Unilateral Declaration of Independence
Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) is a formal process leading to the establishment of a new state by a subnational entity which declares itself independent and sovereign without a formal agreement with the national state from which it is seceding.
The term was first used when Rhodesia declared independence in 1965 from the United Kingdom (UK) without an agreement with the UK.
The method of UDI is considered controversial in international law.
The following is from the UDI website. (Please note that the SPP and the UDI site have no affiliation)
When is Scottish history downplayed and deemed irrelevant and historical nonsense that belongs in the past?
When it conflicts or contradicts with the English version of History of course.
Scotland’s 700 years old Declaration of Arbroath bares as much relevance in Our Life today as the 300 years old Act of Union does for England today.
The Arbroath Declaration supersedes the Act of Union. In fact, the Act of Union is illegal as it now exists.
The Act of Union, as a Trade Agreement, which it is, is perfectly acceptable.
But our Constitutional Rights as Sovereign Scots were never sighed away.
As soon as the political maneuvering had placed England as the dominate, ruling force, the Act of Union was rendered illegal.
We have all been conned for 300 years.
Scotland’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence
I, ………………., do hereby declare, as is my Constitutional Right as a Sovereign Scot, that Scotland is an Independent Sovereign Nation, and that We, as a Nation, no longer consent to Westminster Governance.
I have to agree with David McLetchie, power devolved is indeed power retained.
We are talking about independence and he also knows, as a divorce lawyer as I was myself, that when one party sees the end of the marriage, the marriage is at an end, the detail is then negotiated according to law and practice.
The same would happen in the dissolution between two parts of the United Kingdom.
I think it’s important however, to work back sometimes to why certain assertions are made.
For example in the Claim of Rights the Scottish people are sovereign. So much slips into our everyday parlance that has a deep-rooted and substantive cultural or constitutional genesis.
For example when you hear Scots reprimanded for saying “I seen it”’ or “I done it” this is in fact language that is grammatical phrases that have survived through centuries of spoken Scots.
They are not lazy or ignorant slang but an echo from the past which takes me to the Claim of Rights.
In 1989 are the words we gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited there needs.
Indeed that constitutional convention was proposed in a private members bill way back in 1980 by the SNP leader Gordon Wilson.
Now where did that sovereign right come from? There is no written UK constitution but fragments of an incomplete constitutional jigsaw, some predating as far back as The Declaration of Arbroath, a Declaration of Scotland’s Independence and also of conditional monarchy, yet the quote is “Yet if he should give up“, talking about Robert the Bruce, “What he has begun and agree to make us a kingdom subjects of the King of England, or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours and make some other man who was well able to defend us as our King for as long as but one hundred of us remain alive never will we in any conduit be brought under English rule.
That gives a King thereby leave of those at the time representing the people a narrow bunch at the time, some 51 magnates and nobles but never the less he was on parole” Now the significance of these words resonates through the centuries are that the monarch the power to rule was conditional on the will of then people of Scotland.
This is reflected in the fact the queen Elizabeth of Scots and not of Scotland.
Sovereignty therefore now exercised in this democracy by various institutions is exercised through the express will of the Scottish people which takes me to why Queen Elizabeth is designed as queen of England.
I think if my recollection is accurate, it was Henry the eighth of the Tudor dynasty who installing himself as head of the church embedded the Divine Right of Kings to rule sovereignty.
The embodiment of which was the monarch was absolute as through centuries power was removed from the Crown and transferred to the English Parliament so sovereignty.
And so the English Parliament was indeed sovereign but that does not overrule or supersede the conflicting principle of the sovereignty of the Scottish people.
The Treaty of Union 1706 article 3 states “that the United Kingdom be represented by one and the same parliament to be styled as the parliament of Great Britain” the significance is that it was not a continuation of the English Parliament nor indeed the Scottish Parliament, sovereignty therefore remains as it always has with the Scottish people.
I can also gain say the case of McColl against the Lord Advocate 1953 session cases. It was the blowing up of the post-boxes with E2R on them because Elizabeth was the first Elizabeth of Scotland.
And the following remarks made of it in that case and I quote “Considering that the Union legislation extinguished Parliaments of England and Scotland and replaced them by a new Parliament of Great Britain”.
I have difficulty in seeing why it should be supposed that the new parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament as if all that happened in 1707 was of the Scottish representatives were admitted the Parliament of England that was not done.
The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law. So why the potted history lesson? Because it is significant to the legitimacy of the referendum. It is of course not consultative it has legal constitutional authority as well as political authority.
In 1979 and then 1997 there was no Scottish Institution to provide a mechanism for asking the Scottish People a question on the constitution.
In 1979 the UK government took it upon itself by drawing up a referendum and of course the questions, choose the date, First of March 1979, right in the middle of the winter of discontent when snow as falling over Scotland.
That in itself was an omen while the 40% rule which effectively counted the dead and those not exercising their franchise to vote as a no was the treachery compounded by Sir Alex Douglas Home on the eve of poll broadcast that we should vote no for a better deal. Plus ca change plus la meme chose (The more the change the more it remains the same.)
Now we have our own mechanism in the Scottish Parliament but we don’t need to have a parliament, even if this didn’t exist and the Scottish people were to stream out onto the streets of our towns and cities into our villages on megaphones, on marches, online and say with a clear voice they wanted an independent Scotland again that would be a declaration of independence and no challenge from the palace of Westminster, nor the corridors of the United Nations or this place, nor any courts could gainsay it.
The Scottish people could then say they did it and they did it their way.
She has been the Member of the Scottish Parliament for theMidlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, having previously been a member for the South of Scotland region, first elected in the 1999 election and subsequently re-elected in 2003 and 2007.
Christine Grahame is a supporter of the political organisation Republic, a campaign to replace the British Monarchy with an elected head of state.