Posted on June 16th, 2018
The constitution of the UK is coming under ever-increasing scrutiny, yet even legal experts can’t agree on the current status of the relationship between Scotland and England, nor how it could be terminated in the event that Scotland were to become a normal country.
One view holds that, when the Scottish Parliament voted to dissolve itself in 1707 and pass all responsibility for government to the slightly expanded Westminster, then this meant that Westminster held absolute authority which the Devolution settlement of the late 20th Century did nothing to alter since the constitution remained a reserved matter. If this argument is accepted, then Scotland can do nothing to alter the constitution without Westminster’s approval. Some even go a stage further and claim that it was not only the Scottish Parliament which was dissolved when the Treaty of Union was signed in 1707, but that the nation of Scotland also effectively ceased to exist as a distinct entity, although strangely, the same does not usually seem to apply to England by those putting this idea forward.
There is, however, another view, and this has been receiving a fair bit of attention recently with many people claiming that the Union was created by a treaty and that treaties can be dissolved by either party to the agreement. Recently, an explanation of this argument was posted in a Facebook discussion in the form of an address to Ian Blackford MP, leader of the SNP at Westminster. Rather than paraphrase, here is that post, attributed to a certain Gordon Blackhall and kindly copied for this blog by Andrew Davidson.
“The Act and Treaties of Union is a Union of 2 EQUAL PARTNERS.
It is also a condition of Union that one partner cannot subjugate the will of the other. (That would mean they are NOT equal, which is clearly the opposite of the Act’s Wording.
That’s before we factor in Scots law and Sovereignty of the People of Scotland, both of which are legally protected by the very Act and Treaties of Union itself.
Any breach of those 2 aspects is also a breach of the Union, ending it.
So why, you may ask, has Scotsgov not invoked these breaches of the Act?
Simply put, because, technically they have not happened yet.
The Continuity Bill has not yet been legally challenged as yet (a lawyers letter stating possible intent, is NOT an advancement of legal action, it is merely at this stage, posturing) so there has been no subjugation of Scots law as yet.
This will change with the passing of the Brexit Bill without Scottish Legislative Consent Motion (subjugation of the Sovereign Scots people’s expressed desire re: devolution, voted for by plebiscite) or by any ACTUAL court case challenging the Holyrood Continuity Bill (Subjugation of Scots Law by way of over writing it, contrary to the terms of the Act and Treaties of Union, which specifically protect Scots law “in perpetuity" (forever).
The Brexit Bill has yet to be passed as yet either, but the legal intent will be known by the time it is required to be send to the EU for ratification by EU 27.
That legally approved statement of intent is also a reasonable legal trigger for Scottish action to claim that WM has breached the terms of the Act and Treaties of Union by means of Subjugation of Scots Law, in respect of WM not having Legislative consent from Holyrood, and WM over writing Scots Law with WM law, in respect to the Holyrood Continuity Bill regarding the 111 powers under dispute, which the Continuity Bill lays legal claim to under Scots Law, based on the principle of Devolution, “what is not specifically reserved is Devolved".
Because Devolution is the Express will of Sovereign Scots by plebiscite, any over ruling of the Continuity bill is both subjugation of Scots people’s sovereignty AND subjugation of Scots Law which wrote the Continuity Bill, claiming legal rights over the 111 powers which clearly fall under the Devolved powers remit.
The above is all about TIMING, go too early, and a legal challenge will fail.
This is why WM have tried to provoke the Scotsgov into a mistake on timing so they can claim legal incompetence.
The Scotsgov are on the ball with this, hence the WM desperation."