Much of UK law may be fraudulent

A guest post by Xaracen, who is a regular reader and occasional contributor to this site. He is a retired IT engineer and Manager. . Decisions made by England’s MPs cannot be considered UK decisions unless and until Scotland’s MPs agree them, and Westminster has no business pretending otherwise. Because the Union is a binaryContinue reading "Much of UK law may be fraudulent"

Much of UK law may be fraudulent

A guest post by Xaracen, who is a regular reader and occasional contributor to this site. He is a retired IT engineer and Manager.


Decisions made by England’s MPs cannot be considered UK decisions unless and until Scotland’s MPs agree them, and Westminster has no business pretending otherwise.

Because the Union is a binary entity, composed of two partner kingdoms, no decision made by one partner (via his MPs overruling the other’s) can be binding on the other, nor binding on the Union or any part of the Union. Such unilateral decisions made by one partner’s MPs cannot legitimately be passed by the Union Parliament.

Here’s why;

The two sovereign kingdoms of Scotland and England agreed by Treaty to joint governance of both kingdoms by a single parliament, each kingdom being represented by its own body of MPs and, like their sovereign parents, neither body has any legitimate authority of any kind over the other.

Clearly, neither body of MPs can represent the United Kingdom on their own, so any decision made by one body over the objections of the other cannot be deemed a UK decision, it having been made by only one partner. Such a unilateral decision cannot be made binding on the other partner, nor legitimately be passed as a UK decision by the UK’s Parliament and thus made binding on the UK. Nevertheless, the UK Parliament has permitted this since the inception of the Union on the basis that there is only one body of MPs, all of whom are UK MPs, and thus any majority must be a UK majority, and so is entirely valid.

But this justification is fraudulent, because it is incomplete, and thus masks and ignores the crucial truth that the UK is not a single homogenous entity, and neither are its MPs.

Yes, they are all UK MPs, but each one is also, and primarily, the representative of one or other of the two parent kingdoms who elected them, and the sovereignties of those parents must be respected because a, they still exist, and b, they are still sovereign, and c, they both have every sovereign right to expect their representation to count for exactly as much as the other’s in any and all UK decision-making. The differing numbers of the two bodies of representatives merely reflects the size of their home populations (and which together are also not a single homogenous population), and not their relative ranking in a pretended hierarchy of authority. Those ranks are exactly equal precisely because their parents’ sovereignties are exactly equal, both holding ultimate authority in their own domains, that being what ‘sovereignty’ actually means, both in Scotland and in England.

England’s MPs outnumber Scotland’s MPs by about ten to one, but they still only represent England, and have no legitimate authority over Scotland or her MPs because Scotland’s separate sovereignty makes them irrelevant. For the same reason, Scotland’s MPs have no legitimate authority over England or her MPs, even if ever they were to outnumber them, because of England’s separate sovereignty. So the distribution of parent-derived authority across both bodies of MPs is equal, ie. 1:1, even if their numbers are not. The Westminster institution’s carefully maintained indifference to that equality is fraudulent, abusive and unlawful.

In addition, Scotland’s sovereignty is embodied in its population, and they owe no allegiance or obedience to Westminster, and certainly not to England’s MPs. They will respect the rule of law if they consider it properly constructed by legitimate authority, but being sovereign, they can refuse consent to those laws they consider illegitimate.

England’s sovereignty is effectively embodied in her MPs. The claimed ‘unlimited sovereignty’ of the UK Parliament is based on the assertion of English parliamentary sovereignty from their 1689 Bill of Rights, but it has no relevance in Scotland. The English population, not being sovereign, has no choice but to be law-abiding, even if they disagree with some of those laws.

In 1707, Westminster acquired authority to govern Scotland, conferred on it by Scotland’s ratification of the Treaty of Union, but that is only delegated authority, not actual sovereignty, so it doesn’t even equal Scotland’s sovereignty, let alone outrank it, and that delegated Scottish authority is in the form of Scotland’s MPs. None of that Scottish authority was delegated to England’s MPs. Scotland’s MPs acquire their delegated authority directly from the sovereign Scots via the process of being elected by them in a UK general election. England’s elected MPs acquire their authority from the UK Parliament itself on arrival at Westminster.

