The British are coming!

Regardless of which rat emerges victorious from the sack of the Tory leadership fight, the next British government will be the most brutally anti-Scottish administration since the military occupation of Scotland after Culloden. They may not come swinging swords and cudgels, but their purpose will be the same as it was then ─ to eradicate Scotland.

For many years I have been warning that the Greater England project would be revived. It has never really been in abeyance. But for perhaps the last two centuries its methods have been relatively subtle – at least by comparison with what went before. Subtle or sleekit? Take your pick. This isn’t the place for a detailed analysis of the methods by which England has sought to subsume Scotland into itself. But central to the effort was creating the idea of ‘Great Britain’. England became England-as-Britain. Those irksome Jocks would never be part of England. But they might be lured into an entity going by a different name ─ an entity which didn’t carry the weight of England’s history with regard to Scotland. If we refused to be English, perhaps we could be made British.

This had nothing to do with any enmity between the people of the two nations. Left to our own devices, we’d muddle along fine with each other. People are much the same wherever you go. We all want pretty much the same things. We all have similar preoccupations. The masses in any two countries have more in common with each other than they do with the social, political and economic elites of their homeland. It is those elites who rouse popular enmities so as to enlist the masses in their own pursuit of wealth and power. Most of the time most of the people of England went about their lives quite unaware of the ‘Greater England’ project ─ now proceeding as the ‘Great Britain’ project. Had they been aware they would surely have objected. Because making everybody British is as much a denial of England’s national identity as it is an obliteration of Scotland’s distinctiveness. Because this contrived British identity draws mainly on England’s national identity the deprivation is less marked. But it’s enough that a number of people in England would object were they more aware.

The auld animosity between Scotland and England has nothing to do with any conflict of interest between the masses of each nation. It is entirely a product of the avarice and ambition of the few in each nation. At root, it is about territory and resources and advantage in the contest with the elites of other nations also driven by avarice and ambition. Scotland is valuable territory for both material and geopolitical reasons. England has always coveted this territory and feared that it might come under the sway of rival elites. What England wants, England annexes. Scotland is an annexed territory. But the English elites along with their Scottish counterparts with a shared interest were not satisfied with this arrangement. They needed to secure Scotland. They needed to own Scotland. Scotland was understandably reluctant to be owned. The elites’ solution to the Scotland problem was to create a pseudo-national identity that overlayed the entire archipelago. Success has been mixed.

Devolution was seen as a means of countering growing awareness of the erosion of national identity in those annexed territories where Britishness hadn’t taken as well as the British had hoped. The experiment has backfired badly ─ arguably, in Scotland most of all. When the British political parties which were thought to be a safe pair of hands clumsily lost control of the Scottish Parliament ─ to the Scottish National Party, of all things!

This was a wake-up call for the British establishment. Rather than a way of placating those who had long sought to end the Union and restore Scotland’s independence, devolution had enabled the national movement. The Union, which had formalised the annexation of Scotland, was in jeopardy. The Scottish Parliament was starting to be seen as a threat by the British elites. If 2007 was a wake-up call for the British, 2011 was a hefty jolt from a cattle prod.

I don’t think I need to go into what happened in the decade up to the present time. Most of my readers will, I’m sure, be just as aware as myself of the Yes campaign, the referendum and the years of inaction since. The British elites now regard Scotland as a threat to their ambitions and pretensions such as they haven’t faced in many decades. To gauge how threatened they feel and how they intend to respond one need only listen to the increasingly vitriolic anti-Scottish rhetoric as the remaining two rats in Tory leadership/British Prime Minister sack fight for status, power and possibly their political lives.

This is the 21st century. Rather than coming swinging swords and cudgels, the British have the powers afforded them by the Union and their formidable propaganda machine. These are the weapons which are about to be deployed with the aim of neutralising the Scottish Parliament, crippling the Scottish Government and bringing Scotland to heel. The Tory leadership battle is a preview of what we can expect in the campaign for the next UK general election sometime in the next couple of years. All the British political parties will be vying to be seen as the ones to implement a ‘final solution’ to the Scotland problem. The ground has been prepared for what basically amounts to a coup in which the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are supplanted by a British administration. The democratic institutions we elected will be sidelined in favour of a British political elite we emphatically rejected. Such is British ‘demockracy’.

The British are coming! Are we prepared for the coming onslaught? Are we ready to defend our democratic institutions? Are we equipped and organised for the kind of campaign the British are intent on unleashing? Is our government ready? Are the Scottish (not British) political parties ready? Is the Yes movement ready?

I don’t know about anybody else, but those questions make me decidedly uncomfortable.



If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.

Donate with PayPal

81 thoughts on “The British are coming!

  1. This article is all you need to know about the threat to the future of Scotland and that no more time can be wasted in mobilising to save our polity. The UK have been working towards neutralising Holyrood openly without effective opposition for years now.
    Unfortunately there are no signs that the current leadership of the SNP are ready to take real steps to this having embarked on what many see as a futile procedural exercise to be followed by a high risk plebiscite ripe for disaster.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. Excellent and insightful analysis, Peter.

