Total Visits

Monday, 19 May 2014

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM - Scottish independence: constitutional implications of the referendum


Audi Alteram Partem may not be the snappiest title for an article but it is an important principle of both decent propriety and of English Law. It is a fundamental principle of the “Rules of Natural Justice”. It has its roots in Anglo-Saxon Law and it means:- “Hear the other side i.e. of the argument"

(Click here for a learned explanation >>> ).

From, at least, the Act of Union in 1707 this maxim has also meant something in Scottish Law.

I mention Audi Alteram Partem because that is exactly what hasn’t happened in the making of a politically important report:- “Scottish independence: constitutional implications of the referendum”, by the House of Lords Constitution Committee.

This is a Committee in which there is a considerable over-representation of Brit/Scots and hardly any English and is also under the Chairmanship of Baroness Jay. Her only qualification to be in the upper chamber of our legislative assembly is Labourite nepotism. In a proper democracy the Lords would be called our “Senate” and would be properly democratically elected instead of stuffed with the cronies and the dodgy donors of the Establishment parties.

Below I quote an important extract from the text of the report which has been grandiosely entitled:- “Scottish independence: constitutional implications of the referendum”.

This is a Committee which point blank refused to hear evidence from any source that would contradict their politically motivated and pre-determined conclusions.

Baroness Jay has thus in a sense presided over a show trial of the sort that those other pillars of the Left, Joe Stalin and Mao Tse Tung would have been proud of. The aim in this case though wasn’t the ritual humiliation and then slaughter of opponents, but instead the destruction and dismemberment of England.

The bias of this report goes even beyond the refusal to hear the other side of the argument. It includes the attempt to belittle and dismiss any who advanced the contrary point of view. This has been done in the way that the English Democrats and the Campaign for an English Parliament have been referred to. Also His Honour Judge Ian Burns Campbell QC has been dismissed as a “retired diplomat”.

For those interested in hearing the real argument the issue is not the diversionary argument of whatever that oxymoron “International Law” may say. That is a complete red herring. What matters is the Constitution of the UK.

Once this point has been grasped it is painfully obvious that the concept of the “Rest of the UK” calmly sailing on in undisturbed constitutional waters, having quietly dropped Scotland overboard, is an utter fantasy.

If Scotland goes then it can only legally do so with the repeal of the relevant clauses of the Act of Union 1707. This means that the United Kingdom of Great Britain is dissolved and that any subsequent Union which may be cobbled together will not be the same constitutional entity that is now meant by the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

(E + S = GB therefore GB – S = E)

This scenario poses a direct challenge to the British Establishment. It will end their games of post imperial posing about “punching above our weight on the world stage” and, as the SNP have stated, means that none of the “Successor” or “New” States would need to automatically take on the vast debts of that most profligate and spendthrift entity, the British State! Cue: Exit Stage Left - panicking bankers and Eurocrats?

Here is the relevant part of the report:-

Principles governing independence

The UK as the continuator state

10. A central question about the constitutional position of the rest of the United Kingdom after a "yes" vote is whether it would continue as the same state. In other words, would the United Kingdom retain the statehood of the UK, with Scotland becoming a new breakaway state? If so, the rest of the UK would technically become the "continuator state" and Scotland the "successor state". Alternatively, would the remaining part of the United Kingdom and Scotland become two new states?

11. A great deal flows from this question. Were the rest of the UK to be the continuator state, it would retain all of the public institutions of the UK. It would retain the treaty obligations and memberships of international organisations of the existing UK. For example, the rest of the UK would continue as a member of the European Union (with the various opt-outs that the UK now has), the United Nations (including the permanent seat on its Security Council) and NATO. Such memberships would automatically continue; they would not have to be applied for. Were the rest of the UK to be the continuator state it would significantly shape negotiations after a "yes" vote.

12. A comprehensive legal opinion by Professor James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge, and Professor Alan Boyle, Professor of Public International Law at the University of Edinburgh, on the status of Scotland and the rest of the UK in international law was annexed to the Scotland analysispaper on Devolution and the implications of Scottish independence. We are not aware of any serious objection to their analysis of the principles of public international law that would apply to Scottish independence.

13. The UK Government's position follows this legal opinion: that the rest of the UK would become the continuator state and that Scotland would become a new, successor state. The Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Wallace of Tankerness QC, set out four main reasons for this:-

First, the majority of international precedents—from Russia being the continuator state on the break-up of the Soviet Union to Sudan continuing after South Sudan became a new state—point to the rest of the UK being the continuator state. The most directly relevant precedent is that Great Britain and Northern Ireland continued as the UK after the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922.
Secondly, the rest of the UK would retain the greater share of the population (92%) and territory (68%) of the existing UK. These factors are given weight in public international law.
Thirdly, the likelihood is that the majority of other states would recognise the rest of the UK as the continuator state and recognise Scotland as a new state.
Fourthly, where the alternative of two new states being created has applied—for example, when Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia—that has usually been by mutual agreement. The UK Government would not agree to the UK becoming a new state, so this alternative could not apply. It is relevant that the referendum is taking place only in Scotland: it is not a UK-wide referendum on whether the UK should split into two new states.

