Click to copy, then share by pasting into your messages, comments, social media posts and websites.
Click to copy, then add into your webpages so users can view and engage with this video from your site.
Report Content
We also accept reports via email. Please see the Guidelines Enforcement Process for instructions on how to make a request via email.
Thank you for submitting your report
We will investigate and take the appropriate action.
Claim of Right: Scottish Independence - Constitutional Sovereignty of Scottish People
Former MSP Christine Grahame’s presentation in the Scottish Parliament, 26 Jan 2012, Claim of Right - transcript at the following links (partly reproduced below): https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2012-01-26.38.43
—
Christine Grahame’s (MSP), Scottish Parliament, 26 Jan 2012, Claim of Right
I have to agree with David McLetchie that power devolved is, indeed, power retained. We are talking about obtaining independence. As a divorce lawyer—as I was—he knows 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 separation of two parts of the United Kingdom.
It is sometimes important to work back to why certain assertions are made—for example, in the claim of right, the assertion that the Scottish people are sovereign. Much slips into our everyday parlance that has a deep-rooted and substantive cultural constitutional genesis. For example, we hear Scots being reprimanded for saying “I seen it” or “I done it”. That is, in fact, grammatical language. Those phrases have survived through centuries of spoken Scots. They are not lazy or ignorant slang, but an echo from the past.
That takes me to the claim of right from 1989 and 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 to their needs”.
That Constitutional Convention was proposed in a private members bill way back in 1980 by the SNP leader, Gordon Wilson. Where did that sovereign right come from? There is no written UK constitution, but there are fragments of an incomplete constitutional jigsaw, some of which predate the treaty of union. We have to go as far back as the declaration of Arbroath—a declaration of Scottish independence and of conditional monarchy. Talking of Robert the Bruce, it says:
“Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to 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 our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule.”
That shows that he was a king who was in office by leave of those who, at the time, represented the people. They were a narrow bunch—some 51 magnates and nobles—but, nevertheless, he was on parole.
The significance of those words, resonating through the centuries, is that the monarch’s power to rule was conditional on the will of the people of Scotland. That is reflected in the fact that Queen Elizabeth is Queen of Scots and not of Scotland. Therefore, sovereignty—now exercised in this democracy by various institutions—is exercised through the expressed will of the Scottish people.
That takes me to why Queen Elizabeth is designed Queen of England. If my recollection is accurate, Henry VIII of the Tudor dynasty, installing himself as the head of the church, embedded the divine right of kings to rule. Sovereignty—the embodiment of which was the monarch—was absolute. However, as power was removed from the Crown and transferred to the English Parliament through the centuries, so was sovereignty. Therefore, the English Parliament was, indeed, sovereign, but that does not overrule or supersede the conflicting principle of the sovereignty of the Scottish people.
Article III of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 says:
“That the United Kingdom … be represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled The Parliament of Great Britain.”
The significance of that is that that Parliament was not a continuation of the English Parliament or of the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, for Scotland, sovereignty remains as it always was—with the people.
I pray in aid the case of MacCormick v the Lord Advocate, from the 1953 session cases. At that time, postboxes with “E II R” on them had been blown up, because Elizabeth was the first Elizabeth of Scotland. In that case, the following remarks were made obiter:
“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 … as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done … The principle of the unlimited sovereignty
See full transcript here: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2012-01-26.38.43
Category | News & Politics |
Sensitivity | Normal - Content that is suitable for ages 16 and over |
Playing Next
Related Videos
4 years, 6 months ago
Holyrood Park Edinburgh AUOB 6/10/2018
4 years, 6 months ago
Synology DS-207+, Ubuntu Gutsy 7.10 and Network Printing
4 years, 6 months ago
4 years, 6 months ago
AUOB March Starting Down Royal Mile Edinburgh 6/10/2018
4 years, 6 months ago
Warning - This video exceeds your sensitivity preference!
To dismiss this warning and continue to watch the video please click on the button below.
Note - Autoplay has been disabled for this video.