This book contains the entire text of the Act of Union of 1707
with comments and commentary by Robbie the Pict. This is the
Scottish half of an international treaty between two independent
kingdoms. The English half is similar except that they forgot to
include Shetland, but that is not the reason why the Government
has never published this founding, constitutional declaration
for the establishment of Great Britain. In honourable countries,
the constitution is referred to in school and provides a script
for the unification of the People under a common flag. It is a
thing of pride and inspiration. In ‘The United Kingdom’ however,
it is a thing of disgrace and embarrassment. The English, like
the Romans and the Vikings, had failed to conquer the Scots in
open combat and through the Treaty of Union they sought to
simply incorporate Scotland by sleight of hand. The resultant
pact, made without the consent of the People of Scotland, is
nonetheless claimed by the Crown to be the unquestionable basis
for its total authority over Scotland. In truth it is an
absolute shambles. They know it and can only claim their
authority on the basis of claiming established practice, but, in
the same way that you end child abuse when you discover it, the
People of Scotland are entitled to end their three centuries of
civil abuse when they read and understand what their rights are
in this deal. That is why you do not see this document in the
HMSO catalogue.
Thanks are due to Nick Simpson (Battlefront Press) and to Stella
Anderson for their invaluable help in the production of this
booklet - also to Bruce & Ann Hope, Bruce Bard and Linsay
Stevenson for other assistances.
Dedicated to Trinity, Gregor, Rhiann, Kenneth and Zoe - and to
all the kids of Scotland - especially those at the Vigil!
First Published by
Scottish Exchequer Press
Pictland 1994
First Edition Limited to 1000 Numbered Copies.
This version of Attempted Murder may be re-distributed only on
the condition that it is copied 'complete' and unaltered in any
way.
Copyright free - Credit where appropriate.
The
Treaty of Union of 1707
The Attempted Murder of the Kingdom of Scotland
"I
have often said to myself,
what are the advantages Scotland
reaps from this so called Union,
that can counterbalance the
annihilation if her independence
and her very name."
Robert Burns
A
2000 Year Run-up
Since long before the Union there has been a certain shyness on
the part of the English authorities to show their true hand to
the Scots, so before their national curriculum succeeds in
completely obliterating our national history and the truth of
its experiences with England let us try to shed some light on
their activities. Before the diversionary counter-accusation of
racism is levied, proper respect for ethnic or national groups
does not prohibit naming the guilty and demanding that they
accept responsibility for their actions, regardless of the group
name they employ. At the end of the second World War no-one
called the French ‘racists’ when they sent the Germans home. If
through consistent criminal activity a nation gives itself a bad
name in one or more fields of action, then that nation brings
calumny on its own head. The term ‘race’ is inappropriately
elevated for the English people.
The
English style should come as no surprise to anyone with even a
slight grasp of British history. The freebooting Angli were
retained on these islands by a weak British king called
Vortigern in 449AD who needed the assistance of mercenaries to
repel raids by the Picts and Scots. The Angli were not
successful in disciplining the hungry Gaels and instead took the
softer option of pressurising their employer. By means of menace
and intrigue they compromised Vortigern into allowing boatloads
of their pals to come and provide ‘protection’ and thus a squad
of pagan thugs from Schleswig-Holstein began a campaign of
expansionism by atrocious slaughter which was almost entirely at
the expense of the Britons. Even compared with Picts, Scots,
Vikings and Romans the English are described as the most hated
enemies of the Britons. The Celtic tribes called them "The
Smiling Killers".
In
the ensuing centuries they forced their way in all directions
from their East Coast beach-heads and before the end of the 7th
century we find them collecting taxes at the northern limit of
old Britannia, Strathclyde and Lothian, and threatening
Caledonia itself. When they did attempt to subdue Pictland only
a crushing defeat by King Brude at Dunnichen in 685AD prevented
the whole of what is now called mainland Britain being called
England. They were thus eventually obliged to retreat south of
Hadrian’s Wall to set up this early German colony but it
suffered serious reversals in the shape of Danish conquest,
beginning in 865AD and lasting until 1042AD with the eventual
establishment of the Kingdom of England under Edward the
Confessor. Within 30 years William the Conqueror had arrived and
thus the Germans were now under the control of the French and
both were claiming to be English. The British meanwhile had been
beaten back into Cambria, now called Wales from an Anglo-Saxon
word Walsch meaning Gaul, but they were still rejecting the
English yoke as late as 1409, in revolts led by Owen Glendower.
The Welsh Tudor Dynasty went on to supply Henry VII as King of
England but his successor Henry VIII brought Wales into a formal
union with England in 1536, in a sense consolidating the
conquest by Edward I.
In
Caledonia meanwhile, the West-coasters had gained the upper
hand in 844AD when Kenneth Mac Alpin, a Scottish King with a
Pictish mother murdered the Pictish nobility, whom he had
invited to a banquet at Scone, and claimed both kingdoms. It
was another 200 years before they dared to call the country
Scotia, as they had called Ireland, but the ancient Kingdom of
Pictland was moth-balled after around 1200 years, having seen
off both the Romans and the English and established the
Caledonian foundations on which the ensuing people of Scotland
could build this famous nation.
Scotland successfully resisted claims on its throne coming from
Norman England during the 12th century but Edward the First’s
corrupt interference when asked to judge a dispute concerning
succession and his seizure of the Scottish throne when his pet
puppet Baliol rebelled, plunged the people of Scotland into
another round of defensive struggles for their independence. The
Scots took up arms under William Wallace and eventually Robert
the Bruce, who claimed the throne in 1306. Edward II came north
in 1314 to restore English order but was routed at Bannockburn
by Bruce. On 6th April, 1320, at Arbroath Abbey, Scotland’s
Declaration of Independence was made and was sent to the Pope
for the record. Amongst such declarations it is probably unique
in that it was deemed necessary to name the likely threat to
continuing independence. This same passage is unique in another
sense in that it declares a minimum number who would be a
sufficient quorum to defend the sovereign rights of the People
of Scotland, "so long as but 100 of us remain alive we will
never yield to the domination of the English".
In
1328 the Treaty of Northampton and Edinburgh was signed by
Edward III, granting total recognition of Scotland’s status as
an independent nation and promising to return things like the
Coronation Stone which Edward I had stolen in 1296. The Stone of
Destiny was not mentioned in the treaty itself but in a
‘separate instrument’ it was agreed that ‘the stone on which the
Kings of Scots were wont to sit at their coronation, and which
had been carried away by Edward I, should be restored to the
Scots.’ The London mob are said to have risen ‘in a riotous
manner’ and prevented the Stone’s return and the Act has since
mysteriously disappeared from the English parliamentary records.
There are some in Scotland who are more interested in the
demonstration of English integrity than the actual recovery of
the stone, that particular one being, it is claimed, only a
tethering stone from the front door of Scone Palace from which
the horse-shit was quickly cleaned when it was heard that Edward
I was on his way. William Skene’s essay on the history of the
Stone of Destiny would seem to confirm this likelihood and a
geological analysis of the stone has shown it to be Perthshire
sandstone (calcerous freestone) and much more suitable for
horses. All arguments about the authenticity of the Stone are,
in essence, irrelevant. It matters not if the Scottish Kings
were being crowned on a bundle of Beanos; their throne was
stolen, the thief has been identified, the location of the
throne is known, and so therefore are those guilty of reset.
There is no statute of limitation regarding common theft in
Scotland. We refer the Dean of Westminster to Exodus 20.15.
(Note 1).
Scotland had Orkney and Shetland returned in 1472 in
compensation for a lapsed dowry payment by Norway, who, one
might reasonably say, should not have taken them in the first
place. In 1513 James IV embarked on a misguided attempt to
invade England, a rare event in the history of the two nations,
but was seriously defeated at the Battle of Flodden. While Mary
of Guise was regent (1554-60) many of the Scottish nobility were
converted to Protestantism, largely due to the work of John Knox
and this pervading atmosphere in both religion and politics
forced Mary Queen of Scots to abdicate in 1567 in favour of her
Protestant son, James VI. He inherited the throne of England in
1603 as James I by virtue of his descent from Margaret Tudor. It
must be emphasised at this point that this was only a personal
union, a private arrangement which in no way carried the weight
or significance of a constitutional unification of two nations.
England’s Hundred Year War with the French and its running
maritime disputes with other Catholic colonists like the Spanish
had bred an abnormal level of papist paranoia, entrenching
sectarian attitudes which are still dividing these kingdoms at
many levels.
The
17th century was very messy for England and the imported line of
monarchs brought more than the same hymn sheet. In retrospect
Scotland was maybe as well without them since the Stuarts were
at the end of their dynastic line and had declined into the
state of vainglorious claims such as the divine right of kings
and other examples of the ‘don’t you know who I am?’ syndrome.
This did not go down well with the likes of Cromwell and
resulted in the execution of Charles II in 1649. Incidentally,
if there was any substance to the English claims that union with
Scotland was valid from 1603, then surely killing the King
constitutes some kind of breach.
Things began to come to head during the brief reign of James VII
(1685-8). Charles had been obliged to sign the Petition of Right
in 1628 which sought to move power away from the monarch and
toward the parliament. This was entirely alien to Charles who,
although probably resisting through arrogant megalomania, was
nonetheless from a family schooled in the ancient Celtic
traditions of kingship, and to him the parliament should be
never more than a political service to the king, who in turn was
only the authorised voice of the people - true sovereign
democracy. The English parliament’s move to arrogate more power
to itself resulted in the birth of that most pernicious of
political diseases - partyism.
If
you make the parliament sovereign then the chappie with the
biggest mouth or the most clout is king. He and his associates
become a ruling clique and to resist that, for whatever reason,
you must produce some form of opposition. As a rule of thumb
these objections are couched in ideological principles whose
terms give names to the opposing groupings or ‘parties’. This
illusion of democracy is perfect for the real status quo. The
divide and rule principle is assisted by the introduction of
other considerations, usually religion and class followed by
compromise through privilege. Top this with fear of your peers
and then, for example, the nouveau-riche Orange labour voter,
using a British passport, government assistance in schooling and
business and a private parking place, has a serious problem
relating to the patriotic struggle. It has to be realised that
compromise is cynically calculated in full knowledge of the
character and therefore the weaknesses of the victims. At
present, for example, the Scottish electorate is trying to
decide between voting Labour, which appeals to the natural
tendency toward group care in the Celtic mentality but is a
London controlled 100% Unionist party, and the Scottish National
Party, who although completely unprepared to get real about the
prospect, use patriotic blackmail to co-erce the voter into
their narrow and limited view of independence. Hobson’s Choice
from people who, when they raise an M.P., allow him or her to go
to England and swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen of
England! We are thus thoroughly divided and thoroughly ruled and
perhaps unwittingly perfecting the process, the press ‘stirs’
the elements of opposition to get a quick story rather than
risking its advertising revenue by investigating institutional
corruption.
To
return to the historical sequence: James VII incurred the
resentment of the English parliament by daring to oppose
anti-Catholic legislation, acts of institutional sectarianism,
and even proceeded to make Catholic appointments. The opposing
parties united in horror at this threat to both the new
parliamentary power and the rigorous establishment of
Protestantism as the English way. A group of Whigs and Tories
secretly invited James’s son-in-law, William of Orange, and his
wife Mary to invade Britain and assert control on their behalf.
