Rule Without Consent Is a Violation, Not a Validation
A Constitutional Argument from Sovereign Scots
Charles Windsor, styled as King Charles III, was proclaimed “King of Scots” without any democratic mandate. That isn’t ceremony—it’s a constitutional contradiction. Under the legal tradition of Scotland’s Claim of Right, sovereignty rests with the people, not the Crown, not Parliament, and certainly not Westminster. The act of presuming rule without express, verifiable consent from the people is a direct breach of the constitutional principle that distinguishes Scottish sovereignty from the unitary doctrine imposed by the British state.
This isn’t just symbolic posturing—it’s a legal point.
You Say Not Voting Means No Say? We Say Even Voting Changes Nothing
There’s a tired refrain: “If you don’t vote, you’ve no say.” But what’s missed—wilfully or otherwise—is that even when we do vote, we’re denied agency. Scotland can return 59 MPs demanding change, yet 591 from elsewhere override them. When a sovereign people are structurally barred from having their will meaningfully enacted, the presence of a ballot becomes an illusion of participation—nothing more.
The people of Scotland never consented to rule from Westminster, nor have they been given any legitimate path to withdraw it. And those within our own borders who ask us to reaffirm consent to a system that invalidates our sovereignty from the outset are not merely misguided. Under the very law they claim to uphold, they act in defiance of their own rights and ours.
The Constitutional Principle: Sovereignty Is Inalienable
The 1689 Claim of Right affirmed that the people of Scotland are the wellspring of all legitimate authority. That principle was never abolished. Even the UK Parliament can’t extinguish a right it never granted and does not own. This means the authority of the British state in Scotland is only lawful where it has the consent of the governed. Where that consent is not given—and cannot be proven—rule becomes a usurpation, not a contract.
The use of the term “King of Scots” in public discourse—whether adopted by Unionist ceremony or challenged by critics—is meaningless without the collective voice of the people to make it so. You cannot be styled “King of Scots” if the Scots neither recognise you nor participated in bestowing that title.
Those Who Suppress Consent Are Not Neutral
To continue asserting the legitimacy of Westminster governance without the ability to verify democratic consent in Scotland is to stand in violation of constitutional law. And those who urge Scots to re-consent to that violation—without remedy, without recourse, without recognition of their status as the ultimate authority—position themselves against the very foundation of Scottish constitutional identity.
This is not just about treaties or referendums. It’s about the mechanism of consent itself, and whether it is honoured. Until we restore that mechanism—until the people assemble and define it themselves—any claim to rule made in our name, without our leave, is null and void.
Your Vote Is Consent—And That’s Exactly Why You Can Withdraw It
One of the most pervasive manipulations in the independence debate is the insistence that voting in UK-run elections equates to consent for UK governance. And in a very real constitutional sense—it does. That’s exactly why it matters.
By participating in a UK electoral system structured to deny Scotland sovereign agency, your vote is interpreted as acquiescence to Westminster authority. Whether you're voting for representation or resistance, the system frames your participation as endorsement of its supremacy.
But here's the key that gets buried: in Scots constitutional tradition, consent must be ongoing, informed, and freely given. What you grant, you can revoke.
The 1689 Claim of Right doesn't just affirm that sovereignty rests with the people—it affirms that the people have the inalienable right to hold power to account and remove rulers who breach trust or exceed their mandate. That includes withdrawing consent from a governing system that acts without or against your will.
Why Withdrawal of Consent Isn’t “Abstention”—It’s Assertion
Some claim that refusing to participate in UK electoral processes is surrender or silence. But from a Scottish constitutional perspective, that misunderstands the act entirely.
To withdraw consent and openly declare it—especially through documented, collective expressions such as those facilitated by the People’s Assembly—is not passivity. It is an act of sovereign agency. It’s a declaration that the legitimacy of governance must return to the people of Scotland, not reside in a broken UK contract that pretends the 1707 Treaty is eternal and irrevocable.
To Ask Scots to Consent to Westminster Rule Is a Violation of Sovereignty
Let this be clear: those who urge sovereign Scots to legitimise UK rule—whether through elections, pledges, or “once in a generation” hurdles—are not neutral brokers. They are asking the people to surrender their own constitutional rights. Whether out of ignorance or political expediency, that invitation is a form of betrayal.
You cannot claim to uphold Scottish sovereignty while asking Scots to validate their own disenfranchisement. And you cannot build a future of self-determination on a foundation of performative democracy and procedural gaslighting.
Until a verifiable, collective withdrawal of consent is recognised and acted upon—not through Westminster permission but through sovereign will—every rule imposed in Scotland without that consent remains a violation.
The Withholding of Consent Is Already Happening—And It’s Measurable
In Scots constitutional tradition, consent is not a one-time event—it must be ongoing, informed, and freely given. That means the people must have the right not only to grant authority, but to withdraw it. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing in the data.
Let’s look at the turnout trend:
In the 2019 UK General Election, Scotland’s turnout was 68.1%, already lower than the 84.6% seen in the 2014 independence referendum.
In the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, turnout was 63.5%, despite record registration numbers.
