All independence minded Scottish MP’s at Westminster should resign their seats en-bloc and stand for office in the ensuing by-elections seeking a “Claim of Right” mandate to declare an immediate end to the 1707 Treaty of Union.

Claim of Right

“As a nation, the Scots have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.” (Margaret Thatcher)

In 1954, A Royal Commission described the UK as a “multi-national” or “multi-nation” state and acknowledged that it had been one ever since its foundation in 1707. The recognition of the multinational character of the British State and Scotland’s status as a nation within it further acknowledged that “Scotland was a nation that had voluntarily entered into union with England as a partner and not as a dependency”.

Scotland’s right to self-determination:

“That this House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.” (Westminster Parliament, Wednesday 4 July 2018)

Self-determination has also been codified in the fundamental and universal documents of international systems, such as the Charter of the United Nations in 1945 and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 and becoming an independent country would be an act of self-determination by the people of Scotland.

The precedence of the doctrine of the mandate

Before 2011, the Unionist attitude to independence referendums was that its politicians should not support referendums on policies that they did not back. But their opposition changed after the 2011 General Election when they agreed to the holding of an independence referendum because of the concurrence of Westminster politicians who believed that in winning an overall majority of seats, the SNP had won the right to see that particular promise implemented.

What was significant was that the agreement to hold the independence referendum established precedence through the preference for the belief in the doctrine of the mandate, rather than by the upholding of a constitutional rule. Although not tested at the time the support of the doctrine of the mandate extended to a straightforward declaration of independence if that was the preference of the electorate.

Referendum and Westminster

The Scotland Act does not explicitly reserve the organisation of referendums to the Westminster Parliament, though it does reserve to Westminster “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England”. It can therefore be argued that a referendum on ending that Union is also a matter reserved to Westminster. The potential difficulty was resolved through a political deal, the Edinburgh Agreement of October 2012. The opening lines of the Edinburgh Agreement, stated: “The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.”

Referendum and Scotland

A Scottish independence referendum was reluctantly supported by the British Government even though it could have attempted to block it by legal means. The reason for this is enshrined in Scotland’s right to self-determination that has long been acknowledged, as has its status as a nation within the UK State. a simple “50% plus one” majority would have been enough to launch independence negotiations.

In Scotland’s case, the main obstacle on the road to secession was the composition of the electorate which comprised many thousands of voters not truly Scottish an anomaly that produced a majority that remained unconvinced of the merits of independence. This hurdle would be overcome in any future referendum with the stipulation that residence in Scotland is not an automatic qualification. A Scot is an individual born and wholly resident in Scotland at the date of an election.

Abuse of principled politics offered by the SNP leadership

Nicola Sturgeon stood at the doors of Westminster in 2015 and stated: “The SNP will be the principled opposition in this place to the Conservative government. The SNP has worked long and hard in this election to make Scotland’s voice heard. To have people in Scotland in such overwhelming numbers put their trust in us is fantastic, but also is a big responsibility. We are determined to make Scotland’s voice heard here in Westminster, but we are also determined to be that voice for progressive politics that we promised to be during the election. To stand up to policies from a Conservative government that will damage Scotland and to make common cause with others of like mind from across the UK.” No mention of independence from a Party leader in preference for committing the Party to progressive politics in opposition to a regressive regime. What a nutter!!!

The Tory response was immediate and ruthless- there would be no progressive politicking from Mundell.

Scotland’s only Tory MP and Secretary of State for Scotland, Mundell, proposed 80 technical amendments to the Scotland Bill , stating: “some are amendments in terms of the usual changing of commas and apostrophes and these sort of things. However, the bulk of them relate to technical procedures and a rearranging of previous proposals. In three cases the amendments will reserve additional powers to Westminster. Under clause 43, the Scottish Parliament will not be able to raise levies on postal operators, electricity or gas for the purpose of funding consumer advocacy.”

Scotland Bill: the 3rd reading at Westminster Mundell allocated 6 hours of debate to decide on 253 amendments.

The Scotland Bill was rushed through without adequate discussion before SNP MPs parked their bums on the green benches of the House of Commons ensuring that the legislation would be on the statute books well before the next Holyrood elections. The bill as it stands is a stitch-up and places a fiscal time bomb under Holyrood.

Andrew Dunlop – A Scottish born committed Unionist

Closely associated with the Conservative Party for most of his adult life. He was a special adviser to the Defense Secretary (1986 – 88) and a member of Margaret Thatcher’s Policy Unit (1988 – 1990). The demise of Thatcher brought his budding career to a halt and he moved away from active politics to found and developed his own strategic communications consultancy business. Over 20 years later he sold the business, for a very tidy sum of money, to the Brussels-based Interel Group (lobbyists).

Promoted to the Lords, he is a member of the UK Constitution Committee and an Expert Member of the UK Civilian Stabilization Group.

Retaining contact with Scottish affairs he is currently a Board member of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. A supporter of Boris Johnson he is formulating and implementing Tory government policies for Scotland. In this respect, he revealed his thinking in a speech he made in the course of a debate on the “possible effects of Brexit on the stability of the Union of the parts of the United Kingdom”. He said:

“Attention should be paid to the machinery of intergovernmental relations, which needs to be strengthened. We also need to look at the cross-UK synergies, weakened since devolution, which need to be reinvigorated. We need to pursue a decentralized, pan-UK strategy for re-balancing the economy, driven by city regions across the country. This means moving away from seeing everything through a four-nation prism. Many of the problems confronting Glasgow, for example, are similar to those of Manchester or Birmingham. They provide embryonic structures which can be built upon. There are two years until the next Holyrood elections. Strengthening our union must be an urgent priority whatever our post-Brexit future.”

