WESTMINSTER’S IMPLIED CLAIM OF SOVEREIGNTY

Published by scott4indy on


The UK Governments claim of Sovereignty over matters relating to Scotland comes from out dated ENGLISH legislation much of which pre-dates the Acts of the Union and is often cherry picked to back up parliament’s claim of sovereignty, and when these laws are challenged, the UK Government simply introduces new laws to override them, such as the Parliament Act which was passed in order to stop the house of lords from vetoing any legislation passed in the commons, another typical example is the English 1689 Bill of Rights Act, while the protestants right to bear arms has long since been removed, article 9 is still cited to protect MP’s from prosecution.

The parliamentary website describes this claim of sovereignty as follows;-
Parliament’s authority –
Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change.

Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

Parliamentary sovereignty and the UK constitution

People often refer to the UK having an ‘unwritten constitution’ but that’s not strictly true. It may not exist in a single text, like in the USA or Germany, but large parts of it are written down, much of it in the laws passed in Parliament – known as statute law. Therefore, the UK constitution is often described as ‘partly written and wholly uncodified’. (Uncodified means that the UK does not have a single, written constitution.)
Developments affecting Parliamentary sovereignty
Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.
They include:
The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
The Human Rights Act 1998.
The UK’s entry to the European Union in 1973.
The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK’s final court of appeal.

These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

The 1998 Scotland Act was written in such a way as to restrict the powers of the Scottish Government and allow the UK Government to maintain control, even those areas that are devolved are not safe from the clutches of Westminster as they claim to have the right to make or unmake any laws, including those that are deemed as unchangeable.

Take this as an example.

The Scotland Act 1998 – c. 46 – Part I – Legislation – Section 28;

(7) This section does not affect the power of the “Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland”.

The “POWER” to make laws for Scotland….

It is accepted that prior to the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament that matters relating to Scottish legislation subject to certain provisions were a matter for the Parliament of Great Britain as cited in the Union with England Act 1707, however it can be argued that since the majority of the people of Scotland chose to reconvene the Scottish Parliament and that since devolution it has been accepted that this Parliament is for the representation of the Scottish people, then all matters of legislation should now be the responsibility of the Scottish Government and the Scotland act should be amended to remove the legislative competence over reserved matters and return all powers of legislation to the Scottish Government.

This would also be in accordance with article five of the United Nations General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of the 14th of December 1960 which states;

Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire.

It is also worth considering that the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood was granted the status of a Government by virtue of section 12 of the Scotland Act 2012 which states “The Scottish Executive is renamed the Scottish Government” and as the Government of Scotland, it should be allowed to govern its own country without any restrictions being imposed on it by the government of another country.

The UK Government has consistently stated that it will not consent to Scotland holding a second independence referendum. Their standard (and often repeated) reply is that in 2014 Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom and that they will continue to respect that decision.

However, all referendums in the UK are advisory and Westminster cannot use the 2014 result indefinitely as an excuse to overrule Scotland’s request to hold a second referendum, especially now, given the fact that so much has changed in such a short time. Plus, they have to take into consideration the fact that since the referendum in 2014, the people of Scotland have elected a government on a mandate of a second independence referendum and have twice returned a majority of Scottish pro-independence MP’s to Westminster.

The request for a second referendum on Scottish Independence is based on Scotland being taken out of the European Union against the wishes of the Scottish Electorate, who voted overwhelmingly to remain.

Petition To UK Government

It is also worth remembering that on the 04th of July 2018, the House of Commons endorsed the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and then ratified by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and acknowledged the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. So given all that, it is absolute nonsense for anybody to suggest that a democratic country cannot go to the polls if a situation demands a response from the people.

Was it a “Once in a Lifetime” vote?

It may well have been a “once in a lifetime opportunity” for many, but nowhere in either the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement or in the 2013 Scottish Independence Referendum Act, does it mention a time scale for a second referendum, and there is certainly no reference to it being “once in a lifetime” nor is there any reference to a “promise that it would settle the issue for a generation” as has been stated in the official government reply to both mine and the petition replied to on the 25th of April 2019.

Furthermore, chapter 2:18 of the 2014 report of the Smith Commission for further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament stated “that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose”.

THE UK GOVERNMENTS REFUSAL TO GRANT AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 30 TO FACILITATE A SECOND INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM IS BOTH UNDEMOCRATIC AND ILLEGAL

The UK Governments continued refusal to grant an order to hold a second independence referendum, removing the democratic rights of the Scottish people to make any kind of decision regarding the future of Scotland, contravenes article one of the United Nations.

The principle of selfdetermination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. … All peoples have the right to selfdetermination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

https://unpo.org/article/4957

It is a matter of choice for the people of Scotland to either continue to accept Westminster’s claim of Sovereignty over them, or to reject that claim and move forward as an independent nation where the decisions for Scotland’s future are made by the Scottish Government and not by a Conservative led UK Government who the people of Scotland have rejected overwhelmingly since 1959…


only the people of Scotland can end Westminster rule