There is, I venture to state, a widespread if not general acceptance within the Yes movement that one of the positives of the 2014 referendum campaign was the normalisation of the word ‘independence’ – even if the actual concept was little examined. A term that had previously been consigned to the ideological fringe found currency in mainstream political discourse – there to remain. It might also be suggested that there was some normalisation, too, of the word ‘referendum’; and thereby of the idea of direct democracy. Again, there was little discussion of what a proper constitutional referendum should look like. And the idea of a referendum was not much linked to the wider concept of direct democracy. But it can hardly be denied that the referendum campaign had a normalising effect. I confidently contend that we are seeing a similar normalisation process in relation to other words and the ideas associated with them.
I offer three examples of terms and concepts which have only lately entered the lexicon of the debate around the constitutional issue. I also contend that the process of normalisation in these instances has been both remarkably rapid in some quarters and inexplicably slow in others. The three terms are, in no particular order, ‘unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)’; ‘colony’; and ‘liberation’.
#ScottishUDI
I have previously written, and frequently spoken, of my (pleasant) surprise when I presented my thoughts on UDI to the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group (SSRG) Conference almost exactly a year ago (29 August 2022). I had expected considerable resistance to the idea, even if the audience was too sophisticated for the all-too-common knee-jerk reaction to the term ‘UDI’ that is the product of years of conditioning. I was taken aback by the response which actually greeted my remarks. Respectful if scowling silence while I spoke might have been the best I thought might be expected. In fact, what I saw was people nodding in agreement. There was even the odd smattering of applause, if I recall aright.
In the year since then, I have seen further confirmation of the normalisation of the idea of #ScottishUDI. There is even some agreement with my stated view that #ScottishUDI is the only way Scotland’s independence will be restored. We may be getting to the stage where it is those who react with the ‘traditional’ negativity who look outdated in their thinking. Or, to put it another way, they have yet to catch up with the new thinking on the constitutional question.
Scotland the colony
While I might justifiably claim some small credit for contributing to the normalisation of ‘UDI’, there can be no disputing where credit goes for normalisation of the idea of Scotland as a colony of England-as-Britain. Professor Alf Baird’s work* demonstrating the applicability of the term ‘colony’ to Scotland has been hugely influential. I can testify to this as I am of those who have been hugely influenced.
I was long resistant to suggestions that Scotland has been colonised. But as I read Alf Baird’s arguments, I found myself quite unable to refute them. Everything that he says about what constitutes a colony I recognised as applying to Scotland.
Colonialism is not that difficult to understand. Colonialism is first and foremost economic plunder. Everything is taken from the country cheaply – oil & gas, energy, aggregates, food, whisky – with goods sold back to the natives at higher cost. The role of a colony is primarily to serve the needs of the mother country, in this case England.
Scotland’s Colonial Status
I was, and remain, uncomfortable with some aspects of Alf Baird’s argument. Particularly his observation that “settler occupation” is a defining characteristic of colonisation and that this holds true for Scotland as elsewhere. While I may find this unsettling, it is impossible when confronted with the facts to dispute that demographics represent a significant factor affecting measured support for restoration of independence versus retention of the Union. Nor can it sensibly be denied that this significance is increasing. Whether it is a purposeful colonising ploy really doesn’t matter. Deliberate or coincidental, the impact on Scotland’s cause remains the same.
This is an issue that has to be approached with a great deal of sensitivity. But we owe a debt of gratitude to Alf Baird for bringing it into the light. For too long, there have been aspects of Scotland’s predicament which were held to be taboo topics by supporters as well as opponents of Scotland’s cause. Such matters must not be left to fester. They must be confronted and debated – hopefully with less than the customary vitriol. That is why it is so important that these terms and the ideas to which they refer are normalised. That this seems to be happening is one of the more promising portents for Scotland’s cause.
Liberation
Just as I flinched from the idea of Scotland as a colony, so I was reluctant to accept the suggestion that the people of Scotland are unfree implied by use of the term ‘liberation’. I recognise that oppression can take many forms and need not involve violent coercion to be defined as such. Even if there is a sense in which people in Scotland are placed in a sort of captivity by the Union, nobody in Scotland feels confined or constrained in a way that would commonly be associated with oppression. They sure as hell don’t feel enslaved!
My attitude to the term ‘liberation’. changed dramatically as I came to recognise that it was not the people per se who were the captives of colonisation but Scotland’s political and cultural institutions. It is our government and our parliament and our civil service and our language and our media and our history which have been captured in a process of surreptitious colonisation over a period of three centuries and more. It is these institutions which demand to be liberated if Scotland is to be a normal independent nation.
When we talk of colonised minds, we refer to the long-term effect of the capture of all the fundamental apparatus of one nation by another. This effect is inevitable, insidious and intellectually incapacitating in that the colonised mind can only think like a colonised mind while vigorously rejecting the suggestion that it has been colonised. The grip of the coloniser is broken, but not completely removed, when the capacity to think outside the wee British box is triggered; often by some sudden realisation in the course of debate; either as a participant or as an observer. The process of decolonisation of the mind begins here. It can be a protracted process with many setbacks. A process which is different for every individual.
