A Guest Post by Roger Anderson.
Remember all those films where the good guys go up against the bad guys? (And yes, they invariably are guys but that’s a whole other area of discussion.) Of course you do, for those of a certain age it was cowboys in white hats against the ones in black hats, another era it was a big heavy breathing guy in black full body armour and a helmet telling the goodie that he was in fact his father.
From an early age we’re taught that history and events are about the big important people, the good ones and the bad ones. The British state has its own perfect story to tell us, back in the 1940s ‘we’ all came together and won against the baddest ever baddie led by a cigar smoking good guy called Winston who won against all the odds. The good guys often win against the odds apparently. It happens like that in the movies too so it must be true. Britain/the UK, whatever you care to call it, has dined out ever since on this story, even though in reality it’s dining on thin gruel. It allowed the UK to remain structurally unreformed through the post-war era, the same people remained in control, despite the small hiccup in 1945 when a demobilised army of ordinary people, most trained in the war to fight, decided things must change. In the longer term though it allowed ‘us’ the good guys, to continue to think of ourselves as the ‘goodies’, for example ‘we’ gave lots of countries back to their people, let’s forget about the exploitation, concentration camps, murders assassinations, rape and pillage – we’re the ones in the white hats and those were just off days when a few bad apples spoilt things.
Every country does this to a greater or lesser extent. They need national myths, but the UK is possibly unique in remaining relatively unreformed throughout the centuries of pillage and exploitation by the ‘bad apples’, never supplanting it’s ruling ‘elite’ and in not coming to some sort of terms with what it did and instead continuing to do similar by other means.
Ah but Scotland, we, of course, are different, us plucky Scots. Sorry folks, we have our own national myths of good guys v bad guys. Let’s take our great national hero The Bruce. We have a habit of sticking ‘The’ before things we think or want to think are important and Bruce to be fair was very important – he led a liberation campaign against the baddest of bad English kings, Edward the 1st and won so we owe him a lot. We of course also celebrate another national hero of that era, Wallace, or Mel Gibson as some people prefer to call him, he failed, though in fairness he was betrayed. He was hung drawn and quartered by the bad guy, Edward of England. This sets up the perfect national story – goodies v baddies, the good guy executed by the baddie but we bounce back having found another good guy who liberates us.
Scottish history is replete with these stories, and we dine out on them too, the other big one concerns the Jacobite rising where we see another baddie The Duke of Cumberland, do terrible things in the Highlands. Now this one is more recent so a little more complex in as far as we have competing dominant narratives, one the British and one the romantic Scots narrative. We do have a “to hell with the lot of them” narrative/reaction as well but that’s more a reaction to the other two than it is a dominant story. So on the one hand we have a romantic hero, a ‘Prince across the water,’ leading a (mainly) Scottish army (filled with romantic tartan clad Highlanders) to defeat, and terrible retribution. On the other we have an army of ill clad and trained Highlanders (again) being misled and misused by a dandy Catholic prince and less said about the aftermath the better and anyway we were all in it together in the second World War and those plucky Highland regiments helped win the day. It’s all the stuff of Hollywood movies, goodies v baddies yet again.
Now it may come as no surprise to many of you that in fact History is a lot more complex than all of this, the reality of what happened in all of these events is tinged with a lot more shades of grey than those black/white Holywood movies. However, we’re taught, both through school and a continual barrage from the media, to think in those black and white terms and it becomes difficult as a result to accept that shades of grey are far more normal in real life, politics and history. Furthermore these great leading figures we put all the emphasis on are actually just bit players in the context of far greater forces. Yes place a leadership figure into the right circumstances and they can lead, possibly even win, but place them in the wrong context and they’re nothing. In fact one of the great forces of history are the ordinary people who, again given the right circumstances, can come together and change the world. Bruce would have been a footnote of history without the people who decided to rise up and be led by him, Churchill would have lost WW2 without those same people who decided at the end of the war to reject his politics and create a better world – and to rub salt into the wound, they’d all been trained as fighters during the course of that war so woe betide anyone who rejected their decision, even that wartime ‘leader.’
So what on earth has this to do with modern Scotland, well for starters we could do with rejecting a few far too comfortable historical myths but that’s by the by. The actual point is that we tend to view politics in the same goodies v baddies way, the personification of that being we’re the good guys, they (Westminster/the British state) are the baddies. Now to a certain extent there’s some truth about in that, at least the Westminster/British state bit but it’s a dangerous way of thinking, here’s why:
If we’re constantly waiting for some great figure to lead us out of the ‘darkness’ we will be waiting forever because they need an active movement behind them and the best leaders are often forged by those movements. A leader can’t do it themselves and frankly a leader without a movement, or if talking about state power, written constitutional constraints to cut them down to size is a dangerous thing, particularly if they’re viewed as the cliched ‘goodie’ who must be correct and unassailable in all circumstances, and as I’ve argued we do have a habit of doing that folks!
