Scots Wha Hae!
A Scottish Break away From the UK?
and the EU
12.2.2013
From AP
There are many reasons to think deeply before the people of
Scotland (and the people of the rest of the UK) decide to break up the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Firstly, I am aware that the British Governments have done what some
might regard as ghastly dirty deeds in the past and in the recent past
too. Yet having written that I
sincerely hope the Scottish people remain within the United Kingdom. To remain within the United Kingdom is
surely far better than going it alone in the European Union.
What was made very clear to the Scottish Parliament on the
afternoon of Tuesday 22nd May 2001 when members from the EU visited
the Scottish Parliament when their Convenor (Hugh Henry) said, “This is a
unique meeting for us—it is a joint meeting with a delegation of our colleagues
from the Committee of the Regions led by Manfred Dammeyer”¹. All became clear to the Members that
afternoon when Mr Dammeyer stating that, as far they –the people of Scotland-
were concerned, Scotland was and is a nation and Country. However, Mr Dammeyer made very clear when he
said, (simultaneous
interpretation) “We have to respect that Scotland is a nation but, at the
European level and in the European discussion, Scotland is like a region”.
I state here that as far as the EU is concerned, the Country
and Nation of “Scotland” is a REGION of the European Union, confirmed also, as
indeed is Wales, and as we all know now since this Coalition Government has
been in power, the Nation and Country of ENGLAND has been divided, by courtesy
of Mr CAMERON and the EU, into nine EU REGIONS (Eventually to be Governed
directly via the EU’s Committee of the Regions).
There is no doubt that there would have been no need for
the “Act of Union”, a Treaty between two separate Nations/Countries, in fact
Kingdoms, that had decided to be united, a coming together to be ruled by one
Parliament situated in England, and that this was to be for all time, if
Article XX11 of that Treaty was not included or entrenched within it.
There is no doubt at all the Act of Union, was and is entrenched.
(Protected) it was indeed a TREATY and although at the time of writing the
1706 Treaty, it was insecure up until the Treaty had been ratified. It was
ratified.
The Treaty and Acts of Union are the very foundation
stones of the Common Law Constitution of this Kingdom and Parliament, for not
only was it the end of an independent sovereign Nation and Country of Scotland,
it was the birth of the then sovereign Nation and people’s of Great Britain as
well as the “Parliament of Great Britain” as we know it today, the Great
British Parliament and the United Kingdom of Great Britain. These words are to
be found in those ancient documents.
I also point to Volume 10 of Halsbury’ s
Statutes on constitutional law, where it is found that the Treaty (between
England and Scotland (1706) is embodied in statute and is therefore still part
of the law of the United Kingdom.
The words in the Act of Union are (1706) Article 1, “That
the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next
ensuing the date thereof and forever after be United into one Kingdom by the
name of Great Britain. And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom
be such as her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George
be conjoined in such a manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all
Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.”
Article 3, “That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be
represented by one and the same Parliament to be styled the Parliament of Great
Britain”.
Article 5, (Proof of the Act of Union being a TREATY) “That
all ships or vessels belonging to her Majesties Subjects of Scotland at the
time of Ratifying the Treaty of Union of the two Kingdoms in the Parliament of
Scotland though foreign built be deemed and pass as ships of the build of Great
Britain:….”
ArticleXV1 in case Scotland ever wanted to ‘go it alone’
as regards the EU Single currency) “That from and after the Union the Coin
shall be of the same standard and value throughout the United Kingdom as now in
England….”
Article XV11 “That from and after the Union the same
weights and Measures…”
Article XX11 Perhaps the most important of Articles,
for without this particular Article the Union between England and Scotland
would not have come about. The two Kingdoms would have remained separate for
all time (unless one was conquered by another, in a war). “That by virtue of
this Treaty, Of the Peers of Scotland at the time of the Union
Sixteen shall be the number to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and
Forty-five the number of representatives of Scotland in the House of Commons of
the Parliament of Great Britain) (and that when Her Majesty, her Heirs or
Successors, shall declare her or their pleasure for holding the first or any
subsequent Parliament of Great Britain, until the Parliament of Great Britain
shall make further provision therein, a Writ do issue under the Great Seal of
the United Kingdom, directed to the Privi Council of Scotland, commanding them
to cause sixteen Peers, who are to sit in the House of Lords, to be summoned to
Parliament, and forty-five Members to be elected to sit in the
House of Commons of the Parliament of Great Britain, according to the Agreement
of this Treaty, in such a Manner as by an Act of this Treaty, in such a Manner
as by an Act of this present Session of the Parliament of Scotland is or shall
be settled; which Act is hereby declared valid as if it were a Part of, and
engrossed in this Treaty.
