18:19 Interesting numbers that raise an interesting question – The SNP National Executive Committee, following instruction from Nicole Sturgeon, have instructed the SNP to submit an application to intervene in the Scottish Government’s Supreme Court case on an independence referendum. Interesting that the SNP Government actively intervened to do everything they could to sabotage the Martin Keatings case, but if it comes from Nicola sturgeon via the SNP it is fine, but that is not really the question I have or the point I want to make.
The SNP believe that “As the largest independence-supporting party – which has won every election in Scotland in the past decade – we consider that the SNP has legal standing to represent the interests of the very significant proportion of the population who support Scotland becoming an independent country.
“We also have an important perspective on the legal issues that the court will consider and, in particular, the importance of these matters being decided in a way that upholds the right of the people of Scotland to have their say and express their democratic will.
“Whether or not to grant the application is, of course, a matter for the court.” (Edinburgh News)
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) said in 2018 “That this House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs”.
Now if the SNP believe in the Claim of Right as Blackford argued in 2918, if the SNP believe that the people of Scotland have the right to determine their own future , to express their democratic will then you have to ask yourself why they are not looking to 18:19 rather than the supposed Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
18-19: Scotland will keep its own separate laws, legal system and courts of law. (Treaty of Union)
Alf Baird argues that the Claim of Right Act of 1689, when Scotland was still an independent country, that the Scottish people retain the right to prohibit government actions or legislation which compromise their civil rights and freedoms. This is part of the ‘right’ referred to in the Claim of Right and enshrined in Scots law by the Act ‘salvo jure cujuslibet’ of 1663, which allowed any Scot to challenge parliamentary legislation which infringed their civil liberties .
So my point, or question, why are the SNP not challenging the Treaty of Union, especially articles 18 and 19? Why are we not exercising our right under those articles? If our laws are protected under the Treaty of Union then the Claim of Right Act 1689 is still law and protected so there is no need to go cap in hand to what may well be a foreign court to ask for permission to do something that we may not need permission for? Surely it is for a Scottish Court to decide, not a foreign one?
Interesting question, well I think so anyway.
The more I learn the more confused I get about the SNP strategy and the more convinced I become that we are being set up to fail by the SNP.
grumpyscottishman.wordpress.com 
I never believed Sturgeon was serious. I always felt she would betray us again.
George
The strategy certainly appears to do that doesn’t it. I am just trying to learn a bit more about the options and she does seem to have ignored a few that might have been worth looking at in the medium term. She does appear to have set us up to fail.
Thanks for commenting.
Bruce
The objective of the SNP is no longer independence, it’s to stay in power. Short money from Westminster feeding the party coffers and salaries that their no-mark politicians couldn’t hope to earn in the real world… that’s what it’s all about now.
Dave
Have felt the same way myself from time to time as I have tried to get my head around what the strategy is but it seems to be all over the place. I do feel that Sturgeon has set us up to fail and has not looked at the other options that might be out there, the current strategy certainly sets us up to fail while there are options like the Treaty of Union that could and maybe should be tested as better options out there. She certainly gives the impression that she has accepted Scotland’s colonial status that is for sure.
Thanks for commenting.
Bruce
“we are being set up to fail by the SNP.”
Be that as it may.
The point is that all the different Independence organizations (AUOB, YES, ALBA, etc) need to do to their utmost to make the Referendum or plebiscite election a resounding success.
If they don’t succeed in getting a majority, Independence is off the political cards for the forseeable.
If they do manage to get a majority, Independence is still a live issue and they live to fight another battle for Scottish freedom
Ben
I understand where you are coming from, what I am thinking though is are the mechanisms there that allow us to pretty much ignore the English Government and remain within the law. If Scottish law has been preserved in everyway then maybe SRG are correct and we should not be going down the road of Westminster and the Supreme Court, does that strategy concede what sovereignty we have to the UK in the eyes of the world, are we using the treaty and the law to the best effect? I wonder I really do as I also believe that the current strategy has set us to fail while while as Dave suggests in his comment keeping the SNP at the trough.
Thanks for commenting.
Brce
Like yourself there are many more indy supporters that can interpret the despicable lies and obfuscation that sturgeon and her pack of collaborating cowards in her Vichy government are trying to sell in fake carrot dressing
TBQH ANYONE who believes that this BETRAYER of Scots has in any way a passion for independence rather than using it as a career path is either as thick as shit , a miserable sycophant , a fellow deviant of hers , or extremely delusional
TH
I certainly feel that there other options out there that we should be exploring and we are not. I do feel that we have been set up to fail that is for sure and nothing can convince me otherwise now. The strategy appears to be wrong in every way while keeping the SNP in power. I don’t see Sturgeon being around that much longer either way but she will leave us trapped in the UK for my life time at least the way she is going that is for sure.
