Timing is everything . The SNP have their claws into the backs of the Scottish nation. They think if they vote for swiney then independence is done and dusted.
I see 2 options.
1 Set up a new party whose aim is Independence...money,people etc required fast ...and you have to persuade Scots in a very short time that you will lead them to freedom. ...and with the recent history of embezzlement in Alba still fresh and how quickly that party disappeared.
....would we be just another hopeless lot...
2 Let swiney go ahead and hang himself..we know he's a chancer... he won't get independence ..just the usual mirage that we never quite reach...when Scots realise that they have been duped AGAIN as in 1707.... that's when he can be challenged....We will have had time to set up a party and get known ..
I am happy to be part of any army/party that wants our country free from the shackles of this toxic union that is destroying us.
I have a booksite with my illustrated childrens books .. www.squigglypen.com and I design leaflets etc. and I have a good rep and printer ..but I would be poor at being nice ....so a backroom post where I don't do too much damage..
It has to be thought out very carefully while the nefarious forces determined to keep Scotland a prisoner would be watching ...they are a hidden well organised and powerful army.
My option would be the second one where we watch..wait ..build up our strategies ...and then strike. ..
The Union and its Parliaments (plural) are either the historical entities that exist according to the rules of the time at and before 1st May 1707, or they are evolved over the centuries and decades according to the will of the People - both in Scotland and England (and Wales and Ireland). It seems reasonable both democratically and in law, that there should be consistency both between the founding elements and in the way they interact - then and now.
Righty, the first thing to note is that The Parliament of Scotland (or "Estates of Scotland") adjourned itself on 25th March 1707, but did not reconvene before the proposed date of the start of the Union - 1st May 1707. Blackmail, intimidation and indeed kidnap as well as looming military force, for instance in the Firth of Forth, were employed to prevent the reconvening of the Parliament. Then, to meet the deadline of the 1st May and allow the Union to take place, the Parliament of Scotland was dissolved by royal proclamation on 28th April 1707, but not at the request of that Parliament which was not actually reconvened to do so.
Note carefully the way the language of this is phrased to make a point - you will see in different places, the exact same history described by Union sources but in a way that makes the whole thing look voluntary and indeed, without use or even threat of force.
Note also that had the Parliament of Scotland reconvened before the 1st of May 1707, it could have repealed the Act of Union but also have heard an Act of Salvo from the people of Scotland - under the "Act salvo jure cujuslibet" of 1663.
Quite simply the people of Scotland at the time were denied their statutory right (as in legal Statute), to tell the Parliament of Scotland "Oan yer bike, we the people of Scotland do not agree with the Act of Union. Cease and desist immediately.".
So that is the immovability of history compared to the evolution of democracy and indeed Parliament. If anyone tells us that our own Parliament at Holyrood can not evolve, and has not evolved since 1999, then the exact same is true for the Union itself, and indeed the Union Parliament at Westminster - which do not therefore legally exist as the Right of Salvo in 1707 was denied which could, quite simply, have said: "No thanks".
"The Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7. c. 38) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that revised the pre-Union acts of the Parliament of Scotland.[1]"
but "The schedule to the act was repealed by section 1 of, and part I of the schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1927."
Normal evolution of a democracy (or multiple democracies) and accidental muddying of chains of evidence? Do I have a bridge to sell you?
I think that on the strict interpretation of historical law, no. The Union never properly started, as the Scottish Parliament didn't follow the law as it stood, hence the Act of Union with England was improper.
But the UKSC is quite confused. On the one hand it believes that law is historical, on the other hand it thinks it evolves, which is fair enough. But it doesn't do this for the evolution of Parliament, even while making judgements actually on the base of that evolution, though it totally restricts this to its own recognised Parliament, the Westminster one, while denying that same evolution to the Holyrood one - even though both owe their authority to the electorate that elect those Parliaments.