When temporary MP’s or members of Government want to fill
(stuff it full to the top) the House of Lords with elected Peers, it becomes
obvious that either they have no understanding of this, their own Country’s
Constitution, or have absolutely no respect, or allegiance to it or their own
Common Law Constitution.
Lord Slynn of Hadley (Privileges Committee-Second Report). “The
more complex question is whether the Bill, if enacted, would violate Article
XX11 of a Treaty which is an entrenched part of the
constitution of the United Kingdom. Whether there was a
Treaty is a matter of interesting debate amongst academic Lawyers. For my part,
I would accept that there was an international treaty between England and
Scotland (as it has often been called in the past), but since neither
state has existed as such since 1707 there is no party to the treaty which
could enforce it. But the argument goes further---i.e. that whether or
not there was a treaty in international law and whether or not it is capable of
being, in some ways, still in force, the provisions of Article XX11 constitute
a fundamental law of the constitution which is entrenched in the sense that
Parliament cannot legislate in violation of it”. And I say “amen” to that.
Lord Hope of Craighead also reinforced that same
argument when he repeated the words of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht’s observation in
Oppenheim’s Peace, 8th edition 155-156: “A state ceases to be an
international person when it ceases to exist…By voluntarily merging into
another state, a state loses all its independences and becomes a mere part of
another”. There is time for reflection there, for what happened to
this Country when Governments signed all those EU Treaties?
Lord Slynn goes on to relate Professor Smith, "First,
they constituted a treaty in international law between two sovereign
states—the treaty being concluded not by the Parliaments, which did not
exercise the prerogative treaty-making powers, but by Anne, Queen of Scotland,
with Anne, Queen of England. This treaty, however, was executed on May 1, 1707,
and can no longer be invoked qua treaty. Secondly, the respective
Acts of the pre-Union Parliaments operated as ordinary legislation binding the
subjects within the jurisdictions for which these Parliaments could competently
legislate. Thirdly, the Union Agreement took effect as a skeletal, but
nonetheless fundamental, written constitution for the new Kingdom of Great
Britain when it came into being."
Later on Lord Craighead put forward in his argument towards
the abolishing of the hereditary peers, “The conclusion which must be drawn
from these various enactments, as Mr. Hodge Q.C. for the Government pointed
out, is that the right of the peers of Scotland to sit and vote in the House
now depends entirely upon section 4 of the Peerage Act 1963, and that Article
XXII of each of the two Acts which constituted the Union Agreement has been
repealed. Mr. Keen for Lord Gray submitted that it was ultra vires
of Parliament to repeal Article XXII. But I do not think that it is
open to us in this Committee to take that view, for the following reasons.
First, there is the doctrine of sovereignty of Parliament. Whatever view a
court might form on the matter, as to which I express no opinion, I do not
think that it is open to this Committee to question the extent and application
of the doctrine of sovereignty. Secondly, for the reasons already given, I
consider that article XXII lacks the character of fundamental law, which is an
essential prerequisite for the argument that Parliament went out with its
powers when it enacted these repeals”. Needless to say, I too believe that
it was ultra vires of Parliament to repeal Article XX11, and this fact
should not be ignored.
A very cleaver person, I am sure could unravel the
proceedings for and on behalf of the people and country of Scotland should they
so have a mind to. I add that the Treaty and Act of Union also affects the Act
of Settlement and that is another important matter altogether and it must never
be ignored or eyes taken off the ball. Unless of course, all want this great
Country to just become Regions of the EU in which case, there is absolutely no
need for either Houses of Parliament.
Art 48) Where it was intended in the Articles of the Acts
of Union to entrench provisions, against change in the future, the draftsman
took care to use very clear words. The particular examples are—referring to the
Scottish Act of Union—Article 1 (to unite the Kingdoms "forever"),
Article II (to secure the protestant succession at all times in the future),
Etc. Yet Article XXII the most important of articles in that entrenched TREATY
was repealed.. See below. Methinks they
over-stepped the mark!
If
Scotland breaks away and is no longer in the EU, and as at the time of writing,
this seems to be the case, surely the same would apply to England? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland would no longer exist.
The Act of Union was also a Treaty and a Treaty that was ratified.
Article 11 of the Treaty of Union 1707 embodies the substance of
the Act of Settlement of 1701. Destroy the Union and it affects all the Members
of the Commonwealth. We then come to the problem of whether
Treaties signed by the then Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and all the Treaties (Lodged with the Vienna Convention on the laws of
Treaties- in the United Nations) have ratified as a United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland would still 'stand', even though it
would no longer exist and as such, would WE perhaps no longer be in the
European Union? Just hoping!
