Please note that these are truncated versions of Leah's original articles - we cannot support the many images accompanying the pieces but most can be viewed via the hyperlinks.
To make sure of receiving the full articles please subscribe to 'Dear Scotland':
About - Dear Scotland (substack.com)
Sep 26
Andy Anderson explains how the UK government has hoodwinked the Scottish People - and our legislators - into believing that English Law is supreme over Scots Law. But it can’t be since the Treaty of Union preserved the independence of Scots law which derives its authority from the sovereign Scottish People. He asks the Scottish administration to Respect Scottish Sovereignty by implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into Scots law so the Scottish People can use their sovereign power to determine the form of government they want.
Jurisprudence is the “theory or philosophy of law.” But whose law?
The UK establishment is using English, not Scots, law to blatantly hoodwink the Scottish People in order to deny them their Civil and Political Rights.
My MSP recently told me that he was only prepared to act in accordance with what he called “real law.”
He was referring to the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) whose laws and interpretation of those laws he considered to be “real” and therefore must be respected and obeyed. His view on whether a law was real or unreal was whatever the civil servants advised him.
This is troubling. He’s an elected legislator yet doesn’t understand the basic principles of jurisprudence. He’s a democrat, a free-thinking citizen of a democratic society, but seems to accept, without question, that the “real” laws he’s compelled to comply with, whether he likes them or not, aren’t laws he has the right to create, or amend. They come from a ‘higher authority’ and like any subject in a monarchy or dictatorship, his duty is to obey the law, not to question it.
Legal systems aren’t created in a vacuum but within a political entity, and are designed to apply to all the people under that entity. The political entity, or state, may be a monarchy, a one-person dictatorship, an oligarchy, or a democracy, but there must be a state and some form of “sovereignty” in that state, because a legal system needs a sovereign power from which to draw its authority, otherwise there will be civil division or even civil war.
Scotland has had its own legal framework and sovereign authority for centuries - the Scottish People. Scotland, by international treaty, shares in the Westminster Parliament, and is therefore subject to parliamentary statutes passed by the Westminster Parliament, provided they comply with and don’t breach Scottish constitutional law or challenge Scottish sovereignty.
Another vital aspect of jurisprudence is that all laws must be respected, or at least tolerated, by the great majority of the people in the political entity, because if a substantial minority of the people refuse to tolerate a law then law enforcement, no matter how brutal, can’t sustain that law.
That principle was clearly illustrated in legislation to force the people of Skye to pay a high price to cross the bridge to the mainland or face a criminal charge.
The small population didn’t tolerate this law and eventually the big powerful state had to abandon it.
The so-called UK Supreme Court (UKSC) flies in the face of these basic principles of jurisprudence. There’s a UKSC, but there are no other UK courts, because there is no UK legal framework. The UKSC is supposed to act as a final appeal court in terms of two separate legal systems, the English and the Scots, which have two different sources of sovereign authority.
So what sovereign authority does the UKSC use? The English version, so it’s an English court, not a UK court, and as such has no place in the Treaty of Union. (Article 19 of the Treaty preserved the independence of Scotland’s legal system).
This English court wants us to accept that the Westminster Parliament passed the Scotland Act in a political vacuum, that it decided, of its own volition, that Scotland should have a parliament and set one up.
We’re to believe that the Scottish People played no role in this whatsoever, that this was solely the Westminster Parliament that created it, determined the rules, and can shut it down at any time without reference to the Scottish People.
This has no basis in reality and like much of the semi-feudal unwritten English constitution, it’s make-believe.
The Westminster Parliament resisted the demands of the Scottish People for years to set up a devolved Scottish parliament. It ignored mass petitions and a clear majority in a referendum.
It eventually conceded to the people’s demands when it could no longer resist them. The actual preparation for the legislation was done in Scotland. All that Westminster did was insist on reserved issues and vote the act through.
So, the idea that this is a purely legal matter with no political implications as the UKSC is asserting, is wrong.