So far nobody has forced it to face up to its misjudgements, and even reverse them. Or just bypass it completely - it does not have its own power to intervene, it is only one part of a democracy; it is not the legislative nor is it the executive.
"Swinney’s ego blinds him to his diminutive stature in the eyes of the British establishment. His wheedling complaints and ineffectual protests have won him only contempt."
Absolutely true.
But it is as nothing compared to the disdain that I , and I suspect growing number of people, feel towards the spineless vote fraudster that is the current FM and SNP leader.
As regards NSP I imagine it would take a gargantuan effort and deep financial pockets to get up and running fully.
However, Peter, you have in #ScottishUDI the process and in the Manifesto for Independence the plan to take us forward.
And it may be, after Swinney is exposed as the vote fraudster that he is following the upcoming Scottish election, that there will many more with eyes to see and ears to listen.
We need the guts and the guile as much as the pride and the passion.
Encouraging words, Stephen. However, if Swinney's exposure opens eyes and ears, there must be something for them to witness. Something tangible. Something corporeal. New Scotland Party was supposed to fill that role. But as you say, getting that project up and running again will require a massive effort and an equally massive war chest. I'm seriously considering giving it another go. But I'm hesitant to commit.
As a counter-argument to all that, from the Zack Polanski National, and I got side-tracked so only read the headline: "John Swinney wants to ‘press on’ with independence referendum in 2028"
which puts him directly comparable with Alex Salmond who, just before the election itself in 2011, committed to a referendum in "the second half of the parliamentary term". But for a date around a year sooner.
Whatever else anyone thinks about everything else, it is at least another tick for Swinney who wants to compare with the election in 2011.
(edit: now I can close about 30 tabs between the postings!)
Timing is everything . The SNP have their claws into the backs of the Scottish nation. They think if they vote for swiney then independence is done and dusted.
I see 2 options.
1 Set up a new party whose aim is Independence...money,people etc required fast ...and you have to persuade Scots in a very short time that you will lead them to freedom. ...and with the recent history of embezzlement in Alba still fresh and how quickly that party disappeared.
....would we be just another hopeless lot...
2 Let swiney go ahead and hang himself..we know he's a chancer... he won't get independence ..just the usual mirage that we never quite reach...when Scots realise that they have been duped AGAIN as in 1707.... that's when he can be challenged....We will have had time to set up a party and get known ..
I am happy to be part of any army/party that wants our country free from the shackles of this toxic union that is destroying us.
I have a booksite with my illustrated childrens books .. www.squigglypen.com and I design leaflets etc. and I have a good rep and printer ..but I would be poor at being nice ....so a backroom post where I don't do too much damage..
It has to be thought out very carefully while the nefarious forces determined to keep Scotland a prisoner would be watching ...they are a hidden well organised and powerful army.
My option would be the second one where we watch..wait ..build up our strategies ...and then strike. ..
For OUR Scotland and her duped weans.
The Union and its Parliaments (plural) are either the historical entities that exist according to the rules of the time at and before 1st May 1707, or they are evolved over the centuries and decades according to the will of the People - both in Scotland and England (and Wales and Ireland). It seems reasonable both democratically and in law, that there should be consistency both between the founding elements and in the way they interact - then and now.
Righty, the first thing to note is that The Parliament of Scotland (or "Estates of Scotland") adjourned itself on 25th March 1707, but did not reconvene before the proposed date of the start of the Union - 1st May 1707. Blackmail, intimidation and indeed kidnap as well as looming military force, for instance in the Firth of Forth, were employed to prevent the reconvening of the Parliament. Then, to meet the deadline of the 1st May and allow the Union to take place, the Parliament of Scotland was dissolved by royal proclamation on 28th April 1707, but not at the request of that Parliament which was not actually reconvened to do so.
Note carefully the way the language of this is phrased to make a point - you will see in different places, the exact same history described by Union sources but in a way that makes the whole thing look voluntary and indeed, without use or even threat of force.