When it comes to political parties, of course, we generally have other high-profile figures too but what of them? Are they all white hatted goodies too? Obviously not many would accept that but we do have a tendency to think in the independence movement that if we send enough ‘good’ people down to Westminster (or to Holyrood) they’ll get the job done and that’ll be it. Sorry folks, that simply doesn’t work – Westminster and the British establishment/state eat progressive reforming politicians and parties for breakfast as soon as they become a threat. If you want proof of that look at the fate of the Labour Party, look at their early radical Socialist manifestos and what they’ve ended up as. Yes there was one radical reforming Labour Government that did some good things, things the Tories and the British Establishment have been working ever since to destroy, but they had a demobbed army behind them. If there’s one thing the British Establishment (I really mean Ruling Class here.) fear more than radical reform it’s an army of people demanding radical reform. Remember leaders are nothing without a movement behind them pushing them.
For another example see the fate of the Irish Parliamentary Party after Parnell’s public fall from grace thanks to a British plot to destroy him, Parnell being that almost unique thing, a good guy and a leader who was not corruptible, you probably wouldn’t need to use more than a hand to count the others, Mandela comes to mind but then… No most are corruptible, the longevity of the British system stands as a monument to that, and once Parnell had been destroyed, yes folks they framed him and destroyed his reputation and that’s irrefutable, the evidence is all a matter of historical record, the Irish Parliamentary Party spent decades at Westminster expressing outrage, demanding independence and, apart from a few reforms when it seemed to the British they were gaining ground, getting nowhere, sound familiar? If you look into it, it is clear to see that many of them became very comfortable in that role. Some doubtless making good careers and accruing nice pensions into the bargain. What it eventually took to deliver independence for Ireland was a new force that wasn’t willing to that, that stood for election on a simple democratic proposition of ‘if we win a majority we declare independence’, they didn’t enter Westminster to be drawn into the system and corrupted, they stood on a platform of what is called “abstentionist.”
Our choice in Scotland now is whether we want to carry on sending ‘good’ people down to Westminster (or more controversially to Holyrood which after all is only an arm, you might say Branch Office, of the British state) to endlessly express outrage, demand independence and get nowhere whilst the vast majority of them, like so many others before them, are co-opted and corrupted or do we need to re-evaluate that strategy having realised it’s failed. Here’s where the goodie/baddie scenario comes back to bite because some folk reading this might just be saying ‘but my party isn’t like that, it’s full of good folk who’ll do the job they’re elected to do and end the Union”, well if you can tell me why your particular ‘goodies’ are so much better than all the ones before who failed please do because I see no rational reason why they should be… I’m all ears!
* I tend to call this “King (or Queen) across the water” syndrome in reference to the Jacobites, Scotland seems prone to a particular yearning for a ‘leader’ to come save us and the endless waiting that entails – news for you: it didn’t work then and it’s certainly not going to work now.
The Facebook Censors
Unfortunately a number of pro Indy Facebook sites have turned out to be merely pro SNP sites and have blocked a number of bloggers, including myself. We have managed to frustrate these efforts to close us down through our readers sharing our articles and building our audience.Sharing in Facebook is very important and helps the Independence message to reach a much wider audience. In addition many have taken out free direct subscriptions. I very much appreciate this support.
Interesting but I think you grossly underestimate the role of a leader.
When Mother Teresa took over an institute in Bombay, which was in a terrible state, she was surrounded by people telling her about the problems. We have no money, the place is filthy, we have no equipment. They all cried “ where do we start”
She walked over and picked up a bucket and scrubbing brush and knelt down and started cleaning the floor. “ we start here”.
She turned the place around in 6 months.
Ghandi did not form a movement. He also set examples of behaviour through deeply held values and people started to follow him for that.
Mandela did not start a movement but he certainly inspired change and made a difference through personal sacrifice.
Every movement such as Civil Rights campaigns needed those who inspired change. The person who refused to sit at the back of the bus. The people who led the boycott of buses and walked miles.
It is important not to confuse “elected” leaders or “appointed” leaders with those who lead by example.