However, rather than become mired in sterile legal debates, there’s a more direct way for Scotland to address this issue and move positively towards independence, which an increasing number of Scots now recognise to be the best way forward.
My MSP tells me that he acknowledges, and respects, Scottish sovereignty. If he means this, then he must know that Scottish sovereignty is supreme in Scots law and can’t be challenged by a new body such as the Westminster-established UKSC.
He appears to be confused by the UKSC’s recent pronouncement that the Scottish Parliament could not act outwith the powers of the Westminster statute, “The Scotland Act,” because within that act, certain areas of policy are “reserved” and the Scottish Parliament has no power to act on a reserved matter. However, this judgement related just to the Scottish Parliament, not to the sovereignty of the Scottish People, or to the Scottish People’s rights.
The important question is how can the Scottish People use their sovereign power to determine the form of government that they want?
Fortunately, there’s a solution. The UK signed the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) back in 1976 and this included Scotland as a part of the UK. Article 25 of this Covenant establishes the right of any people to direct democracy and the ability to have a referendum at any time on matters which are of importance to them.
The UK failed to incorporate this Covenant into domestic English law. The UK also ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which it also failed to bring into English law, but the Scottish Parliament brought it into Scots law. As such, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child can’t be challenged by the UKSC or the UK Government.
It then follows that the Scottish Government should do two things without delay:
(1) They should attach an amendment to the Victims, Witness, Justice Reform (VWJR) Bill (Scotland) currently progressing through parliament to ensure that the Bill goes before the Scottish People in a referendum before becoming law by adding the words “subject to referendum.” By doing so, they will be confirming that the Scottish People are sovereign.
(2) They should legislate to incorporate ICCPR into Scots Law, which they are empowered to do under Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. This would give the Scottish People the tools they need to exercise their civil and political rights.
If the Scottish Government addressed this issue decisively, the path to Scottish independence would be wide open to the Scottish People whenever they wanted to use it, even if our large neighbour wasn’t happy about it.
Failing to secure the political rights to which the Scottish People are entitled under a UN Covenant is a colossal dereliction of duty by the SNP Scottish Government which has the power to act now. We the People must demand that it use that power to enact ICCPR into Scots Law without further delay.
Andy Anderson
Sep 27
In his latest propaganda piece, Viceroy Murray trumpets that change has begun for Scotland under English Labour. He arrogantly claims his party '“did well” in the general election despite just 17.52% of UK adults ticking the English Labour box.
He repeats the lie of a £22b black hole that justifies letting pensioners freeze and keeping kids in poverty, ignoring that the UK government’s wholly-owned bank is at its beck and call. (But that hasn't stopped the UK from giving Ukraine £12b since 2022.) All Reeves has to do is order the Bank of England to create the money and then make the investments this disunited kingdom so desperately needs. But that wouldn’t satisfy English Labour’s corporate donors who are expecting payback.
He laments Scotland’s lack of an industrial strategy but is allowing Grangemouth to close, which will make Scotland the only one of the top 25 major oil producing nations without a refinery.
Meanwhile, the UK is stealing Scotland’s renewable energy and jacking up electricity prices in its coldest nation. As compensation, it’s slapping a brass plate onto the GB Energy shell company. And the newly appointed UK climate envoy, Rachel Kyte, is the co-chair of the Quadrature Climate Foundation, linked to the Cayman Islands hedge fund that invests in fossil fuels (and weapons) and in May donated £4m to English Labour.
The Viceroy is happy with the UK government pausing a £25m growth and investment grant for Argyll and Bute which included housing developments and business and tourism facilities that would have created 300 jobs.
He’s no doubt thrilled with English Labour’s plan to change the law allowing him to bypass the Scottish parliament, which he can count on the other 36 English Labour MPs in Scotland to nod through. They know who butters their bread.
Finally, his boss’s list of freebies from Lord Alli continues to grow with the revelation that Sir Keir accepted £20k from the good Lord to help Starmer junior study ‘peacefully’ for his GCSEs.
If this is “delivering for Scotland,” God help us.