James fled to France as William arrived and in the following
year the English parliament declared William III and Mary II
king and queen of England. By this act Scotland was rendered
kingless and it unfortunately did not have the savvy to choose
one. 1689 was also important in another respect in that the
English parliament passed the Bill of Rights, in which they
chose the successor to the throne, but it also realised their
ambition to switch power away from the monarch and place
sovereign authority in the hands of the parliament. Thus England
gave birth to the dangerous concept of ‘parliamentary
sovereignty’, dangerous because the authority over the
parliament which personified the ultimate sovereignty of the
people was removed and the way was made clear for the
possibility of Westminster despotism.
England also entered the War of the Grand Alliance with France
that year and four years after that was over it entered the War
of the Spanish Succession which would last until 1714, but of
more significance to Scotland were the terms of the Act of
Settlement of 1701. Anne, the daughter of James VII, was
appointed to come to the throne in 1702, but after her,
succession was fixed on the Royal House of Hanover, thus
declaring a remnant of the thoroughly protestant German royal
family to be the sole and exclusive suppliers of English
monarchs, thereby avoiding any risk of contamination by
Catholics, or ‘papists’ as they were then known. While types of
union with Scotland were being discussed, out of defensive
self-interest, they had no intention of losing the protestant
puppet-sovereign parliament power axis which incidentally was
remotely controlling Scotland so well. The Scots enjoyed a
tradition of amity toward the French and with natural Celtic
fraternity had no ill-will toward the Spanish. This was
perceived as a strategical threat to the English and they feared
an enemy attack, either by using Scotland as a base or in
combination with Scottish forces.
In
May 1703 the Scottish parliament assembled and busied itself
drawing up the Act of Security, a spirited objection to the
imposition of Hanoverian succession on Scotland and essentially
claiming a parallel right to settle succession in Scotland
according to its Royal Line of Descent. Scotland in short was
free to choose its own monarch. Royal assent was refused and
granted only in 1704 after a second presentation, largely
inspired by Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, the man they should have
made king. This act of self-assertion was ill-received by the
English and in 1705 they passed the infamous Aliens Act which
declared that "all natives of the kingdom of Scotland.....shall
be reputed as aliens unless the succession to the crown of
Scotland be settled on the princess Sophia of Hanover and the
heirs of her body being protestants.....that immediate provision
be made to prevent the conveying of horse, arms and ammunition,
from England into Scotland.....and that all protestant
freeholders of the six northern counties of England be permitted
to furnish themselves with arms." It also included provisions
for economic blockading. These were threats in any man’s
language and were followed up by instructions from Queen Anne to
pay and/or persuade the necessary people in Scotland to secure
her will regarding a union.
It
is probably wise at this point to define our term. The word
‘union’ in 1700 was held to mean something more like ‘pact’,
whereby the associate members, retaining all aspects of their
sovereign integrity, agreed to consider the loyalty to the pact
to be paramount in any dealings with an alien nation, perhaps a
bit like NATO. In this sense there was some sympathy for the
idea, more in the sense that the two kingdoms shared the one
island and might do better if they co-operated with each other.
This was countered by those sceptical of England’s true agenda
who feared an incorporating union, the indications of which came
from the now powerful parliament at Westminster. They saw it
ruling over Scotland and its people with only a handful of union
sooks and tartan chickens to bluster vain protest, and they
could be easily compromised.
Despite all the humming and hawing the bulldozer relentlessly
pursued the butterfly. For the most part the people were largely
ignorant of what was really going on, unless they lived in
Edinburgh and kept up with the intrigue. The writer Daniel Defoe
was employed by the English as a propagandist and did a model
job. When the Scots came up with awkward questions about the
true nature of the proposed union it was Defoe who answered,
loudly and prominently, but Defoe was not an official negotiator
or even accredited in any way so it has always been possible for
the English parliament to deny his authority, something they did
not however do at the time. A word must be said also about Lord
Hamilton. Misgivings have variously been expressed about his
conduct around the time of the union but there can be no doubt
at all that he deceived and betrayed Scotland and its people. He
pretended to lead resistance to the union but at the crucial
moment he collapsed it like a trader’s tent and announced on the
day of the vote that he could not attend due to a bout of
toothache, this from a man who could buy all the morphine in
Scotland. He later recovered to enjoy many benefits steered his
way by the London powers and retired to his extensive estate in
England.
The
Scottish parliament in those days was structured in three
sections called the Three Estates, the barons, the clergy and
the burgesses. Only these people would be voting on the Act of
Union of 1707. The People of Scotland had no say in the matter
and there was certainly no referendum. When it came to the vote
the barons were 80 for and 49 against, the clergy’s vote is not
recorded and the burgesses came out 30 for, 19 against with 16
abstentions. The Presbyterian church, enjoying such total
protection in the terms of the union is thought to have voted
largely in favour, religious ego being put before country, as it
still stands today. It is an interesting piece of karma that of
all the social institutions remaining the Churches of Scotland
are in the best position to give safe, sensible and trustable
leadership to the people at large in the struggle to realise
their right to their independence. At a time when the world is
crying out for a new model of politics with a spiritual and
ethical content, what are they waiting for? Perhaps it is the
old story of the church insinuating itself political importance
by posing as a half of might rather than imposing on behalf of
right.
After the Act of Union was passed on the 16th of January 1707
there was one further item of business, as there was at the end
of every session of the Scottish parliament and that was the Act
of Salvo (salvo jure cujuslibet - let whosoever sue the Crown).
This was a gesture respectful of the Scottish constitutional
arrangement whereby the People are sovereign and every subject
of the kingdom must be respected both as an integral and
individual unit of sovereignty, much like any part being
representative of the whole of a hologram. Every subject was
thus left with the means of escape, the private right to
contract out if they felt they had been wronged by the action of
the Crown. The English parliament, in 1689 having reduced its
subjects to citizens behoven to the sovereign court of
Westminster gave no such opportunities for redress and still
does not, but the parliament in England cannot claim now to have
inherited powers over the subjects of Scotland that the Scottish
Parliament did not have. There is a facility in Scots Law, for
example, whereby, if the People choose to universally and
completely reject a piece of legislation, the Court of Session
can declare that law to be ‘in desuetude’ or obsolete.
The
question of whether the Scottish parliament dissolved itself or
merely suspended itself has been raised recently but it has no
dynamic relevance. As a headless chicken it had no more the
right to dissolve itself than it had the right to risk Scottish
sovereignty in the way it did, especially as a result of
bribery. Constitutionally, it can be ordered to re-convene as
soon as the People find their voice.
Here then are the articles of guarantee in this international
treaty between two sovereign nations, articles binding to both
parties but patently geared to quench Scottish sceptics. One
rarely hears of an English legal initiative to divest themselves
of the burden of the Scots, citing an alleged breach of the 1706
Act of Union with Scotland. If anyone can think of a breach that
we could successfully commit please contact the publishers. In
the face of loud complaints about the incorporating nature of
the treaty and the threat to the existence of Scotland itself
these articles were collectively described as inviolable by
Defoe. He described them as the fundamental constitution of a
new entity, Great Britain - rich coming from a nation who had
spent 750 years trying to exterminate the Britons - and that
they could thus not be violated without destroying the entity
itself. It would of course be cynical to suggest that England
was disguising its incorporation of Scotland as Great! New!
Improved! Britain which was in reality to be controlled by an
invisible meta-kingdom based, as ever, in the palace of
Westminster. A guide to the truth might be to ask the English if
they hold their queen to be Queen of England, Great Britain, the
United Kingdom, or Scots.
Note 1. Readers interested in pursuing the very interesting tale
of the Scottish Stone of Destiny are invited to consult the 1992
Canongate publication, ‘In search of the Stone of Destiny’ by
Pat Gerber as well as the Skene essay referred to above. F.
Wallace Connon’s book ‘The Stone of Destiny’ published by
Covenant (London) in 1951 is a pseudo-academic synopsis of the
related traditions and includes some useful references but
Connon is such a patronising Anglophile that the book is at
points capable of inducing involuntary nausea. A Scottish
Exchequer Press publication THE CLUDGIE STANE - The Truth behind
its Return is due for publication in MAY 97 (check the SPM site
for details on availability)
THE
TREATY
Act Ratifying and Approving the
Treaty of Union of the Two Kingdoms
of Scotland and England.
The
Estates of Parliament considering that Articles of Union of the
Kingdoms of Scotland and England were agreed on 22nd July, 1706
by the Commissioners nominated on behalf of this Kingdom, under
Her Majesties Great Seal of Scotland bearing date the 27th of
February last past, in pursuance of the fourth Act of the third
Session of this Parliament and the Commissioners nominated on
behalf of the Kingdom of England under Her Majesties Great Seal
of England bearing date at Westminster the tenth day of April
last past in pursuance of an Act of Parliament made in England
the third year of Her Majesties Reign to treat of and concerning
an Union of the said Kingdoms Which Articles were in all
humility presented to Her Majesty upon the twenty third of the
said Month of July and were Recommended to this Parliament by
Her Majesties Royal Letter of the date the 31st July, 1706
The
text of the Act is spelled litteratim, only numerals have been
used where it assists understanding....... good luck!
And
that the said Estates of Parliament have agreed to and approven
of the saids Articles of Union with some Additions and
Explanations as is contained in the Articles hereafter insert
And sicklyke Her Majesty with advice and consent of the Estates
of Parliament Resolving to Establish the Protestant Religion and
Presbyterian Church Government within this Kingdom has past in
this Session of Parliament an Act entituled Act for secureing of
the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government which
by the Tenor thereof is appointed to be insert in any Act
ratifying the Treaty and expressly declared to be a fundamentall
and essentiall Condition of the said Treaty or Union in all time
coming.
Therefore Her Majesty with advice and consent of the Estates of
Parliament in fortification of the Approbation of the Articles
as above mentioned And for their further and better
Establishment of the same upon full and mature deliberation upon
the forsaids Articles of Union and Act of Parliament Doth
Ratifie Approve and Confirm the same with the Additions and
Explanations contained in the saids Articles in manner and under
the provision aftermentioned whereof the Tenor follows.
This introductory preamble, written as a single sentence,
describes the commissioning of the two Acts of Union, one from
each kingdom, by Queen Anne. The English queen had nominated the
Scottish commissioners on behalf of the Scottish kingdom, thus
immediately demonstrating her ignorance of the constitution of
Scottish sovereignty. In a situation where the very sovereignty
of the kingdom was to be lent into contract, the resultant
arrangement could have no fundamental legitimacy unless the
People of Scotland had initiated or authorised it.
Her
ignorance is further displayed by the claim that her authority
was exercised under ‘Her’ Great Seal of Scotland. Such a seal
is a symbol of sovereignty and sovereignty is a partly spiritual
concept which is also hard-earned over time and utterly the
common property of the community. It cannot possibly belong to
temporal monarchs or political business premises. Only ‘The
People’ share the eternal dimension of the concept and therein
lies the spiritual content. The ethical reputation is of more
account than the duration; if it was otherwise we would have
more respect for Lebanon or Syria than we do for Denmark or
Canada. Sovereignty can never be bought, sold, traded, lost or
destroyed by others and can only be ‘lent’ into contract with
the consent of the people who breathe it. Queen Anne, therefore,
was well out of order.
Significant reference is also made to the ‘Act for secureing of
the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government’,
which is brazenly sectarian in that it demands that
Protestantism is recognised as the established national religion
of Scotland and this fact has to be protected for the duration
of any treaty or union. ‘Re ligio’ is Latin for ‘a thing I bind
myself to’ - ligature and ligament have the same root; it is to
be hoped that the art of ethical statehood is seen as a less
vulgar way of being, rather than hamstringing a nation to the
sacrificial stake of bigotry.
Article 1
I.
That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the
1st May next ensuing the date hereof, 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 think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners,
Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.