The YES movement of 2014 was an great example of bottom up drive rarely seen. Groups worked without seeking recognition or rank. They shared resources. They shared techniques on what worked. The official YES campaign did not dictate to them, it supported the. We need to recover that and not be shaped by Party Politics – that comes after Independence.
It’s amazing what can be achieved when you don’t mind who gets the credit. Do not led the oppressor set the rules. Allowing the UK PM to dictate by weakness is madness and destined to fail. The first action should be the recall of MPs but that requires a leader not a manager.
Sturgeon is very much like Bonnie Prince Charlie. A comfortable life, a belief in the right to rule but very little experience in regard leadership skills or warfare.
We need a Ghandi not a Trump.
Hi Geoff, thanks for the reply.
I think I’m just making a pretty logical statement, namely a leader in the wrong place & time is unlikely to get anywhere, they need lots good people behind them but of course inspirational leadership can be a game changer & enable a movement. Unfortunately at the moment we have a ‘leader’ who is disabling a movement rather than enabling it so clearly leaders can make a difference.
My main intention though was to scotch (pun intended) the idea that if we send enough ‘good’ people to Westminster/Holyrood they’ll do the job for us. I don’t think they will because good people can be corrupted & the British state is a past master at corrupting ‘good’ people.
As for Charles Edward, I’m a Republican Socialist so I hold no candle for Royals of any sort but he wasn’t the leader we’ve been told he was for centuries, neither the Romantic hero or the arrogant fop who ran from the field of Culloden. The whole episode, as I suggested, has been buried under a lot of nonsense (propaganda) from both sides.
He was in my estimation though probably a better leader than Sturgeon & came closer to ending the Hanoverian Anschluss of 1707 than she ever has (I’ve been waiting all day to use that phrase so forgive me that).
The ending of what he called the ‘Pretended Union’ was by decree on the 9th October 1745 when the Jacobites controlled most of Scotland as much ignored contemporary documents attest (contact me & I can send you a copy). Furthermore the proclamation states that any Scots continuing to sit at Westminster would be proceeded against as Traitors to their country (Scotland) – I don’t see Sturgeon doing that!
Roger
Wow, great article well reasoned, but you stopped short, when you had just got us all warmed up.
Like Parnell, the state and its operatives, some closer to home than we’d like, tried to and failed to do for AS. What does this history teach us and what next…?
We need to remove the too comfy and the too self interested and weed out the collabrators. Or we need a total change of political party in power.
We, the people, need to express our will for change and discontent with the present set-up, and we need a Party and a leader to emerge that we can all get behind.
One that clearly states that we will not visit that place and play their game. One that will immediately declare us a free and sovereign country and end the treaty of Union forthwith.
That’s what the history tells us and we need more than a few good men in white hats to make it happen.
I agree Iain, quite simply I think we need a party that doesn’t cooperate with the British state and its institutions at all, that means abstentionism at Westminster and Holyrood until we win a majority on a simple manifesto stating a majority vote = independence.
We have a group of keen, independence-minded highly-intelligent people in the SSRG pointing the way forward. All we have to do is take their considered advice. SCOTTISH SOVEREIGNTY RESEARCH GROUP should be advertised on every Scottish bill-board.
On D-Day Hitler had several Panzer divisions sitting in reserve. He would not release those elite troops and tanks and the rest is history.
Leadership wins or loses campaigns not the quality of the Army.
In contrast the Battle of Stirling Bridge displayed how leadership can succeed with limited resources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stirling_Bridge
I agree that the SSRG are an outstanding resource but she (Sturgeon) will not use them or even recognise them unfortunately because she does not control them.
Geoff, I’m not so sure the FM has (or asserts) control over very much, aside from perhaps the SNP inner party workings. In my experience (transport policy) the devolved administration senior civil servants provide policy options, from which Ministers choose. Senior civil servants then deal with ‘implementation’ of selected policy, such as the policy civil servants developed and then implemented which led eventually to the Alex Salmond cases. Here we can be sure that senior civil servants are telling Ministers they must not touch the SSRG proposals and what else would anyone expect from Whitehall appointees? Fowk cannae ser twa maisters!
The solution in large part depends on Scotland’s elected political leaders removing the present senior civil servants and leaders of other state institutions with people who reflect and respect the mandate of the Scottish electorate in favour of independence, as reflected in MSP and MP seats in Scotland. The ongoing dichotomy we see reflects an elected nationalist political leadership but a powerful British Tory (‘mother country’) aligned civil service meritocracy, which in postcolonial terms is what leads to the present constitutional stasis and delay to independence (and worse if allowed to continue).
