I note that their is no mention of the recent research of Sara Salyers, endorsed by Professor Alf Baird and Professor Robert Black KC endorsing the fact that the Treaty of Union never in fact took place and Scotland was subsumed into the English Parliament.
Because there’s no peer-reviewed evidence for any of their claims — probably because none exists.
Sara Salyers, Alf Baird, and Robert Black KC are entitled to their opinions, but let’s be clear:
None of them are constitutional law experts.
And none of their work on this so-called "non-existent Treaty" has been peer-reviewed or academically verified in any recognised legal forum.
They’ve been asked, repeatedly, to provide evidence — not blog posts, not YouTube videos — but actual legal proof that holds up to scrutiny. Still waiting.
We actually did look at the evidence — a long time ago. We’ve reviewed the historical record, constitutional texts, including Dicey, and every relevant legal argument available. Just to clarify — their research can’t be peer-reviewed because it’s not actually public research. What’s available are opinions, not properly published papers with sources and methodologies that can be assessed by constitutional experts. And you can’t peer review an opinion — only verifiable, evidence-based work.
We’ve checked the historical record — thoroughly. Including Dicey, the Treaty texts, parliamentary archives, and international definitions. None of it supports the claim that the Treaty “never happened” or that Scotland was simply subsumed. The Treaty, despite its flaws, remains one of the strongest legal instruments available to demonstrate the limits of Westminster’s authority over Scotland — and to reinforce the argument for self-determination through law, not fiction.
If someone believes they’ve found something revolutionary, we welcome it — but it has to be tested publicly, openly, and against established legal standards. So far, that hasn’t happened.
Parliamentary sovereignty is a convention, not a statute—it’s not legally absolute, and courts have questioned it.
Scottish constitutional principles differ from English ones, especially regarding popular sovereignty.
The Treaty of Union didn’t clearly establish which constitutional tradition would dominate, and that ambiguity still matters.
So yes, the article challenges the Diceyan view of UK parliamentary supremacy. But that’s a far cry from saying:
The UK doesn’t exist in law
Scotland is a colony under UN definitions
No domestic mandate is needed to assert independence
Why this doesn’t support Salvo’s position:
It doesn’t declare the UK a fiction—it critiques its constitutional assumptions, not its legal existence.
It doesn’t say Scotland is a colony—it acknowledges constitutional tension, not colonial status.
It reinforces the need for legal and democratic assertion—not unilateral declarations or reinterpretations of history.
In fact, Jones concludes that the UK’s constitutional framework is fragile and based on convention—but that any change would still require legal and political action, not just rhetorical reframing.
So if Salvo is using this article to validate their claims, they’re either misreading it—or hoping others won’t read it at all.
I note that their is no mention of the recent research of Sara Salyers, endorsed by Professor Alf Baird and Professor Robert Black KC endorsing the fact that the Treaty of Union never in fact took place and Scotland was subsumed into the English Parliament.
Any comment?
Because there’s no peer-reviewed evidence for any of their claims — probably because none exists.
Sara Salyers, Alf Baird, and Robert Black KC are entitled to their opinions, but let’s be clear:
None of them are constitutional law experts.
And none of their work on this so-called "non-existent Treaty" has been peer-reviewed or academically verified in any recognised legal forum.
They’ve been asked, repeatedly, to provide evidence — not blog posts, not YouTube videos — but actual legal proof that holds up to scrutiny. Still waiting.
Then peer review it. No one actually wants to look at the evidence. Start with Dicey. When was the English parliament dissolved?
We actually did look at the evidence — a long time ago. We’ve reviewed the historical record, constitutional texts, including Dicey, and every relevant legal argument available. Just to clarify — their research can’t be peer-reviewed because it’s not actually public research. What’s available are opinions, not properly published papers with sources and methodologies that can be assessed by constitutional experts. And you can’t peer review an opinion — only verifiable, evidence-based work.
We’ve checked the historical record — thoroughly. Including Dicey, the Treaty texts, parliamentary archives, and international definitions. None of it supports the claim that the Treaty “never happened” or that Scotland was simply subsumed. The Treaty, despite its flaws, remains one of the strongest legal instruments available to demonstrate the limits of Westminster’s authority over Scotland — and to reinforce the argument for self-determination through law, not fiction.
If someone believes they’ve found something revolutionary, we welcome it — but it has to be tested publicly, openly, and against established legal standards. So far, that hasn’t happened.
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/01/18/carwyn-jones-is-dicey-dicey/
What Carwyn Jones actually argues:
Parliamentary sovereignty is a convention, not a statute—it’s not legally absolute, and courts have questioned it.
Scottish constitutional principles differ from English ones, especially regarding popular sovereignty.
The Treaty of Union didn’t clearly establish which constitutional tradition would dominate, and that ambiguity still matters.
So yes, the article challenges the Diceyan view of UK parliamentary supremacy. But that’s a far cry from saying:
The UK doesn’t exist in law
Scotland is a colony under UN definitions
No domestic mandate is needed to assert independence
Why this doesn’t support Salvo’s position:
It doesn’t declare the UK a fiction—it critiques its constitutional assumptions, not its legal existence.
It doesn’t say Scotland is a colony—it acknowledges constitutional tension, not colonial status.
It reinforces the need for legal and democratic assertion—not unilateral declarations or reinterpretations of history.
In fact, Jones concludes that the UK’s constitutional framework is fragile and based on convention—but that any change would still require legal and political action, not just rhetorical reframing.
So if Salvo is using this article to validate their claims, they’re either misreading it—or hoping others won’t read it at all.