Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gone but not forgotten – fight begins to bring home Scotland's 'birth certificate'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 17 November 2008
IT IS described as the "birth certificate of Scotland" and contains the earliest surviving record of the country's existence. But it is held in France.

Now a campaign has been launched to have the 1,000-year-old Chronicles of the Kings of Alba to be returned to Scotland.

The unique document is a list of the 12 kings of the House of Alpin – Scotland's first royal family. The priceless document
also charts a particularly bloody decade of Scotland's history from the reign of Kenneth MacAlpin to Kenneth II, who died in 995, when coups and assassinations were almost every-day occurrences.

Despite the little-known document's historical importance, it has been held since the 17th century in the national library of France – the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris – as part of the Poppleton Manuscript, a collection of medieval texts.

The manuscript contains the very first mention of the country Albanium – the Latinised version of the Gaelic name for Scotland. Before this, the country had been a loose collection of territories, the two major forces being the Picts and the Gaels.

The rare text explains how Scotland was unified under the Alpin family.

The chronicle is considered a vital source for the period it covers, written in Hiberno-Latin by monks during the early 11th century, shortly after the reign of Kenneth II ended.

Now independent MSP Margo MacDonald, and archaeologist and presenter of the BBC's The History of Scotland Neil Oliver, are adding their voices to demands to have the document returned to coincide with next year's Homecoming Scotland 2009.

Ms MacDonald will raise a motion in the Scottish Parliament asking for the document to be returned.

She said: "It is a hugely important document and I'd like to see it returned to Scotland. I'll be raising a motion in parliament to ask for the document to be returned as a loan, which I understand would be the first time it has been on these shores for hundreds of years."

Mr Oliver, whose BBC series The History of Scotland has sparked fresh interest in the manuscript, said: "Holding this important document in my hands was really thrilling. It's the birth certificate of Scotland and yet it is held in France. It was part of a bundle of documents taken over in the 17th century, when no-one really knew what they were worth historically.

"It would be terrific if it could at least visit Scotland to let everyone have the chance to see it."

Translations of the text reveal a pithy and bloody account of each of the kings and their achievements, focusing on the violent struggles they faced.

Of Kenneth I it says: "He attacked Saxonia six times; and he burnt down Dunbar and captured Melrose," but that he died of a "tumour" in the palace of Forteviot. The authors also exhibit an intolerance for what was considered failure. Of King Aed, who ruled from 877 to 878, it was written: "The shortness of his rule has left nothing memorable to history; but he was killed in the town of Nrurim."

The Scottish Government welcomed the call for the return of the document.

A spokeswoman said: "We recognise the interest The History of Scotland has generated in the manuscript and its intriguing part in the narrative of our nation's history.

"We would be keen to explore with the Bibliotheque Nationale the importance of the manuscript, and how it might play a part in celebrating our culture and heritage as part of the Year of Homecoming."

The move comes after the Scottish Government tried – so far without success – to have the Lewis Chessmen returned to Scotland from the British Museum in London. The 78 chess pieces carved from walrus ivory were found in a sandbank on a beach of Uig Bay on the Isle of Lewis in 1831 and bought by the British Museum the same year.

While they have failed to have them returned, they were the centrepiece of an exhibition in Lewis in 1994.

The Celtic League, an organisation that campaigns for the return of artefacts to Celtic nations, warned any attempts to have the manuscript returned could prove difficult.

Its general secretary, Cornishman Rhisiart Tal-e-bot, said: "It's exceedingly difficult to repatriate artefacts from one country to another. In many instances, the host institutions say the artefacts are not fit for travel or there is no place suitable to store them if they are moved."

The Bibliotheque Nationale declined to comment.

Westminster plans to allow Catholic succession hits SNP strategy

THE SNP pledge to use the Act of Settlement as a tool to gain independence has been dealt a blow after it was revealed that Gordon Brown proposes to repeal the law within the next 18 months.

Plans to amend the 1701 act, which prevents Catholics from inheriting the Crown and bars any royal who marries a Catholic from the succession, unless he or she renounces their faith, were under way earlier this year. The act also prevents eldest daughters succeeding as monarchs.

But it is now understood that ministers have informed the Queen that changes are now under "active consideration" and likely to be brought forward in the next 18 months. Prince Charles is believed to have been consulted.