As the article implies, a seemingly petrified elected nationalist political leadership in Scotland needs to stop taking its instructions and policy options (within a devolved set-up) only from Whitehall mandarins and/or ‘placed’ senior officials and instead start to serve the people who elected them.
That would seem to be the case, Alf, given that there’s no such an institution as the Scottish Civil Service, a point that you recently made yourself, elsewhere.
Alf: you make very interesting points that appear to point to the civil servants very much wagging the dog on a number of issues, but particularly in the Alec Salmond case. He was undoubtedly set up, but I’m not sure it was quite in the way that seems to be obvious because I believe what appear to be the reasons, were, in fact, used precisely because they provided the excuse necessary, not because they represented any substantial underlying case against him. The ‘facts’ were made to fit the case. The whole point of it all would seem to be that he should be prevented from ever again leading from the front, and, while Nicola Sturgeon and her cohort certainly had reason to keep him at bay – and undoubtedly did – the wider implications of trying to destroy him are even more sinister because they involve the undermining of an entire movement, not simply one man.
It should be noted, too, that the civil service leaders are substantially ‘woke’ and that the extremely destructive GRA reform is being punted in Scotland ahead of any attempt to introduce it in England, just as the poll tax was tried out here first. It seems, from what I can gather, that the gender ideology stance we have in Scotland, although long in existence elsewhere, co-incides perfectly (2015) with the influx of new left ‘woke’ members of the SNP (2015) and the appointment of ‘woke civil servants (e.g. Leslie Evans, also appointed in 2015). I know some will think I’m trying to make connections where there are none, but I don’t believe any of this is co-incidence: the influx of the ‘woke’ elements in 2015; the sudden conversion of Nicola Sturgeon and her cohort to the ‘woke’ (specifically, trans) agenda; and the setting up of Alec Salmond.
I am not trying to exonerate the FM and her cohort, far from it, because much of this has been driven by her leadership, but even she must be beginning to wonder about the timing of all this stuff during a period of roughly six years. Either she knew about it all and has underwritten it or she is a Westminster stooge. I am a cynic, but I have always sensed the British State in all of this, behind the scenes. It is as if the dogs of war have been unleashed on us from every direction just as we were moving towards the Brexit vote in 2016, and the subsequent EU Withdrawal legislation and the UK Internal Market legislation, the latter promising to be the disaster for devolution that it is. We appear to be hemmed in on all sides, with, perhaps, the GRA reform promising to be the biggest internal crisis for the SNP and for Scotland, as a whole, since 2014. It will define whether or not we reach independence soon. I keep saying how men in Scotland must support their womenfolk in opposing this stuff or we are lost for decades.
At least, Alec Salmond, after having endorsed the 1/2 (SNP/ALBA) combination in the SE, must see just how impossible any collaboration between ALBA and the SNP is going to be while Nicola Sturgeon is FM, and redirect ALBA on to a new path, away from the old politics of independence as espoused (falsely) by the present SNP. Likewise, female opponents of the GRA reform must see how impossible any compromise is or ever was in light of the toxicity of the non-debate on this issue. The way is clear for both camps (ostensibly the same camp) and things cannot be done in the same old ways. Just as independence is too precious to be left solely to the SNP, so female rights are too precious to be left to trans identified males. Both fights are going to be brutal, but necessary, and losing is not an option. Our independence has nothing to do with Westminster, and female spaces and rights have nothing to do with gender ideology. England will continue without us and trans identified men will continue without our spaces and rights. We must not get sucked into looking in any direction but ahead to the goals we want to achieve.
Agree JAN, I doubt any political party will actually do what is needed done to get Scotland OUT of this UNION, a referendum will NEVER work, And if an Indy party is not prepared to do as Ireland did & state a vote for us means a declaration of Independence, the there is NO point in voting any party. We need a MOVEMENT now, not a party. And I agree SSRG are our only hope now..Every Indy minded voter should get behind them & urge them to take our cause, our fight, over.
Kate I wrote this to my MP on the 15th Oct in the wake of the SSRG post
—————————————————————————————————
I would request your opinion by reply to the proposals put forward by the group as I feel it is imperative that independence is now more urgent than Ms Sturgeon alludes too
——————————————————————————————————-
This is the response I recd from him Yesterday Thurs 6th Nov , obviously he expedited the response (satire)
————————————————————————————————–
Many thanks for getting in touch. I welcome a diversity of voices arguing for Scottish independence and setting the case for self-government out for public debate. In the future referendum on independence it is vital the lively debate in the pro-independence movement is reflected more widely in the national discussion on our nation’s future, and wherever that debate is being promoted.