So, what does it all mean?

It means that the Union does not belong to England alone, that the UK parliament has no right to favour England’s MPs over Scotland’s via its too-simplistic majority voting system, and that the only legitimate basis for passing legislation (or any other matter that requires a vote) in the UK Parliament is joint agreement by the two partners of the Union.

It means that England’s MPs must NOT be allowed to use their 10 to 1 majority to overrule a decision made by Scotland’s MPs, because that denies the sovereign rights of the Scottish partner of the Union, and is thus abusive and invalid. Valid decisions can therefore only be jointly agreed decisions, determined via two majority votes, one from each kingdom’s body of MPs. This requires the votes of the two bodies be counted separately, and there can be no casting vote if the two outcomes differ because that would mean denying the authority of the losing kingdom, so instead the matter must be renegotiated or dropped.

Even more importantly, it also means that any existing legislation (or other matter) previously passed unilaterally by England’s MPs is invalid and ultra vires, and thus fraudulent and unlawful, and renders the UK Government and the entire Westminster establishment culpable for their criminal lack of due diligence on the constitutional and legal provenance of their authority to govern the twin kingdoms of the UK in the way they have.

Scotland’s MPs are fully entitled to insist that such fraudulent legislation be rescinded, or declared null and void, or renegotiated. In addition, the Westminster establishment must incur penalties and/or be liable to make restitution for any damaging consequences arising from such legislative fraud. A major example of course is all of Brexit and its related consequent legislation, and that will be outrageously expensive and extremely embarrassing for Westminster and the UK government to be pulled up on. It would be a well deserved humiliation that cannot come soon enough.

They would also constitute major breaches of the Treaty and major breaches of Scotland’s sovereignty and constitution, and thus would be concrete grounds for ending the Union. Ending the Union would not anull any obligation regarding penalties and/or restitution.



It is enormously healthy that issues like this are finally being discussed and more and more people are developing both knowledge and interest in how such unfair arrangements are just imposed on Scotland when they are not based on any solid legal basis. An example is our oil and gas. Scotland is a territorial nation and territorial nations are entitled to own and benefit from the assets on our land and sea. We know these powers were never transferred to England because neither the Monarch or the Scots Parliament ever owned them because they were owned by the sovereign people of Scotland. Salvo put a really good podcast out a couple of days ago highlighting these lies on the INDYSCOT News site. You can watch it on YouTube or on this site if you choose.

I am, as always



Regretfully there are some among us who seek to censor what others read. Sadly within the YES movement there are sites which claim to be pro Indy but exist to only promote one Party and will not publish articles which come from bloggers who don’t slavishly support that Party to the exclusion of the rest of the YES movement. I ask readers who support free speech to share articles from Yours for Scotland as often as possible as this defeats the effectiveness of the censors.


Free subscriptions are available on the Home and Blog pages of this site. This allows,for an email of each article to your Inbox and that is now how several thousands get my articles each day. This avoids problems that some have experienced gaining access from Twitter and Facebook. You will be very welcome to choose whatever route works best for you.


The work and important development of Salvo has been a beacon of hope in 2022 and as it develops Salvo is creating campaigning hubs throughout Scotland. Salvo will join  with Liberation.Scot and as the campaigning arm of Liberation we are looking at very effective campaigns kicking off very early this year and introducing some new campaigning methods as well as those that have worked well in the past. This requires money so all donations to this site, once the running costs are covered, will go to support the work of Salvo/ Liberation. I think you will see it well used and effective.


We are seeking to build Liberation.Scot to at least 100,000 signatures just as quickly as we can. This is part of our plan to win recognition as an official Liberation Movement via the United Nations. We intend to internationalise our battle to win Independence and through the setting up of our Scottish National Congress will prepare and develop our arguments to win progress in the International Courts. Please help by signing up at Liberation.Scot. It is from those who sign up to Liberation.Scot that the membership of the SNC will be created by ballot.