The move is seen as a deliberate ploy by the Prime Minister to prevent Alex Salmond from using the issue to draw Catholic voters to the independence cause.

The First Minister had pledged to bring forward legislation into the Scottish Parliament leading to a referendum on separation in 2010.

A senior government source said even an undefined pledge to remove the legislation could have repercussions. He said: "He only has to promise to remove the anti-Catholic discrimination embedded in the Act of Settlement to win over a large section of the community which – especially in the west of Scotland – have so far been most resistant to Scottish independence."

The Catholic Church in Scotland has been a long-standing and vocal critic of the legislation, described by Cardinal Keith O'Brien as "arcanely offensive".

The likelihood of the act's repeal was raised in September this year,

However, at the time a Downing Street spokesman had said that to amend and repeal the discriminatory parts of the Act would be a complex undertaking.

Mr Salmond welcomed the move, saying: "The Act of Settlement is an 18th-century anachronism that has no place in a modern 21st-century constitution.

"The SNP first raised the issue over a decade ago and the Scottish Parliament united in 1999 to call for this long over-due reform. I hope that the Prime Minister follows through at last and consigns it to the dustbin of history."

The legislation is one of the surviving vestiges of the Glorious Revolution introduced to secure the Protestant succession that was installed by parliamentarians and led by William of Orange following the overthrow of the Catholic monarch James II of England and VII of Scotland in 1688.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 November 2008 9:36 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Otis Boone,

Sacramento 17/11/2008 00:21:47
it'd be interesting to see, if this passes, how it would play out in the other Commonwealth Realms, since Her Majesty's Line of Succession cannot be changed without the consent of all the other Realms.
2

Fifi la Bonbon,

17/11/2008 00:30:54
It was very interesting to see on the telly the document which recorded the first use of the name Albanium, if that's what all this is about, but to use the word "fight" is a wee bit pathetic. I mean the document is presumably safe enough in Paris, right, and there isn't any political significance, so what they should do is get a photocopy and put copies in local libraries and on the internet.

More interesting to me would be to learn a bit about what Hiberno-Latin was like.
3

Finlang,

Switzerland 17/11/2008 01:46:39
France will safeguard these documents as surely as the British Museum and Library clamps the Elgin Marbles and sundry relics/documents from other parts. I'm happy in the knowledge that the Chronicles of the Kings of Alba are safely housed in the excellent Bibliothèque Nationale. (Auld Alliance an a' that.) Leave them be, and (especially politicians) if you are so interested in this aspect of our ancient culture then make the short pilgrimage to Paris. The evidence is in good hands.
4

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 17/11/2008 02:18:01
"Fight"? No, just another sensationalist headline from the Scotsman's mad headline-writers.
5

Another Saturday Night,

17/11/2008 05:05:07
Not long before Salmond is on the case......

He loves this stuff. Get's the crofters excited.

It seems that the document has been well preserved and is avialble for the public to see.

Poster #4 is correct. Leave it where it is, and take the time to go and see it.
6

Cadgers,

Perth 17/11/2008 07:14:02
It would be rather good to get it back (borrowed) for next year. I was concerned though that something so old and rare was handled without gloves.
7

Hugo of Garven,

17/11/2008 07:14:04
" . . to amend and repeal the discriminatory parts of the Act would be a complex undertaking."

Why? Sounds like an excuse for not doing it.
8

Another Saturday Night,

17/11/2008 07:23:09
Salmond could have a suit made from it.

Is their enough?
9

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 17/11/2008 08:07:00
There would be no difficulty in producing a facsimile edition of the Chronicles of the Kings of Scots that would be almost indistinguishable from the original. It could be accompanied by a modern translation and a learned commentary.

I was involved in the production of the facsimile edition (700 copies) of the Book of Hours of James IV, King of Scots, presently in the National Library of Austria, and I wrote the accompanying historical commentary. I arranged for the loan of the original for an Edinburgh Festival exhibition in the 1980s, and it was also on display in Stirling Castle a year or two back. Even if it were housed in Scotland it would not be on display more often, for conservation reasons.

There is no reason why this cannot be done for the Chronicles of the Kings of Scots and many similar important archives.

