Is what you’re saying in Section X. that the Crown of Scotland may still exist because nobody can point to a clause in the Acts of Union (or anywhere else) that says “the Crown of Scotland shall cease to exist on 1 May 1707”?
No. The case has never rested on the absence of a clause. Article XXIV provides that the crown, sceptre and sword of state continue to be kept, as they are, within that part of the United Kingdom now called Scotland, and that they shall so remain in all time coming notwithstanding of the union. That is a positive provision in the instrument. The absence of any clause of merger, transfer or extinguishment corroborates it. That took one line, and the instrument is in it.
Is what you’re saying in Section X. that the Crown of Scotland may still exist because nobody can point to a clause in the Acts of Union (or anywhere else) that says “the Crown of Scotland shall cease to exist on 1 May 1707”?
On your narrowed question, claims were made by the Dundas Persona, and their further reply and defence are still awaited.
Is the answer to my question Yes or No?
No. The case has never rested on the absence of a clause. Article XXIV provides that the crown, sceptre and sword of state continue to be kept, as they are, within that part of the United Kingdom now called Scotland, and that they shall so remain in all time coming notwithstanding of the union. That is a positive provision in the instrument. The absence of any clause of merger, transfer or extinguishment corroborates it. That took one line, and the instrument is in it.
https://foundationscotland.substack.com/p/the-dundas-persona-a-decree-de-plano?r=7rnu6p&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web