In terms of the specific proposals put forward by the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group, I am afraid I cannot agree with their idea that Scotland should declare independence without a referendum of the people of Scotland.
Firstly because the precedent recognised by the international community for nations seeking to gain their independence is through a free and fair vote by the people on that nation’s sovereignty. That is, quite rightly, the path Scotland took in 2014, and no-one argued that a Yes vote would not be recognised by other nation states or organisations such as the UN or EU. There is simply no point in declaring an “independence” that the rest of the world does not accept.
Secondly, because I agree with the legal principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign. Ordinarily we vest that sovereignty in our elected members and in the Scottish Parliament. But on issues that are fundamental to our future as a country and society – such as independence – that sovereignty should be expressed directly at the ballot box through a referendum on that specific issue. The SSRG’s proposals would block that popular sovereignty and create a precedent for such a decision to be taken by MSPs alone. That could have unforeseen consequences that would rebound badly on the independence movement in future years if that notion was allowed to take root.
I appreciate the impatience many of us have to achieve independence as quick as possible. I want independence as soon as it can happen – the quicker we achieve it, the quicker we can begin the process of rejuvenating our society after the wasted years of the Union. However there are no shortcuts, however appealing, to securing a popular mandate for independence at the ballot box from the people of Scotland.
As I say, I welcome the many contributions to the debate we are currently seeing, however I do not see the SSRG’s proposals advancing the cause of independence one iota, and indeed it is entirely possible they in fact hinder its prospects.
I hope this is useful and if I can help further on this or any other issue please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
—————————————————————————————————————-
I would ask if people contacted their MP with the same request , if they have had a response from their MP , is it the same response or a different wording of that response from their MP , I am interested to know if heed orifice has issued the above as a standard response for any MP or MSP contacted
——————————————————————————————————–
I also note that he says this , ” Secondly, because I agree with the legal principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign. Ordinarily we vest that sovereignty in our elected members and in the Scottish Parliament. But on issues that are fundamental to our future as a country and society – such as independence – that sovereignty should be expressed directly at the ballot box through a referendum on that specific issue ”
There is NO definitive requirement that INSISTS the ballot box decision MUST be a referendum , Therefore the ballot box decision is equally indicative through a PLEBISCITE ELECTION where the independence decision is made by THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND which also includes the unionists
Roddy sorry for the length but thought people might want to know 1 MP’s view (or is it)
His response shows he either does not understand the SSRG proposition or he has not even bothered to read their findings. The Declaration would come post 2023/24 UK General Election and provided all Scottish Parties stand on a single issue of Plebiscite Independence Election then the Scottish people will have given their assent. Maybe go back to him/her and ask him to name the countries that have received independence and national recognition via a Referendum.
It seems to me like most SNP elected people he only has the SNP present policy of referendum and everything else is ignored because as we all know Saint Nicola knows everything about everything.
Yes Roddy, the SNP MPs ignore many aspects, including:
1. being dragged out of the EU against the will of sovereign Scots was hardly respecting democracy;
2. as a matter of law a referendum is not required for independence;
3. demographics and zero control over Scotland’s borders does not favour another referendum
4. neither does using a local government resident-based franchise
5. a S.30 referendum is being denied in any case
6. there are thousands of other Scots who would be happy to take these MP’s place and declare indy
Well said, Roger Anderson. What we need is political martyrs: people who don’t care about parliament pensions or Westminster’s archaic rule book and inherently anti-Scottish laws. People who are willing to put their nation’s freedom above all personal concerns. Sooner or later we in Scotland will have to break these laws if independence is ever to be achieved. We need to be more Irish.
Michael Collins in a conversation with Eamon de Valera, asked how do you defeat the British Empire, de Valera replied, you ignore it.
Well Sturgeon and her party have no intentions of ignoring Westminster, infact it looks like most of them practically revel in it. The current SNP hierarchy are not the good guys, if they were we’d be independent by now, as for the Jacobite Rebellions many clans fought for the union, the Campbells spring to mind, as does Sir John Dalrymple of Stair, (Nine of Diamonds) and the slaughter of the MacDonald’s at Glen Coe.
The Ordnance Survey was set up to hunt down and kill Jacobites/Highlanders and their families, and General Wade built roads and forts in Scotland to make that task much easier.
Hi Roger, thanks for your article, appreciated. I can relate to what you are saying.
