This is the second guest article from regular reader Mia. The first article “ Any response First Minister” generated much comment and interest. i am sure this article will do likewise. The astonishing level of hypocrisy and cynicism that surrounds politics with regards to Scotland really is beyond the pale. The ridiculousness that is havingContinue reading "WHOSE SIDE IS SHE REALLY ON?"


This is the second guest article from regular reader Mia. The first article “ Any response First Minister” generated much comment and interest. i am sure this article will do likewise.

The astonishing level of hypocrisy and cynicism that surrounds politics with regards to Scotland really is beyond the pale. The ridiculousness that is having the Westminster’s propaganda mouthpieces praising parrots like the monarch, Johnson or Sturgeon for some vacuous speech that somebody else, paid by us taxpayers, prepared for them to deliver as if it was theirs, and when these parrots’ woeful actions is what really they should be judged upon, really is surreal.

Our politicians are nothing but hollow parrots. Told what to say and how to say it. Frankly, I rather have the organ grinder giving the speech than the monkeys. In that way at least we would be able to ask questions without the risk of being looked at with a blank expression until their ear piece provides them with the clue as to what they have to respond, or worse, being directly given some deflective deliberately aseptic nonsense in an attempt to defuse the situation while preserving the useful political shelf-life of the parrot for as long as possible.

Holding this COP26 in the UK and in Scotland in particular, after how many times the Treaty of Union 1707 has been violated, and after having recent instances of England’s government at all practical effects sending the message that they had just contempt for international law – they clearly signed the last treaty with the EU in bad faith because they fully intended to violate it whenever they wanted, feels like some kind of insult.

The participations of Johnson, Sturgeon and the queen are really the pinnacle of hypocrisy and frankly an insult to the intelligence of the average yes voter. For what do these individuals actually represent in our eyes if not corruption, dishonesty, lack of principle, self-service, unleashed privilege and continuous unlawful and deliberate violation of treaties and Scotland’s laws?

Johnson takes the role of the bogeyman dressed as a clown who sees international law as disposable and the principle of good faith as an inconvenience. This is the man who was prepared to violate the withdrawal agreement with the EU and the Belfast agreement because due to his own government’s supreme incompetence to actually negotiate something better, things did not go the way the powers that be who put the clown at the wheel, wanted. And what the powers that they want, they get. The how they get it is the least of their worries. 

That is what an unwritten “constitution” is for. “Fluid” and unwritten, so it can move and go everywhere on demand without leaving a written trace. What credibility or respectability can such individual (or those pulling his strings behind the scenes) have left? Let’s not forget that this clown is the self-entitled coward who attempted to prorogue parliament and democracy to avoid scrutiny. Clearly the powers that be, represented by this buffoon, think Westminster is sovereign, but hey, only when it is convenient for them that it is so. Because, for as long as the principle of an unwritten constitution remains, the only sovereign here are those powers that be.

The queen, represents the monumental hypocrite, the epitome of “do as I say, not as I do” who speaks in the COP26 about green matters but who had her representatives lobbying Scotland’s parliament so her properties became exempt from the application of some climate law that could see, heaven forbid, some of the money her family siphons from taxpayers, returning back to the taxpayers. And then you had Westminter’s propaganda mouthpieces lauding her as if she was this beacon of principled honesty and green credentials. I am not sure if its best to laugh or to cry to be honest. But hey, it could have been worse. She could have delegated on that other beacon of impeccable behaviour and respectability Prince Andrew, to deliver the speech and wow the world leaders with his principled credentials.

Let’s not forget that the monarch is also the character who not only allowed the prorogation of “her” parliament by Johnson so his government could proceed imposing things without scrutiny, but to do that on her name. She also ratified every single bill that was passed in “her” England parliament and that deliberately encroached on the Scottish people’s rights and sovereignty. She allowed “her” England supreme court to use English law, in contravention of the treaty of union, to subjugate Scots law and to stop perfectly legitimate bills and laws passed in Scotland. She allowed her English court to unlawfully transfer the sovereignty of the people of Scotland to England Mps so they could force brexit on Scotland against Scotland’s expressed will. She ratified every bill her English parliament passed in direct violation of the treaty of union.

Sturgeon’s role is that of the useful idiot dressed as the fake pro indy and fake feminist pretend champion tasked with the role of the enabler who does all the dirty work in Scotland. She allowed the lobbyists on behalf of the queen to succeed. All the violations of the treaty of union, all the violations of Scotland’s sovereignty and rights that happened during the last 7 years under her watch only happened because this useful idiot chose to condone on the encroaching on Scotland’s sovereignty and let it happen. Let’s not forget that this woman has had the power to end the union since 8th May 2015 and a democratic mandate to do so in the form of 56/59, 35/59 and 45/59 MPs. The UK is after all a parliamentary democracy, or so they say. It is beginning to transpire that the concept only applies to England’s representatives and only whenever England’s representatives choose it applies. As to the rule book that determines when this applies, is non existent , just like the written constitution the UK has been crying for for the last 300 years.

It is therefore Sturgeon’s choice that Scotland remains in this union to be abused. It is therefore her choice that brexit was forced upon Scotland, that our rights, assets and powers have been stolen from us, that England MPs are passing laws to usurp Scotland’s sovereignty, that Scots’ bills are being subjugated by English law in an English court and that Scotland continues in a vulnerable position to be subjected to more abuse for the benefit of the Kingdom of England’s ruling class.

