Search just our sites by using our customised search engine

Unique Cottages | Electric Scotland's Classified Directory

Click here to get a Printer Friendly PageSmiley

The Treaty of Union of 1707
The Attempted Murder of the Kingdom of Scotland

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) 

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....  


We owe it to our ancestors and to our children.

Return to Scottish Historical Articles


This comment system requires you to be logged in through either a Disqus account or an account you already have with Google, Twitter, Facebook or Yahoo. In the event you don't have an account with any of these companies then you can create an account with Disqus. All comments are moderated so they won't display until the moderator has approved your comment.

comments powered by Disqus