A Guest Post by Gayle Miller.
Referring to voters or the electorate as “undecided” or by other terms creates a subconscious “them” and “us” division instead of uniting everyone and focusing on the issues that Scots all share to some extent or another with regards to their country, Scotland.
Furthermore, using the terms Westminster, UK Government, parliamentary sovereignty, power etc rather than the correct terms, Parliament of Great Britain, English Government, English (parliamentary) sovereignty, authority, English political parties, reserved, etc. is a consequence of Scotland having had a false narrative given to them for 300 years. The last 200 years having had the English continuator state narrative forced on it on a daily basis. This narrative, which was summed up by Crawford and Boyle and promoted by the English government and its establishment claims that Scotland was extinguished and subsumed into a greater England albeit under the new name of UK. I think it is fair to say most Scots would disagree strongly with that assertion. The late esteemed regius professor emeritus of law, David Walker, certainly did. An essay from the law journal can be found here: https://www.lawscot.org.uk/…/the-union-and-the-law…/
Additionally, in the references from I B Campbell you will find a quote from ex English PM, John Major: “This White Paper is about the Union with Scotland. That Union is almost 300 years old. As I have said before, no nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will … The Act of Union in 1707 was a remarkable political development. The union it enshrined is an enduring achievement which is to the credit of our people.” And further, “And if the Union is to flourish in the future a more concerted recognition of Scotland’s status as a nation will be necessary. It should be a mark of Scotland’s self-confidence in her own status as a nation that she shares her sovereignty with the other parts of the United Kingdom. But the willingness to share that sovereignty must never be taken for granted.” This is important because the Parliament of Holyrood had not been created and as he and other English PMs stated the only thing Scotland needed to reassert its statehood was to elect a pro-indy Scottish government. No referendum, no asking the English government. Simply an assertion of Scots sovereignty. The reference then highlights this by stating “In my submission the United Kingdom Government was entirely correct in this assertion of Scotland’s status as a nation and in its recognition that Scotland was indeed a sovereign nation which was entitled in the exercise of its sovereign will to leave the Union.” One can then look at the speech by Welsh representative Carwyn Jones regarding sovereignty.
Now in the references there are basic mistakes. Major calling it a political union when what was ratified in 1707 was an international trade agreement between 2 sovereign states. For this reason both countries retained their authority and were legally equal partners with equal authority to the state of GB. There is no written constitution of GB or indeed GB government in the terms and conditions of the treaty nor frankly anything that would have made it a political union rather than a trade agreement because the true nature of the treaty was one of trade. Why make this long point? Because the framing of Scotland’s independence and its statehood is from an English establishment perspective where they claim that Scotland was extinguished and subsumed into a greater England under the name of UK. The fight Scotland has is between Scotland and the English government and its establishment. Not Wales and Northern Ireland. Using the term Westminster not only includes Wales and Northern Ireland but perversely SCOTLAND as well. It is therefore important to reframe that narrative and bring it back to the true nature of the union treaty.
For too long the Scots have been made to believe that referring to England and the English government and its establishment is somehow xenophobic. This is a common trait shared with many of the nations that reclaimed their statehood from GB. It may on the surface seem inconsequential but the mind is the greatest battlefield and one where Scots will be taking their wounded from for many years after the reassertion of Scotland’s statehood.
Carwyn Jones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNawcGqBWc4
Christine Graham: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ychGT4dslrU
Gayle Miller
Webcom Radio is Now Playing:
Excellent piece. I have to confess that I am not always sure about the correct terminology. I say ‘Scottish Health Service’ rather than NHS, but I say ‘British State’ rather than U.K. So I am wondering whether ‘English State’ (assisted, of course, by house-jocks) is more appropriate.
Thank you.
In order to make the distinction clear between the two (English and Scottish) I sometimes say Scottish NHS. I would put English state and state of GB where applicable rather than British or UK depending on the context it is used in.
So a bit of searching found this article:
“The Union and the law
On the 300th anniversary of the 1707 Union, an argument that its legal basis is often misunderstood and that its reconsideration would be far from simple
18th June 2007 | David Walker
”
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-52-issue-06/the-union-and-the-law/
🙂
It was this article that initially got me really looking into the treaty of Union and its true nature – that of an international trade agreement between 2 sovereign nation states. It is a great read which highlights the compounding errors of the legislators, parliamentarians etc stemming from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the treaty of Union was and is.
For those who are interested, there is an excellent piece by Garreth Wardell here:
“Scotland’s Constitution”
Posted on May 12, 2018 by Grouse Beater
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/scotlands-constitution/
Always happy to see essays from my good friend Gareth.
On the few occasions that I have made btl comments I have often tried to use the phrase ‘English’ government. However I must admit also falling into the trap of saying the ‘UK’ and @Westminster’. I blame it on more than sixty years indoctrination.
Reverse indoctrination might help if all the bloggers starting using the term English Parliament and English Government when appropriate. How about it Barrheadboy?
I actually do that already Willie John except with guest blogs and press releases not my place to change them.
Slightly O/T: It occurred to me quite some time ago that because we in Scotland receive the bulk of our news coverage from a foreign state,namely England, that we can’t logically expect balanced coverage or informed reportage about Scottish politics, culture and social affairs. It is only possible to take offence or feel disappointment at this, if you consider yourself as being British; it is illogical in the extreme if you regard yourself as Scottish. (A difficult feat to achieve, for some.) The people employed by the London-centric media, largely speaking, identify as English, not British thus they understand the world, quite naturally, from an English perspective. Their knowledge of Scotland will generally be on a par with that of their knowledge of Ireland i.e.extremely limited. Scots working in the London media have, of course, always realised this and have proceeded accordingly in order to work there. The up-shoot of all this is, in my opinion, that, a truly Scottish media, indeed a truly Scottish “anything”, can and will only be achieved by means of Scottish independence.