In the 2022 Scottish council elections, turnout dropped to 44.8%.
And in the 2024 UK General Election, turnout in many Scottish constituencies fell below 60%, with some urban areas dipping into the low 50s.
Most recently, the 2025 Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election saw a turnout of just 44.2%.
These are not just statistics—they are acts of constitutional expression. When a sovereign people consistently disengage from a system that claims to represent them, that is not apathy—it is rejection.
This Isn’t Voter Fatigue. It’s a Pattern of Withheld Consent
The establishment may frame this as “voter fatigue” or “disillusionment,” but from a constitutional standpoint, it’s something far more profound: a collective, measurable withdrawal of consent from a system that does not serve or represent the sovereign will of the Scottish people.
And when that system continues to impose rule despite this withdrawal, it crosses the line from governance into constitutional violation.
🧾 Evidence Pack: “Rule Without Consent Is a Violation”
1. No Democratic Mandate for Charles Windsor in Scotland
Claim: Charles Windsor was proclaimed without democratic consent; no referendum or public mandate exists under Scots constitutional law.
Event: National Service of Thanksgiving and Dedication, St Giles’ Cathedral, 5 July 2023.
Source: BBC coverage of the Scottish ceremony (not a coronation, no Scots coronation oath).
Legal Context: Claim of Right 1689 affirms that the people are sovereign and may remove rulers who breach trust.
Source: UK Parliament archive on the Claim of Right
No use of “King of Scots” in official proclamations.
Source: Accession Council proclamation text (UK-wide styling only).
2. Consent Must Be Ongoing and Verifiable
Claim: Sovereignty in Scots law is not a one-time event; consent must be active, informed, and revocable.
Legal Basis: Claim of Right 1989 (endorsed by 50+ Scottish MPs and civic bodies) reaffirmed the 1689 principle.
Source: National Archives – Claim of Right 1989
Academic Support: Dr. Elliot Bulmer, A Model Constitution for Scotland, argues that sovereignty is retained by the people and cannot be alienated.
Source: Constitutional Futures Initiative
3. Voting in UK Elections = Consent to Westminster Rule
Claim: Participation in UK elections is interpreted as consent to the legitimacy of Westminster governance.
Electoral Commission Guidance: Participation in UK elections affirms the authority of the UK Parliament.
Source: Electoral Commission – How elections work
Constitutional Interpretation: Westminster sovereignty doctrine assumes supremacy unless explicitly challenged.
Source: A.V. Dicey’s Law of the Constitution (1885), still cited in UK constitutional law.
4. Right to Withdraw Consent
Claim: Under Scots constitutional tradition, the people have the right to withdraw consent and assert self-governance.
Precedent: Declaration of Arbroath (1320) affirms that rulers may be removed if they fail the people.
Source: National Records of Scotland – Declaration of Arbroath
Modern Interpretation: The People’s Assembly model operationalises this right through verified, collective withdrawal.
Source: Your own documentation and Substack series (can be cited as primary source).
5. Voter Turnout Trends Show Withholding of Consent
Claim: Declining turnout in UK-run elections in Scotland reflects a measurable withdrawal of consent.
consent must be ongoing, not historic—and it must be verifiable. The data shows that Scots are increasingly withholding that consent, not affirming it.
Let’s look at the trend:
2019 UK General Election: Turnout in Scotland was 68.1%.
2024 UK General Election: Turnout in Scotland dropped to around 59%, a 9.1-point decline.
In some urban constituencies, turnout fell into the low 50s, with Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse recording just 44.2% in the 2025 by-election.
Scottish Council Elections 2022: Turnout was 44.8%, despite expanded franchise and local relevance.
Scottish Parliament Elections 2021: Turnout was 63.5%, still well below the 84.6% seen in the 2014 independence referendum.
This is not voter fatigue. It’s not apathy. It’s a pattern of constitutional disengagement. When a sovereign people consistently decline to participate in a system that claims to represent them, that is a measurable withdrawal of consent.
And when that system continues to impose rule despite this trend, it ceases to be governance by consent—it becomes rule by assumption.
6. Those Urging Consent to Westminster Rule Undermine Sovereignty
Claim: Asking Scots to re-consent to Westminster rule without remedy or recognition of sovereignty is a betrayal of constitutional rights.
Legal Framing: Sovereignty cannot be alienated or overridden by external authority.
Source: MacCormick v Lord Advocate (1953) – Lord President Cooper: “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.”
Political Analysis: Re-consenting to a system that denies agency is not neutrality—it’s complicity.
Scotland’s constitutional tradition is based on the sovereignty of the people, not the supremacy of Parliament. From that principle, it follows that any system which denies the people agency—yet demands their consent—is constitutionally incompatible with Scots law.
So when individuals are asked to re-consent to Westminster rule without remedy, recognition, or recourse, it’s not a neutral act. It’s a legal and constitutional contradiction. In that context, complicity isn’t just a moral argument—it’s a breach of the very framework that defines Scottish sovereignty.
The People's Assembly: Not Just a Plan, But a Vision for a Truly Self-Governing Scotland.
Get Your Ticket Today
