The United Kingdom often presents itself as a bastion of democracy, yet beneath the surface, its political structure more closely resembles a feudal system than a modern representative government. At its core lies an unelected head of state, Chatles III of England, an archaic second chamber stuffed with political appointees and donors, and a centralised English Parliament that dominates the Celtic nations—Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland—as if they were vassal colonies rather than equal partners.
An Unelected Monarchy in a Supposed Democracy
The UK remains one of the few countries in the world where the head of state inherits their position by birthright rather than democratic mandate. The monarchy, a relic of medieval rule, still holds symbolic power, with the King or Queen serving as the ultimate source of sovereignty. In theory, this sovereignty is vested in Parliament, but in practice, it reinforces an outdated hierarchy where power is passed down through bloodline rather than public consent.
This system is fundamentally undemocratic. While the monarchy’s political influence is largely ceremonial, its existence perpetuates the idea that governance is a privilege of lineage rather than a right of the people. Worse still, the monarch’s role in government is not purely symbolic—royal assent is still required for laws to pass, and the Crown retains significant influence over state affairs, including the power to appoint prime ministers in times of political crisis.
The House of Lords: A Chamber of Cronyism
If the monarchy represents the feudal past, the House of Lords embodies its modern equivalent—a bloated, unelected body filled with political allies, donors, and hereditary peers. With around 830 members, the Lords is one of the largest legislative chambers in the world, yet not a single member is elected by the public.
Appointments to the Lords are often rewards for loyalty, financial contributions, or political favors. Prime ministers routinely stuff the chamber with party loyalists, ensuring that legislation can be influenced by patronage rather than merit. Hereditary peers—those who inherit their seats—still make up a portion of the chamber, further entrenching the aristocratic nature of British governance.
This system is not just undemocratic; it is corrupt by design. Wealthy donors who bankroll political parties are frequently rewarded with peerages, granting them legislative power without any accountability to voters. The Lords, far from being a revising chamber of experts, functions as a retirement home for politicians and a lobbying ground for the elite.
The Celtic Nations: Vassal States in All But Name
Perhaps the most glaring evidence of the UK’s feudal structure is its treatment of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Despite devolution, these nations remain subordinate to Westminster, where English MPs dominate decision-making. The UK Parliament can—and often does—override the decisions of devolved governments, effectively reducing them to regional administrations rather than autonomous legislatures.
This imbalance is starkly evident in policies like Brexit, where Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU but were dragged out against their will. Westminster routinely ignores the democratic mandates of the Scottish Parliament, refusing even to allow a referendum on independence despite consistent electoral support for pro-independence parties.
Wales and Northern Ireland face similar disregard. Key decisions on taxation, welfare, and even environmental policy are frequently imposed from London, with little regard for local needs or democratic outcomes. This colonial-style governance treats the Celtic nations as subordinate territories rather than equal partners in a union.
A Democratic Facade
The UK’s political system is a masterclass in illusion. It claims to be a democracy while retaining the structures of feudal rule—an unelected monarch, an aristocratic second chamber, and a centralised power structure that dominates its peripheral nations. Real democracy requires accountability, representation, and the consent of the governed. The UK fails on all three counts.
Until the monarchy is abolished, the Lords are elected, and the Celtic nations are granted true self-determination, the United Kingdom will remain what it has always been—a feudal state in democratic clothing.
Windsor parasites continue to shit on us all from above largely thanks to the sickening sycophancy which surrounds them and the unquestioning support from British nationalist media, especially the BBC. It’s when we have supposedly pro-independence politicians like Swinney desperately clamouring for statues to these parasites that it gets really depressing for the rest of us. Swinney has fully accepted his grovelling subordinate place in this feudal set up. He is no leader; never will be.
Couldn’t agree more Roddy. Democracy in the UK is an utter illusion. The political process is absolute testimony to that.
And of course the British state play very deep in watching, subverting the will of the people. Its not just trade unions and political pressure groups that get infiltrated. The police, the judiciary, key civil servants all have a part to play. Bribery and blackmail are part of the state’s stock in trade too. Anyone who knows the history of Ireland or how participation in paedophile rings are used to control politicians understands the concepts very well.
Willie MacRae understood that. He apparently had detailed knowledge of a ring at the heart of the Thatcher government and after many strange burglaries of his office, and surveillance by operatives unknown he died in a questionable suicide that was never investigated.
So yes, ultimately the veneer of democracy, exposes circumstances of state interventions of the most heinous kind. Was MacRae murdwered by the state, was Alex Salmond set up to destroy his return to politics, was Craig Murray’s jailing justified or was this faux democracy being exposed for what it is.
Lawyer Pat Finnucaine and later lawyer Rosemary Nelson over in NI found out exactly what the arms of the state are capable of when political needs must. Or many many of the other dirty deed.
But back to the key point of the article, democracy is an illusion, and keeping it that way is what the Brits are good at. And more so in a colony that has wealth and resources that the Brits want to plunder. If they wanted to hold on to Northern Ireland, just think how much they want to hold onto Scotland..