This article was breached in grand style with the passing of the
Ireland Act on July 2nd, 1800. Without consulting the sovereign
People of Scotland, the ‘Parliament of England’ as it is called
in the official records, (summary of first paragraph), decided
to incorporate the Kingdom of Ireland. Thus, at a pen-stroke and
before a hundred years had passed, the name was changed to ‘the
UNITED KINGDOM’, a nameless and faceless styling later adopted
by the U.S.S.R. It is conceded that the words ‘united kingdom’
were used in the 1707 act, but only as an adjectival phrase of
reference. The wording of the Ireland Act represents a distinct
shift of emphasis from ‘the united kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN’ to
‘The UNITED KINGDOM (of Great Britain and Ireland)’. The only
thing that is not clear is whether the definite article should
be in capitals or not.
Thus the very name of the new arrangement was disposed of and
the term ‘British’, which had nothing to do with the English in
the first place, was from then employed as a somewhat amorphous
term. It both disguised the English hand at the wheel and acted
as a form of pseudo-nostalgic moral blackmail if the home-based
colonies were being niggardly in their enthusiasm for some
Westminster wisdom. The truth of this change is demonstrated by
the use of ‘United Kingdom’ on documents such as the Treaty of
Rome and anything else of any significance. Currency exchanges
should thus identify their pounds as either ‘EPs’ (not Sterling)
or ‘SCPs’ (real Sterling) and if they had to be grouped they
should be ‘UKPs’. David Coleman’s biggest balls-up is not
realising that no-one has run for Britain since 1800 and the
‘GBR’ shirt is a myth. The prevailing plan is to make us all
citizens of ‘UKAINE’.
The
Irish were advised to concur with the terms of the Ireland Act
‘to consolidate the strength, power and resources of the British
empire’, something that may well not have been at the top of the
Irish political and social agenda. On the successful exposure of
the 1707 union as illegitimate there would, of course, be no
legal basis for England’s claim to have a union with Ulster.
What is an Anglo-Irish agreement?
Why
should Queen Anne be the only one to decide the design of the
new ‘national’ flag?
Article 2
II.
That the Succession to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and of the Dominions thereunto belonging after Her
Most Sacred Majesty, and in default of Issue of Her Majesty be,
remain and continue to the Most Excellent Princess Sophia
Electoress and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover, and the Heirs of Her
body, being Protestants, upon whom the Crown of England is
settled by an Act of Parliament made in England in the twelth
year of the Reign of His late Majesty King William the Third
entituled An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and
better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject:
And
that all Papists and persons marrying Papists, shall be excluded
from and forever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the
Imperial Crown of Great Britain, and the Dominions thereunto
belonging or any part thereof; And in every such case the Crown
and Government shall from time to time descend to, and be
enjoyed by such person being a Protestant as should have
inherited and enjoyed the same, in case such Papists or person
marrying a Papist was naturally dead, according to the provision
for the Descent of the Crown of England, made by another Act of
Parliament in England in the first year of the Reign of their
late Majesties King William and Queen Mary entituled an Act
declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and settling
the Succession of the Crown.
This article makes it a condition of the union that the English
shall always supply the monarchs from their arrangement with the
Protestant House of Hanover, thus England, along with the Dutch
and their House of Orange, would harbour the remnants of the
German Royal Family. This is ironic since it was only in 1648
that the Germany-based Holy Roman Empire admitted the
Protestants of northern Germany.
It
is certainly unambiguous when it reminds us that anyone marrying
a ‘papist’ and thinking that he or she has a legitimate claim to
the throne shall be considered ‘naturally dead’. More than the
political correctionists are entitled to level charges of
‘sectarianism’, but this utter revulsion towards ‘papists’
verges on the psycho-pathological. Within the terms of
projection psychology, it is not surprising that excesses of
political frustration are dealt with under mental health acts.
If they hate what you say they lock you away.
Article 3
III. That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by
one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of
Great Britain.
This article is noticeable for what it does not say. There is no
gesture of respect for the equal sovereignty of Scotland. In
certain matters of state, such as the proposed annexation of
Ireland, there should have been only one equally-weighted vote
per kingdom. Simple arithmetic tells us that we have no chance
of being self-determining when even with 72 representatives
returned as pro-independence Members of Parliament we would be
told that these votes had to be seen in the context of the
United Kingdom as a whole, but even 72 of our brightest tartans
will be smothered in a sea of brown Windsor soup.
This unreasonable English argument is exactly what the Soviets
employed against the previously independent Baltic States
whenever they made claims based on that same moral high ground,
but a nation which returns a majority in favour of
self-determination has the absolute right to recover its
sovereignty. Denial of this right is a crime in International
Law.
Article 4
IV.
That the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall
from and after the Union have full Freedom and Intercourse of
Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the
said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto
belonging. And that there be a Communication of all other
Rights, Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the
Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwayes
expressly agreed in these Articles.
This article is the first to refer to the people of either
kingdom. It is vitally important for the People of Scotland to
note that the term employed is ‘subject’. This is the ‘term of
the treaty’ used to denote any individual belonging to the
People. The Peoples’ rights are therefore written in the terms
of ‘subjects’. This is emphasised because, should it suit them,
the courts of the Crown are not above cynical literalism. To
spare themselves discomfort they will stand behind the letter of
the law rather than honour the spirit, especially when they have
an opportunity to protect their English pay-mistress. Remember
that all Scottish Law Lords have sworn an oath of allegiance to
the Queen of England, as has anyone with the letters Q.C. after
their name.
The
natural status of the People of Scotland is to be subjects of a
democratic sovereignty, that sovereignty residing in the People
themselves. ‘King of Scots’ as opposed to ‘King of Scotland’
indicates this but it is also a concept with implicit spiritual
content. England, on the other hand, had a civil war in the 17th
century, long before this union, as a result of which they made
their parliament sovereign. (Bill of Rights 1689). This meant
that their ‘subjects’ would, in the course of time, all have to
become ‘citizens’, behoven to a parliament as boss. As mere
citizens they could not claim any sovereign rights which might
be a threat to the establishment. The government of the day is
not acting out of the goodness of its heart when it promises
Citizens’ Charters for this and that. It is part of a deliberate
conditioning process, irrelevant to the English people but a
vital tactic in avoiding claims by offended Scottish subjects.
By
the letter of the law, the courts are obliged to recognise the
claims of the subjects of Scotland, so their only answer is to
re-categorise all the people of Scotland as citizens, in line
with the people of England. If you allow your subjecthood of the
Kingdom of Scotland to go, you seriously jeopardise your rights.
For those who suspect that we have now entered the realms of
paranoid conspiracy theories, this has already been tested in
the Appeal Court in Scotland, (Crown v. Pict - several
judgements not recorded). There is clear proof of the process of
elimination of the term ‘subject’ in the wording of the
Nationality Acts of 1948, 1964 and 1981. By 1981 the natural
status of the People of Scotland has been assaulted to such an
extent that the term ‘subject’ has been completely eradicated.
So much for respecting ethnic minorities, never mind the Other
Kingdom.
Article 5
V.
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 forreign built be
deemed and pass as ships of the build of Great Britain; the
Owner or where there are more Owners, one or more of the Owners
within Twelve Months after the first of May next making oath
that at the time of Ratifying the Treaty of Union in the
Parliament of Scotland, the same did in haill or in part belong
to him or them, or to some other Subject of Subjects of
Scotland, to be particularly named with the place of their
respective abodes, and that the same doth then at the time of
the said Deposition wholly belong to him or them, and that no
forreigner directly or indirectly hath any share part or
interest therein, Which Oath shall be made before the chief
Officer or Officers of the Customs in the Port next to the abode
of the said Owner or Owners;
And
the said Officer or Officers shall be Impowered to administer
the said Oath, And the Oath being so administred shall be
attested by the Officer or Officers who administred the same And
being Registred by the said Officer or Officers, shall be
delivered to the Master of the ship for security of her
Navigation and a Duplicate thereof shall be transmitted by the
said Officer or Officers to the Chief Officer or Officers of the
Customs in the port of Edinburgh, to be there Entered in a
Register and from thence to be sent to the port of London to be
there Entered in the General Register of all Trading ships
belonging to Great Britain.
This article requires that all Scottish ships are to be
registered in London via Edinburgh and gives an early indication
of where the English intend the administrative centre to be.
This gives rise to the question of where the new capital of the
new Great Britain might be, but there seems to have been a
presumption of it being London all along. Carlisle would at
least have been a gesture. How many people in Edinburgh
understand that, according to the Crown, they have no basis for
calling the city a capital, Scotland being no longer a country,
and that the prevailing capital of the nation is London?
There is the usual xenophobia present in the insistence that
Scottish ships could not be owned or part-owned by foreigners.
Article 6
VI.
That all parts of the United Kingdom for ever from and after the
Union shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements and
Drawbacks, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions and
Regulations of Trade and lyable to the same Customs and Duties
on Import and Export. And that the Allowances Encouragements and
Drawbacks Prohibitions
Restrictions and Regulations of Trade and the Customs and Duties
on Import and Export settled in England when the Union commences
shall from and after the Union take place throughout the whole
United Kingdom, excepting and reserving the Duties upon Export
and Import of such particular Commodities from which any persons
the Subjects of either Kingdom are specially Liberated and
Exempted by their private Rights which after the Union are to
remain safe and entire to them in all respects as before the
same.
And
that from and after the Union no Scots Cattle carried into
England shall be lyable to any other Duties either on the
publick or private Accounts than these Duties to which the
Cattle of England are or shall be lyable within the said Kindgom.
And seeing by the Laws of England there are Rewards granted upon
the Exportation of certain kinds of Grain wherein Oats grinded
or ungrinded are not expressed, that from and after the Union
when Oats shall be sold at 15 shillings Sterling per quarter of
the Oat-meal exported in the terms of the Law whereby and so
long as Rewards are granted for Exportation of other Grains.
And that the Bear of Scotland have the same Rewards as Barley.
And
in respect the Importation of Victual into Scotland from any
place beyond Sea would prove a Discouragement to Tillage,
Therefore that the Prohibition as now in force by the Law of
Scotland against Importation of Victual from Ireland or any
other place beyond Sea into Scotland, do after the Union remain
in the same force as now it is until more proper and effectuall
ways be provided by the Parliament of Great Britain for
discouraging the Importation of the said Victual from beyond
Sea.
This article deals with the standardisation of trade tariffs.
Article 7
VII. That all parts of the United Kingdom be for ever from and
after the Union lyable to the same Excises upon all Exciseable
Liquors excepting only that the 34 Gallons English Barrel of
Beer or Ale amounting to 12 Gallons Scots present measure sold
in Scotland by the Brewer at 9/6d Sterling excluding all Duties
and Retailed including Duties and the Retailer’s profit at 2d
the Scots pint or eight part of the Scots Gallon, be not after
the Union lyable on account of the present Excise upon
Exciseable Liquors in England, to any higher Imposition than 2s
Sterling upon the forsaid 34 Gallons English barrel, being 12
gallons the present Scots measure And that the Excise settled in
England on all other Liquors when the Union commences take place
throughout the whole United Kingdom.
This article is good news for beer or ale drinkers. It restricts
the tax for all time on a pint sold in Scotland to one farthing.
Even with increased production costs and the current retail
mark-up this makes for a significantly cheaper pint when the tax
is only 0.1041666p, or one pence on ten pints. A candidate for
most thoroughly breached article.
The
maxim of ‘what they give with one hand they will take away with
the other’ held good with the application of increased taxation
on malt, an essential ingredient of the universally popular ale.