10

Duncan in Edinburgh,

17/11/2008 08:28:18
#1 Not true. The UK can change its line of succession without affecting the lines of succession of the other realms. Each country would have to be asked to change their laws to suit, but it would be quite feasible for the lines of succession to be different in different countries.
11

paulr,

edinburgh 17/11/2008 08:38:09
Who in their right mind would actually care which parasite claiming to be royalty actually sits in buckingham palace?
I pity all the pathetic fools who drool over the so called queen and her spawn. But saying that do carry on laying yourselves down and offering yourselves as a mat for her and her kind to walk on and so keep her delicate hooves clean.
12

carrottop,

Dumfries 17/11/2008 08:40:29
2#Hiberno-Latin is probably like listening to a Hibs fan, nobody has a clue what they are on about and they tend to live in the past.
13

Fettes,

Edinburgh 17/11/2008 08:56:29
Perhaps if we offer to return Napoleon's standard captured at Waterloo and held at Edinburgh Castle they might give us our "Birth Certificate". Or is that different.
14

Duncan in Edinburgh,

17/11/2008 09:04:48
#12 Drooling over them is certainly both unpleasant and pointless, but personally I find myself to be a pragmatic royalist: the crown is completely subject to the will of parliament, is relatively inexpensive to run, attracts tourism, and gives us a set of people to send around the world promoting British trade and history.

In contrast, were we to become a republic, we would end up with someone like Tony Blair, Boris Johnson or Alex Salmond as head of state. I can;t think of anything worse than a head of state with a popular mandate - far better to have a head of state trained for the role, under the rule of parliament and without pretensions to popularity.
15

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 17/11/2008 09:15:20
Many Britons are unaware that not only are Catholics barred from the line of Succession?

Along with all non-Christian religions like Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam, members of all the Presbyterian
churches, including the Church of Scotland, are also prevented from marrying into the line of Succession, unless of course they conveniently convert to the Anglican faith.

Could a member of the Church of Ireland, part of the Anglican Communion covering ALL Ireland, and who is also a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, become
a member of the Royal Family?

However, this religious discrimination has not affected those numerous Anglican members of the Royal Family who have been divorced in England but are only too happy to
marry again in the Church of Scotland which does not bar divorcees!
16

agatha,

17/11/2008 09:36:33
"those numerous Anglican members of the Royal Family who have been divorced in England but are only too happy to marry again in the Church of Scotland"

mm - Princess Anne and who else??
17

Doh,

17/11/2008 09:41:34

This isnt a time for soundbites.
But I can feel the hand of history on my shoulders.
18

Boy Wonder,

17/11/2008 10:04:22
Does it really matter that Catholics ae barred from inheriting the throne?

The whole kit n caboodle is a parasitic anachronism that needs to be consigned to the rubbish bin of history ... NOW!!!
19

John H,

edinburgh 17/11/2008 10:15:12
"9" Doubt there would be enough to cover the smug grin. Calder's of Leith would have been able to help as they were sail makers.
"13" A bit of education might help you resolve your question and as for living in the past. At least they have a past as history tells us. Try to broaden your horizons after all the tide comes in everywhere not just at the whitesands.
20

AJM,

17/11/2008 10:24:29
#11 Duncan, I think that it is not a simple as you make it sound, when I listened to an article on the radio about this some time ago I was surprised what a difficult task it could be. However if the other commonwealth countries are willing to change their constitutions to allow it then it could well go ahead. Perhaps they have indicated that there would not be a problem. It should be changed.
21

AJ Fife,

17/11/2008 10:54:57
The document should be kept in Paris. It would be safer there than here, as a nasty Unionist, like Dunc, might destroy the thing.

All Scottish history pre-1707 is under threat from evil unionists!
22

St Andrew,

Edinburgh 17/11/2008 11:19:06
So #22 a copy of the document is suficient and for the origional to remain in Paris. Therefore it would be OK for us to get replicas of the chessmen and for the originals to remain in London.
Or do i smell an SNP supporter's double standards when dealing with England and France?
23

Duncan in Edinburgh,

17/11/2008 11:43:46
#23 It's the auld alliance - between AJ and his French penpal. Have you finished your GCSEs yet, AJ? ;-)
24

Alex Woolf,

University of St Andrews 17/11/2008 12:17:52
It should be noted that the document in Paris is simply a copy made by a Yorkshireman in the 14th century. he was copying an earlier copy made in about 1200. So the document in Paris has never been in Scotland and cannot be returned.
25

AJ Fife,

17/11/2008 12:26:16
#24,

Once again, Edinburgh's answer to Larry Grayson comes oot wi' a funny.