Might I also suggest and encourage everybody that be passionate about an iScotland to get themselves over to the march this Saturday the 6th November, from Glasgow’s West-End along to our Glasgow Green. If you believe in something, anything, and want to express yourself, this is your stage… where the mainstream media is missing, the cameras of the world will be watching and reporting upon.
Let’s get the peoples of Scotland’s international voice out there!!
NB pleased to see the most excellent webcomradio being hosted here, cheers.
The long and ultimately futile presence of the IPP at Westminster for all these years is one the main reasons why the SNP are wasting their time being there. Parnell and his party tried every possible manoeuvre available to them only to have the rules rewritten each time to protect the parliamentary status-quo. And you can be sure Blackford and company are aware of that.Those ornamental SNP MPs should be out touring Scotland month-in-month-out building up a head-of-steam throughout every city, town and village in the colony for Scottish independence instead of sitting uselessly under false pretences in the metropolitan parliament.
Exactly what they should be doing – Winning hearts and minds at home and preparing the ground for Independence. A clear message that Westminster is of no importance to us.
“all those years”, of course, Geoff Anderson. My apologies.
All politicians and politics to the side…
If Scotland were to return to being an independent country once again this coming Saturday the 06/11/21…
What would you be doing to recognise and mark this historical event?
History becomes the future.
I generally agree Cactus and thanks for the comments.
Just one point really, in 1745 neither army was a ‘clan’ army by the time of Culloden. The clans provided the backbone of the Jacobite insurgency in the early stages abd you’re correct to say some clans declared for the Government side, the Campbell regiments being the major case in point, others remained neutral – See Murray Pittock’s The Myth of the Jacobite clans. By the later stages of the rising around half the Jacobite army was Lowland. Another old myth is that there were more Scots on the Government side than on the Jacobite, that’s untrue and although the Campbells were loyal Cumberland had good reason not to trust his main Scottish Regiment, The Royal Scots, who fearing they’d refuse to fight or even defect he boxed them in with English regiments & horse & made it known to them they’d be dealt with by those troops if there was any sign of them faltering. The eminent Military Historian Dr Christopher Duffy has researched these details of the battle in fascinating detail, I’ve recently completed mapping of the battle based on this research.
Roger, this is all fascinating stuff.
One thing that stands out for me too is that the Campbell’s became British soldiers. Their reputation was tarnished on purpose by the British Army who instructed them to accept MacDonald hospitality at Glencoe. Which they did, believing the MacDonald clans explanation as to why they were late surrendering weapons was accepted.
During the cordiality and capitulation, the British Army, as represented by the Campbells, was ordered to turn on the MacDonalds in the most heinous manner, mist disrespectful to the clans MacDonald and Campbell
The fact that so many MacDonalds survived is apparently due to Campbells within the British Army going native and warning the MacDonalds at the last minute. What happened at Glencoe was no clan feud. It was sheer army strategy.
When the Court of Session famously recognised that that Campbells were soldiers following orders, the British state, and in particular, it’s new King William turned very much against Scotland… As we all know only too well. Particularly during the English Parliament’s response to the Darien project.
The Glencoe lies and the deceipt of William of Orange are ruthlessly detailed by the superb CaltonJock … The Darien sabotage is all sitting in English laws… Forbidding investment, work or portage from anyone in England to the Scottish Project.
Yep … The boxing in of the Campbells, which I didn’t know about, stirred up a deep well. Statecraft is occasionally very dark.
The excellent article by CaltonJock
https://caltonjock.com/2017/09/06/the-machiavelli-of-his-time-king-william-2-ordered-the-execution-of-the-macdonalds-at-glencoe-and-allowed-the-campbells-to-carry-the-blame-westminster-plotting-against-scotland-then-and-now/
Tom fascinating, thank you. Strictly speaking at the time of Glencoe they were a Scottish Regiment but the Crown in London controlled the Scots Regiments with the obsequious collaboration of John Dalrymple, 1st Earl of Stair, in Edinburgh. If anyone in Scotland was to blame for Glencoe Dalrymple should be firmly in the frame alongside the Crown in England. A number of the ‘government’ troops involved weren’t Campbells & a number of Campbells refused to follow orders and/or sabotaged the action allowing more victims to escape than would otherwise have been the case.
With regards to Culloden it was The Royal Scots on the Government right who were boxed in not the Argyll Regiment (or Militia) who were in the left. The Argylls were either guarding the baggage train at the rear or involved, with the British 64th, in the ‘ambush’ from the Culwhiniac Enclosure of the retreating Jacobite right.