    A key objective of colonialism, as you imply, is ‘cultural obliteration’. As long as a nation remains colonised, it is in the process of perishing, which is largely a cultural process. However, as you suggest, a colonized people are never fully assimilated, and the prejudice and racism of colonialism will continue even after a peoples’ culture and language has mostly (but not entirely) been destroyed, much as we see in the relationship here.

    Frantz Fanon wrote that “the conscious and organized undertaking by a colonized people to re-establish the sovereignty of that nation constitutes the most complete and obvious cultural manifestation that exists”. He also said that independence is “a fight for a national culture”.

    Liked by 7 people

  3. It seems to me that people are entirely unready and unprepared for what’s coming.

    Took a look the pathetically pusillanimous response of Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister, to the deprecation, dismissal and disparaging of the office that she represents and, by extension, of the Scottish people:

    By way of riposte a half-hearted and resigned twitter comment beneath a photo of a seal supposedly ‘sending-up’ the attention-seeker that is Liz Truss. That’s it! I wouldn’t mind if the comment included a rapier-like wit putting down the Thatcher pretender. Liz Truss and her ilk piss all over the office of First Minister and the Scottish people and Nicola Sturgeon treats it like it’s some kind of schoolgirl prank.

    And what of the legion of blindly loyal followers who proliferate on the comments sections of The National? Well, she was taking the “high ground” and not getting into “the gutter” with, while having a “humorous dig” at, Liz Truss!

    The British are coming and all the FM and her unquestioning followership are standing around are contorting themselves by sticking their fingers in their ears and thumbs in their behinds while singing ‘la-la-la-la-la’ on repeat loop.

    The reaction to reality reminds me of the tragedy of the Plains Indians post-Little Big Horn when they believed that if they just performed Ghost Dance hard enough and long enough then the past would return to the present and the white man would be wished away.

    Likewise the FM and all those that see the sun shining out of her backside seem to think that if they just believe hard and long enough then the return of Scotland’s full self-government will happen as if by magic.

    They should be reminded that the Sioux’ Ghost Dancing ended with the massacre of 300 Lakota people in cold blood by US Cavalry at Wounded Knee in 1890.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. “the pathetically pusillanimous response of Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister”

      Politicians are not intellectuals, as we can readily see with those on all sides. A difficulty lies in the fact that the dominant national party elite/bourgeoisie have never undertaken a detailed analysis of colonialism. Meanwhile the people’s understanding of colonial oppression remains rudimentary.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I just posted the following in a reply on Fecaboko. Excuse the cut and paste, but I’m a lazy bastard.

        I am persuaded that we must have a new campaign to run alongside whatever the SNP does. It is clear that the SNP want to control the whole thing. Obviously, not everybody is willing to go along with this. If there is nowhere for these people to put their energies (and money!) they will be a wasted resource. Scotland’s cause cannot afford to squander such a massive resource.

        We need an organisation. The Yes movement is fine as a movement. But movements don’t get things done. Organisations get things done. The Yes movement has given birth to a number of organisations which get things done. I’m wary of mentioning any of them because no matter which one I mention there will be some numpty with a grievance against that organisation which is bigger than their desire to restore independence.

        Movements like Yes benefit from being non-hierarchical and organic. Organisations need leadership and management. The trouble with that is the same as with organisations themselves. Whoever emerges as the leader and whoever takes on the management roles there will be those who will object.
        We have to get past that. Just as we have to get over the animosity towards the SNP. It is possible to disagree with the SNP’s approach to the constitutional issue without hating them. It is possible to oppose some of their policies. But they are the party of government. Without them, the fight to restore Scotland’s independence is going nowhere. Not in any realistic timeframe. The non-SNP part of the Yes movement must learn to live with the SNP. I think having our own campaign to manage and participate in would help with this.

        The campaign I have in mind would not duplicate the work being done by the SNP and its footsoldiers. We should seek to augment that campaign. We would be doing and saying the things that the SNP won’t say or maybe can’t say because they are the party of government.

        Somebody needs to kick-start this thing. I don’t know if I’m up to it. But I’d be happy to advise and assist the right person.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. For me and many others ‘Believe in Scotland’ is the best placed and most experienced organisation to lead the wider independence movement.
          In the autumn of 2021 they ran a very successful day of action followed by a countrywide campaign putting the independence paper through one million doors. It’s hardly surprising that during that period, polls showed support for independence hitting 58%. Unfortunately shortly after we had another wave of covid that stalled campaigning.
          But now, with the FM’s announcement of procedures and timeline, the BIS campaign is also running in parallel. The first day of Action will be 13/08/22 and BIS have produced new up to date leaflets on Pensions, Wellbeing and Scotland’s Wealth. The Scotland the Brief book and it’s mini version are being updated. There is an energy returning to the grassroots, as we take encouragement from the work being done by the SNP and Greens and the initiative and leadership from Believe in Scotland.
          Of course there are other independence supporting political parties and organisations, which we all hope will play their part in the drive towards independence and any positive contributions from them will be appreciated.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “we take encouragement from the work being done by the SNP and Greens”

            Do we? What ‘work’ might that be? All I see is what appears to be a mediocre colonial administration who are busy “feathering their nests” and “leading the people up a blind alley” (Frantz Fanon).