Keep the day job Dunc! :)



26

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 17/11/2008 12:36:45
# 19 Boy Wonder: "Does it really matter that Catholics are barred from inheriting the throne?"

Are you suggesting that EVERYONE should be barred from succeeding to the throne?

Mmmm interesting concept.....

Re the SNP being scuppered, they will rightly say it was pressure from them which brought this about and hopefully reap their rewards at the polls.



27

Calum Crubag,

Alba - gu brath! 17/11/2008 12:44:42
Interesting about the Kings of Alba. This should serve to educate some about the Gaelic core of Scotland's identity. Without the 'Gaelic kings' we wouldn't even be a 'partner' within the union. It should also be noticed that many of the Gaelic kings, Bruce included, had bases in the south of Scotland.

As to Catholics - can a Protestant, Jew or Buddhist become Pope??? Why not just do away with all kings and popes?
28

Barney Thomson,

Reading 17/11/2008 12:46:28
http://www.mimas.ac.uk/~zzalsaw2/pictish.html

Fascinating stuff - would make a great sitcom
29

karin.m,

17/11/2008 13:46:28
re labours repeal of the act of settlement.


http://actofsettlement.blogspot.com/


30

karin.m,

17/11/2008 14:18:29
31 well according to mr cairns they wont be repealing it anyways..........
31

Walter Ego,

Durness 17/11/2008 14:31:46
Of course this should come back to Scotland. Why don't we offer Alex Salmond in exchange?
32

karin.m,

17/11/2008 14:36:30
nah walter lets send david cairns instead.

he likes to talk about historical things.


http://actofsettlement.blogspot.com/
33

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

17/11/2008 15:16:41
The easiest thing would be to have them on temporary exhibition in Scotland during Homecoming Scotland.

In general though I would like to see the teaching of Scottish history deal a lot more than just the Wars of Independence - important though they are. It's shocking that we know more about Greek and Roman mythology than our own Pictish or Celtic mytholgies.
34

steveh3,

17/11/2008 15:18:53
Brian

This is ofcourse an important document concering Scottish History and it should be brought home and displayed in Scotland.

If there is any money required to quicken the process, we should pull the labour MP's noses out of the trove and sqeeze the piggies hard until the obscene expenses they have claimed over the years fall out.

If they or any of there Socialist(Ha Ha Ha)followers wish to stay south of the border or move there please do so, you will not be missed.




35

the.ally ,

max. 17/11/2008 15:24:36
Duncan #15, you said, "the crown is completely subject to the will of parliament, is relatively inexpensive to run, attracts tourism, and gives us a set of people to send around the world promoting British trade and history."

My dear fellow, the english crown is far from 'subject to the will of parliament', the crown can dissolve its parliament anytime it wants. Also, it is not 'relatively inexpensive', it cost the taxpayers more than 50 million a year in personal allowances, and more than double that on favours and 'non-liability' of land-inheritance taxes. Duncan, the english queen/crown is the richest person/title on the planet many many times over, why do we have to give her/it hard-earned taxpayers money? The trougher politicians are bad enough but this takes the custard cream!

Last but not least, 'promoting British trade and history.' Do you mean like what they did in China during the opium wars, and, what they did in India early 20the century, Scotland for 1000 years, and America mid 18th century?

Duncan my dear Ipswich man, you must be joking; yeh?
36

Duncan in Edinburgh,

17/11/2008 15:38:31
#37 Good heavens, you appear to be posting from the 18th century! How have you managed to travel back in time to a period before the sovereignty of parliament was established?

The monarchy is entirely subject to the will of parliament. And £50 million a year is peanuts, especially compared to what a presidency could cost - look to our near neighbours for examples. And the British crown is far from the richest person or title on the planet - really, you do seem to get your data from a source about 200 years old!

I can think of several far better arguments for republicanism than any of your bizarre assertions. Perhaps you ought to read up on the subject.