Note also that had the Parliament of Scotland reconvened before the 1st of May 1707, it could have repealed the Act of Union but also have heard an Act of Salvo from the people of Scotland - under the "Act salvo jure cujuslibet" of 1663.
https://www.rps.ac.uk/search.php?action=print&id=38392&filename=charlesii_trans&type=trans
Quite simply the people of Scotland at the time were denied their statutory right (as in legal Statute), to tell the Parliament of Scotland "Oan yer bike, we the people of Scotland do not agree with the Act of Union. Cease and desist immediately.".
So that is the immovability of history compared to the evolution of democracy and indeed Parliament. If anyone tells us that our own Parliament at Holyrood can not evolve, and has not evolved since 1999, then the exact same is true for the Union itself, and indeed the Union Parliament at Westminster - which do not therefore legally exist as the Right of Salvo in 1707 was denied which could, quite simply, have said: "No thanks".
Some extra data, for the other side of "evolution", for instance at near random:
"Ruinous Houses in Burghs Act 1663 (repealed) ... (Repealed by Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1964 (c. 80))"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_Scotland_from_1663
but near the bottome, no such for Salvo: "Saving the Rights Act 1663 Not public and general". A conspiracy theorist might be right to wonder: "Why?".
Note also for instance: "Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1906"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_Law_Revision_(Scotland)_Act_1906
"The Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7. c. 38) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that revised the pre-Union acts of the Parliament of Scotland.[1]"
but "The schedule to the act was repealed by section 1 of, and part I of the schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1927."
Normal evolution of a democracy (or multiple democracies) and accidental muddying of chains of evidence? Do I have a bridge to sell you?
Is there an actual 'legal government of the United Kingdom'?
I think that on the strict interpretation of historical law, no. The Union never properly started, as the Scottish Parliament didn't follow the law as it stood, hence the Act of Union with England was improper.
But the UKSC is quite confused. On the one hand it believes that law is historical, on the other hand it thinks it evolves, which is fair enough. But it doesn't do this for the evolution of Parliament, even while making judgements actually on the base of that evolution, though it totally restricts this to its own recognised Parliament, the Westminster one, while denying that same evolution to the Holyrood one - even though both owe their authority to the electorate that elect those Parliaments.
So far nobody has forced it to face up to its misjudgements, and even reverse them. Or just bypass it completely - it does not have its own power to intervene, it is only one part of a democracy; it is not the legislative nor is it the executive.
"Swinney’s ego blinds him to his diminutive stature in the eyes of the British establishment. His wheedling complaints and ineffectual protests have won him only contempt."
Absolutely true.
But it is as nothing compared to the disdain that I , and I suspect growing number of people, feel towards the spineless vote fraudster that is the current FM and SNP leader.
As regards NSP I imagine it would take a gargantuan effort and deep financial pockets to get up and running fully.
However, Peter, you have in #ScottishUDI the process and in the Manifesto for Independence the plan to take us forward.
And it may be, after Swinney is exposed as the vote fraudster that he is following the upcoming Scottish election, that there will many more with eyes to see and ears to listen.
We need the guts and the guile as much as the pride and the passion.
Encouraging words, Stephen. However, if Swinney's exposure opens eyes and ears, there must be something for them to witness. Something tangible. Something corporeal. New Scotland Party was supposed to fill that role. But as you say, getting that project up and running again will require a massive effort and an equally massive war chest. I'm seriously considering giving it another go. But I'm hesitant to commit.
As a counter-argument to all that, from the Zack Polanski National, and I got side-tracked so only read the headline: "John Swinney wants to ‘press on’ with independence referendum in 2028"
which puts him directly comparable with Alex Salmond who, just before the election itself in 2011, committed to a referendum in "the second half of the parliamentary term". But for a date around a year sooner.
Whatever else anyone thinks about everything else, it is at least another tick for Swinney who wants to compare with the election in 2011.
(edit: now I can close about 30 tabs between the postings!)