From Hansard 22 Jan 2013 :
Column 189 Jacob Rees-Mogg: “We are discussing what may be the most
important constitutional issue to which the House has ever turned its mind,
namely, who shall be our sovereign? Who shall be eligible to receive perhaps
the greatest office in the world? Who shall be the King or Queen of England?When the Bill that became the Act of Settlement was debated, it spent six days in Committee. The allocation of time motion allows us two days in which to treat this Bill as if it were anti-terrorism legislation, which seems a particularly inopportune comparison given that it relates to matters that could not be further removed from that type of activity. As far as I am aware, the only constitutional Bill that has been treated to such a small amount of time—or, rather, an even smaller amount—is the Bill that became His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, which, I believe, completed its passage in the House of Commons in under a minute; but that, too, is not a happy precedent.
And it is here that just one change in our Constitutional Document affect so many long standing Documents and all because of the EU’s Equality Act”.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP):”Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding, as it is mine, that significant subsequent legislative changes will be required to no fewer than nine Acts of Parliament—the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937—and that we require more time to explore the implications and impact of those changes?”
I
am aware that it was a British (Not just ENGLISH) Government that has actually
signed and ratified the EU treaties that can expressly and deliberately repeal
the European Communities Act 1972 or deliberately abrogated the treaties
although there would still be problems in International law. For those
that want an English Parliament and the break up of the United Kingdom, should
think very carefully should they wish to remain IN the EU, because if the
United Kingdom breaks up, you can bet your bottom dollar that the EU will break
up too, for it too is in a very dodgy
state at the moment and there is a great possibility that it may break up especially if there is a great push for deeper integration under the German presidency as is proposed.
state at the moment and there is a great possibility that it may break up especially if there is a great push for deeper integration under the German presidency as is proposed.
From
EU OBSERVER 8/1/07 Scottish independence theory raises EU
questions. Mark Beunderman thinks
Scotland would not automatically become a member of the European Union if it
became independent, the European Commission has said.
The SNP on its website claims that "Scotland is already in the European
Union and this will remain the case after independence."
The SNP on its website claims that "Scotland is already in the European
Union and this will remain the case after independence."
Now I come to some-thing that disturbed me very much, which
made me ashamed to be English, but write it I will. On the 23rd of March 1999 Scotland handed over
jurisdiction of 6,000 square miles of North Sea to Westminster. The remarkable
thing about this transaction is the fact that it occurred without the knowledge
or consent of the people of Scotland. In fact it was a Labour
government led by Tony Blair that ordered this bizarre act of treachery
towards the people of Scotland and it was allegedly, a senior
Scottish Labour politician, Henry McLeish that sanctioned it. What
is even worse is the fact that the whole affair was conducted allegedly in secret at Committee level
denying the House of Commons or the Scottish Parliament an opportunity to
properly debate the issue. To their eternal shame Tam Dalyell (Labour),
John McAllion (Scottish Labour) and Sir Robert Smith (Scottish Liberal
Democrats) sat on this committee and allowed this act to be carried out without
authority from the Scottish electorate or the Scottish Parliament. More on: http://www.oilofscotland.org/scottish_politics.html
Was it all in preparedness of the coming separation of
Scotland from the rest of the UK? Any
Oil fields involved? Towards the Coming of the EU’s Motorway in the Sea? In
the Scots Parliament debate of 26 April 2000, John Home Robertson, MSP, tabled
a motion stating: “That the Parliament
notes the terms of the report by the Rural Affairs Committee, The impact of the
Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 (SP paper 42), in particular its
dissatisfaction and concern about the level of consultation carried out prior
to the introduction of the boundaries order, that the introduction of a
boundaries order appears not to have identified any inconsistency with the
Civil Jurisdiction (Offshore Activities) Order 1987, and that the amount of
fishing activity in the disputed area does not appear to have influenced the
Order, and further notes the Committee’s recommendation that the Secretary of
State for Scotland should either introduce a new, revised Order, or support a
Bill calling for a revised boundary proposed in the House of Commons by Archy
Kirkwood MP.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 26 April 2000; c.
10.]
Archy
Kirkwood is now Baron Kirkwood of Kirkhope.
Anne Palmer. 12.2.2013.
¹Scottish Parliament May 2001 debate
The EU Bill and Parliamentary Sovereignty Part 1 See page 25
re referendums.
The EU Bill and Parliamentary Sovereignty Part 2. 2010/11
Follow the debate on Royal Marriages and alleged Changes to
our Constitution
Oil off Scotland
Scroll down and read the whole sordid lot.
The Debate re Scottish Peers and there removal
The case put by
Lord Gray can be found on
Certain Judgement
Enactments repealed-Peerage Acts 1963
AND
Union with England Act 1707
Representative Peers
The realm of Scotland
MAP of the Scottish Borders in the Sea.
Posts