            In relation to “Pensions, Wellbeing and Scotland’s Wealth”, you do know that people vote of the basis of their ‘values’, not what is in their best interest? In colonialism “the values of the colonizer are sovereign” (Albert Memmi).

            The desire for nationhood “is a cultural emotion” (Frantz Fanon), it is not about how wealthy a people may (or may not) become. BIS and other pro-independence groups should therefore focus more on understanding cultural aspects as an established aspect of postcolonial theory, if they really want to make a difference.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. You must have done. She has proposed a date of October 2023 for a referendum, though recognising that it is going to the Supreme Court for a ruling on its legality. If the SC decides that it’s not legal then the fall back (plan B if you like) will be the 2024 GE will be used as a plebiscite.
              Of course if the SC rules that a referendum is not legal, then that blowse apart the Tory/Unionist claim that the U.K. is a union of equals and that Scotland is just a colony, and of course there is a well trodden path of colonies becoming independent of Westminster.
              Oh I know there are a number of people who will never be satisfied with anything NS or the SNP say or do, but so far they haven’t produced any type of clear plan on how to achieve independence.

              Like

              1. Neither the referendum as proposed by Nicola Sturgeon nor the notional plebiscitary election can serve as a formal exercise of our right of self-determination. Neither has any legal/constitutional effect. Neither advances Scotland’s cause so much as a millimetre.

                Oh, I know some people are incapable of questioning anything Nicola Sturgeon says or does, but some of us are still able to think for ourselves.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Even though you’re capable of thinking for yourself, myself and many others who are also capable of thinking for themselves, believe what is being proposed by the SNP is a sensible route forward. If as you say, neither a referendum or a plebiscitary GE advances the cause of Scottish independence, then at the very least we have shown the international community that we have followed a reasonable, democratic route, establishing that the Scottish people desire independence.
                  I’m sure at that point we would have the full support of the EU countries and wider international community for further action to secure our independence.
                  So far nobody else has explained to the independence movement just how they would go about securing Scottish independence. Maybe someone will take the opportunity now to explain their plan.

                  Like

                  1. “So far nobody else has explained to the independence movement just how they would go about securing Scottish independence. Maybe someone will take the opportunity now to explain their plan.”

                    Iain, the SSRG conference last weekend in Dunfermline discussed six routes to independence. Did you not attend? Such was the SNP’s interest in what was the only major conference held on Scottish independence for several years, only one of their MP’s turned up, and that was just for a couple of hours on the last day. There is nothing to stop the SNP Scottish Government and Scotland’s majority of MPs taking forward any and all of these routes as a matter of urgency and indeed they should be committed to doing just that, for they should have no other purpose!

                    https://scottishsovereigntyresearchgroup.org/

                    Liked by 2 people

                    1. 6 routes to independence, are all of them fullproof?
                      Why don’t you explain to us the one you would favour, who would take the necessary steps to implement your favoured plan, and how long will it take to achieve independence.

                      Like

                    2. I have repeatedly explained my preference. The SSRG has also published a great deal of work in this vein. Maybe you need to pay better attention.

                      Like

                    3. Why do you seek to raise barriers to independence? You sound like a unionist.

                      Like

                  2. How can it be a sensible route forward when it is not a route forward at all? This is not a matter of my opinion. It is a matter of absolute fact testified to by both the First Minister and the Lord Advocate. The former was relying on folk like yourself only hearing what you want to hear. Those of us who genuinely can think for ourselves rather than being so in thrall to Nicola Sturgeon that we can easily be made to imagine we’re thinking for ourselves, listen intently to everything that is said. Then we question ever word of it.

                    You will learn too late that neither the glorified opinion poll Sturgeon has proposed nor the pointless plebiscitary election can take us any closer to independence. You could easily prove me wrong by detailing the necessary and direct legal consequences of a Yes vote in either of these. But if you’re smart, you’ll read this first https://www.thenational.scot/news/20299184.scottish-government-submits-written-indyref2-case-supreme-court—read-full/.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. We seem to be getting the usual response from the people that can think for themselves. When asked a simple question, what is your preferred route to Scottish independence, and how would that plan be carried out and by who, with a timeline please? They suddenly lose their voice, just telling you to do the research yourself or pasting a link to a site that tells you nothing.
                      If I went along to a political hustings and asked a question, I can guarantee you the politician that replied with, “ do your own research” or just referred me to a website, certainly wouldn’t get my support, the same applies here.