The House of Lords also includes 26 bishops of the Church of England so the UK is part theocracy.
Maybe best to leave England to decide what to do with its monarchy and class structure, Roddy. I am reminded of the SNPs needless diversion from the cause of independence/liberation to the subsidiary matter of Brexit and the blind alley that took us along.
For a colonized people, such as us Scots, even Communists such as Aime Cesaire believed that the most urgent task which is ending “colonial racism.. cannot be subordinate to the class struggle”.
No, we do not have a democracy in the modern sense of the word, and, yes, ours does resemble a feudal state, but it has adapted and changed over the centuries without too much bloodshed. Scotland was no different from England in those respects, to be fair. I’m a republican, but I can live with a royal family so long as they are a constitutional monarchy. The problem with all revolutions is that, inevitably, they eat their own children, can become a bloody mess, turning family against family in what is often almost a civil war, and you can end up with something far worse – at least, for a time. Our monarchy may well end with William, or even Charles, peacefully and organically, when – not if – Scotland regains her independence.
Michael Davitt (1846-1906) wrote “The Fall of Feudalism in Ireland” – basically the story of the Land War (Land League Revolution) which wrested Irish land from English hands and put it into the hands of Irish farmers.
Looks like Scotland needs to start its own Land War.
The story of Captain Boycott is emblematic. In response to his proposed evictions of Irish tenant farmers, the Irish refused to have anything to do with him – no more servants or grooms, cooks or cleaners,shops refused to serve him, no food was sold to him, no post was delivered,no field workers to bring in the harvest, no horses or coachmen to drive him away from this nightmare!. Totally ostracised until he fled. lessons are still there to be learned if Scotland is tired of its feudal system
Excellent points re Captain Boycott. This is the way to do it. No bloodshed. No suffering of innocents. Yes, it can be applied to the land, but also to many other aspects, e.g. energy. However, that approach is always contingent upon people being willing to co-ordinate, co-operate and see it through to the bitter end. In Scotland? They always say that the Irish would fight with their shadows, but it is actually the Scots to whom that should be applied because we cannot even seem to approach independence with anything even remotely resembling coherence and a willingness to co-operate.
Sturgeon’s book fest debacle shows just how far Scotland has fallen in the (alleged) corruption stakes, and it proves to anyone with two brain cells to spark off each other that the SNP is rotten at the head and has been for some time. These barstewards care not one jot about Scotland or its people. We are, officially, a banana republic without the bananas. Cronyism, placementism, perpetualism, extreme perversion, child eugenics. Scotland the Brave has all the negative attributes of the wee, parochial, Knoxian, ‘Holy Willie’, ‘ah kent yer faither’, torn-faced village mentality married to extreme greed, corruption and feather-nesting on a grand scale. The entire edifice requires to be torn down and stamped on with metaphorical Doc Martens. While some are forced to feed their children from food banks, some are killing themselves slowly with noxious drugs and former soldiers who fought for their country lie in shop doorways, these people hop from one highly-lucrative position to another, trampling over their prone bodies to get there.
Fair comment, Lorn, but it’s less the revolution than the counter-revolution when the blood really gets spilled.
Exactly. That is what I meant by revolutions eat their own children. They invariably consume the very people who started them, killing them in grotesque ways, and a new counter revolution takes root. Either revolution or counter revolution are known for their bloodless coups.
The comments about Captain Boycott are very apt.
They bring into clear focus how co-ordinated ostracisation with the denial of all engagement caused Captain Boycott to flee the community of which he was a colonial master. There is a lesson and a clear message in this and when aligned with mass political will, which this boycott very much reflected, the position of the colonial master becomes untenable.
But of course the colonists actually know this very well and they fear it. Indeed, their own side in the 70s in the strife riven colony of Northern Ireland implemented a variation of theme when Loyalists mounted a general strike to bring down the Sunningdale Agreement. That action of course was predicated on burning down the whole house in act of viciousness to all who would suffer from the loss of service, but it does exemplify how no colonial government can withstand mass people pressure. The Loyalists had learned well from their colonial masters in matters of extreme viciousness. The Boycott of course primarily denied Captain Boycott of the use of his ill gotten enterprise.
Maybe the two examples are not great bed fellows. The loyalists in NI through thuggery and years of being the favoured colonists in a divided society with control over the key levers in society were able to intimidate through a general strike affecting everyone whereas the Boycott was a much more people driven affair focussed at Captain Boycott.
Is there a message in this. Are there points to take out of this. Can peaceful civil action against the colonial masters in conjunction with democratic will denied be part of a strategy for the removal of undemocratic colonisation and exploitation.
Or do Scots just continue to take their beating the the tattered dogs they have become in their own country Maybe as folks get poorer, and get ever more less in everything from power for their houses to healthcare to social support to infrastructure investment that benefits them, then they might care to rumble the thoughts of where they are going round in their heads and whatcould and maybe should be the way forward.
Most certainly, a mandate for independence in the 2026 eection would be a start.