WE SHOULD BE TERMINATING THE TREATY OF UNION.

Regular columnist Mia thinks we should be terminating and voiding the Treaty of Union. Tuesday we will hear from Nicola Sturgeon her new plan now that it has been finally admitted that the Gold Standard Section 30 route hits the buffers after eight wasted years of missed opportunity. . It is my personal opinion thatContinue reading "WE SHOULD BE TERMINATING THE TREATY OF UNION."

WE SHOULD BE TERMINATING THE TREATY OF UNION.

Regular columnist Mia thinks we should be terminating and voiding the Treaty of Union. Tuesday we will hear from Nicola Sturgeon her new plan now that it has been finally admitted that the Gold Standard Section 30 route hits the buffers after eight wasted years of missed opportunity.

. It is my personal opinion that what really is at play here is that an immediate consequence of such win in the courts would be the unilateral dissolution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain by Scotland. There is no way Sturgeon would be able to keep fooling yes voters into keeping the UK going after it is ruled by the courts that the treaty has been breached and therefore it is at all effects void.

The obvious unintended consequence of dissolving the UK of Great Britain after such win would be the invalidating of every single agreement/treaty/trade agreement etc signed by the United Kingdom of Great Britain since its conception, and of course losing every seat (UN, NATO, etc) the UK currently holds.

It would be for England like having to start from scratch, which, if I am not mistaken, will be precisely the position Scotland is expected to start from no matter if we follow this flawed referendum and S30 route, or if we follow the route of unilaterally terminating the treaty.

It seems therefore that this referendum route might be designed far more to appease England (and USA?) than to benefit Scotland, because terminating the treaty would put Scotland and England on the same footing.

When you look at it from this perspective, you also start to understand why the USA and other foreign third parties may have a huge vested interest in blocking this route. Perhaps this may explain the continuous traveling to and from USA of SNP people and their participation in these “leadership” exchanges. It might also explain why Sturgeon and others in Scotland’s politics, appear to be more worried about USA’s politics than Scotland’s. This might also explain the strange change in foreign policy tendencies among the SNP leadership, or the sudden amnesia regarding Israel’s foreign policy towards Palestine.

You also get a vibe that this might be the case from the way in which Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are so desperately trying to inculcate on us that the only path to independence is the route of a referendum effected by Holyrood and therefore requiring consent from “the Uk”. Turns out that this referendum route is the only one I can see where you actually need consent “from the UK” to exit it. If you are pursuing legitimate unilateral termination of the treaty on the basis of breaches of fundamental conditions in the treaty and/or change of circumstances, you don’t need permission from the UK.

You can see this also in the way she is desperately running away from a plebiscite election, which is the obvious alternative, and one that has been available to us already 3 times if you only count GE, 5 if you include Holyrood elections too.

You can also see this from how quickly she run away from the “change of circumstances” that would have made easy to seek a termination of the treaty under international law. Since 2014 there have been not one, but many changes in circumstances that would warrant the termination of the treaty. Yet, all of them seem to have been forgotten by Nicola Sturgeon. In fact, she let the 2016 mandate expire. The previous Holyrood government was the point when the change in circumstances could have been used to their best effect. Since 31 January 2020, brexit is no longer a change in circumstances. It is the status quo. Is that why she let our 2016 mandate expire, so brexit could not be used as a change in circumstances?

From where I am sitting, it seems this referendum route where the question is simply “Should Scotland be an independent country” rather than the obvious one “Should Scotland terminate the treaty of union”, means Scotland is giving up its legitimate right as an equal signatory to terminate that treaty at any time of its choosing.

By preserving the UK of Great Britain after departing from it, in my opinion Scotland will also be renouncing to its legitimate right to a fair share of ALL the goodies it helped to pay for and create during the last 300 years. That route implies Scotland behaving as a region of Greater England. It is like demoting Scotland to the status of Wales. I fail to see how this is the best route for Scotland unless negotiations that ensure Scotland gets its fair share of the assets have already been conducted and the exact outcome is already known. Have those negotiations already been conducted or this woman is trying to take us into a blind alley?