This is a whole area of the battle that has been treated like footnote until recently but there was a fierce firefight beforehand when British dragoons (horse) attempted an outflanking manoeuvre through Culwhiniac supported by Argylls & 64th foot who took up position along the walls. The dragoons were held, then pushed into retreat by second line Jacobite dragoons (Elchos Lifeguards – yup the Jacobites had mounted troops) & Franco-Irish heavy cavalry (Fitz-James) supported by highly accurate flanking fire from 2 Jacobite Lowland battalions (Avochie & Stoneywood), this caused the British Dragoons an up to a 40% loss of strength causing their retreat. If they had broken through here the subsequent carnage would have been even worse.
Now I’ll bet they didn’t tell you any of that at school even if you were lucky enough to have been taught anything about it. I’ve recently completed mapping the battle in great detail based on Dr Christopher Duffy’s research so there’s a lot of fascinating detail in there.
Roger, many thanks. It’s great that you are on this, and pursuing the details so carefully. Especially when developers are trying to build executive pads on the battlefield.
We didn’t get any of that at school. Scottish history at the time 70s was happy with “it was the Campbells wot done it” re Glencoe. It was a sheer joy to discover the truth, from true historians such as yourself.
But Culloden, 50 years later… That was something else. I don’t like to think about it too much, it was just as predetermined, just as ruthless and planned to be only a beginning.
I look forward to seeing this new work you have done. I hope it will be in a sellable form. It’s time for clarity, and a reassessment of the history of the UK and the Scottish Highlands.
Respect.
Also, Roger, Campbell clansmen also fell at Culloden on the Prince’s side, so it was not all one-sided even there. The Campbells were, in general, Unionist and pragmatic, but not always, or, rather, some of them did not agree with that line and preferred to see an independent Scotland. Charles Edward Stuart did promise independence for Scotland if he attained the throne, although whether he would have honoured that promise, we shall never know. Few things in life are black and white.
Good point Lorna, I should have been more precise in saying the Campbells of Argyll or more properly the Argyll Regiment which wouldn’t have just consisted of Campbells.
Round the back of Cawdor Castle, a Campbell seat, there’s a grave in the woods marked with a stone like the ones at Culloden. It’s known as the Grave of the Unknown Highlander & the local story is that its the grave of a Jacobite from Cawdor, presumably a Campbell, who badly injured after Culloden made it back to the village then died & was secretly buried in the woods to avoid Redcoat reprisals.
Lorna, just to add to the last comment I should also mention FYI that there’s a list of Jacobite Campbells in “No Quarter Given, The Muster Roll of Prince Charles Edward Stuarts Army, 1745-6”, pages 141-2.
We are Scotland.
The thing about real, effective leaders is that they arise out of a certain situation, they arise when they are needed most and they are rarely leaders from day one. The Irish had many good leaders in and around independence, and, in common with what occurred in so many other countries, a number of them were killed before their quality could be realized.
Most movements that do come to fruition have leaders who stood on the shoulders of giants: it is, essentially, a chain reaction over years, and, without the wee folk, the movement would die and the leader/s never achieve anything. What we are witnessing today is a break in the chain, but, if Scottish Nationalism and the impetus towards independence continues within the rank and file population – and every sign is that it is continuing – then a leader/s will arise to take us another step, perhaps all the way, to independence. It was not Parnell who eventually turned the tide, or Redmond, but Collins, De Valera, Griffiths, et al, and the cost was heavy, as it was for Bruce and Wallace and de Moray.
Bruce and Bannockburn did not end the Wars of Independence, but it was a pivotal moment in history when a man discovered, though great hardship, thwarted ambition and huge familial and personal loss that some things are worth fighting and enduring for. It certainly did not receive a great reception, but the film in which Angus MacFadyen was Bruce came very near, I thought, to expressing the anguish felt by a man who had no choice but to follow his star, and told of his relentless driving towards his goal and how it pulled so many others into his orbit, for good or ill.
Often, it seems that ambition drives such men, but, just as often, that is only a small part of the story and it appears that such people are driven as much by external factors as by internal ones, forced on to the stage to take on a role they might not feel fits them through the expectations of others who look to them to lead. With Bannockburn, Bruce forged a nation, but he had had doubts, and it was his lieutenants, Edward Bruce (his last-surviving brother), Neil Campbell of Loch Awe, his Highlander friend, and others, who had burnt their boats in England and relinquished their English lands in favour of their Scottish ones, who forced his hand. Those who rose for Bruce, liege men and tenants of the lords, had seen what Edward I was capable of, and, fearing the same from his son, also burnt their boats and fought for the land they tilled and the families they left behind. That is what drives all, even the foot-draggers: when there is nowhere else to go but forward.
