters that should completely invalidate this referendum would include external interference from foreign owned media, no controls over extensive funding support from outside Scotland to those who opposed Independence, particularly from people resident in the country we sought our Independence from.

I mention this to emphasise the importance of the Baird Series of Determinants of Scottish Independence which are part of a very important illumination of many of the crucial elements to secure victory. None more so that ensuring any vote is only conducted with a fair franchise, in line with the same franchise as operates elsewhere and which is not devised and operated by the London based Electoral Commission which builds in a very substantial bias against Independence that subsumes the wishes and aspirations of the indigenous people as it did in 2014 and would be even more likely to be even more unfair these days as the inflow from south of the border has continued unchecked ever since.

We are part of a Union and as one of the two parties we are being treated not as a sovereign nation but as a colonial possession of the other Party who signed that Union Treaty. We signed as a sovereign nation and as such we should be able to end such Union without requiring permission from the other signatory. It is not a equal Union if Scotland requires the “permission” of the other Party to end the relationship

.We are being treated as a colonial possession of England, it is time our politicians recognised this fact and took steps to resolve this situation. They could start by purchasing Professor Alf Baird’s book Doun Haulden which spells out exactly how colonial control is exercised in Scotland. There is much they could learn from it. I know it has opened the eyes of many of my readers, as it did mine. It would be a giant step forward if our elected representatives were similarly enlightened.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland


Unfortunately a number of pro Indy sites have turned out to be merely pro SNP sites and have blocked a number of bloggers, including myself. We have managed to frustrate these efforts to close us down through our readers sharing our articles and building our audience. In addition many have taken out free direct subscriptions. I very much appreciate this support.

Free Subscriptions

Are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. By taking out a subscription you will receive notification of all future posts. You will be most welcome.

Professor Baird’s Book

Is called Doun Hauden and is available from Amazon UK.