In my personal opinion, the last 8 years have not been at all about fighting to get a referendum. A referendum was never needed in the first place. The carrot dangling has been part of a game of smoke and mirrors, a game whose main aim has been to ensure the Kingdom of England remains as the continuator state of the UK and inherits, of course all those seats and all the main assets.

It is my personal opinion that there might be some kind of agreement or understanding already in place whereby the referendum will not be called until the Kingdom of England is left in a position where it can survive on its own as the continuator state of the UK.

The way Sturgeon quickly back-peddled in 2016/17 from independence suggests this too. This is included as Sturgeon’s foreword to the “Scotland’s place in Europe” document released in December 2016:

“Following the Brexit vote both the Scottish and UK Governments made a number of commitments.
The Prime Minister said that Article 50 would not be triggered until there was a UK approach, that Scotland would be “fully engaged” in the process and that she was willing to listen to “options”.
For the Scottish Government, I said I would seek to bring people in Scotland together in common cause and to build as much consensus as possible.
I said I would explore – not just my preferred option of independence – but all options to protect Scotland’s place in, and relationship with, Europe.
And I said the Scottish Government would – in good faith and a spirit of compromise – seek to identify a solution that might enable Scotland’s voice to be heard, and mitigate the risks that Brexit poses to our interests within the UK.”

Please note the part where it says “Article 50 would not be triggered until there was a UK approach”. Well, was there ever a “UK (4-nations) approach” we were not told about? Did Sturgeon and the SNP agreed something with England’s government so brexit would go ahead against our will? Seems that way, doesn’t it? Brexit certainly went ahead changing completely the circumstances, yet the treaty remains intact.

Please also note the part where she says “the Scottish gov would in good faith and spirit of compromise seek to identify a solution that might enable Scotland’s voice to be heard, and mitigate the risks that Brexit poses to our interests within the UK”

The only “solution” that might enable Scotland’s voice to be heard somewhat while mitigating the risks of Brexit, and the only way to preserve Scotland’s interests within the Uk (whatever those are) is if Scotland remains in the UK and has more autonomy. This woman appears to be asking for FFA here, not demanding independence if A50 is triggered. This foreword was published in December 2016. A50 was not triggered until 29 March 2017, so what happened between 20 December 2016 and 29 March 2017? What happened between 6 May 2016 when we issued the referendum mandate if circumstances changed and the day this foreword was published in December 2016?

In hindsight, and looking at that foreword, it seems crystal clear that her short term objective was never independence but rather just mitigating the impact of Brexit. That is, in my opinion, a gross misinterpretation of the mandate we gave her in 2016 and acting against our will. We did not give a mandate to mitigate brexit. We gave her a mandate to call a referendum if circumstances changed and Scotland was taken out of the EU against our will. That mandate was activated the minute A50 was triggered. So either this woman has been fooling us and lying to us since November 2014 and that mandate for a 2016 referendum was part of the game of smoke and mirrors, or she reached some sort of agreement with Westminster before she handed to Westminster consent on behalf of Scotland to trigger A50. She had no right to do such thing. Even less to let our 2016 mandate expire and let the “change of circumstances” massive opportunity to terminate the treaty to be missed.

That some kind of understanding might have been in place would explain hers and the SNP allowing the A50 vote to take place and A50 to be triggered without Scotland’s consent. It would explain her capitulation speech in January 2020. It would explain the sumisive way in which she stood aside and left England’s representatives to negotiate all trade agreements with Australia, New Zealand etc, no matter how damaging for Scotland, and the way she stood aside when the Withdrawal agreement from the EU was negotiated, despite it stomping all over our popular sovereignty.

It would also explain her non real opposition to our laws to be rewritten to accommodate the new “Internal Market” legislation.

