. David Straiton.
,




Blog Details-Google search engine.
Scotland—A Proud Nation?? Hail Caledonia..

AN ILLEGAL UNION

Much has been written down the years of the greatest “DEMOCRATIC UNION” the world has ever witnessed, I of course refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To my knowledge there has never been any question of the legitimacy of this political and economic Union of Nations. I would like to elaborate on this controversial subject in my own largely amateurish style, since its inception the movement to protect “Human Rights” has come into ascendancy, which led me to investigate the records on the web of that fateful period around 1707, and the actual act of Scotland’s submission to a “Long” period of subjugation by a foreign power. My research (which of necessity was quite short) revealed the following information, which I feel should be examined in a serious vein by experts in Constitutional affairs. At the time of the signing of the Act, the Scottish Parliament consisted of the “Three Estate”, which were the Nobility, The Commissioners of the Shires, and The Commissioners for the Burghs. These last two named were the top echelon of the business (or mercantile) community. According to Wiki.a large group of these Parliamentarians had invested heavily in the disastrous “Darien Adventure” and were anxious to sign up for the Act; in the hope that they would.(in the event of union with England) gain recompense through the largesse of their former “ADVERSARIES” south of the border. Of course history again teaches of the blatant bribery of the Nobility of Scotland, with cash and land transactions. This Parliamentary structure was effectively an “OLIGARCHY” with values consistent with Feudal times.

The ratification of the treaty was greeted by a storm of protests from every quarter of the Nation; in fact the authorities deemed them so serious; that they declared a state of “MARTIAL LAW”. One event of note occurred when the Carrilllioner of St.Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh, on the day of the signing; peeled the bells to the tune “Why am I so sad on my wedding day”. Indeed there was not one petition in favour of this travesty of justice, including the Kirk and the Convention of Royal Burghs.

In my narrative so far I have presented the case in terms of the “UNDEMOCRATIC ACT OF UNION” There is in an actuality another critical approach to this issue, I refer to the controversial subject of “HUMAN RIGHTS”(H.R.).We as a civilized society should be completely unequivocal about this” THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS”!

The world order has changed dramatically in contrast with the decadent days of the signing of the Union. There exist now various agencies which operate under the auspices of the United Nations. The most pertinent to my exposition is “The International Covenant On Civil and Political Rights (I.C.C.P.R.).The following is a brief synopsis of the parameters adopted by this organization, which apply to all Nations which are signatories to its protocols; including “BRITAIN(ENGLAND):-
It commits its parties to respect the civil and “Political Rights of Individuals”,including the right to lifr,freedom of religion,freedom of speech,freedom of assembly,”Electoral Rights”and rights to due process and a fair trial.
If this modern concept of H.R.is applied to the abstract format of the Act of Union, it is palpably evident that it contravened several of the principles of the above quoted set of specifications of this organization.

In very recent times the world, particularly the Middle East, has witnessed a series of wars (Illegal and otherwise) and revolutionary actions. These have invariably been fought on behalf of the H.R.of the people of the respective countries. Ironically these conflicts have received the backing of N.A.T.O.of which Britain (England) is a prominently active member. In other words the sheer hypocrisy revealed by the Westminster Governments campaigning for H.R.Justice for these Nations, should be viewed in the manner they implement their policies with regard to the rights of the Scottish people. In May of this year the S.N.P.were elected by a large majority, contaned in their manifesto was a commitment to hold a referendum on Independence. Implicit in this situation was the fact that the proposed referendum was a reflection of the “WILL of the PEOPLE”. Any interference by Westminster would be a direct violation of the terms of the charter of the I.C.C.P.R.This would lead to the justification of the Scottish Government presenting their chain of evidence in an appeal to this institution.

SCOTLAND RETAINS THE RIGHT TO NATIONHOOD.A border remains recognized between the two countries, consult any map and Scotland is annotated separate from England.Scotland has its own Church (Kirk), Education System, Process of Law, and importantly a Parliament, although somewhat limited in Autonomy at the present, nevertheless was elected in a probative Democratic System far superior to the Anachronistic equivalent south of the border. Travel to anywhere in the world and say you are Scottish, people will acknowledge that you originate in the “NATION” of Scotland. This despite the stigma of being associated with the U.K.

I sincerely hope that my good friends have the patience to read my “long” attempt at highlighting something which I deem of vital importance to the future of Scotland.

My Kindest Regards To “ALL” of you,

David. lol