I would hypothesise that for those affected, decolonisation of the mind is a process which is never completed. Generations may have to pass before the effect of colonisation of the mind is eradicated from Scotland’s population. People will have to be born and live their lives in an environment of liberated political and cultural institutions in order to have the possibility of being free of the effects of three centuries of creeping colonisation. Even then, they are likely to be ‘infected’ by the still partially colonized minds of parents and other older people in their environment.
It stands to reason that normalisation of the term and idea of liberation is essential if enough minds are to be sufficiently decolonised to recognise that the basic apparatus of Scotland the nation has been captured by a foreign power and fight to restore all our political and cultural institutions to the service of Scotland and its people rather than the ruling elites of England-as-Britain. That this normalisation appears to be happening is, therefore, a promising sign. For this, we have once again to thank Alf Baird. But also, Sara Salyers and everyone else involved with Salvo and Liberation Scotland and, of course, the Stirling Directive, even if the latter involves some very muted blowing of my own trumpet as a member of the groups which drafted the Stirling Directive.
The new thinking
What is discussed and described above is what I call the new thinking in relation to Scotland’s constitutional issue. The terms and concepts referred to are all essential components of this new thinking. Unfortunately, the capacity to reconceptualise Scotland’s cause in any meaningful way totally eludes Scotland’s own political establishment. With vanishingly rare exceptions, all the Scottish (not British) politicians and parties defer to the alien concept of parliamentary sovereignty even while mouthing the sovereignty of Scotland’s people as if that concept were nothing more than an electoral campaign slogan. All this implies is that the process of retaking the institutions which define our distinctive political culture and national identity must be driven by the people.
This, too, is part of the new thinking. Thanks to the research undertaken by Sara Salyers and others, we now know that the “legal and constitutional” route to independence exists. That it does not exist in the legal and constitutional framework imposed on Scotland by the colonising power should not be at all surprising. I shall eschew further comment on those who maintained that this non-existent route was the democratic “gold standard”. I shall even restrain myself from passing judgement on those who yet adhere to this ‘old thinking’ despite all the real-world developments which point up the idiocy of doing so. That the “legal and constitutional” route does exist in Scotland’s own legal and constitutional environment will be news to most people, I suspect. It certainly was a revelation to me.
My hope is that this new thinking will spread and gain traction such that not even the politicians who are well-practised in turning a deaf ear and blind eye to the people are unable to brush it off in their customary high-handed fashion. How else might Scotland be rescued from colonisation?
*Doun-Hauden: The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence by Alfred Baird
Peter A Bell 
If YES had won in 2014 it would have exposed the reality that a referendum conducted in a devolved context can never result in independence. The blind alley outcome would have provoked anger not aimed at our political leaders but at the mendacity of the British State.
The expansion of the lexicon of concepts that have to be understood to make it clear that the British State is toying with us will take years to penetrate voter consciousness and right now that looks a distant prospect.
Killing off the delusion that a “gold standard’ Referendum conducted under UK auspices is a way out of the Westminster sh*tshow would be a start.
LikeLiked by 7 people
A spot on article.
Scottish UDI
The Manifesto for Independence lays out clear concise steps and a scrupulously fair and transparent process for restoring Scotland’s full self-government. So this is Scotland’s democratic, not white supremacist Rhodesia’s deviant, variant of UDI. One backed by the majority of the people.
In order to achieve this arguments have to be re-framed with the constitution not only taking primacy but being the only matter of importance with solutions to Scotland ailments only possible when the country returns to being a nation-state.
It has been evolving to take into account latest circumstances and political developments. Credit to one Peter A Bell.
Scotland the Colony
Alf Baird’s Doun Hauden and Determinants of Independence are really enlightening here. He provides a rational argument that colonisation is always economic exploitation of one country’s resources by another for the benefit of the latter and that the root of imperialism is always fascist.
Most importantly folk have to become aware of the suppression of the main tenants of what define a ‘people’. That language, whether Scots or Gaelic, is spoken by a tiny fraction of the population and the history taught from a very British perspective are examples of this. Our culture is derided as being drunk ‘men in skirts’ who daub their faces blue to re-enact battles past. We are, therefore, somewhat inadequate and rather pathetic according to this caricature.
Once awareness is raised people start to have self-worth and the feeling futility starts to evaporate.
Liberation
Thanks to Iain Lawson/Yours for Scotland for first bringing Sara Salyers and her nascent thinking on the Scottish Constitution and how we the people are sovereign… and what the latter means in practice in Scotland. That parliament is subordinate to the people. That the ‘Crown’ in Scotland is actually the people, not the monarch. That our territory was not part of the Treaty of Union and has been illegally annexed. And much more beside.
Overall
It really is amazing that the majority of this thinking has only developed in the last 3/4 years at most and how far and fast it has developed. You once said something, I think, along the lines of the fact that you hoped that, in a political vacuum, leaders would naturally emerge from within the YES supporting population at some stage. I think that is what we are witnessing now, especially with the politicians so far ‘behind the curve’.
Still some way to go but the people do seem to be doing it for themselves.
LikeLiked by 10 people
Well said Peter.