Plague-watchers who have monitored the control of Scotland since
1979 in particular will recognise this offensively cynical form
of English arithmetic.
Article 8
VIII. That from and after the Union all forreign Salt which
shall be Imported into Scotland shall be charged at the
Importation there with the same Duties as the like Salt is now
charged with being Imported into England and to be levied and
secured in the same manner. But in regard the Duties of great
quantities of forreign Salt Imported may be very heavie on the
Merchants Importers; That therefor all forreign Salt imported
into Scotland shall be Cellared and Locked up under the custody
of the Merchant Importer and the Officers imployed for levying
the Duties upon Salt And that the Merchant may have what
quantities thereof his occasion may require not under a Weigh or
fourtie Bushells at a time; Giving security for the duty of what
quantity he receives payable in six Months. But Scotland shall
for the space of seven Years from the said Union be Exempted
from paying in Scotland for Salt made there the Dutie or Excise
now payable for Salt made in England:
But
from the Expiration of the said seven years shall be subject and
lyable to the same Duties for Salt make in Scotland, as shall be
then payable for Salt made in England, to be levied and secured
in the same manner and with proportional Drawbacks and
Allowances as in England, with this exception that Scotland
shall after the said seven years remain exempted from the Duty
of 2s 4d a Bushell on home Salt Imposed by ane Act made in
England in the Ninth and Tenth of King William the Third of
England And if the Parliament of Great Britain shall at or
before the expiring of the said seven years substitute any other
fund in place of the said 2s 4d of Excise on the bushel of Home
Salt, Scotland shall after the said seven years, bear a
proportion of the said Fund, and have an Equivalent in the Terms
of this Treaty, And that during the said seven years there shall
be payed in England for all Salt made in Scotland and imported
from thence into England the same duties upon the Importation as
shall be payable for Salt made in England and levied and secured
in the same manner as the Duties on forreign Salt are to be
levied and secured in England.
And
that after the said seven years how long the said Duty of 2s 4d
a Bushel upon Salt is continued in England the said 2s 4d a
Bushel shall be payable for all Salt made in Scotland and
imported into England, to be levied and secured in the same
manner And that during the continuance of the Duty of 2s 4d a
Bushel upon Salt made in England no Salt whatsoever be brought
from Scotland to England by Land in any manner under the penalty
of forfeiting the Salt and the Cattle and Carriages made use of
in bringing the same and paying 20s for every Bushel of such
Salt, and proportionably for a greater or lesser quantity, for
which the Carrier as well as the Owner shall be lyable jointly
and severally, And the persons bringing or carrying the same, to
be imprisoned by any one Justice of the Peace, by the space of
six months without Bail, and until the penalty by payed:
And
for Establishing an equality Trade That all Fleshes exported
from Scotland to England and put on Board in Scotland to be
Exported to parts beyond the Seas and provisions for ships in
Scotland and for forreign voyages may be salted with Scots Salt
paying the same Dutie for what Salt is so employed as the like
quantity of such Salt pays in England and under the same
penalties forfeitures and provisions for preventing of frauds as
are mentioned in the Laws of England And that from and after the
Union the Laws and Acts of Parliament in Scotland for Pineing
Curing and Packing of Herrings White Fish and Salmond for
Exportation with Forreign Salt only without any mixture of
British or Irish Salt and for preventing of frauds in Curing and
Packing of Fish be continued in force in Scotland subject to
such alterations as shall be made by the Parliament of Great
Britain.
And
that all Fish exported from Scotland to parts beyond the Seas
which shall be Cured with Forreign Salt only and without mixture
of British or Irish Salt, shall have the same Eases Premiums and
Drawbacks as are or shall be allowed to such persons as Export
the like Fish from England: And that for Encouragement of the
Herring Fishing there shall be allowed and payed to the Subjects
Inhabitants of Great Britain during the present allowances for
other Fishes 10s 5d Sterling for every Barrel of White Herrings
which shall be exported from Scotland; And that there shall be
allowed 5s Sterling for every Barrel of Beef of Pork salted with
Forreign Salt without mixture of British or Irish Salt and
Exported for sale from Scotland to parts beyond Sea alterable by
the Parliament of Great Britain.
And
if any matters of fraud relating to the said Duties on Salt
shall hereafter appear which are not sufficiently provided
against by this Article the same shall be subject to such
further provisions as shall be thought fit by the Parliament of
Great Britain.
Who
says the English are not anal-retentive?
Article 9
IX.
That whenever the sum of £1,997,763 8s 4d (and one) half penny
shall be Enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain to be raised
in that part of the United Kingdom now called England, on Land
and other things usually charged in Acts of Parliament there for
granting an aid to the Crown by a Land Tax; that part of the
United Kingdom now called Scotland shall be charged by the same
Act with a further sum of £48,000 free of all Charges, as the
Quota of Scotland to such Tax, and so proportionably for any
greater or lesser sum raised in England by any Tax on Land and
other things usually charged, together with the Land And that
such Quota for Scotland in the cases aforesaid, be raised and
collected in the same manner as the Cess now is in Scotland, but
subject to such Regulations in the manner of Collecting, as
shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain.
Scotland to get English levels of land tax, worked out to an old
ha’penny.
Articles 10-12
X.
That during the continuance of the respective Duties on Stampt
paper, Vellom and Parchment, by the severall Acts now in force
in England, Scotland shall not be charged with the same
respective Duties.
XI.
That during the continuance of the Duties payable in England on
Windows and Lights which determines on 1st August 1710 Scotland
shall not be charged with the same Duties.
XII. That during the continuance of the Duties payable in
England on Coals, Culm and Cinders, which determines 30th
September 1710 Scotland shall not be charged therewith for Coals
Culm and Cinders consumed there but shall be charged with the
same Duties as in England for all Coals, Culm and Cinders not
consumed in Scotland.
Scotland does not get the English tax on posh paper.
Scotland does not get the English tax on windows and lights, at
least until 1710.
Scotland does not get the English tax on various carbon
combustibles, at least until 1710.
From the evidence of these last three articles we can see the
quality of our Scottish commissioners, fighting tooth and nail
to protect our ancient heroic heritage.
Article 13
XIII. That during the continuance of the Duty payable in England
on Malt, which determines 24th June 1707, Scotland shall not be
charged with that Duty.
Scotland does not get the English tax on malt, at least until
1st June, 1707, thirty days after the treaty takes effect. This
surely betrays an ungentlemanly haste to latch on to the
taxation potential of Scottish malt, and, as previously
mentioned, renders worthless the tax-pegging on ale promised in
Article VII.
Article 14
XIV. That the Kingdom of Scotland be not Charged with any other
Duties laid on by the Parliament of England before the Union
except these consented to in this Treaty, in regard it is
agreed, That all necessary Provision shall be made by the
Parliament of Scotland for the publick Charge and Service of
that Kingdom for the year 1707: Provided nevertheless That if
the Parliament of England shall think fit to lay any further
Impositions by way of Customs, or such Excises, with which by
virtue of this Treaty, Scotland is to be charged equally with
England, in such case Scotland shall be lyable to the same
Customs and Excises, and have an Equivalent to be settled by the
Parliament of Great Britain;
With this further provision That any Malt to be made and
consumed in that part of the United Kingdom now called Scotland
shall not be charged with any Imposition upon Malt during this
present War
And
seeing it cannot be supposed that the Parliament of Great
Britain will ever lay any sorts of Burthens upon the United
Kingdom, but what they shall find necessity at that time for the
Preservation and Good of the whole, and with due regard to the
Circumstances and Abilities of every part of the United Kingdom
Therefore it is agreed That there be no further Exemption
insisted upon for any part of the United Kingdom, but that the
consideration of any Exemption beyond that already agreed on in
this Treaty, shall be left to the determination of the
Parliament of Great Britain.
This article relates to financial arrangements for 1707 and
suggests that they are made by the present parliaments for their
respective nations, with the proviso that any tax increases
which the English parliament may make will have to be matched in
Scotland after the union at a rate set by the parliament of
Great Britain, in England.
After allowing the exception in the case of malt, at least
during the War of the Spanish Succession, we are suddenly
exposed to an explosion of moral high-mindedness which exposes
intent as far as how England intends to regard Scotland. As in
Article IX, the respectful language of courtship, of joint
pacts between kingdoms, is gone and the nitty-gritty of the
marriage contract reads "that part of the United Kingdom now
called Scotland". It is bad enough to go from a ‘kingdom’ to a
‘part’, and the use of the word ‘now’ bodes ill for the ability
of Scotland to officially retain its status as a kingdom whose
sovereignty has been lent into a treaty of association,
supposedly protected by unbreachable articles of guarantee. This
wording betrays the intent of total incorporation and the
disrespect for even the name Scotland.
We
also have a glimpse of the unapproachable haughtiness and have
to ask why it cannot be supposed that the parliament of Great
Britain will ever lay any sort of burdens upon the United
Kingdom without due regard to the circumstances and abilities of
every part. It is one thing to flaunt an integrity beyond
question, but this is only pretension and hardly a basis on
which to found constitutional legislation which says that there
will be no further considerations in the future. The falseness
of this claim has been proved conclusively by the recent
imposition of the ‘poll-tax’, at first only in the Kingdom of
Scotland, in defiance of the constitutional circumstances and
with total disregard for individual abilities to pay.
Article 15
XV.
Whereas by the Terms of this Treaty the Subjects of Scotland for
preserving an Equality of Trade throughout the United Kingdom,
will be lyable to severall Customs and Excises now payable in
England, which will be applicable towards payment of the Debts
of England, contracted before the Union;
It
is agreed, That Scotland shall have an Equivalent for what the
Subjects thereof shall be so charged towards payment of the said
Debts of England, in all particulars whatsoever, in manner
following viz.
That before the Union of the said Kingdoms, the sum of £398,085
10s be granted to Her Majesty by the Parliament of England for
the uses aftermentioned, being the Equivalent to be answered to
Scotland for such parts of the saids Customs and Excises upon
all Exciseable Liquors, with which that Kingdom is to be charged
upon the Union, as will be applicable to the payment of the said
Debts of England, according to the proportions which the present
Customs in Scotland, being £30,000 per annum : And which the
present Excises on Excisable Liquors in Scotland, do bear to the
Customs in England, computed at £1,341,559 per annum :
And
which the present Excises on Excisable Liquors in Scotland,
being £33,500 per annum, do bear to the Excises and Excisable
Liquors in England, computed at £947,602 per annum; Which sum
of £398,085 10s, shall be due and payable from the time of the
Union:
And
in regard That after the Union Scotland becoming lyable to the
same Customs and Duties payable on Import and Export, and to the
same Excises on all Exciseable Liquors as in England as well as
upon that account as upon the account of the Increase of Trade
and People (which will be the happy consequence of the Union)*
the said Revenues will much improve beyond the before mentioned
annual values thereof, of which no present Estimate can be made,
Yet nevertheless for the reasons aforesaid there ought to be a
proportionable Equivalent answered to Scotland It is agreed That
after the Union there shall be an Accompt kept of the said
Duties arising in Scotland, to the end it may appear, what ought
to be answered to Scotland, as an Equivalent for such proportion
of the said encrease as shall be applicable to the payment of
Debts of England.
*
This phrase is original to the Act!