                      Like

                    2. I can’t possibly repeat everything I’ve said on this matter every time some fool demands it because they can’t be arsed to inform themselves before commenting. There’s a perfectly adequate search function on this blog. It seems you’d rather whine than type in a word or two ─ #ManifestoForIndependence or #ScottishUDI.

                      Like

    2. Truss is better left to her own side, like this tweet from Adam Tomkins for instance:

      Muscular Unionism, ladies and gentlemen. Gets you nowhere fast.” about Truss backtracking.

      Sunak is less of a gift, so more effort needs to be concentrated on downing him.

      Like

  4. They’re already here – in their hundreds of thousands.

    It is of course politically incorrect to analyse the effect of immigration from England as Alf Baird found out, however facts are “chiels that winna ding”.

    Of course a minority will respect their new country and perhaps even support Independence, however most simply view their new surroundings as a quirky part of England…..sorry Britain with bargain property to be exploited.

    I call it “the Welsh solution” to the “problem” of the Scots, and it is well under way and perhaps irreversible.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. We are talking at cross purposes ─ as I think you may be aware. Just to be clear, by default I regard everybody who chooses to live and work and raise a family in Scotland as being entitled to call themselves Scottish with whatever rights that bestows. Nobody said democracy was easy.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Aside from external political control and economic exploitation, a further well-established feature of colonialism is settler occupation. People moving in significant numbers from one nation to another does not mean they will necessarily wish to alter their national identity or national allegiance to that of the host nation. In colonialism, the settler rather imposes his supposedly ‘superior’ identity, culture and language on the native population, and even deprives the native people from learning thair ain braw mither tongue. This is what gives rise to a ‘Cultural Division of Labour’ (Hechter), and in our case an Anglophone meritocratic elite, which depends on and perpetuates socio-linguistic prejudice. Democracy remains a rather theoretical concept in the colonial environment.

        Liked by 7 people

      2. Well yes – no decent person would disagree, however my point is, is that I just don’t think it will be possible to persuade the majority of the incomers to support Independence. I would love to be wrong but I don’t think that I am.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. When someone asks you for your plan, at least have the decency to treat them with some respect, you will certainly not get their support if you refuse to answer and ridicule them. I would suggest you do a summary of your plan for independence, save it, and when asked what your plan is, it will only take you seconds to copy it to the recipient. That will be a much better way of convincing people that you have a viable plan. If you treat people with contempt they are likely to treat you with contempt.

        Like

  5. I would have thought the least our dear leader could do was offer Ms Truss a square go on Glasgow Green!

    I was less than impressed when I read today her appeal to Westminster to loan Scotland the powers to borrow the money to help see our people through this winter of unaffordable fuel bills. Her compassion is laudable but her thought processes give away her view of her position as a governor general of a British outpost asking her superiors for a ‘hauner.’

    Whilst I agree with Peter’s concern for our future, we have to remember it’s going to be Liz Truss we’re dealing with in the immediate future. She genuinely looks like she wouldn’t have the sense to look for a bucket of water if her arse was on fire.

    And, talking about fires, Ms Truss and her cabinet of otherwise unemployable yoons will be so busy ineptly fighting fires this winter that I think Scotland is going to have to be moved down the agenda for a while.

    However, looking at the longer term, I think it’s beginning to dawn on many Scots that oor Nicola will be playing the British game until hell freezes over. Her response to the oncoming winter of mass discontent and mortal danger is rather pathetic, I have to say.

    They say that suffering is a good thing because it drives you deeper. Well many of us are bracing for the winter ahead. Many will suffer, some will die. Wastemonster will not help the people.

    I have a feeling that by next Spring, these islands will be a much changed place.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. ” She genuinely looks like she wouldn’t have the sense to look for a bucket of water if her arse was on fire. ” . LOL ! Aye Thatcher manque Lizzzzzz Tea Biscuit is the definitive gorm-free zone , and will ( almost certainly ) be the next PM for that very reason . A vacuous , malleable cipher with authoritarian instincts whose strings will be easily manipulated by the ERG and other hardcore Right Wing lunatics within and without the Tory Party .

      Liked by 3 people

        1. I don’t Peter , I was referring specifically to LT , at least the impression I’ve formed of her , based on her own actions and words . Even then , I don’t underestimate her willingness to be the * front * for the inevitable awfulness that is coming down the line eg how the State will respond when/if people start taking to the streets in protest at the hardships they’re enduring . She’ll happily use every * tool * in the State’s apparatus to crush anything that threatens to seriously disrupt the status quo

          Liked by 5 people

  6. Many years ago in the late 1960’s I had a heated discussion with George Leslie and Isobel Lindsay on this very matter. I maintained that the enemy to Scotland’s independence was not any political party but was the idea of a British identity. It remains so 50 years later. Our difficulty as a nation is that we have allowed ourselves to accept the appellation of “British” as if it was a label of equality amongst the peoples of these islands. It is not. It never has been, it is a sign of servitude and subservience.
    I have travelled the world and never once have I put my nationality as British, it has always been Scottish.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I have done many things in my life that I’m not proud of. Among the most shameful was allowing myself to be forced into giving my nationality as ‘British’ in order to get work. I was told that the only two choices were British or English.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. This is a great article Peter and extremely scary. I think we will be in for a fight before we can escape their clutches. It won’t be easy.
        Like you I have also been forced into giving my nationality as British but what can you do? My first passport described me as a British subject and my last one as a British citizen; and when you come up against German bureaucracy, you can argue that you’re Scottish until you are blue in the face.

