Subject: Interesting information from North of the Border
From: Veronica
Date: 2/3/14 2:51 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

From my friend Mark.

There are have been a number  of Unions. First with Scotland, and then with Ireland. Each time each of the “parties” (aka “Parliaments”) have agreed Treaties, in order to create a thing ... eventually called “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern  Ireland”.

(The Union with Scotland created the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” part).

Now, what that original Act (i.e. Treaty) of Union (with Scotland) said was (Article 4):

That the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging. And that there be a Communication of all other Rights, Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwayes expressly agreed in these Articles.


Which means that a Scotsman & and Englishman should ALWAYS have the same, fundamental, Rights … FOR EVER!!!

However, the Union did agree that Scotland should retain it’s own LEGAL system. Note: LEGAL system … NOT “Law”.

“Law” being the basis of equality (however derived by “legal” or "lawful" means) between the Scots & the English.

Now, here’s the interesting bit, Article 25:

That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles, or any of them, shall from and after the Union cease and become void, and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms.

Whaaaazat???? In 1707 the Treaty of Union talked about “Laws” AND “Statutes”????

Now, why would it do that, if they were one and the same thing?

The answer is: They KNEW HOW TO WRITE STUFF in 1707.

They knew that there was a difference.

That the Scottish LEGAL system, based on its own Statutes, and the English LEGAL system is based on ITS own Statutes.


(Because it’s decided by Juries, of course!)

Mark has had quite a bit of FUN arguing this in Scotland. He writes:

“The 'Laws' and 'Statutes' was one of many things I used in my court case. They are completely confused by this stuff. They believe statutes are law but find themselves contradicted by a document dating back to when they believe people were ignorant peasants. I wish I had a mirror to offer them at that point”.


I’m looking forward to similar fun, when my chance comes.

They believe statutes are law but find themselves contradicted by a document dating back to when they believe people were ignorant peasants” ... LOVE IT!

Mark then goes on to say:

Due to the Acts of Union it is not possible for an English or Scottish 'law' to be passed that confers 'more' or 'less' to either people. All must benefit equally, otherwise it could never be a union of equals. They knew what they were doing when they wrote it back then.

Yes … they knew far more than the tossers we are supposed to “look up to” today.

Mark also points out, an interesting consequence (my underlining):

“The two parliaments had to ratify the treaty (so called). The irony being that treaties can not stand the dissolution of the parties to the treaty. Leading to the question, was there ever a treaty in the first place? Apparently none have been found. Curious.”

Logically and rationally, no merger (or union) can ever occur.

Because, as soon as it does … the original parties to the agreement no longer exist.

And, if that’s the case, they could not have created a treaty in the first place.

Chicken & egg.

Nevertheless, interesting about “Law” & “Statutes” being written separately in a document that is 307 years old.

Just proves: “The old ‘uns are still the best ‘uns!”


PS Don't ask me about "Scottish Independence"! Don't ask Mark, either. He remains as perplexed at the shite they talk about, in his office. As he says "They consider themselves to be adults, but they have no idea what 'Sovereignty' means".