And
for the further and more effectuall answering the severall ends
hereafter mentioned It is agreed that from and after the Union,
the whole Encrease of the Revenues of Customs, and Duties on
Import and Export, and Excise upon Exciseable Liquors in
Scotland over and above the annual produce of the said
respective Duties, as above stated, shall go and be applied, for
the term of seven years, to the uses hereafter mentioned; And
that upon the said account, there shall be answered to Scotland
annually from the end of seven years after the Union, an
Equivalent in proportion to such part of the said Increase as
shall be applicable to the Debts of England, And generally that
an Equivalent shall be answered to Scotland for such parts of
the English Debts as Scotland may hereafter become lyable to pay
by reason of the Union, other than such for which appropriations
have been made by Parliament in England of the Customs, or other
duties on Export and Import Excises on all Exciseable Liquors,
in respect of which Debts, Equivalents are herein before
provided.
And
as for the uses to which the said sum of £398,085 10s to be
granted as aforesaid and all other monies, which are to be
answered or allowed to Scotland as said is are to be applied It
is agreed That in the first place out of the foresaid sum what
consideration shall be found necessary to be had for any Losses
which privat persons may sustain by reducing the Coin of
Scotland to the Standard and Value of the Coin of England may be
made good In the next place That the Capital Stock or fund of
the African and Indian Company of Scotland advanced together
with the interest for the said Capital Stock after the rate of
5% per annum from the respective times of the payment thereof
shall be payed; Upon payment of which Capital Stock and Interest
It is agreed The said Company be dissolved and cease And also
that from the time of passing the Act of Parliament in England
for raising the said sum of £398,085 10s the said Company shall
neither Trade nor Grant Licence to Trade Providing that if the
said Stock and Interest shall not be payed in twelve months
after the Commencement of the Union That then the said Company
may from thence forward Trade or give Licence to Trade until the
said hail Capital Stock and Interest shall be payed:
And
as to the Overplus of the said sum of £398,085 10s after payment
of what consideration shall be had for losses in repairing the
Coin and paying the said Capital Stock and Interest, and also
the hail increase of the said Revenues of Customs Duties and
Excises above the present value which shall arise in Scotland
during the said term of seven years together with the Equivalent
which shall become due upon the Improvement thereof in Scotland
after the said term and also as to all other sums which
according to the agreements aforesaid may become payable to
Scotland by way of Equivalent for what that Kingdom shall
hereafter become lyable towards payment of the Debt of England
It is agreed That the same be applied in manner following viz.
That all the publick Debts of the Kingdom of Scotland as shall
be adjusted by this present Parliament shall be payed and that
£2,000 per annum for the space of seven years shall be applied
towards Encouraging and Promoting the Manufacture of coarse Wool
within these shires which produce the Wool And that the first
£2,000 Sterling be payed at Martinmass next, and so yearly at
Martinmass during the space foresaid and afterwards the same
shall be wholly applied towards the Encouraging and Promoting
the Fisheries and such other Manufactures and Improvements in
Scotland as may most conduce to the general Good of the United
Kingdom.
And
it is agreed, That Her Majesty by Impowered to appoint
Commissioners, who shall be accountable to the Parliament of
Great Britain, for disposing the said sum of £398,085 10s, and
all other monies which shall arise to Scotland, upon the
agreements aforesaid to the purposes before mentioned: Which
Commissioners shall be Impowered to call for, Receive and
Dispose of the said monies in manner aforesaid, and to Inspect
the books of the severall Collectors of the said Revenues, and
of all other duties from whence an Equivalent may arise; and
that the Collectors and Managers of the said Revenues and Duties
be obliged to give to the said Commissioners subscribed
authentick Abbreviats of the Produce of such Revenues and Duties
arising in their respective Districts, and that the said
Commissioners shall have their office within the Limits of
Scotland, and shall in such Office keep Books containing
Accompts of the Amount of the Equivalents, and how the same
shall have been disposed of from time to time, which may be
inspected by any of the Subjects who shall desire samen.
This article is on a par with the Soviets’ demand for
disturbance, transportation and house-building money for
withdrawing from occupation of the Baltic States. It is an
insistence by England that Scotland pays an appropriate
proportion of English debts. It would be a reasonable topic of
consideration for a pair of blue-eyed betrothed but from a
political predator it reeks of abuse. The concessions made to
stock-holders in the Company of Scotland is a hypocritical sop
to the Scottish investors in The Company’s ill-fated Darien
Scheme which was presented with the additional handicap of
having the English institutional investors suddenly pull out for
overtly political reasons. The gesture towards accountability
referred to in the last paragraph would be a wonder to behold.
It is today extremely difficult to discover just what revenue
from Scottish sources is pouring into London. The revenue from
only tobacco and alcohol consumed in Scotland is approximately
£1,200 million per annum. If that sum was earning interest for
a week before being sent to London, at 6.5% it would yield £1.5
million, without touching the capital. That would pay for a few
referenda and it is small wonder the English do not want us
handling our own money on its way to London.
Article 16
XVI. That from and after the Union the Coin shall be of the
same standard and value, throughout the United Kingdom, as now
in England, And a Mint shall be continued in Scotland under the
same Rules as the Mint in England And the present Officers of
the Mint continued subject to such Regulations and Alterations
as Her Majesty Her Heirs or Successors, or the Parliament of
Great Britain shall think fit.
This article provides the most simple and direct evidence of
breach of this treaty. Where is the Scottish Mint? It is also on
the basis of the conditions of this article that we lose any say
in the design of the coins we have to handle. We will get
thistles as Westminster ‘thinks fit’.
Article 17
XVII. That from and after the Union the same Weights and
Measures shall be used throughout the United Kingdom as are now
Established in England; And Standards of Weights and Measures
shall be kept by those Burroughs in Scotland, to whom the
keeping the Standards of Weights and Measures now in use there
does of speciall Right belong; All which Standards shall be sent
down to such respective Burroughs from the Standards kept in the
Exchequer at Westminster, subject nevertheless to such
Regulations as the Parliament of Great Britain shall think fit.
Well, a Scots pint was three times the size of an English pint,
but it is ironic to see it stated that the standards shall be
kept in what was most likely the Royal Burghs. See Article XXI.
Article 18
XVIII. That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Customs,
and such Excises, to which Scotland is by virtue of this Treaty
to be liable, be the same in Scotland, from and after the Union
as in England; and that all other Laws, in use within the
Kingdom of Scotland do after the Union, and notwithstanding
thereof, remain in the same force as before (except such as are
contrary to or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by
the Parliament of Great Britain, With this difference betwixt
the Laws concerning publick right Policy, and Civil Government,
and those which concern private right and the Laws which concern
publick right Policy and Civil Government may be made the same
throughout the whole United Kingdom; but that no alteration be
made in Laws which concern private Right, except for the evident
utility of the subjects within Scotland.
This article states categorically that ‘Excises’ (taxation) must
be levied identically in both Scotland and England and was
trashed by the Poll-Tax. It would not have mattered if the
poll-tax had been only one penny and had been introduced in
Scotland only one day before it was introduced in England, it
still constitutes a breach. As it is, the crime endured for a
year and has still gone unpunished. The Kingdom of Scotland was
certainly used for a political experiment but was maybe also
being tested for vital signs by a government in England which
has been subsidising its incompetence by asset-stripping the
People’s property in both kingdoms.
In
keeping with the Tory philosophy of maximising the taxation
market, the subjects of the Kingdom of Scotland were even
allocated their personal supermarket bar-code, which doubtless
survives on a data-base in England. As it happened, the results
revealed a wretched aspect of the Scottish character, that of
sooking up to authority and then condemning those who stood
their ground. Remember that this government has already tried to
divide the people by telling the payers that an additional
percentage was included to cover the non-payers, yet daily we
hear of their cretinous catamites dedicating their little lives
to a complete recovery of debts outstanding. The Act is
sufficiently discredited without spending more money chasing
what they already have. History will show who was honourable.
The
poll-tax being such a glaring breach, it was raised as a point
of appeal by the Pictish Free State, questioning the competency
of the Crown to function in any capacity within the Kingdom of
Scotland, and a plea for the court to repeal the Act of Union
was made. Lord Dunpark, taking the Campbellite line, ruled that
they were powerless to do other than obey the edicts of the
sovereign parliament of Westminster. When it was pointed out by
the appellant that this admitted emasculation constituted, from
the horses’ mouth, the breaching of Article 19, which protected
the Scottish Justiciary from such a position, and the appellant
thus again called for the repeal of the Act of Union, the denial
of the appeal was simply repeated. (Crown v. Robertson, (Pict),
July 13th, 1988). There was no mention of this astonishing
denial of basic logic in any of the ‘quality’ newspapers and in
his opinion Lord Dunpark subtly adjusted the report of the
exchanges to claim that the appellant ‘accepted that this Court
must apply the terms of ex facie valid U.K. statutes’, a
ridiculous nonsense given the raison d’etre of the Pictish Free
State. Sometimes, of course, they just do not listen.
Several attempts have been made by the Pictish Free State to
defend the ‘private right’ of the subject in Scotland, such as
the very right to be a Scottish subject and thus a hologramic
integer of Scottish sovereignty, but all have been stonewalled
by a Scottish Justiciary thus far proving beyond doubt to be
hypocrites and traitors to the People of Scotland. Given that we
have no constitutional courts and the expense and complications
of prosecuting the Crown in the Court of Session is prohibitive,
there is no option but to originate challenges through the
criminal courts and then defend oneself on constitutional
grounds.
This approach has its drawbacks in that the faint-hearted whose
conscience you are pricking take the opportunity to condemn you
as a criminal, their Lordships are uncomfortable anyway about a
challenge connectable to them but doubly so if it looks like a
means whereby a ‘criminal’ might get off or out by the back
door. The cynical portion of the press also take the opportunity
to ridicule someone who is actually trying to do what they
pretend to do. It can also split the police according to their
conscience to their country.
Overall the police and prison staff in Scotland have been at
least polite if not sympathetic, but one case originating from a
road traffic offence in Aberdeen demonstrated just how difficult
things can be made for budding freedom-fighters. For the first
trial date, the accused was arrested and threatened on the way
into Aberdeen on the previous night. In the morning a police
witness was ‘unavailable’ and a further date was set. On the new
date the accused was arrested during the lunch-time break on a
warrant connected with the previous eve-of-trial arrest, had his
property, including case notes, removed. He was returned to the
court handcuffed to an escort, to continue his own defence. The
original police witness again failed to appear but was replaced
by someone completely different who, under cross-examination
clearly revealed he was a perjurer and one must ask how much the
Procurator Fiscal knew about that. The accused, still cuffed for
a location warrant throughout the proceedings, was found guilty
and lodged an appeal. Six days before the appeal was due to be
heard, the accused was arrested in The Inner Hebrides and began
a remarkable journey round Scotland, answering warrants in
Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow. At the High Court of Appeal on
the following day the accused heard Lord Hope say that all
incidental matters were not for that court; if perjury was
suspected, a Bill of Suspension should be entered, but ‘‘the Act
of Union has been acted upon by Scottish Courts since 1707 and
is a valid Act binding this Court’’ (Crown v. Robertson, (Pict),
27th June, 1990). Until Lady Justice comes, we can but hope. It
was found to be impossible to persuade the Aberdeen lawyer to
lodge the Bill of Suspension, but that is not, of course,
suggesting further perversion by the police or the Procurator
Fiscal. If you are scouting the horizon for freedom, the moral
is ‘Be prepared’.