Scotland made clear its views about this union on the 7th May 2015 when it chose to send to England’s parliament 56 out of 59 nationalist MPs representing a political party whose raison d’etre was terminating this union. It is this FM who has chosen to ignore Scotland’s will and continues to ignore it to this day to the detriment of the people of Scotland and so the treaty of union and Scotland’s claim of Rigth can continue to be violated and Scotland’s sovereignty usurped.

Johnson may represent the last Kingdom of England’s buffoon tasked with effecting a series of violations of the treaty of union. But let’s not make a mistake here. He could only get away with it because the queen ratified those violations to be done by “her” government and because Nicola Sturgeon chose to act as Westminster’s useful idiot and enabler instead of Scotland’s democratically elected representative and pro independence FM.

The Claim of Right 1689 starts:

“King James VII, being a professed papist … did, by the advice of wicked and evil counsellors, invade the fundamental constitution of this kingdom and altered it from a legal limited monarchy, to an arbitrary despotic power; and in a public proclamation asserted an absolute power, to cass, annul and disable all the laws…”

What is the difference between what King James VII did in the 17th century and what the present monarch is allowing her parliament in England, her courts in England and her government in England to do to Scotland?

Isn’t the forcing of England’s will over Scotland’s not an attempt to impose absolute power over Scotland?

Isn’t the claiming that the queen’s English parliament’s rules and laws overrule those of Scotland, even against the will of the people of Scotland, not an unwanted imposition of absolute rule over Scotland?

Isn’t the theft of Scotland’s sovereignty by the queen’s England MPs not a direct violation of the Claim of Right 1689 that is the main foundation of the treaty of union and that gives this monarch the right to call herself Queen of Scots?

Isn’t the ratification of laws and bills that inflict a direct violation on the treaty of union, a violation of the treaty of union itself?

Isn’t allowing your courts to stop Scotland’s perfectly legitimate bills by using English law to subjugate Scotland’s a direct violation of the the treaty of union?

Isn’t the ratification of a bill that allows for a situation where NI has more access to the single market and to the eU than Scotland a direct violation of the treaty of Union?

The Claim of Right 1689 says

“That all proclamations asserting an absolute power to cass, annul and disable laws … are contrary to law”

It seems to me that ratification by the monarch of any laws/policies/bills that to self-award this queen’s parliament in England absolute power to cast, annul and disable Scots laws can be seen as a direct contravention of Scotland’s law and therefore the the Claim of Right 1689.

It seems to me that the attempt to put in law the convention of “Westminster’s sovereignty” to allow this monarch’s parliament in England to usurp Scotland’s sovereignty and transferred it to England in order to exercise absolute power over Scotland can be interpreted as unlawful according to the Claim of Right 1689.

It seems to me that the ruling of this monarch’s English supreme court that transferred the power from the people of Scotland to England MPs to decide if brexit could be forced upon Scotland against Scotland’s will can be seen as unlawful according to the Claim of Right 1689.

The Claim of Right 1689 is still extant today and is a fundamental pillar of the treaty of union. It is in fact, if I am not mistaken, what gives this English queen the right to call herself Queen of Scots.

Looking at the reasons why the crown of the kingdom of Scotland was taken away from James VII, it seems to me that direct violation of that Claim of right, and ratifying what is at all practical effects the exercise of absolute power over Scotland by this monarch’s parliament, government and courts, could equally be the basis to remove the crown of the kingdom of Scotland from this monarch and her descendents. 

At the end of the day, there is already a precedent.

I doubt this monarch and particularly the many expensive advisers she has writing her speeches for her and telling her what to do would be so stupid as, on their own accord, breach that claim of right and the treaty of union so blatantly exposing herself as the ultimate absolute ruler in the 21st century. So there is only one way this could have happened as it did, blatantly, and that is if Nicola Sturgeon, the ultimate representative of Scotland, has given Scotland’s consent by the back door and without having that consent, for that abuse to happen.

All these violations of the treaty of union and Scotland’s claim of right happened during the last 7 years, all in full watch of Nicola Sturgeon, who, since 8th May 2015 has held the power to stop all this abuse and to end the union.

So either there is some back door agreement here between the three parties involved that is deliberately delaying the end of this union which is maintained on life support by Nicola Sturgeon’s refusal to pull the lever, or Nicola Sturgeon is not, and has never been, fighting for Scotland. She is fighting against Scotland.

Time that somebody asked Nicola Sturgeon what right has she to allow these violations of the treaty of union and Scotland’s claim of right to continue without Scotland’s consent? And who the hell is she to hand over to England’s MPs and this monarch’s English parliament, government and English courts, Scotland’s sovereignty without having Scotland’s consent to do so? 

She and her party were elected to deliver THE END OF THE UNION, not to deliver our sovereignty to England MPs, England judges and England ministers, which is what they have been doing for the last 7 years.


Mia raises many concerns. I am not legally qualified to judge their full justification but I certainly support those charges being laid at the door of the First Minister and her Government and expect a full explanation to confirm or deny those charges. What is not in dispute is the entire period in office of Nicola Sturgeon is marred by a constant stream of attacks on Scotland’s status with her administration completely bereft of any adequate response.

I am, as always



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.Sharing is very important and helps the Independence message to reach a much wider 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.