        Liked by 5 people

  7. 100%, Peter. It is always the selfish elites who are the problem. I must admit that I tremble at the thought of what is coming our way, not so much for me because I don’t have much to lose personally except my life, which is on the wane, anyway, but I do worry about the upcoming generations. I fear that the Scots en masse always underestimate the sheer perfidy of Perfidious Albion. Like you, I believe that people who live and work here have the right to call themselves Scots, but I also find it hard to understand the mindset that would deprive others of their right to self-determination even if that means creating a border between our two nations. Borders are there to be crossed. Even the Russian occupation of East Germany finally failed because families and friends wanted to see each other again, but, even then, they did not necessarily want to live in their relatives’ pockets or have their relatives decide everything for them.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. “Borders are there to be crossed”

      Yes, national borders and cultures also act as bulwarks against the oppressions of cultural imperialism and colonialism, to be respected rather than humiliated and obliterated. The post WWII UN self-determination of peoples declaration was aimed at legally terminating brutal empires and their violated treaties.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. “I fear that the Scots en masse always underestimate the sheer perfidy of Perfidious Albion”.

      Perhaps Scots are now getting the measure of what they are up against.
      Which I feared they hadn’t before IndyRef1.

      Let’s hope Scotland will prove able to stand against Westminster, like so many other colonized peoples before them, remembering some paid a very high price for freedom

      Liked by 5 people

  8. When I said earlier that suffering drives you deeper, you have to look for the silver lining in every cloud.

    God knows we are a tolerant race, but we are also a warrior race.

    For most of my life I didn’t think much about politics. I thought the fact that Scotland was poor and lacking in opportunities was just the way it was.

    England seemed a decent neighbour, if a bit superior. We had the NHS, the Welfare State and, although I felt somehow inferior, it seemed like England played a reasonably fair game.

    I was young and naive.

    You often have to see things from a distance to get a clearer view and travelling did broaden my mind. I soon started to look at the bigger picture and it wasn’t pretty!

    I soon realised that Scotland was being colonised, robbed of resources and kept in relative poverty as a means of political control.

    This became crystal clear when we became the only country to discover oil reserves in our territory and become poorer!

    To my mind, the oil and the rise of the SNP/independence movement has clearly exposed the other face of England’s ruling elite.

    Now, they make no secret of their contempt for us and, as they lurch further to the right, they double down on their callous affronts to our democracy and their cruel indifference to our people.

    Things look like they will come to a head this winter. We are about to experience the results of being governed by a hard-Brexiting, profit-obsessed, racist, contemptuous, heartless and ruthless Tory government like never before in my lifetime.

    We will suffer through no fault of our own – or if we are to blame – it is for putting up with this for too long.

    Where will this suffering take us? To ignominious defeat, lethargy and stoic resignation as it is intended by our colonisers?

    Or will it be the thing that causes us to loudly proclaim, ‘no more!’ Will this be the spark that finally ignites the flame of freedom in us?

    Are we Scots or a mere sub-species of Britain as England?

    Too wee? Too poor? Too daft? Too late?

    You decide.

    Sent from my iPhone

    Liked by 5 people

    1. “God knows we are a tolerant race,” We are a tolerant race but we constantly FAIL to protect ourselves from our benevolent naivety , IF a report by Edinburgh University revealed that 52.7% of indigenous Scots did in fact vote FOR independence whilst 72% to 76% of incomers voted overwhelmingly against independence where is the intelligence to suggest anything has changed for the better

      If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over whilst expecting a different result , surely there are many insane naive people in Scotland

      IF we are fighting for our independence against a duplicitous amoral oppressor who will use ANY tactic , I repeat ANY tactic which has been proven, to win and keep Scotland’s resources for themselves, how is it anything but gross STUPIDITY to hobble yourself and give the opposition a greater advantage to win
      Why have Scots got this suicidal belief that we must not only be FAIR but we also have to place the interests of others above our own even if that means our suffering increases

      We have examples all over the world where the indigenous people have suffered through colonisation in one form or another , colonisers play the GUILT GAME which WM are experts at , WHY would anyone moving to Scotland INSIST they have a vote on independence , I despair at the stupidity and naivety of people desperate for independence when evidence produced by a university overwhelmingly suggests that doing the same thing will produce the same results

      Liked by 3 people

        1. 1/ A minimum residential qualification of 10 years with a Scottish Tax code , NO 2nd or holiday home owners , NO non Scot student votes , NO temporary resident votes council tax verification for 10 years required

          Liked by 2 people

  9. There’s an article I casually found here, which I neither agree nor disagree with, but it frames the first question, in the URL itself:

    https://thenewpolis.com/2022/01/17/is-scotland-a-colony-richard-saville-smith/

    Is Scotland a colony (or was it ever)?