Article 19
XIX. That the Court of Session or Colledge of Justice, do after
the Union and notwithstanding thereof, remain in all time coming
within Scotland as it is now constituted by the Laws of that
Kingdom, and with the same Authority and Priviledges as before
the Union; subject nevertheless to such Regulations for the
better Administration of Justice as shall be made by the
Parliament of Great Britain; And that hereafter none shall be
named by Her Majesty or Her Royal Successors to be Ordinary
Lords of Session but such who have served in the Colledge of
Justice as Advocats or Principal Clerks of Session for the space
of five years, or as Writers to the Signet for the space of ten
years With this provision That no Writer to the Signet be
capable to be admitted a Lord of the Session unless he undergo a
private and publick Tryal on the Civil Law before the Faculty of
Advocats and be found by them qualified for the said Office two
years before he be named to be a Lord of the Session, yet so as
the Qualifications made or to be made for capacitating persons
to be named Ordinary Lords of Session may be altered by the
Parliament of Great Britain.
And
that the Court of Justiciary do also after the Union, and
notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within
Scotland, as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom,
and with the same Authority and Priviledges as before the Union;
subject nevertheless to such Regulations as shall be made by the
Parliament of Great Britain, and without prejudice of other
Rights of Justiciary:
And
that all Admiralty Jurisdictions be under the Lord High Admirall
or Commissioners for the Admiralty of Great Britain for the time
being; And that the Court of Admiralty now Established in
Scotland be continued, And that all Reviews, Reductions or
Suspensions of the Sentences in Maritime Cases competent to the
Jurisdiction of that Court remain the the same manner after the
Union as now in Scotland, until the Parliament of Great Britain
shall make such Regulations and Alterations, as shall be judged
expedient for the whole United Kingdom, so as there be alwayes
continued in Scotland a Court of Admiralty such as in England,
for determination of all Maritime Cases relating to private
Rights in Scotland competent to the Jurisdiction of the
Admiralty Court; subject nevertheless to such Regulations and
Alterations as shall be thought proper to be made by the
Parliament of Great Britain; And that the Heritable Rights of
Admiralty and Vice-Admiralties in Scotland be reserved to the
respective Proprietors as Rights of Property, subject
nevertheless, as to the manner of Exercising such Heritable
Rights to such Regualtions and Alterations as shall be thought
proper to be made by the Parliament of Great Britain;
And
that all other Courts now in being within the Kingdom of
Scotland do remain, but subject to Alterations by the Parliament
of Great Britain; And that all Inferior Courts within the said
Limits do remain subordinate, as they are now to the Supream
Courts of Justice within the same in all time coming;
And
that no Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of
Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas, or any other Court in
Westminster-hall; And that the said Courts, or any other of the
like nature after the Union, shall have no power to Cognosce,
Review or Alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within
Scotland, or stop the Execution of the same;
And
that there be a Court of Exchequer in Scotland after the Union,
for deciding Questions concerning the Revenues of Customs and
Excises there, having the same power and authority in such
cases, as the Court of Exchequer has in England And that the
said Court of Exchequer in Scotland have power of passing
Signatures, Gifts Tutories, and in other things as the Court of
Exchequer in Scotland hath; And that the Court of Exchequer that
now is in Scotland do remain, until a New Court of Exchequer be
settled by the Parliament of Great Britain in Scotland after the
Union;
And
that after the Union the Queens Majesty and Her Royal
Successors, may Continue a Privy Council in Scotland, for
preserving of public Peace and Order, until the Parliament of
Great Britain shall think fit to alter it or establish any other
effectual method for that end.
In
a treaty which contains no obvious provisions or means for
redress or complaint this article is extremely important. This
is an entrenched article which guarantees for ‘all time coming’
the authority, integrity and independence of both the Court of
Session and the Court of Justiciary and thus the People of
Scotland have every right to look to these courts for protection
from England’s excesses.
If
there is a valid case to answer, it must be examined in these
courts. There is nowhere else. Sadly their Lordships have so far
preferred to honour their oath to the Queen of England and if we
respect their claim to be honourable persons we can expect
nothing else from them. They obviously cannot serve two masters
and they have chosen to deny their umbilical relationship with
the sovereignty of the Scottish People. Lacking the required
integrity and courage, they currently hide behind a
constitutionally incorrect and morally pathetic ruling by a Lord
Campbell who in ‘The Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Company v.
Wauchope 1842’, (Bell’s Appeal Cases 252, page 279), stated that
"All that a court of justice can look to is the parliamentary
roll; they see that an act has passed both Houses of Parliament,
and that it has received the royal assent, and no court of
justice can enquire into the manner in which it was introduced
into parliament, what was done privately to its being
introduced, or what passed in parliament during the various
stages of its progress through both Houses of Parliament. I
therefore trust that no such enquiry will hereafter be entered
into in Scotland, and that due effect will be given to every act
of Parliament, both private as well as public, upon the just
construction which appears to arise upon it."
Let
us not mince our words here, that ruling is an act of treason
towards Scottish sovereignty and the People of Scotland. It bows
to accommodate English parliamentary sovereignty to the hilt,
and its successors, whom we can call the Campbellites, have
continued to bow with religious zeal. The only exception of note
has been in the person of the Lord President, Lord Cooper of
Culross. In MacCormick v. Lord Advocate 1953, S.C. 396, the
Crown cites Lord Cooper in support of its claims to sovereign
rule over Scotland, quoting the passage on page 413 which says
"This is at least plain, that there is neither precedent nor
authority of any kind for the view that the domestic Courts of
either Scotland or England have jurisdiction to determine
whether a Governmental act of the type in controversy is or is
not conform to the provisions of a Treaty...."
However, much more interestingly, Lord Cooper also says on page
411 that "The principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament
is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in
Scottish constitutional law.... Considering that the Union
legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England
and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in
seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament
of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics
of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament,
as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish
representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. This
is not what was done." Lord Cooper further states on page 412 "I
have not found in the Union legislation any provision that the
Parliament of Great Britain should be ‘absolutely sovereign’ in
the sense that Parliament should be free to alter the Treaty at
will".
Messrs. MacCormick and Hamilton had claimed that Article 1 of
the Treaty had been breached by the current Elizabeth deeming
herself Queen Elizabeth II, when of course she was the first
Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain. Although it would be
arithmetically sequential, there was a reluctance to call her
Elizabeth the I and II, in the style of James the VI and I,
since her Scottish rank would then precede the English;
Elizabeth the II and I would have been clumsy and England had
already had an Elizabeth I, so they did the worst possible thing
and gave her the straight English numeration, with no gesture to
Great Britain or Scotland.
There are, however, technical difficulties in linking this to a
breach of Article I, and the petitioners were hit with them all,
but in the final analysis it was said by Lord Cooper that "it
has not been shown that the Court of Session has authority to
entertain the issue sought to be raised", although no indication
was given as to who did have the authority. Would that
MacCormick, having run them so close and learned so much, had
had a second go at them. Such a ruling, however sophisticatedly
delivered in lacy legal language, is still pathetic and hides
behind the letter of the law rather than grant the spirit. The
question of who actually decided that she should be Elizabeth II
is still interesting, since, although invisible, they were
powerful enough to have their way.
Recently Lord Brand was asked during an unrecorded appeal
exchange with the Pictish Free State if he would continue to
uphold the Crown position if the act in question had abolished
Presbyterianism in Scotland or even the Courts of Session and
Justiciary. He was stuck for an answer but joined in denying the
appeal, although not without hurling abuse about constitutional
nonsense wasting the court’s time. The Campbellite tradition
endures.
The
dismaying aspect of this is that there is no need for their
Lordships to be so protective and paranoid. It is perfectly
defensible in the face of criticism from their English peers to
reply that they feel that they are party or compromised by their
judicial oaths and the question would be better examined by an
independent tribunal, outwith and above the British legal
system. The European Convention on Human Rights advocates such
constitutional examinations and speaks strongly of independent
tribunals but their Lordships are also selective about how much
Europe they want. Despite their total acquiescence to a
Westminster-based U.K. which signed up for the European
Community and its Law they have been heard pronouncing pompously
that ‘European Law is not the Law of Scotland’ but fail to
accept that neither is English parliamentary law.
If
the United Kingdom continues to include Scotland and it remains
within the European Community perhaps their Lordships will
gradually acknowledge the provisions of European Law which Scots
can invoke for their protection where U.K. law is designed to
fail them.
The
Simmenthal Ruling by the European Court in 1978 (case 106/77
ECR629) says "a national court which is called upon, within the
limits of its jurisdiction, to apply provisions of Community Law
is under a duty to give full effect to these provisions, if
necessary refusing, of its own motion, to apply any conflicting
provisions of national legislation, even if adopted
subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request
or await a prior setting aside of such provision by legislative
or other constitutional means", but given the current levels of
integrity in Scottish courts this is highly unlikely in
practice. An Edinburgh Sheriff, when presented with the
Simmenthal precedent in a case concerning the right to change
one’s nationality to ‘Scottish’, said that he had much sympathy
for the initiative and it may well have merit in law but in
practice the case would be better served by marching a mob up
Princes Street. The embarrassing truth is that he is probably
right.
Their Lordships who whinge that they are powerless to resist
Westminster parliamentary legislation, even if it legally
emasculates them, are also invited to consider Defoe’s argument
to the union sceptics, published in the Review in November 1706,
where he said ‘The Union will be a sacred thing out of the Reach
of Parliament; ‘twill be superior to it, in its being prior in
time; for all prior Power is superior to subsequent, as the
Produce is inferior to the thing producing....Whenever the
Parliament of Britain shall therefore infract the Union, it
blows up its own Foundation, and by Consequence destroys
itself.’ ‘Infract’ is a little-used verb these days, but it
still means ‘to violate in law’.
One
wonders if we shall hear a whimper from their Lordships should
the unchecked impudence of the present government in England
decide to privatise the Courts.
Article 20
XX.
That all heritable Offices, Superiorities, heritable
Jurisdictions, Offices for life, and Jurisdictions for life, be
reserved to the Owners thereof, as Rights of Property, in the
same manner as they are now enjoyed by the Laws of Scotland,
notwithstanding of this Treaty.
This article is a bare-faced ‘don’t worry’ to all the
influential and privileged types. Scotland may be getting
thoroughly shafted but the upper-selfish class of people will be
O.K. Readers will recognise the arrangement as still standing.
We have much more to worry about from these people than from the
people of England.
Article 21
XXI. That the Rights and Privileges of the Royall Burroughs in
Scotland as they now are, Do Remain entire after the Union, and
notwithstanding thereof.
The
1974 Local Government Act infracted the terms of this article in
a big way. The status and authority of all Royal Burghs was
removed at a pen-stroke in favour of ‘regions’ and ‘districts’,
concepts in bureaucracy which are totally alien to the
long-established and organically evolved ‘burgh and shire’
system of Scotland. Plans are firmly in place to add insult with
the imposition of ‘single-tier’ authorities. In ‘Highland
Region’, for example, the local government department in
Inverness can be anything from 50 to 250 miles away and require
two ferry trips and good few bob in petrol. God help a Highland
pensioner or single Mum with a prolonged problem.
The
breaching of this article was raised as point of competency
against the Crown being entitled to sue or prosecute anyone in
Scotland in Crown v. Pict at Tain District Court in
August 1994. The absence of the Royal Mint in Scotland was
indicated as supporting evidence of breach. A local J.P, acting
as a magistrate but unqualified in Law, ruled that the English
Crown was fully competent to prosecute in Scotland and then
proceeded to refuse an appeal against her ruling, despite the
fact that the complaint before her was headed ‘in the District
of Ross and Cromarty’ and the fact that it was not being heard
in the Burgh Court was not disputed. One must also assume that
she could see a wee Mint of her own.