14. The majority of our witnesses agreed with this analysis.[11] Professor Alan Boyle said that it was the "only ... credible view". Professor Michael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics at the University of Aberdeen, referred to the "broad acceptance that the UK would be the continuing state." Professor Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory at the University of Edinburgh, agreed, as did commentators David Torrance and Mandy Rhodes. The commentator Alex Massie said that it appeared "to be the common-sense attitude. It will be the view that will be taken by the rest of the world. If you vote to leave a club, the club remains."

15. In her covering letter to the Scottish Government's written evidence the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, appeared to question the proposition that the rest of the UK would be the continuator state. She described it as an "assertion made by the UK" and quoted a passage from Professors Crawford and Boyle's advice in which they refer to the position in international law depending on arrangements made between the two governments and the position of other states. Having said that, the Scottish Government in their written evidence did not argue explicitly against the principle of the UK being the continuator state and we are not aware of them questioning it in other forums. David Torrance said the Scottish Government "have not taken an unequivocal position ... They appear to cast doubt on the rest of the United Kingdom being the [continuator] state, but they have not said what they think would happen." As so much flows from this it is incumbent on those who question whether the UK would be the continuator state to set out their analysis of what the alternative position would be.

16. The overwhelming view in the evidence we received was that after a "yes" vote the rest of the United Kingdom would continue as the same state: it would be the continuator state. Scotland would become a new, successor state.

17. This would be the case because relevant precedents support that position; it would be consistent with the rest of the UK having the majority of the territory and population of the existing UK; and it would reflect the likely opinion of other countries. No realistic alternative case has been made.

18. The fact that the rest of the UK would be the continuator state shapes discussion on the implications of independence; this report proceeds on that basis.


(11. We received written evidence to the contrary from the Campaign for an English Parliament, the English Democrats and Ian Campbell, a former diplomat.).

Click here for the whole report >>>


  1. Whoever said that the British establishment were post-imperial. Apparently, the New World Order has its home not in Washington but in the City of London where all our supposed former colonies, including the United States are listed as companies. In essence England is an economic colony of the City of London and this is becoming more and more obvious by the day. Hence the importation of indentured labour beginning in 1948. The British Empire in most places was the successor to companies like the East India Company. In essence it was an economic and finanacial empire as is the EU and the New World Order.
    The Americans, it has been suggested, are the wing that has to fight their economic wars, petrol and otherwise.

    In this regard, I watched with interest a documentary on Russia Today about the history of the annexation of Hawaii and moves by native Hawaiians to reverse the process and seek the independence they were guaranteed internationally until the American annexation of 1893, the overthrow of their government and monarchy and ultimately their absorption into the United States in 1959. Captain Cooke agreed a Treaty of Friendship with the Hawaiians. Obviously, they ultimately decided his intentions were not so friendly and thus killed him. Enter European settlers, most notably the Americans followed by economic colonisation - sounds like the Ukraine - until their fate was sealed. Thinking of this I think we should no longer speak of immigrants into England as their numbers are so vast and should rename them as settlers and view ourselves as the native Hawaiians do. They are the footsoldiers brought in at the behest of the same people who annexed Hawaii and behind them was still the shadowy British empire based in the square mile. The problem will be, if this Polynesian nationalism takes root, then what will be the fate of New Zealand.

    On another matter I happened to read a piece on the Marxist Oligarchy controlled British press about Russia's reaction to the result of the Eurovision Song Contest and its drag queen winner. Apparently the Russians were outraged and described this as the end of European Civilisation. As Russia is the last repository of European Christian Civilisation they should know what they are talking about.

    However, we are now living a Marxist totalitarian oligarchic age of Orwellian double speak. Hence America can talk of the liberation of the Ukrainians whilst they are preparing to reduce them to economic serfdom like those of us already in the EU. So the Russians are described as loonies and ultra nationalists. In the Marxist oligarchic New World Order, to be a nationalist is to be a neo-nazi and the most evil person on the planet, unless you are a Ukrainian nationalist and a neo-nazi but that is fine because you are taking part in the New World Order's liberation of those parts of the world still not under their control.

    As for loonies, most rational people thought the result of the Song Contest totally bonkers. But in the new Orwellian double speak we are the loonies. And of course, the Russians are so hated because they are standing up not only to economic obliteration by the Industrial Financial Complex of the West but because they are opposed to the West's "liberal" elite who have been equated with Stalin's totalitarian communist variety of Marxist in their refusal to allow any form of free speech which would have the effect of challenging their totalitarian, both political and economic, plans.

  2. "In a proper democracy the Lords would be called our “Senate”.

    Oh no! it wouldn't - in an English national (theedish) democracy (folkright), it would have a true English name; not an Ancwe (Ancillary World English) name. In oðer words, it would be called 'ðe House of Lords'/'ðe Huus av Laverds'.