    Did devolution bring in any change to that status. and has it changed since for better or worse?
    Do the people of Scotland believe we are a colony, colonised, or were colonised? Have there ever been any opinion polls where such a question was asked?
    What could be the advantages for Independence, of Scotland being thought a colony?
    If Scotland is a colony, could Scotland be elegible for the UN’s decolonization (sic) committee?
    Is Scotland a Non-Self-Governing Territory?
    If so, can Scotland, and how does Scotland, apply to the UN to become an addition to the list of NSGTs, with New Caledonia being the last to be added, but having already previously been one, unlike Scotland which wasn’t identified back in the 40s, and never has been so far?
    It seems this is addressed by the General Assembly of the UN, how would Scotland get this to the UN, would Scotland need a sponsor, would it be our NSGT Devolved Government? Would it need to be on the back of a petition? Would it be sufficient to hold a General Election on the basis of Independence, achieve a majority, but for the UK Government to refuse to negotiate?
    Would any ruling of the UKSC, past present or future, have any bearing on a status of NSGT?
    Do people actually want Scotland to be registered as an NSGT, as ultimately the responisbility is with the colonising state to take action, which means Scotland being at – yes – you guessed it – the mercy of the UK Government?

    Seems to me ALL these questions have to be addresses before “post-colonisation”, or “Colonised mindset” can be discussed or used as a term, often of abuse. And it’s not for me to make the case – it’s for those who believe that Scotland is, was or will be, a colony.

    Like

      1. It is not usually that difficult to figure out if a nation and its people are treated as a colony, and there are clear definitions available to assist those who remain uncertain, such as yourself. The UN describes self-determination independence as ‘decolonization’, which also gives us a wee clue as to what we are discussing. Many colonies were also given treaties, generally in the interest of the oppressor and almost always violated. The ‘colonial mindset’ condition is important in that its function is to ensure that some of the native population, and particularly the native elites and bourgeoisie, who tend to co-operate with colonialism, will continue to deny oppressions and seek to maintain the status quo, i.e. protecting the interest of the oppressor.

        https://wp.towson.edu/iajournal/the-socio-political-determinants-of-scottish-independence/

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Alf, I think you’re missing the point. I’m unimportant in the scheme of things, but in fact have no personal interest in this claim about “colonisation”. I’m not uncertain in the slightest, I just plain disagree. Scotland is not a colony.

          But for those making the case for colonisation, like yourself, I think all 10 questions need to be addressed, even if WordPress did make a mess of it – similarly actually to the way the National and the Herald forums chew up peoples carefully put together, spaced out and paragraphed, and even numberd thoughtful postings, and reduceds them to a blob to make the authero look unintelligent. It’s a conspiracy!

          As with some of Peter’s arguments, I’m happy to try to help increase the power of such arguments, by pointing out what I think needs to be addressed.

          Like

            1. Peter, the only simple definition of colony we actually meet is this one:

              (3 – three). a community of animals or plants of one kind living close together or forming a physically connected structure

              As I said, it’s not an interest of mine, so my opinion is irrelevant, except as an interested bystander, to try to help improve the quality of the “colonialisation” argument. Considering that nobody has bitten the clearly interesting cherry of Scotland becoming an “NSGT”, which could after perhaps 3 decades lead to Independence, it does seem to be a waste of time.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. “I just plain disagree. Scotland is not a colony”

                With respect, that’s not much of a case, is it? I’m imagining a student answering the same question with that sort of response and nothing to back it up.

                Maybe try this: https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/07/18/determinants-of-independence-colonialism/

                “it’s not an interest of mine”

                It should be. The Saville-Smith article you mentioned was informative, offering a number of helpful insights. I’m intrigued that it was not of interest to you. Its main gap as far as I could see was a lack of reference to key postcolonial literature, which my article on YfS includes.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Alf, I’m imagining a student who, when presented with 10 important questions relevant to the development of his thesis, totally ignores them and completely fails to address even one of them. It’s not me pushing the idea that Scotland is a colony, I’m with the (estimated) 99.9% mainstream who would shake their head at anyone who suggests that.

                  Anyways, I’ve got work to do, so unfortunately it’s back to that after my tea.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. Well, none of your ten arbitrary questions relate to the definition of a colony, do they. I’ve given you links to two of my published papers, one in an academic journal and extensively referenced, both of which explain why Scotland may be considered a colony in terms of its history and relationship within the British state. You provided a link to another paper which likewise argues that Scotland is subject to features of colonialism. You could argue against the findings of each of these papers, but do not. You maintain that “Scotland is not a colony” yet appear unable to provide anything further to justify that statement. I respect your opinion but it would be nice to see some attempt to justify it.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. I think technically speaking Scotland, like Ireland in former times (and NI today), might not be considered a colony in some eyes because it sends MPs to Westminster.