Article 22
XXII. That by virtue of this Treaty, Of the Peers of Scotland at
the time of the Union 16 shall be the number to Sit and Vote in
the House of Lords, and 45 the number of the 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 Privy Council of Scotland, Commanding them to Cause 16
Peers, who are to sit in the House of Lords to be Summoned to
Parliament and 45 Members to be Elected to sit in the House of
Commons of the Parliament of Great Britain according to the
Agreement in the Treaty, in such manner as by a subsequent Act
of this present Session of the Parliament of Scotland shall be
settled; Which Act is hereby Declared to be as valid as if it
were a part of and ingrossed in this Treaty:
And
that the Names of the Persons so Summoned and Elected, shall be
Returned by the Privy Council of Scotland into the Court from
whence the said Writ did issue. And that if her Majesty, on or
before the 1st day of May next, on which day the Union is to
take place shall Declare under the Great Seal of England, That
it is expedient, that the Lords of Parliament of England, and
Commons of the present Parliament of England should be the
Members of the respective Houses of the first Parliament of
Great Britain for and on the part of England, then the said
Lords of Parliament of England, and Commons of the present
Parliament of England, shall be the members of the respective
Houses of the first Parliament of Great Britain, for and on the
part of England:
And
Her Majesty may by Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal
of Great Britain, appoint the said first Parliament of Great
Britain to Meet at such time and place as Her Majesty shall
think fit; which time shall not be less than 50 days after the
date of such Proclamation; And the time and place of the Meeting
of such Parliament being so appointed, a Writ shall be
immediately issued under the Great Seal of Great Britain,
directed to the Privy Council of Scotland, for the summoning the
16 Peers, and for Electing forty five Members, by whom Scotland
is to be Represented in the Parliament of Great Britain:
And
the Lords of Parliament of England, and the 16 Peers of
Scotland, such 16 Peers being Summoned and Returned in the
manner agreed by this Treaty; and the Members of the House of
Commons of the said Parliament of England and the 45 Members for
Scotland, such 45 Members being Elected and Returned in the
manner agreed in this Treaty shall assemble and meet
respectively in their respective houses of the Parliament of
Great Britain, at such time and place as shall be so appointed
by Her Majesty, and shall be the Two houses of the first
Parliament of Great Britain, And that Parliament may Continue
for such time only as the present Parliament of England might
have Continued, if the Union of the Two Kingdoms had not been
made, unless sooner Dissolved by Her Majesty;
And
that every one of the Lords of Parliament of Great Britain, and
every member of the House of Commons of the Parliament of Great
Britain in the first and all succeeding Parliaments of Great
Britain until the Parliament of Great Britain shall otherwayes
Direct, shall take the respective Oaths, appointed to be taken
in stead of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, by an Act of
Parliament made in England in the first year of the Reign of the
late King William and Queen Mary entituled An Act for the
abrogating of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, and
appointing other Oaths, and Make Subscribe and audibly Repeat
the Declaration mentioned in an Act of Parliament made in
England in the 30th year of the Reign of King Charles the Second
entituled An Act for the more effectual preserving the Kings
Person and Government by Disabling Papists from sitting in
either House of Parliament, and shall take and subscribe the
Oath mentioned in An Act of Parliament made in England, in the
first year of Her Majesties Reign entituled An Act to Declare
the Alterations in the Oath appointed to be taken by the Act
Entituled An Act for the further security of His Majesties
Person, and the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line,
and for Extinguishing the Hopes of the pretended Prince of
Wales, and all other pretenders and their open and secret
Abettors, and for Declaring the Association to be determined, at
such time, and in such manner as the Members of both Houses of
Parliament of England are by the said respective Acts, directed
to take, make and subscribe the same upon the penalties and
disabilities in the said respective Acts contained.
And
it is Declared and Agreed That these words This Realm, the Crown
of this Realm, and the Queen of this Realm, mentioned in the
Oaths and Declaration contained in the aforsaid Acts, which were
intended to signify the Crown and Realm of England, shall be
understood of the Crown and Realm of Great Britain, And that in
that sense, the said Oaths and Declaration be taken and
subscribed by the members of both Houses of the Parliament of
Great Britain.
With a population approximately five times that of Scotland it
would be understandable for England to want around 250
representatives in the House of Commons but, while Scottish
representation was more than quartered, the English retained
their 513 MPs and merely closed up a bit to let a few Scots in
the building. Today’s proportions of approximately 10% of MPs
for approximately 10% of the population is in one sense more
equitable but makes no provision at all for respecting the
democratic will of the Kingdom of Scotland as a whole.
Technically, under the English doctrine of parliamentary
sovereignty, every available Scottish vote amounts to nothing if
out-voted by the English. At best the Scots could climb on a
moral soap-box and create a stushie, but if the English were to
stand their ground the Scots would be faced with the necessity
to break ‘the Law’. The recent style however has been to act
more in the manner of obedient wifies.
The
penultimate paragraph is at severe pains to ensure that anyone
taking the oaths of office is left in no doubt whatsoever that
he is joining an organisation absolutely dedicated to
Tim-bashing.
On
the question of the oath it is hard to imagine that any M.P. got
a distinct sense of swearing an oath to Great Britain when he
was simply told to repeat the old English oath but where it said
‘this realm, the crown or the queen of this realm’ Great Britain
was to be understood instead of England. This is asking a lot of
English MPs and even of Scottish MPs who are pronouncing these
words whilst standing on the floor of the English parliament,
something they still do today.
Article 23
XXIII. That the foresaid 16 Peers of Scotland, mentioned in the
last preceding Article, to sit in the House of Lords of the
Parliament of Great Britain shall have all Priviledges of
Parliament which the Peers of England now have, and which They
or any Peers of Great Britain shall have after the Union, and
particularly the Right of sitting upon the tryals of Peers: And
in case of the tryal of any Peer in time of Adjournment or
Prorogation of Parliament, the said 16 Peers shall be summoned
in the same manner, and have the same powers and priviledges at
such tryal, as any other Peers of Great Britain; And that in
case any tryals of Peers shall hereafter happen when there is no
Parliament in being, the 16 Peers of Scotland who sate in the
last preceeding Parliament, shall be summoned in the same manner
and have the same powers and privileges at such tryals as any
other Peers of Great Britain;
And
that all Peers of Scotland, and their successors to their
Honours and Dignities, shall from and after the Union be Peers
of Great Britain, and have Rank and Precedency next and
immediately after the Peers of the like orders and degrees in
England at the time of the Union, and before all Peers of Great
Britain of the like orders and degrees, who may be Created after
the Union, and shall be tryed as Peers of Great Britain, and
shall Enjoy all Privileges of Peers, as fully as the Peers of
England do now, or as they, or any other Peers of Great Britain
may hereafter Enjoy the same except the Right and Privilege of
sitting in the House of Lords and the Privileges depending
thereon, and particularly the Right of sitting upon the tryals
of Peers.
This article ensures that the squad in the House of Lords gets
off with as much as possible, but if any one of them is captured
doing anything naughty he can only be tried by his pals and all
his pals are guaranteed a seat.
Article 24
XXIV. That from and after the Union, there be One Great Seal for
the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which shall be different
from the Great Seal now used in either Kingdom; And that the
Quartering the Arms and the Rank and Precedency of the Lyon King
of Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland as may best suit the Union be
left to Her Majesty: And that in the mean time the Great Seal of
England be used as the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, and
that the Great Seal of the United Kingdom be used for Sealing
Writs to Elect and Summon the Parliament of Great Britain and
for sealing all Treaties with Forreign Princes and States, and
all publick Acts Instruments and Orders of State which Concern
the whole United Kingdom, and in all other matters relating to
England, as the Great Seal of England is now used, and that a
Seal in Scotland after the Union be alwayes kept and made use of
in all things relating to private Rights or Grants, which have
usually passed the Great Seal of Scotland, and which only
concern Offices, Grants, Commissions, and private Rights within
the Kingdom, And that until such Seal shall be appointed by Her
Majesty the present Great Seal of Scotland shall be used for
such purposes;
And
that the Privy Seal, Signet, Casset, Signet of the Justiciary
Court, Quarter Seal, and Seals of Courts now used in Scotland be
Continued, but that the said Seals be altered and adapted to the
state of the Union as Her Majesty shall think fit; And the said
Seals, and all of them, and the Keepers of them, shall be
subject to Regulations as the Parliament of Great Britain shall
hereafter make:
And
that the Crown, Scepter and Sword of State, the Records of
Parliament, and all other Records, Rolls and Registers
whatsoever, both publick and private generall and particular,
and Warrands thereof Continue to be keeped as they are within
that part of the United Kingdom now called Scotland, and that
they shall so remain in all time coming notwithstanding of the
Union.
This is another demonstration of England’s true intentions but
in a very important area. The Great Seal is the insignia of
statehood, the letterhead below which the state makes
proclamation and the flag of office under which it makes its
international contracts and commitments. Firstly, the Court of
the Lord Lyon, which even today pretends that it enjoys some
independent authority, is told that future re-designing will be
at the pleasure of the English queen, and then, more
importantly, Scotland has to accept that ‘in the mean time’ the
English seal will be used to designate the British seal.
This attitude continues today in the form of the £1 coins. The
inscription ‘decus et tutamen’, (ornament and defence), appears
on both the coin bearing the rose of England and the coin
bearing a form of ‘great seal’. The inscription proper to the
Great Seal of Scotland is the Latin ‘Nemo me impune lacessit’
meaning ‘no one injures me with impunity’, suggesting that there
will be an unpleasant reaction if it is tried. The equivalent
English inscription, betraying their Norman origins, is the
rather pretentious ‘Dieu et mon droit’, meaning ‘God and my
right’. Scots can legitimately read that with question and
contempt. Another French phrase appears around the insignia of
the queen of England, ‘Honi soit qui mal y pense’, which sounds
like a corruption of ‘honte y soit qui mal y pense’ meaning
something like ‘shame on he who thinks about that with bad
intent’ and is more suitable as a rebuke for looking at a royal
ankle should it be accidentally revealed. The corrective tone of
a school-mistress is hardly in the tradition of the great
fighting tribes of Britannic history.
The
floated plans to sell Edinburgh Castle, deeply insulting as they
are in themselves, also raise the problem of where to relocate
the Scottish Crown jewels. Would they be sold as part of the
package to ensure a continuing parade of nostalgic
school-teachers and their charges or would they be moved to the
Tower of London ‘for safety’ and to reinforce the insult? Any
option begs the basic question of who actually owns something as
Scottish as Edinburgh Castle and the Scottish Crown. We are
faced with a claim to ownership by the English Crown. Are we
going to accept that?
Many, if not all, of the records of the Scottish Regiments have
been removed to England. While it makes sense to have some form
of protective militia in an independent country acting both as a
civic growth opportunity for the adolescent and a dissuader for
any threat to our considerable off-shore wealth, be it oil or
fish, there would be more sympathy for saving the Gordons or any
other Scottish Regiments if they were not so clearly available
to the English Crown as tools of the State. In the public mind,
they are the troops that would be sent in should Scottish
political frustration spill onto the streets in sufficient
numbers. It would be interesting to hear from these regiments on
this question. Which master would they serve - the Crown or the
People of Scotland? If in the future they hope to serve the
People of Scotland they will have to do better than letting the
English take their history jotters from them.
Article 25
XXV. That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as
they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the Terms of these
Articles, or any of them, shall from and after the Union cease
and become void, and shall be so declared to be by the
respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms.
This article would be more useful if it made some provision for
all future laws and statutes being void if they breached the
terms of these articles. As it is, it simply acts as an erase
button for redundant legislation.
The
Fall Out
Even outwith the Jacobite faction, the Scottish opposition to
the Union was almost total. The articles were publicly burned in
the streets. Night after night there were riots in Glasgow and
Edinburgh, with cries of ‘All Scotland stand together, No Union
with English Dogs’ and other huzzas in less proper language.
