Scotland Can Still Have Independence youtube youtu.be/o_l3B11Fos4 Scotland Can Still Have Independence youtube Scotland Can Still Have Independence youtube Scotland Can Still Have Independence youtube WE MUST SUPPORT SNP AS WELL AS THIS SOLUTION Scotland Can Still Have Independence youtube Christine Graeme Msp said we must declare Independence on the street and online. So, I 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. (Copy and Paste as reply please) copy and paste with you name on the Facebook page of the Westminster Resistance Movement THIS IS TOTALLY LEGAL WE ARE THE MAJORITY REMEMBER THE VOTE WAS RIGGED !! Transcript of the YouTube audio titled- Scotland can still have Independence now call on Christine Graeme to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm Christine Graeme-“thank you deputy presiding officer I have to agree, with David McClechie that power devolved indeed is power retained, were talking about obtaining independence and he also knows as a divorce lawyer as was myself, as when one party sees the end of marriage, the marriage is at an end, the detail is then negotiated according to law and practice, the same would happen in the dissolution within the two parts of a United Kingdom. I think it is important however, to work back sometimes to why some assertions are made for example for the claim of rights that the Scottish people are sovereign , so much slips into our everyday parlance that has a deep rooted and substantial cultural or constitutional genesis , for example, when you hear when Scots are reprimanded for saying “I seen it” or “I done it” this in fact language 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 right in 1989 of the words “that we gathered as a Scottish constitutional convention do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine to form a government best suited their needs”, indeed that constitutional convention was proposed in a private members bill away back in 1980 by SNP leader Gordon Wilson, now where did that sovereign right come from? There is no UK written constitution but fragments of an incomplete constitutional jigsaw some predating the treaty of Union, for example, as I have already mentioned you have to go back far back as the “ DECLARATION OF ARBROATH” a declaration of Scottish Independence and of conditional Monarchy yet the Quote King Robert the Bruce of Scotland “ yet if he should give up what he has begun and agreed to make us Kingdom subjects to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy as a subvertor 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 a hundred of us remain alive, never will be in any condition be brought under English rule “ that is a King there but by leave, that those of the time representing the people, a narrow bunch at the time some 51magnets and nobles, but never the less he was on parole. Now the significance of those words resonated through the centuries, that the monarch the power to rule was conditional on the will of the then people of Scotland this is reflected in the fact the Queen Elizabeth is Queen of Scots, and not of Scotland, sovereignty therefor now exercise this democracy by various institutions is exercise to the expressed will of the Scottish people, which takes me to why Queen Elizabeth is designed as Queen of England. I think of my recollection is accurate it was Henry Eighth of the Tudor dynasty when installing himself as head of the church which 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 source sovereignty , and so the English parliament was sovereign, but that does not overrule or supersede the conflicting principle, 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 the parliament of Great Britain, the significance is that IT WAS NOT A CONTINUATION OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT OR INDEED THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT SOVEREIGNTY THEREFOR FOR SCOTLAND REMAINS AS IT ALWAYS WAS WITH THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND, and I can also mention the case McCormack 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 in that case and I quote “ considering that the union legislation extinguished the parliaments of England and Scotland and replace them by a new parliament of Great Britain , 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, as if all that had happened in 1707 was that the Scottish representatives were omitted in the parliament of England, that was not done the principal of the unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctly an English principal which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. So why the constitutional 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 in 1997 there was no Scottish institutions to provide a mechanism for asking the Scottish people a question on the constitution in 1979 the UK government took upon itself by drawing up a referendum and of course drew up the questions, chose the date 1st March 1979 right in the middle of winter of discontent , right in the middle when snow was falling over Scotland, that in itself was an omen , BUT THE 40% RULE WHICH EFFECTIVELY COUNTED THE DEAD AND THOSE NOT EXERCISED THEIR FRANCHISE TO VOTE, AS A NO WAS THE REAL TREACHERY COMPOUNDED BY SIR ALEX DOUGLAS HUME ON THE EVE OF POLE BROADCASTING THAT YOU SHOULD VOTE NO FOR A BETTER DEAL. NOW WE HAVE OUR OWN MECHANISMS IN OUR OWN SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT BUT WE DON’T NEED TO HAVE A PARLIAMENT, EVEN IF THIS DID NOT EXIST, AND THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE WERE TO STREAM ON OUT ON THE STREETS OF OUR TOWNS AND CITIES, INTO OUR VILLAGES WITH A MEGAPHONE, ONLINE OR ON MARCHES WITH A CLEAR VOICE THAT THEY WANTED AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND AGAIN THAT WOULD BE A DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND NO CHALLENGE FROM THE PALACE OR WESTMINSTER OR THE CORRIDORS OF THE UNITED NATIONS OR THIS PLACE, OR ANY COURTS COULD GO AGAINST IT , THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE WOULD SAY THEYVE DONE IT , AND THEY DONE IT THERE WAY. The end Westminster Resistance Movement If we can organize all the marches and rallies being put together for one day, the same day, we will achieve Independence in one day. We set up tables in towns, cities and villages the day of the rallies and we collect signatures as a clandestine back up to the Peoples voice. This can be scheduled in two weeks with the correct organization. Let us unite as the Nation we are. The Establishment is just expecting us to roll over and accept this.
Posted on: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 19:03:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015