Sep 27
The US and NATO aren’t the only countries doing ‘strategic ambiguity’ to keep Russia guessing about their intentions regarding Ukraine, a hot mess they alone are responsible for creating. In response to western sabre rattling, President Putin proposed revisions to Russia’s nuclear doctrine.
The key changes are:
1) Aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear State [Ukraine], but with the participation or support of a nuclear State [US] is proposed to be considered as their joint attack on the Russian Federation.
2) The conditions for Russia’s transition to the use of nuclear weapons are also clearly defined. We will consider this possibility as soon as we receive reliable information about the massive launch of air and space attack vehicles and their crossing of our state border. I am referring to strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic and other aircraft.
3) We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Union State. All these issues have been agreed with the Belarusian side and the President of Belarus. Including if the enemy, using conventional weapons, creates a critical threat to our sovereignty.
This has left the US/NATO uncertain as to the threshold(s) that must be crossed in order for Russia to go nuclear. For once, Russia is giving the US/NATO a taste of its own medicine.
With each passing day it becomes clearer that project Ukraine has failed. In New York, Zelensky said: “Russia has destroyed all our thermal power plants and a large part of our hydroelectric capacity.” Winter’s on the horizon.
And they’re running out of men. Estimates of Ukrainian military losses as of September 24th 2024 are: 620,000 killed, 665,000 wounded (including serious) and 6,500 NATO mercenaries killed. Russia’s losses are estimated at 47,000 killed, 121,200 wounded (including serious). Work out the ratio - it’s not in Ukraine’s favour.
Starmer’s Washington trip earlier this month, where he expected to announce together with senile Joe Biden that the US and UK would be granting Zelensky permission to unleash long-range missiles deep into Russian territory, came to nought.
Biden was instructed to bin this mad caper, at least for now, by saner heads in the Pentagon.
Political commentator James Howard Kunstler said this about Sir Keir’s blundering foray into international affairs:
Meanwhile, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer was all revved up for the missile operation and flew to Washington for a one-to-one meet-up with “JB” to get the go-ahead. The Brits are avid for another World War. The last two went so well for them that they kissed their vast empire goodbye. Now they want to kiss goodbye their sceptered isle itself, which has almost no economy left and is overrun by cultural hostiles who are not into Shakespeare. The Brits’ floundering government is a posse of monomaniacs fixated on defeating Russia which, at this point in history, is like a dormouse (Glis glis) facing down a brown bear (Ursus arctos).
“Joe Biden,” reportedly “furious” at losing his executive power, was constrained to tell Mr. Starmer that the missile strike op was off, which left the UK PM miffed that he had crossed the ocean for no reason. Who knows, the Brits are so nuts these days that perhaps they’ll try to pull it off on their own. Mr. Zelensky, the no-longer-elected leader of Ukraine was begging them to try it because Ukraine has nothing left. NATO as a whole really has nothing left, either. Not much of a combined military, scant munitions left in the cupboard, and no will to wage war among the depressed citizens of its member nations.
The NY Times reported missile strikes into Russia would risk retaliation and not change course of the conflict. US intelligence agencies warned that Washington, London and Paris wouldn’t survive if Kyiv strikes deep into Russia.
But seriously, what does NATO have left to give Ukraine apart from bluster? Despite the yapping of its Baltic chihuahuas about securing the Baltic Sea, “NATO’s lake”, the reality is that NATO members have neither the manpower nor weaponry to take on Russia and they know it.
Furthermore, western political leadership has never been weaker. Macron, Scholz, Biden, Starmer are all unpopular.
The public has cottoned on to the Ukraine folly and are sick and tired of money flowing to wars while their economies tank. A leading German automotive supplier just declared bankruptcy:
As for the failing UK, this video summarises its 100 year economic decline, which Sir Keir’s anti-growth policies will accelerate.
But Russia’s economy show no signs of faltering.
As long as it remains chained to the sinking UK, Scotland’s future looks bleak
No spam or ads, just the latest posts and updates from Scotland's newest pro-independence blog.
.png)