Under no stretching of the definition could this be called
democratic; it was an absolute rail-roading of the Scottish
people, actively assisted by their own ‘high heid yins’. Today’s
equivalent, Lang, Rifkind, Stewart et spumae aliae, are even
more despicable when they justify their master’s voice by
‘reminding’ us in that patronising way that the People of
Scotland chose to enter into a union with England.
That is an absolute lie, and those Unionist politicians who
claim it are liars, but it remains the basis on which the
‘Crown’ claims the right to tax us, to legislate over us or to
send us to the Falklands, which we have no right to in the first
place.
The
only Scottish Lord really worthy was Lord Belhaven, a name that
continues to be respected today. On seeing the proposed articles
he had said "I think I see our ancient mother Caledonia, like
Caesar, sitting in the midst of our senate, ruefully looking
round about, covering herself with her royal garment, attending
the fatal blow, and breathing out her last, with a ‘et tu quoque
mi fili’. When I consider this treaty as it hath been explained
to us, I see the English constitution remaining firm, the same
two houses of parliament, the same taxes, the same customs, the
same excises, the same trade in companies....and all ours
subject to either regulation or annihilation; only we have the
honour to pay their debts". Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun conducted
himself like a decent patriot should, and the Andrew Fletcher
Society three centuries later still celebrates his stance. Sir
George Lockhart of Carnwath wrote an account which included
details of the bribery involved, naming names, called ‘Memoirs
of the Affairs of Scotland etc.’ This book still makes
publishers like the Edinburgh University Press too nervous to
reprint nearly 300 years later.
Strangely enough, the Parliament of Great Britain got underway
without ratifying the respective Acts of Union. It would seem to
be a fundamental oversight which, from a constitutional
perspective, seriously jeopardises the whole undertaking. The
power of a parliament would seem to be based on the ability and
authority to issue ratified, and therefore legally enforceable,
legislation. If both the parliaments have ratified their
dissolution and therefore invalidation prior to May 1st, 1707,
how can a joint parliament assembled on that date which fails to
ratify the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707 claim any legitimacy?
Both constitutional parents are treated as dead, despite Defoe’s
assurances that the thing created is always less than the
creator. It would seem that the English attitude of incorporate,
neuter and proceed with business as usual extended even over the
constituting necessities. They are trading without a licence
which is fine as long as you can keep your customers believing
that they are defeated and have no alternatives, but it might be
embarrassing if the Scots flex their freedom muscle and ask for
arbitration in Europe.
Regardless, the majority at Westminster were not long in
upsetting the Scots. The Scottish Mint was closed down and in
1709 a rather sinister Treason Act was passed which extended
England’s more harsh laws against treason into Scotland. Not
only was this in clear breach of Article 19 but it was used to
brutalise and execute Jacobites, especially around the period of
the ’45 Rebellion.
It
would be recognised by the English at least that the focal point
of any power remaining in Scotland would be the Justiciary, the
only authority constitutionally protected, and the Treason Act
may well have been of two-fold nature; it would provide the
necessary legislation to neutralise any threat to the Crown
coming from Scotland, but it would also throw down the gauntlet
to the Scottish Justiciary. Sadly, as today, they proved
toothless and did little more than worry it with their gums in
private and the English ‘sovereignty of parliament’ was able to
grow in confidence in Scotland. On every occasion that the
Pictish Free State has identified a breach of the union and thus
the invalidation of the Crown’s authority in Scotland, their
Lordships have repeated their belief that they are powerless to
protest or protect, and we felt that this point of paralysis had
to be more thoroughly examined.
On
the 5th of February, 1991, a letter was sent to the Prime
Minister, an office for which there is incidentally no provision
in the treaty, who instructed the Scottish Office, which should,
of course, be called the English Office, to reply on his behalf.
Major was asked if he recognised Scotland as a sovereign nation,
if he recognised that the Treaty of Union had articles of
guarantee which should not be breached and, should the question
of an alleged breach arise, what avenue of redress would the
government recognise. The reply was very interesting. A lackey
called MacDonald wrote saying ‘‘Constitutionally, Scotland and
England are constituent parts of the United Kingdom. The
Government is totally committed to the maintenance of this
Union. Moreover, there is no evidence of significant support in
Scotland for the break-up of the Union; at the last General
Election more than 85% of the votes cast in Scotland were for
parties committed to maintaining the unity of the United
Kingdom. In answer to your queries on nationhood and
sovereignty, the Government believes that the present
constitutional arrangements provide for full and fair
representation for Scotland and for Scotland’s special interests
and nationhood - and for that matter England’s also - to be
fully respected and recognised. You also raise the question of
what avenue of redress the government would recognise in respect
of an alleged breach of the Acts (sic) of Union 1707. It is of
course a matter for the courts (sic) to decide whether there has
been any breach of the terms of those Acts and whether there is
any redress for them.’’ (Please note that the final word is the
plural.)
So
there it is, your Lordships, a clue to how to end your ignominy.
Instead of stonewalling every issue with the tired old ‘we are
powerless’ line, here is an invitation from the senior executive
of the parliament you hold to be sovereign over you, not only to
say if there has been a breach or not but also to decide what to
do about it. Yes, it plunges you into the political arena but
you cannot pretend forever that there is no connection. When
this unholy Mother of Parliaments is spewing out legislation for
Scotland, law and politics are umbilically linked. When you try
to deny this you render your dear Justicia much more of a
bastard than an ass.
It
is sad that we have got to the point where we have to condemn an
otherwise intelligent and wise Justiciary; it is sad that a
significant percentage of Scottish sports fans are embarrassed
by the flaunting of the Union flag in association with Scottish
teams; it is sad that many cut off BBC TV in disgust as it
closes its Scottish channel with ‘God save the Queen’; in short
that the imperial aspirations of the English have so divided the
real British people, but the saddest thing is that we have
mostly ourselves to blame. Caesar immediately noticed that you
could set the tribes in Britain against each other and thus rule
them. To this the English have added the subtleties of economic
control with emphasis on job insecurity, enough dole only to
maintain fags, booze and TV addiction and the implanting of
hopelessness in the young, but for their sake let us find the
guts to recover ourselves from the death process. After
thousands of years of struggle it is surely not our idea to die
but we are already on the down escalator and only extra effort
is going to get us up again. All differences must be put aside,
at least until the immediate rescue is complete, for although
with our Celtic background we are sure to argue again in the
future, for the moment the only criterion is whether we want to
be the People of Scotland or not, and that means fighting for
the day when we all carry a ‘Kingdom of Scotland’ passport. It
can happen as soon as you want it.
Perhaps we can draw the necessary inspiration and encouragement
from the Estonian Declaration of Independence, made in 1918.
Addressing Estonia it says ‘‘You stand on the threshold of a
hopeful future in which you shall be free and independent in
determining and directing your destiny. Begin building a home of
your own, ruled by law and order so as to be a worthy member
within the family of civilised nations. Sons and daughters of
our homeland, let us unite as one man in the sacred task of
building our homeland. The sweat and blood shed by our ancestors
for this country demand it, and our future generations impose it
upon us as our sacred duty.’’ In August 1991, one million
Estonians threw off the might of Russian dominance, even
although half a million peasant stock had been settled there to
dull the breed.
Let us not await that......
Recommended Reading
Buchanan, George, ‘History of Scotland’, Edinburgh 1829
Chalmers, George, ‘Caledonia’ London 1807-24, Vols. I-III
Collins, Lawrence, ‘European Community Law in the U.K.’ London
1984
Daiches, David, ‘Scotland and the Union’, London 1977
De Beer, Sir Gavin, ‘Genetics and Prehistory’ Cambridge 1966
Defoe, Daniel, ‘Defoe’s Review’, Ed. A.W. Secord, New York 1965
Donaldson, Gordon, ‘Scottish Historical Documents’, Edinburgh
1974
Fordun, ‘Chronicle of the Scottish Nation’, Ed. by W.F.Skene,
Edinburgh 1872
Foulis, Sir James, ‘Enquiry into the Original Inhabitants of
Britain’ Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
Vol. I
Guest, Edwin, ‘Origines Celticae’, London 1863
Hay of Hayfield, John, ‘Tartan Tapestry’ Glasgow 1960
Henderson, Isabel, ‘The Picts’ London 1967
Herodotus, ‘The Histories’, De Selincourt translation, London
1954
Hibbert, Samuel, ‘Description of the Shetland Islands’ Lerwick
1891
Hume, Sir David, ‘Diary of the Proceedings 1700-1707’ Edinburgh
1828
Lockhart, George, of Carnwath, ‘Memoirs Concerning the Affairs
of Scotland etc.’ London 1714
Minutes of the Proceedings in Parliament, 1685-1707
Monmouth, Geoffrey of, ‘History of the Kings of Britain’ Thorpe
transl. London 1966
Robertson, Robert H.S., ‘The Cracked Cornucopia’ R.U.I.
Pitlochry 1993
Rolleston, T.W. ‘Myths and Legends of the Celtic Race’ London
1911
Roos, Aarand, ‘Estonia - A Nation Unconquered’ Baltimore 1985
Ritchie, Dr. Anna, ‘Picts’, HMSO 1989
Scott, Archibald B., ‘The Pictish Nation, its People and its
Church’ Edinburgh 1918
Scott, Paul H., ‘1707 - The Union of Scotland and England’
Edinburgh 1979 (Chambers - please reprint this book and
promote it this time!)
Skene, William F., ‘Celtic Scotland’ Edinburgh 1876-80 (3 Vols.)
Skene, William F., ‘Coronation Stone’ Edinburgh. 1867. Hard to
find but preserved in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland
Spence, Lewis, ‘The Mysteries of Britain’ Philadelphia, rep. by
Health Research, Calif.
Tacitus, Cornelius, ‘The Agricola’, Mattingly-Handford transl.
London 1970
Waddell, Prof. L.A., ‘The British Edda’ London 1930
Wainwright, F. (Ed.), ‘The Problem of the Picts’ London 1955,
Perth 1980
Wilson, Prof. Daniel, ‘Prehistoric Annals of Scotland’ London
1863 (2 Vols.)
Wylie, Rev. J.A., ‘History of the Scottish Nation’ London 1886
(2 Vols.)
Wyntoun, Androw of, ‘Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland’ Edinburgh
1872
Plus a debt for inspiration to Douglas Young and The Scottish
Secretariat who between 1930 and 1955 published three editions
of the Treaty with commentary. God bless their wee tartan socks
for keeping us mindful. Scotland owes you.
Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory;
Fareweel even to the Scottish name,
Sae fam'd in martial story !
Now sark rins o'er the Solway sands,
And Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands,
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation ! . .
O
would, or I had seen the day
That treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace !
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll make this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold.
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation !
Robert Burns
The
Pictish Free State
The
Pictish Free State is a voluntary pressure group dedicated to
restoring the right of the Sovereign People of Scotland to
choose their own destiny. We believe that in the final analysis
this can only be done in Law. We reject all forms of violent
conduct, physical or mental, but we absolutely reserve the right
to confront English Crown initiatives for the purpose of
legitimately defending our Scottish Sovereign Rights.
Help always welcome!
ROBBIE THE PICT is a founding member of the Pictish Free
State, a pressure group dedicated to securing the People of
Scotland’s freedom of choice through non-violent means, but
principally by championing the case in Law. He believes that the
People of Scotland are among the wealthiest and wisest in the
world and can have Independence again as soon as they want it.
When it is all over he wants to play the Blues....
ENCOURAGE ENCOURAGEMENT
We
owe it to our ancestors and to our children.