Oh, and Ipswich? I have no idea to what you are referring.
37

AndyPandy,

17/11/2008 15:50:28
I bet Margo MacDonald, or the Scottish Govt had even heard of this "birth certificate" until it had been on tele the other night, and suddenly they want to fight to "get it back".
It looked like a big book to me, so I hope no other country is mentioned in it, otherwise they will want "their" pages taken out too.
How ridiculous.
38

karin.m,

17/11/2008 16:03:28
39 hmmm reminds me of someone. now what was his his name maybe it was andy as well............
39

the.ally ,

max. 17/11/2008 16:04:18
Duncan, it's always interesting reading your commennts. they always make me laugh. Let's start with your , "sovereignty of parliament was established?"

Duncan, the sovereingty of parliament does not include Scotland; in-deed, parliament has never been 'sovereign' in Scotland. Therefore, any act of union, ratified, qualified (which it wans't), or sanctified certainly does not pertain to Scotland or its peoples.

You said, "The monarchy is entirely subject to the will of parliament. And £50 million a year is peanuts, especially compared to what a presidency could cost - look to our near neighbours for examples. And the British crown is far from the richest person or title on the planet - really, you do seem to get your data from a source about 200 years old!"


You're obviously still wrong on your first point, and your second point is far from peanuts, again obviously wrong again. And your third point is again wrong. Even if i had to post my #37 post 200 years ago it would stil be true!

Duncan old-boy, please stop; my sides are hurting now.
40

Duncan in Edinburgh,

17/11/2008 16:37:08
#41 Sorry, you are now saying that the Act of Union doesn't pertain to Scotland? I see. There's a certain weight of opinion against you on that one but at least it's now clear where you stand - in the corner, with the pointy hat on.

£50 million a year is nothing compared to the investment and tourist income which they generate. By any coherent analysis the monarchy is a net gain for the UK year on year. And I see you side-stepped the issue of how much a presidency might cost? Easily a lot more than £50 million a year I can tell you, and with a fraction of the tourist attraction.

Now kindly post some proof that the British Crown is richer than, say for starters, Warren Buffet and the Vatican.
41

thistle do,

here n'there 17/11/2008 16:54:37
To those who are concerned who we might have as an elected hesad of state, remember they are voted in and they can be voted out. Not like this royal family who show all the hall marks of centuries of in breeding. The only man in the current siblings is a princess!

Long live the republic.
42

the.ally ,

max. 17/11/2008 17:39:25
Duncan old-boy, you said, "you are now saying that the Act of Union doesn't pertain to Scotland? I see. There's a certain weight of opinion against you on that one but at least it's now clear where you stand - in the corner, with the pointy hat on."

'in the corner with the pointy hat on'.
Aye right, mare like in the dark wi' piles o' shoite bein' heaped on top; 'mushroom politics' sir I tell you. Let's look at McCrone, Barnett, and GERS.

'in the corner with the pointy hat on'.
Maybe if I was in your english class; the last meeting of the Old Parliament Scotland was cancelled, thus, not dissolved, as such, 1707 act of union cannot be seen to be legally representing Scottish sovereignty as Old Parliament Scotland still functions.

Old Parliament Scotland still functions today through one of the 3 estates, the clergy, acts of Old Parliamaent Scotland legal prescription are and have been functioned since 1707 up until this day, and will be tomorrow and onwards; well into independence!

Moreover, you probably know this, since the Declaration of Arbroath 1320, signed into effect 1328 by Pope John XXII, Scotland has always been a 'popular sovereignty'. Thus, the people are sovereign, not parliament.

The queen is by far the richest person on the planet, maybe even the universe. Why do we have to pay for her and her estate?
43

Nikostratos,,

17/11/2008 19:16:27
#45


Joseph Goebbels, "Gebt Raum dem jungen Deutschland," Revolution der Deutschen. 14 Jahre Nationalsozialismus (Oldenburg: Gerhard Stalling, 1933), pp. 91-106.



Make Way for Young Germany

by Joseph Goebbels



Power doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the people. You are the people's servants, and when you use power poorly, the people will take it away from you. That has to be made clear to the people when one criticizes the government, and that we have certainly done.
44

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 17/11/2008 20:31:12
45 you are wrong.

On April 11th 1689 the Scots Parliament passed into Scots constitutional law on behalf of the people of Scotland The Claim of Right (not to be confused with the English Bill of Rights) The Claim of Right reiterates the established rights of the Scots Parliament in relation to the Crown, the monarch reigned whereas the Parliament legislated while sovereignty remained with the people of Scotland as the supreme constitutional authority.

