THE time has come, the walrus said, to blow the gaff on a foreign Westminster organisation that claims to be the UK Government but is in fact just the same corrupt foreign English Government that used bribery of Scotland’s ruling classes in the early 18th century to ensure that the Parliamentary Union of 1707 was accomplished.

And in case any of you think the whole situation was founded on good will on either side, the whole evil enormity of the affair was exposed by the Speaker of that self-same English parliament when he said “We have catched Scotland and shall hold her fast.” Words that could be heard today coming out of the mouths of arrogant English Tory PMs in the 21st century like May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak, and possibly an alternative in Labour’s Starmer who wants to get his oar in early. So nothing much has changed in more than 300 years.

READ MORE: How The National will be covering the Supreme Court's indyref2 ruling

Way back then in 1707, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Both independent sovereign countries agreed the other’s legal requirements and ratified those concerns. In other words they formally read and agreed to accept the others terms and conditions and signed their acceptance of them, following which the international Treaty went ahead.

The funny thing that happened, albeit hundreds of years later, was that it was noticed, for the first time, that Scotland’s legal concerns had been ditched by the same English Government that had ratified them in the first place, and Scotland’s constitutional law dating back to hundreds of years before the Treaty, but essentially including the Claim of Right of 1689, had been ignored and replaced by English Constitutional Law that according to the Treaty has no legal standing whatsoever in Scotland.

READ MORE: Stephen Noon: SNP should 'pause' indyref2 plans despite Supreme Court

This is a major breach, but not the only one, of an international treaty that should have been brought to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by the Scottish Government rather than its approach to the Supreme Court in London for its opinion on a piece of English legislation on whether they have a right to hold another independence referendum.

I do believe that the Supreme Court is comprised of worthy individuals whose principle concern is to uphold the law, rather than any personal political ideals, and that being the case we may anticipate the following. Either we will have an independence referendum next year or it will be delayed for a further year. Whereas a trip to the ICJ could possibly have seen the end of a corrupt Union there and then. I know which I’d rather have.

Bruce Moglia
Via email

AS Andrew Tickell suggested in his Sunday National column (Yes, no, maybe – how the Supreme Court ruling will play out, Nov 20), there are three possible outcomes from the Supreme Court’s deliberations:

(1) Scotland does have the right to call an advisory referendum.

(2) A logical self-contradiction – this Union is voluntary except when Westminster says it is not.

(3) Sit on the fence (ouch).

What is not in doubt, however, is what issue will be the focus of attention when the Supreme Court announces its decision – not any of these outcomes above. I am confident the issue which will fill front pages for the next three days – or three weeks – will be the suggestion that rich people might be able to pay for their NHS treatment.

Well, I suppose there must be some within the NHS who can be relied upon to advocate that (especially high-ranking ones who are members of the Tory/Labour/LibDem parties) and who (by the way) might benefit financially from the idea if put into practice.

Hugh Noble