Thanks for commenting.
Bruce
In a word (or two), grumpy, because they might actually win. In fact, it is almost certain that they would win a challenge on the Treaty itself – which is why our Scottish lairdies in the HoL are so desperate to renegotiate it as a domestic Act within the domestic courts, under the jurisdiction of English law.
I really don’t know what is wrong with so many SNP loyalists that they don’t get it. As an international treaty, it can be adjudicated upon (and resiled) in international law. FFS take it to the international court, or, rather, a case built upon it. This could have been done years ago. No way are we going to by-pass the Treaty because England and England as the UK will try to defend their interpretation of it. Their interpretation is wholly incorrect, as even the speeches pf Queen Anne and all the workings around it in 1707 prove as conclusively as it is possible to prove in law. It could take some time for an adjudication, or it could be fast-tracked, but that is not the point.
The point is that we declare independence on he strength of our knowledge of the Treaty and the Claim of Right and all the Articles (many breached over and over again). Our case would be extremely persuasive, and the Westminster government knows that – which is why they employ their best propagandists to rubbish SALVO, SSRG, etc. If the Scots would only take their cue from England and England as the UK as to how they will act, we would be far, far better prepared, and, as Peter A. Bell, keeps on saying, there is no way to leave the UK that will not involve confrontation with Westminster and the British State.
Lorcal
I won’t pretend to understand it all, I try and fail lol, but what you are saying makes sense and I accept that the SNP, even under Salmond, didn’t challenge it when maybe they should have long before now, even just to fire a cannon across the bows of the English Parliament but something does have to give soon if this continued denial of democracy continues as we cannot sit back and accept that at all. If we just meekly accept the state of things then we might as well just calls ourselves Northern British and end the history and name of Scotland for good.
Thanks for commenting.
Bruce
I am sure that you are already aware Bruce but, in case not and for the benefit of those that do not know, the SSRG have a conference in Dunfermline on 29-31 July in order to discuss options and the best way forward. They have already identified 6 routes, which are listed on their website (including CoR 1689) here: https://scottishsovereigntyresearchgroup.org/
The Salvo group are specifically excavating the Scottish Constitution and the place of the CoR (1689) within it. Their website is: https://salvo.scot/
Duncanio
Thanks, I have read some of it but won’t pretend to understand it all but I do think something has to give soon in the face of the English Parliament denial of democracy, if we accept that then Scotland died in 1707 and we are Northern British.
Thanks for commenting.
Bruce
First off i am no fan of NS. I am as confused as most to why we have to go through the SC to excersize our democratic rights. I see no reason for the cushy jobs pension narrative as either way all politicians will look after each other for jobs in westminster or hollyrood . If the path taken was a strategy to hinder or ensure failure AS and Alpa would be screaming from the rooftops . Remember AS was the man in 2014 so knows first hand what is involved will he put pressure on the snp ! Of course he will . There is a reason he doesn’t shout AoU at this time . My uneducated guess is we have to play Westminster rules untill the courts tell us and the people realise we are a colony of England with no democratic rights under English laws and our resources belong to them. No country or institution will have any truck with us untill we have exhausted all legal UK avenues to democratically leave a so called union of equals. When boris enacted Henry the Vlll laws AFTER he couldn’t circumvent present laws to prerogue parliment he set the precedence to use ancient laws and practises
The claim of rights, Act of union and UN charter OHR or any other medieval laws can be brought to bare AFTER all legal routes. This narrative that its jobs for the boys is unhinged at best with little or no facts in reality. When alba shout foul we take notice, When bloggers and their out of the loop audience shout foul my question is where is the proof ? A weegie from Govan in a vest and bowler hat txting has as much insight to whats happening as my three legged cat . The yoons are at action stations to deflect and sow discontent most if not all are using sites like this . Thankfully 2014 has shown how easy it is to spot them and the simple questions to ask that makes them impotant.
Stu
I hope you are correct I really do but I am not sure I have the same faith in any of our politician’s now to be honest. The standard falls election after election to where we no longer appear to have a bottom any more. I do think something has to give soon though as we just cannot keep going the way we are going accepting the denial of democracy. If we accept that then there is no Scotland and we are just Northern Britain’s no more and a lot less. Time will tell I guess as to where we end up, in fence of the bloggers lol, some of them are very very good, not me I just express my opinion but Barrhead Boy , Yours for Scotland, Grouse Beater are very good and come up with some really excellent scoops.
Thanks for commenting.
Bruce
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.