The Westminster Government’s underhand decision to emasculate the government of Scotland through the establishment of a UK Government in Scotland presents new challenges for Scots whose ambitions for their country extend to a unilateral withdrawal from the 1707 Treaty of Union and full independence and Scottish supporters of the devolved Scottish Government and its limited powers, to be further reduced from January 2021 when Brexit is complete.

Scottish independence in 2022/2023

The “claim of Right” establishes the way forward for the Scotland’s political representatives and the electorate who are desperate to escape the excesses and brutality of of Westminster rule.

All independence minded Scottish MP’s at Westminster should resign their seats en-bloc and stand for office in the ensuing by-elections seeking a mandate to declare an end to the 1707 Treaty of Union.

Related articles

I published a number of articles from 2014 expressing my concerns about the lack of political leadership in the matters of Scotland’s relationships with Westminster. See below

Scotland is a nation and its people have the right enshrined in law to decide its future not Unionist politicians at Westminster


6 replies on “All independence minded Scottish MP’s at Westminster should resign their seats en-bloc and stand for office in the ensuing by-elections seeking a “Claim of Right” mandate to declare an immediate end to the 1707 Treaty of Union.”

“What was significant was that the agreement to hold the independence referendum established precedence through the preference for the belief in the doctrine of the mandate, rather than by the upholding of a constitutional rule.”

I believe that you are correct CJ.

The Treaty of Union (1707) is based on two fundamental tenets namely, the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Scottish Claim of Right (1689). The former states that, for English folk, the English parliament is sovereign whilst the latter is clear that it is the Scottish people that are sovereign. That is the essential difference between England (English PARLIAMENT is sovereign) and Scotland (Scottish PEOPLE are sovereign).

I believe that is why there British have an “Unwritten Constitution”. You cannot codify a constitution has two opposing principles hard baked into the Treaty that enabled the state to exist. Therefore, we have ‘convention’ and ‘precedent’ masquerading as a properly agreed set of laid down and explicit values and standards that underpin the British state. The “Unwritten Constitution” is in fact a contradiction in terms and a fudge. Intentionally so. What it really means is “we make it up as we go along, whatever is expedient at any moment in time and in any particular circumstances”.

Remember that the British Parliament is the outcome of the Treaty. Not the other way around. So, of course, the 2018 parliamentary debate was bound to result in the acknowledgement that the Claim of Right was extant and that Scottish people have the right to determine their own constitutional arrangements (as and when they see fit, whenever and as frequently as they wish and however they like). To do otherwise would be to render the British Parliament null and void.

The Treaty of Union/Claim of Right is our ace – we should play it.

Liked by 4 people

Scotland did not cede its independence. It ceded its statehood. As did England. That is why the paper commissioned by the English government during the Scottish referendum to discuss the form of independence Scotland might take stated Scotland IS an independent country WITHIN the state of GB.

The claim of right or rather more specifically Scotland’s sovereignty and where it lies predates the 1689 Claim of Right. It even predates the formation of Scotland itself as it stems from its ancient laws and customs which are held in perpetuity and form the foundation of the Scottish constitution.

There is no constitution of GB because what was ratified was an international trade agreement much like that of the EU when it was first created. Additionally, the constitutions of both signatory states – Scotland and England – were to be fully upheld.

Nor is there a Government of GB despite there being a binary parliament housing both countries governments. Each is equal in status and authority to the treaty. Scotland refusing to act accordingly and being treated as inferior is entirely of its own making. What Scotland lacks is not authority nor independence but self-respect and self-confidence. This lack of respect is demonstrated daily as Scots refer to the English government by its preferred political name – UK – when they should be stating categorically that it is the English government, their mere treaty partner and not the sole authority of the state. Every time a Scot refers to the English government and its various governmental departments and its establishment as “UK” they promote the false narrative that Scotland was extinguished and subsumed into a greater England under the new name of “UK” as espoused by Crawford and Boyle and promoted by the English government and its establishment during the Scottish referendum. In fact, Scotland’s MPs are worse than the English establishment as they actively uphold English parliamentary conventions, conventions which died with the English parliament when it was officially abolished in order to create the parliament of GB. Either one believes in the true status of both countries and acts accordingly or one doesn’t. And Scotland’s MPS and indeed its own FM (note that Scotland could have chosen PM as the title but FM was more fitting with Scotland) choose the latter.

I agree, Scotland’s MPs should officially resign their seats in the parliament of GB but in order to do so they must either SUSPEND or DISSOLVE the treaty as the terms of the treaty state both Scottish and English governments must sit in the parliament of GB. The argument is often given that Northern Ireland do not sit in the parliament but that fails to acknowledge the fact that neither NI nor Wales are signatories to the treaty. The terms of which do not apply to them.

Yes, Scotland needs to dissolve the treaty of 1707 with immediate effect and as a sovereign nation state, first and foremost, it has that inalienable and most fundamental right. It is not dependent upon approval from external forces nor indeed from any nationwide opinion poll. The Scottish people are sovereign and they imbued their government with their sovereignty not just for one day, the day if election, but every single day they are in office. They do not need to wait for elections to exercise that sovereignty. If Scotland had self-respect and self-confidence it would be demanding its sovereignty be exercised and taking nothing less than its direct exercise.

There is no reason not to suspend or dissolve the treaty, only lack of political will to do so.

Liked by 4 people

One thing for certain CJ is that the comfortable and cosy SNP at Westminster have settled in and are just taking the money.

Mandate squandering they need to be sent a message that they have the mandate and the power to make change. The union is there to be dissolved.

Liked by 4 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.