This is a fundamental written constitutional document which is stil in force to this day. Neither Scotland's Claim of Right nor England's Bill of Rights was affected by the Act of Union of 1707.

In 1953 Lord Cooper of Cardross as The Lord President of the Court of Session in the case of McCormick -v-The Lord Advocate pronounced that ''The unlimited sovereignty of Parliament has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law''

Next time, do some research before you post rubbish about ''myths''.
45

Martyk,

17/11/2008 20:34:06
Why do we have to have a President ? The US manages perfectly well with a head of gov and head of state enshrined in the person of the President. To say these wasters cost £ 50 mill a year is ridiculous. Far , far more than that.
46

radge dug,

Dùn Eideann, Alba 17/11/2008 20:57:38
We need to know more about the ancient Gaelic and Pictish roots of Alba. People now just see Gaelic as a 'fringe' language instead of our ancient tongue that was once at the heart of government here - long before Inglish/ 'Scots'/ English took root.

Our kings up to James IV at least all spoke Gaelic. Many of them had their court, not in the north but in south/central Scotland. And, if Gaelic never influenced life in the south of Scotland, how come there are so many Gaelic placenames here?
47

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 17/11/2008 22:10:38
I have posted plenty on this subject in the past, and will try to keep it short this time. There is plenty of evidence in Scottish constitutional writing from very early times that the people are the supreme authority in the state, and that the monarch's right to rule derived from them. The Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 stated baldly that if the then Executive and Head of State (King Robert I) did not carry out the will of the people (defence against the English) he would be deposed, and a new ruler would be elected.

Scotland was far ahead of the rest of the world in that respect, for popular sovereignty is now the international constitutional norm, laid down in numerous instruments of international law. The right to self-determination, for example, is expressly possessed by "peoples", not governments or parliaments.

Since neither the king nor parliament was sovereign in Scotland before the union, they could not transfer to the new union parliament any more powers than they themselves could lawfully exercise. That principle is common to every legal code in the Western world. Lord Cooper's dictum in McCormick v. Lord Advocate, to the effect that the Westminster parliament is not sovereign in Scotland, merely restated a principle that had already stood for centuries.

Incidentally, and not for the first time, can we get the terminology right? The union of Scotland and England to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain was based on the 1706 Treaty of Union, as ratified and implemented by the TWO 1707
Acts of Union, by the Scottish and English parliaments. The terms Treaty and Acts are not interchangeable.

48

the.ally ,

max. 18/11/2008 00:38:21
Observer.1 you are right.

Dr. James Wilkie, this is for you; and that protagonist S&M453.

"Yet if he should give up what he has begun, andf 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 but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be broeught under English rule."
Declaration of Arbroath.

Now that to me is more than succinct.
It states that the people are soversign, not a King.

Moreover, the fact that James VI agreed with English Queen Elizabeth to a conspiracy of regicide, to murdert his mother Mary Queen of Scots so that the english crown could stay in protestant hands of succession shows clear evidence that James VI was a traitor to the said declaration.

Now, the only argument that exists is that of sovereignty. Taking into account that upon the address of the Declaration of Independence, (recognised as lawful, legal and of 'right'), Franklin changed the word 'inaliable' to unaliable on the day before the address means he realised the difference between the english crown still being 'foremost and supreme' over his subjets, but 'unaliable' meant that the American people are only answertable to God. To which completely focked George III. ergo. Scotland are an independent nation still as it stands today. The fact that the clergy of the 3 estates stilL enacts old parliament acts of legAl prescription today through the ceremony of marraige in a Scottish church means that OLD PARLIAMENT SCOTLAND IS STILL CONDUCTING AND EXERTING ACTS OF OLD PARLIAMENT SCOTLAND.

allymax.
49

the.ally ,

max. 18/11/2008 00:45:55
sorry about the typo's peeps, it seems querty goes quwonky after a few beers.
50

coira,

18/11/2008 04:33:17
IT IS IN SCOTLAND HISTORY , THE FACTS WAR FOR RELIGION
HUMAN HAD EVOLUTIONED , ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT SCOTISH PEOPLES CAN NOT RELATE GOVERMENT TO POLITICS . ANY SCOTISH PM. OR KING THAT USE RELIGION INTO HIS WAY OF GOVERNING WILL DROWN AND THE CITIZENS CRIMINALITY WILL BUILT IN. POLITICS IN SCOTLAND JUST POLITICS BUT THE RELIGIONS SHALL NOT EXIST AT ALL IN POLITICS AS WELL AS IS.