                      The USA didn’t (remember no taxation without representation)?
                      India, Kenya, Malta etc certainly didn’t.

                      No matter that Scotland and Ireland were/are vastly outweighed numerically at Westminster. No matter that they were exploited like “real” colonies
                      Their MPs had a right to be there so they weren’t “real”colonies

                      Until Sinn Fein said “Thanks, but no thanks”

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. I prefer to use the term ‘annexed territory’. It avoids all the squabbling about whether or not Scotland is (effectively) a colony.

                      Were I to engage with that squabble, however, it would be to ask a single question. If a territory is in all relevant regards treated as a colony by the dominant power without that power ever acknowledging its role as coloniser; and if that same territory is thought of as a colony by a significant portion of its people without those people ever acknowledging their status as colonised, what – other than formal acknowledgment by one or both parties – is the difference between that territory and a colony?

                      Like

                    3. If I may presume to correct you, Alf. Would it not be more accurate to say that you respect the individual’s right to hold and express an opinion while reserving your own right to utterly reject the content of that opinion?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. Fanon maintained that an independence movement’s understanding of colonialism often remains ‘rudimentary’, and that a weakness of national party elites is their failure to undertake a detailed analysis of the colonial situation. So I expect we should anticipate a degree of misunderstanding here, also given the heavy dose of propaganda and ‘education’ a subordinate people are fed by a dominant culture/power over a prolonged period.

                      Colonialism primarily involves economic plunder and external political control of a nation/people by another country. However, colonialism also involves Cultural/Linguistic Imperialism which elevates the imposed dominant culture/language above that of the native; the latter is usually deprived of learning their own language(s) and punished and/or derided for using it, which of course diminishes the native culture and adversely affects ethnic/national identity and allegiance (leading to a ‘dual-persona’). This is in large part the racism element of colonialism resulting in socio-linguistic prejudice which also provides for a Cultural Division of Labour favouring the dominant power/culture, i.e. the colonizer. This explains why most peoples in self-determination conflict were/are linguistically divided. It also tells us why any independence movement depends on the solidarity of the oppressed and exploited ethnic group, in our case Scots speakers.

                      Liked by 2 people

            2. I would add though, that if the UKSC rules that an opinion seeking referendum on Independence is reserved to Westminster, it does greatly increase the strength of any arguments that Scotland is a colony.

              Like

              1. If Scotland is not a colony but an equal partner in a union, I just have one question:

                What happened to all the oil money?

                I lived an worked in the UAE for a decade, mainly in Dubai. I know what oil wealth looks like.

                There is only one part of the UK where I see the trappings of oil wealth in the buildings, roads and infrastructure.

                Where is that? London! All of it in one place. The bastards got their hands on it and kept it all to themselves.

                If you need a picture of what colonialisation looks like, Google ‘images of modern London.’

                Hang it nexr to your gas and electricity bills!

                Liked by 3 people

  10. Anything involving the UK Government – steer clear! UDI should be delivered as a fait accompli when the time is right.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Interesting pair of articles, first this one:

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/07/18/chris-mccorkindale-the-lord-advocates-role-in-vetting-bills-for-legislation/

    and then a reply to it a week later:

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/07/25/iain-jamieson-the-lord-advocates-role-in-vetting-bills-in-the-scottish-parliament-for-legislative-competence-a-reply-to-chris-mccorkindale/

    I’m with McCorkindale – for me that separates the political from the legal in a more satisfactory fashion than with the Lord Advocate, a non-elected individual, having the right and indeed duty to veto the introduction of a parliamentary Bill if they are unsure about its “legality”, and to be blunt, without a court judgement NOBODY can be sure about the legality or otherwise of any proposed piece of legislation. Same goes for the UK Parliament and its Bills of course.

    As well as the Lord Advocate’s reference, written within the constraints of her actual authority within the Scotland Act S31 / S34, the SNP of course have an intervention which complements that with another angle, and I’d still like to see a Greens complementary intervention perhaps based on human rights, but maybe that would be too many interventions!

    But it would be interesting to see if the UKSC rules the Bill outside legislative competence, if an appeal could be made on the basis of the SNP’s intervention, to the ICJ, or the ECHR on a human rights basis. Which of course is something both the UKSC and UK Government might like to take into consideration for the avoidance of embarrassment, considering the Chagos fandangle, and indeed, the position of the Falklands and Gibraltar. Is it politically worthwhile to gamble on reopening old wounds?