    1. In my youth I railed against an hereditary - and mostly Norman - peerage. However, the prospect of two elected chambers fills me with dismay as well. Imagine two chambers carrying out the wishes of the three main parties or the one party as they have become. I agree that the present croney based House of Lords is wrong as well. I do not like the idea of an American style senate or anything American for that for that is what New Labour tried to turn our ancient nation into. In my old age I am beginning to pine for the hereditary peerage who were part of traditional England and more independent than either a Senate or the House of Croneys. If you want to be really English then I suppose the term should be the Upper Witan but I can't see that happening. Besides to be in a Witan you are meant to be wise and wisdom parted company with the vast bulk of our politicians long ago. I secretly scoff when the clergy pray for our governments to be guided by wisdom. Most of them are guided by the size of their bank balances and who will bribe them with the most.

  3. david cunningham20 May 2014 at 17:04

    A very interesting article from Robin..
    The enemy are not the Scottish Nats but the
    British establishment.Note the most important fact.
    That if the UK is dismantled none of its independent parts
    will be required to take on the horrific 1.3 trillion
    debt accumulated by the profligate British state.

    1. George Osborne has failed to mention the 1.3 trillion of debt - the greatest of any nation against its gdp - when he warned about UKIP and other populist parties ruining the economy that has been built up over the last 30 years!!?? I am sure that I am not alone in being bewidered about or smirking at the irony of his remarks. Where is this healthy economy that he is talking about? 30 years ago we still have nationalised companies not the rip-off utilities owned by foreigners and we were still manufacturing things not all working in fast food outlets or supermarkets, except for the kleptocrats in the City of London.
      Our manufacturing has been shipped abroad or sold to foreigners who have dismantled it. Hopefully, the English electorate are not too stupid to understand the irony of millionaire George's attack. Our economy and our country have been ruined by their evil globalisation which has only benefited the likes of George and his fellow oligarchs; but then that was undoubtedly the plan all along.

      What George really fears is the return of the old consensus where there was a democracy - they call it populism. We now have the prospect of Old Labour and Moderate Old Tory joining forces to scupper the plans of the arch-plutocratic globalizers like George. At a recent local UKIP meeting the candidate asked what we see when we look at the government front benches - the answer came back "multimillionaires". And as we know New Labour has plenty of multimillionaires of their own, including the vile trickster barrister, Tony Blair and his vile wife who made a fortune out of the Human Rights Act.

      George is getting very nervous that the people are revolting against Marxist oligarchic rule. Let's hope that he and all the other main parties get a bloody nose, despite the pin a red rosette on a donkey labour supporters who still think that New Labour care about them, this Thursday.

      Meanwhile, BBC News this morning failed to mention that a British reporter for Russia Today, Graham Phillips, had been captured in Eastern Ukraine and was being taken to Kiev as a Russian spy. Undoubtedly, this is because the government does not want this to leak out as it would embarrass them. No outrage at a British citizen being treated in this way.

      And yet the BBC told us in that bulletin that Prince Charles in Canada had likened President Putin to Hitler in the Ukraine in a speech. This struck me as strange as none of the Royal Family are allowed to express opinions on anything political in this way.
      Now it trarnspires that a Jewish lady at the Canadian museum of immigration being visited by Charles had said something along those lines and Charles probably just smiled and that was taken as agreement. I smell a set-up. It would have been nice if Charles had been able to reply that the present government in Kiev is dominated the descendants of those who had sided with the Nazis in the Ukraine during the War and are rabidly anti-semitic so he didn't know what she was talking about. But of course the Beeb is constrained to follow the government and Washington's line for fear of losing their licence fee. As for the Royal Family they are probably being leant on to do so also or face abolition. A truly Marxist federal Europe will undoubtedly be working at the removal of the remaining European crown heads and completing the work that they and their financial puppet masters began in 1917.

      Incidentally, I have just read that the little boy that Elton John wanted to adopt from an orphanage in the Ukraine is under attack from Kiev's forces in Mariupol. Unbelievably, the British tabloid actually quoted his grandmother as saying that she wanted her region to join Russia. How can this be since the New World Order backed putsch regime want to spread democracy and econmic prosperity. And I thought those who want to join Russia are, according to Kiev and ours and the American governments, all terrorists. She doesn't sound like a terrorist to me; but then more Orwellian double speak.

  4. So when England achieves independence, it will be the successor state and Wales and Northern Ireland will be the continuator state, i.e., with a place in the EU, a seat in the UN, membership of NATO with its obligations, responsiblity for the UK's overseas territories, signatory of the WTO etc., etc..
    Intriguing stuff.

  5. Londonistan ran up the 1.3 trillion debt.Let it and its debt be floated off into the North Sea, before it colonises England with its latest wave of "settlers". Put it into isolation before it destroys what is left of the English.

  6. The Debt is all down to RBS We should dismantle them and send the Invoice to Holyrood