IF EVERY SCOTTISH IS A WILLIAM WALLACE , SCOTLAND WOULD BE DIFFERENT .

THE WORST ENEMY OF MANKIND IS IMPERIALISM AT ANY FORM.
51

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 18/11/2008 14:41:04
#58. I have a fairly full daily programme, and so don't have unlimited time for discussions in these columns, but a few additional points may be useful. The signatories of the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 specifically stated that they were acting in the name of all the other barons and freeholders as well as "the whole community of the realm of Scotland" (Ceterique Barones et Liberetenentes ac tota Communitas Regni Scocie). I think that could be taken to be the equivalent of the modern registered electorate.

One should also bear in mind that the essentially patriarchal roots of Scottish society were a lot stronger then than now, not simply in the Highlands, and contrasted strongly with the oppressive English feudal social system, in which the rulers were often enough the enemies of the people. The Norman and other incomers to Scotland mostly gained their status through intermarriage with the Scottish aristocracy, which made them in effect clan chiefs. Robert Bruce's claim to the throne came from his mother's side of the family. And so the signatories of the Declaration of Arbroath undoubtedly spoke for Scotland.

The sovereignty of the people has a very long pedigree in Scotland, going back to mediaeval writers like Abbot John of Fordoun or Professor Hector Boece of Aberdeen University. For example, the internationally celebrated Professor George Buchanan, in his Rerum Scoticarum Historia (1582) and his famous De Jure Regni Apud Scotos (1567), declared bluntly that the right to rule derives exclusively from the people, to whom the monarchs are responsible.

52

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 18/11/2008 14:42:57
Buchanan was the very strict tutor to James VI, King of Scots, and hammered this doctrine into his head (and his other end too), with the result that James was very thankful to flee to England in 1603 as James I, King of England, where he could indulge himself in the divine right of kings, away from his restrictive Scottish environment.

The same thread can be traced throughout the so-called Bishop’s Wars in the 17th century, when it accounted for a great deal of the differences between the English and Scottish reformers. One example is the St. Andrews University Professor Samuel Rutherford, a leader of the Covenant movement, who in his book Lex Recht.. (1644) declared unequivocally that the people have the right to depose a ruler.

President Cooper was not the first to declare that the sovereignty of parliament does not apply in Scotland. The same principle is mentioned by others like, for example, Professor Sir T.B. Smith, in his standard work The United Kingdom: The Development of its Laws and Constitutions, Vol. 2 (London 1955). Smith quotes the underlying principle that Nemo plus juris ad alium transferre potest, quam ipse habet, which is standard throughout all Western legal systems, and demolishes any argument that the Scottish Parliament or even Queen Anne had the power to give away absolute sovereignty over Scotland where no such previously existed.

As far back as 1928 the Scottish judges threatened to declare Westminster legislation to be ultra vires in Scotland, and still have the constitutional power to do so. It would pay politicians in London to be better aware that much of what they are attempting to do “has no equivalent in Scottish constitutional law”.

53

the.ally ,

max. 18/11/2008 15:16:21
Thanks for replying Dr. James Wilkie, you certainly know your stuff, and it's very interesting to read your posts.

The point I'm making is that 'popular sovereignty' is paramount in Scotland. The fact that the 1320 declaration of Arbroath commits the nation and land of Scotland to the people, and not the King states clearly that the people are sovereign; ratified and qualified by pope John XXII. And, the fact that westminster 'recognises' the United Staes of America as an independent sovereign nation based on their Declaration of Independence 1776 sets the precedent that the Declaration of Arbroath is and always has been legal and binding by westminster.

S & M sevenwivesme, yer a tool.
54

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 19/11/2008 00:03:12
Sorry, misprint - I've spoken foreign languages for so long that sometimes I don't even know which one I'm using! The short title of Samuel Rutherford's book is of course Lex Rex...

Thanks for the compliment #61, but I am not aware that the Pope ever reacted publicly to the Declaration. The fact that it was sent apparently sufficed to kill any Vatican support for the English case. I understand that the original has disappeared from the Vatican archives. Incidentally, a facsimile of the Declaration without the hole in the middle is available from Scotia Fine Art of Edinburgh. See:
www.scotiafineart.com


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.