    Like

    1. It makes no difference how the UKSC rules on the proposed referendum as it would have no effect in any case. On behalf of the sovereign people of Scotland ─ whose sovereignty she is supposed to defend ─ she asks a British court if it is lawful for the only Parliament with democratic legitimacy in Scotland to run a glorified opinion poll. What does that say about our sovereignty? Is that what sovereign people do? Is that the way Sturgeon defends our sovereignty ─ by compromising it?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Peter, as you’ve pointed out many times, the SNP are the de facto main party of Independence, and Sturgeon is the de facto leader. I daresay some people don’t agree with everything they do or say, but it’s the only realistic game in town over the next few years. And like you. I don’t want to wait until something else is in place.

        Some people think there is a chance the UKSC will rule such a non-executiing Referendum within the powers of Holyrood, and if they do, then the Referendum in 2023 will go ahead.

        i’m completely certain you will put aside your own reservations and campaign for a YES vote, as will I.

        Like

        1. McCorkindale (and McHarg) also wrote that: “As a matter of law, a referendum is not a required part of the process of becoming independent”. Which rather suggests we should avoid a referendum as far as possible, given the serious risks involved. There are numerous pitfalls with another referendum, much as I explained in my book ‘Doun-Hauden: The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence’, which I am sure you must have read given it is the only theoretical framework developed to explore/explain Scottish independence.

          These pitfalls include, but are not limited to – external interference by other peoples/nations, an irregular local government voter franchise, and using the wrong question (the question on Scotland’s withdrawal from the UK union should arguably be similar to the EU withdrawal question). We might also add here the fact that many of the people and the politicians too still lack an understanding about what independence is (i.e. decolonisation) and why it is necessary (i.e. liberation from oppression).

          My guess is the hidden census/demographic data is also very much in line with another ‘No’ vote, which might suggest the UK establishment could accept a referendum to go ahead in the knowledge that the Yes vote will be defeated. But in any event we can be sure that all the possibilities for a Yes vote will be blocked, ane wey or anither.

          What the SNP are proposing with another referendum therefore has a high probability of ending as in Quebec II, or New Caledonia II/III. And as a referendum is “not a required part of the process of becoming independent” anyway, more especially for an already sovereign people/nation with their own constitution/CoR such as Scotland, why take such a gamble with what would inevitably be the forfeiture of Scotland’s sovereignty for good, for we can be sure the British state will make sure that is the case from another ‘No’ vote in a referendum.

          Hence my preference for Peter’s #Scottish UDI, or some other mechanism, such as a case laid before the Coort o Session, an hit wad sauf aw Scots fowk a lot o tribble if Scotlan’s ain braw Coort o Session’s nobile officium fund thon mankit an deceitfu Treaty o Union sairly abuised an vyde, an the gemm ower at lang an last.

          Sae A widnae get awfu heich aboot anither referendum fankle if A wis ye.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. That’s selective quoting Alf, they go on to say:

            However, it is at least arguable that, in a conventional sense, it is a constitutional requirement, given the precedent of the 2014 independence referendum, the provisions for a border poll on Irish reunification in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and the statutory referendum ‘lock’ against unilateral abolition of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament by the UK Parliament in the Scotland Act 2016.

            They also previously said:

            As a matter of UK constitutional law, Scotland can only become independent with the agreement of the UK Parliament – whether that agreement is explicit and direct, via specific legislation granting independence; indirect, via a general transfer of competence to secure independence to Holyrood; or implicit, if the authority to seek independence can already be found within the terms of the Scotland Act 1998.

            You can’t just pick and choose quotes that suit your purpose. And no, I haven’t read your book, nor would I, I’m interested in the opinions of actual constitutional experts and lawyers like McHarg, Keating, Mullen, Page, Walker, Bell,, even Tomkins and of course LPW though I have read with interest your comments at times on maritime matters, your actual area of expertise.

            Here’s a good resource for you to learn something about constitutional matters regarding Scotland and Independence:

            https://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/

            Click on the Opinion and Analysis tab,, and go through the archives.

            Enjoy!

            Like

              1. That’s just plain wrong, and actually reveals you don’t know who they are, but a permanent sneer does seem to be the only tool in your bag.

                In fact half are Unionists, half are Indy supporters. A couple of the Indy supporters were neutral to start with, which shows the value of intelligent constitutional articles, and indeed, discussion.

                Like

                  1. How can you be neutral on independence? Dae thay abstain fae the vote? Neutrality was also the position of the SNP Scottish Government in the Keatings case. The SNP neutral on independence, eh?

                    You said: “And no, I haven’t read your book, nor would I, I’m interested in the opinions of actual constitutional experts and lawyers like McHarg, Keating, Mullen, Page, Walker, Bell,, even Tomkins and of course LPW”.

                    Which one of them has figured out that independence is decolonisation then? Maybe they think Scotland is in ‘a union of equals’? In any event constitutional law alone does not explain the predicament Scotland is in nor the aim of, or barriers to independence, that’s perhaps too narrow a perspective on what is a complex phenomenon. Constitutional factors form only one of my nine-part theoretical framework on the subject, with most of the above authors referenced, plus a lot more.

                    I would also highly recommend reading of postcolonial theory which tells us all we need to know about decolonisation (i.e. independence).

                    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.