Words have Weight.
Words really Matter.
These words convey Ideas and the more that people are exposed to these ideas the more it becomes obvious that they do actually describe the situation of the People of Scotland.
Obviously actions are important too!
The next year or so is going to be a crucial period in the Liberation Struggle.
The People must be sufficiently informed that sufficient numbers can understand the true danger when England-as-Britain comes proposing ‘enhanced’ constitutional arrangements that will doubtless seek to remove our ancient Scottish rights.
LikeLiked by 7 people
With reference to the word “colony”, it’s wise to draw attention to the architect of General Semantics, Alfred Korzybski:
“The map is not the territory, the word is not the thing it describes. Whenever the map is confused with the territory, a ‘semantic disturbance’ is set up in the organism. The disturbance continues until the limitation of the map is recognized.”
I made a comment on the previous thread so I’ll leave it at that for the now.
Except to say that if some easier version of S.I. Hiyakawa’s “Language in Thought and Action” had been introduced to Scottish Schools from as soon as possible after 2007 when the SNP became the minority Government, we would be free already.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting and welcome observations, Peter.
One point you make that is perhaps of greatest importance here, is of the politicians, and their still very colony minded deferential approach to Westminster.
And yeah, I speak of the current First Minister especially.
He has not the slightest desire to go outside the Westminster rule book.
If his comments about SNP winning Rutherglen are anything to go by.
A report in The National for this Sunday displays his woeful strategic thinking.
“Humza Yousaf says SNP by-election win would force Labour rethink” The National, Sunday, August 27th.
He shouldn’t be trying to either change Labour policies or trying to save Labour from itself, in the same way Nicola Sturgeon threw Independence and Scotland out the window, trying to save England from itself over Brexit, and in the process got nothing out of it for Scotland such as a Northern Ireland style deal, and we ended up out of Europe, totally.
Yousaf should instead be flogging the point that a win for SNP is a win for Independence. But, no! He wants to change Labour policy, and seems to be wanting to help them win seats!!!
Woeful thinking indeed!
They have learned nothing, nothing at all from previous campaign failures, when SNP were more or less declaring they would control Westminster in the event of a hung Parliament, and how Scotland would benefit, etc, etc, etc, and we all saw where that got us.
Independence should be the main line for SNP, and not trying to influence pro London politicians in that manner, as basically, it is practically saying SNP does not expect to get us Independence anytime soon, and so, the only way to change London thinking, is to vote for dear us, your beloved SNP, to get anything out of London.
And again, we have seen that approach get Scotland nothing out of London.
Tho we are being offered the chance of a free picture of the new King of England!
It it would be better he either stood down now, or someone makes him.
Both SNP and Scotland, deserve better than this colonized political mentality.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Maybe I should do a piece on old thinking. Or wrong thinking. It’ll be a long article.
LikeLiked by 5 people
From the national:
“Nessie hunters report hearing ‘four distinctive noises’ in water”
That’ll be Charybdis telling Scylla to get the kettle on. And get packed to go back to the Corryvreckan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry I’m going off topic again.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23749869.scottish-judges-warn-snp-reforms-see-political-abuse-courts/
“In their unanimous submission to the consultation, Scotland’s 36 judges are scathing.
They write: “These proposals are a threat to the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary. It is of critical constitutional importance that there is a legal profession which is willing and able to stand up for the citizen against the government of the day. “”
To think I voted for Constance (the Bill introducer) as depute.
Democracy is a triangle; the legislative, the executive and the judiciary, surrounded by a circle of us, the People. If the executive / legislative take it upon themselves to control the judiciary, democracy is fucked. Who needs Westminster when we have the SNP?
Leave our judiciary alone.
LikeLiked by 5 people
In reference to the settler question I posted this comment on Grousebeater’s site
When discussing this topic I always refer to the indigenous people’s from around the world , in October 2023 there was a vote taken in Australia where the indigenous Aboriginals had requested a permanent representation within the Australian parliament to ensure their voices could and would be heard ,the indigenous Aboriginals had been trying for years to secure representation, the vote result was overwhelmingly AGAINST granting that representation and request, WTAF the ORIGINAL inhabitants of the country , the NATIVES were DENIED permanent representation by the NEW Australians, but I bet that every other minority grouping will have statutory enforced representation
I agree with Haagshighlander constitutional matters should only be decided by indigenous Scots , I have to question why people feel it is their ENTITLEMENT to be consulted on the independence question , if they genuinely believe Scotland should be independent they should be happy when it happens , but they should also remind themselves that all the other incomers have proven that that is not necessarily their belief
I have seen many comments that we should be delighted and grateful that people have chosen to come here and we should thank them for choosing Scotland , I don’t support that viewpoint, I think people should be grateful and indebted that we allow them to come to our beautiful country, TBQH I am sick of people undermining and undervaluing our nationhood , our politicians especially would give our nationhood away with MacDonalds vouchers
I want people to RESPECT and VALUE our nationhood NOT demand and assert what they want us to concede
When we have our independence they can APPLY for citizenship, but just like other countries who value their nationhood they will have to comply with certain criteria
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see more than a few presentational problems.
LikeLike