I wote to every SNP, MP & MSP on disolving the Union. Only one wrote back to me he told me there was no demand for independence, that we need 60% to 70% to break free. It was like talking to Alistair Jack our colonial governor. To me it summed up everything that is wrong with the SNP. Sturgeon and her cohort are not interested in independence. They have been corrupted and seduced by the British state .They act as a tool of our colonial masters supress real Patriots while Sturgeon is becoming the lovee of the Guardian and Vogue magazine.
The only way to shake this crew up is if we pull the rug on them at the council elections.
The SNP membership need to understand that there is will be no referendum under Sturgeon and there will never be, she is the biggest barrier to a plan B also.They need to remove her as leader the membership need to install someone who seeks actively freedom for the people. It must be someone who wants to rock the boat and shake the tree of the British state. The voting franchise is why the UK government are dragging their heels they know they will win a referendum shortly with the change of demographics ie 60k to 70k settlers migrate from England ever year , we are slowly turning into another Wales. The voting franchise must only be for the indigenous Scots as recognised by the UN Decolonisation no other country let’s foreigners vote on constitutional matters. Sturgeon has delayed the Scottish census to hid this fact . It makes you wonder why. Why did the SNP not tell everyone vote Alba second vote.There would not have been any Unionists MSPs in Hollyrood. Sturgeon at the very least is a bad strategist. Or is there something else that drive her, 6 mandates and no breakthrough ,speaks for itself in my view. Can we the people do something different to push the cause , like petition the UN on Decolonisation everybody singing a document for the UN to recognise us as a colony of the British. Scotland gu bra’th
Do you have a copy of that reply? Time to name and shame?
” It makes you wonder why. Why did the SNP not tell everyone vote Alba second vote.There would not have been any Unionists MSPs in Hollyrood.”
Alastair.
The (SSRG) Scottish Sovereignty Research Group estimates that there would’ve been 90+ indy minded MSPs at Holyrood right now if Sturgeon had asked the electorate to give their second vote (List) to the Alba/Greens parties.
Instead she chose to allow 40+ unionists to retain their seats at Holyrood and wasted over a million indy votes in the process, (not the first time I might add) its patently obvious to me anyway, that Sturgeon is quite happy with the status quo.
Scottish Election Results 2021
Had the voting pattern remained the same for all parties except the idiotic “SNP both Votes” strategy.
If the SNP had embraced Alba’s sugested first vote “SNP second vote Alba” as requested by Alba and if all SNP and YES supporters had voted this way, the result would have been much different. I think we would be looking at a completely different Holyrood line up as below.
Instead of 26 Tory list seats there would be 12 Tory list seats.
Instead of 20 Labour list seats there would be 12 Labour list seats.
Instead of 8 Green list seats there would be 2 Green list seats.
The SNP would have no list seats, minus 2.
The Lib Dems no list seats.
The make up of parties at Holyrood could have been.
SNP 62 MSPs.
Tory 17 MSPs.
Labour 14 MSPs.
Lib Dems 4 MSPs.
Greens 2 MSPs.
Alba 30 MSPs.
Total 129 MSPs.
Independence total 94 MSP’s. Supermajority or what?
Unionist total 35 MSP’s.
This is why we need two independence parties in Holyrood, the Greens can come to the Ball later.
I have received nothing but angry abuse from die hard SNP Nicola voters for showing this analysis, I think their commitment is now to personality politics not independence.
Why dont we all sign a petition for UN Decolonisation to get us listed as a colony of Britain as the same way Ireland is recognised. In doing this we can then ensure a voting franchise for the indigenous people Native Scots. If a referendum was granted by our colonial masters tomorrow we would lose. 50k migrants from England are buy houses here.
Good afternoon all, am at the Scotland march, currently moving along Argyle Street.
Turnout is excellent and it’s pure heaving!
Cheers Scotland,
X.
Cheers for having me Roddy.
Scotland is learning.
What a day, what a night…
Clutha!
Question.
Did today make a difference?
Answer.
I believe it did.
A wee brief debrief frae today if I may…
It took 4 hours from the start of the march till the backing cyclists arrived at The Green, all good.
The police had a ‘kettle in’ for the red flag carriers at Pitt Street mid march.
Yesterday was necessary.
The 4-hour march.