Mr Salmond and ALBA are pursuing a more aggressive route out of the UK. Something that does not fit with the narrative of a submissive referendum where Scotland acts as a region of Greater England and seeks consent. Some kind of prior understanding with the Uk gov (and perhaps USA’s) would also explain the way the actions of the civil service in Scotland, Sturgeon’s government, the COPFS, the UK press and the UK government colluding to push Mr Salmond out of politics and to silence Alba. Every time Sturgeon, an SNP MP/MSP, counsellor or apparatchik starts blabbering against Alba and Mr Salmond, the immediate question that comes to my mind is “what kind of understandings with the UK (and USA’s) gov might Sturgeon’s SNP already have that makes them turn round and attack so viciously their own troops and pro-indy colleagues? 

I read a couple of days ago an article where it was mentioned that Stuart Hosie said that the route of the referendum is “the cleanest one”. Well, in my view that very much depends on the perspective you look at it from. It is the cleanest and hassle free only when you look at it from the perspective of England’s and USa’s interests. It is the cleanest for them because in that way it is ensured England will remain as the continuator state so all those treaties, seats and agreements remain valid. It is the cleanest for them because Scotland would never be in a position to contest any of those seats or main goods. It is the cleanest for England because it has all the administrative, government and militar infrastructure it needs to continue acting as an independent state from day one. Scotland has not even half.

But when you look at it from the perspective of Scotland, frankly I do not see it as a “clean” option at all. The only two advantages I see for Scotland are that it will not need to inherit any of the UK debt and the UK will have to ensure Scotland is equipped with the government and administrative infrastructure to operate as an independent country from day one. But when you look at those “advantages” more carefully, they are not that great advantages either. Firstly, if we do not take any of the debt, then we may have to renounce too to any of the shared assets. And if we depend on the UK gov to ensure our infrastructure is in place, we may be waiting for decades until that happens and worse, they will be done not in the way we want them to be but in the way they suit the Kingdom of England (and USA) as the continuator state and its interests.

Needless to say that under Hosie’s “cleanest” option, Scotland walks away with no trade agreement apart from one with one with the Kingdom of England as the continuator state. You can imagine how dependent that would make us of England and how little leverage that would leave us with. Say bye bye to joining back the EU.

The cleanest way is, in my view, to unilaterally terminate the treaty and forcing England to the negotiating table because it is put at the exact same footing as Scotland: with no treaties and no trade agreements. And then negotiating from there. But I can see how that would upset USA and others.

I think Mr Hosie was not meaning “the cleanest option” in the strict sense of the word. I think what he might have been meaning is that this would be the “easier” option for them and the path with less resistance from USA and other international powers with a vested interest in England retaining the seats and agreements. From where I am standing, it might be easier for them because they are handing all control to the UK government (and perhaps also USa’s) over the process and over the timeframe. But this might well be to the detriment of the Scottish people’s interests.

MY COMMENTS

Mia as always asks some interesting questions and poses scenarios that are both possible and plausible. At the root of this suspicion is the inexplicable absence of any public move towards Independence through the period between 2016 and present. A period marked by clear opportunity after the other and when the UK state, through Brexit was in deep turmoil and unpopularity. Today we await Nicola Sturgeon’s new message as she finally concedes the years of “Gold Standard legal Section 30 referendums” have taken us precisely nowhere. It is going to have to be outstandingly good and deliverable if anyone is going to give it any credibility at all. Many have already, quite rightly, decided to look elsewhere for the answers.

I am, as always

YOURS FOR SCOTLAND

BEAT THE CENSORS

Sadly some websites that claim to be pro Indy have turned out to be only Pro SNP sites and have sought to ban any websites that dare to question SNP Policy or tactics. They seek to avoid the public being aware that alternatives to waiting for Westminster to “grant” Scotland a Section 30 to hold a referendum exist. Issues like the flawed franchise, the Claim of Right route, the work of the SSRG and Salvo fill them with dread. As this blog promotes all routes, including alternatives I am banned from these sites and am therefore very grateful to my readers, who knowing about these efforts to ban and suppress go out of their way to subscribe and to share my articles far and wide. It is a good thing that attempts to restrict free speech and censor are defeated in this way.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

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.