Scotland doesnโt lack the powers to do anything. It lacks the WILL to do anything. A big difference. Both countries are legally equal partners with equal authority to the state and with regard to Scotland, Scotland is a sovereign nation state merely in an agreement which it has the fundamental right to leave especially if it should no longer suit the Scots to remain part of or the nature of the Agreement has been changed. The English government, its establishment and even its courts recognise Scots sovereignty. It is due to the narrative that every Scot is raised with that has them believing that Scotland is powerless to do anything without the English governmentโs consent. This narrative is aided by an English media and broadcaster having prime placement in Scotland while Scots scratch their heads wondering why the Scottish government refuses to set up a Scottish media and broadcaster in Scotland for Scotland. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
As I point out in โThe positive case for the unionโ the Scottish government has abdicated responsibility for the governance of Scotland and has permitted the false impression of Scotland being subsumed into England to go unchallenged. They claim they want to convince English establishment supporters to back Scotlandโs statehood but when you contrast the way both countries are governed and the messages being put out by the Scottish government who refuse to take responsibility it would be hard to convince them. Even I, a staunch supporter of Scotlandโs statehood, can see why the opposition would not be keen to change sides.
The Positive Case For The Union
Why do English establishment supporters support the union? Supporters of Scotlandโs statehood often ask their detractors to give them a positive case for the union. There is seldom ever anything positive put forward in its defence rather it is the same old lies that have been used against every country that sought to re-establish itโs statehood that are often parroted back. But there is a positive case to be made. One that they have made in various guises. RESPONSIBILITY.
The English government, love them or loathe them, take responsibility. They exercise their sovereignty and treat England as an independent country. They make international treaties, join international organisations and represent themselves in international trade agreements. They go where they view themselves as needed to promote Englandโs needs, desires and policies. They determine their own budget and spending priorities. They use all the levers of a sovereign country and assert their right to do so. When matters pertain to England the English government does not permit foreign governments to interfere. They enact policies to prevent it from happening. Whether they are popular or not. When it comes to talks with Scotland, the English government will only do so if they believe it will advance their position, needs or desires. In short, the English government, no matter who is in office, takes full responsibility for the running of England. They didnโt ask permission from Scotland to do so. They didnโt shy away from their responsibilities and if they needed levers to do something then they simply created them and enforced it.
Contrast that with the Scottish government who shirk away from responsibility. They refuse to treat Scotland as a sovereign independent country. They seek permission to do almost everything. They defer governance to the English government and permit English policies to be used in Scotland. They have the English government represent Scotland in international treaties, organisations and trade agreements. And often have Scots representatives stand out in the corridors awaiting the results of agreements made between the English government and various international partners or organisations. Even militarily, the Scottish government permits the English government to do as they please with Scots regiments, air forces etc even permitting the English government to take Scotland into illegal wars. When it comes to the budget and spending the Scottish government relies on the English government determining the vast majority of it for them. When the English government place economic levers back in the hands of the Scottish government the Scottish government refuse to take responsibility for them and defer them back. In short, an almost complete abdication of responsibility. Not just to the Scots but internationally.
Why wouldnโt an English establishment supporter want to maintain the union when they already have what the Scots seek? Full independence. Even if it is through a foreign countryโs government.
The Scots cannot even bring themselves to call the English government English for fear that it would look xenophobic. They have a million excuses to maintain the status quo while claiming they need to convince more folk to support Scotlandโs statehood Well, perhaps the Scots could take a leaf out of the English governmentโs book and just get on with it. Do the job they were elected to do. Take full responsibility for their own country. If the Scots want to be taken seriously they need to step up not step back.
I can understand why some folk would falsely belief Scotland to be a colony but that is not the legal reality. The late professor, David Walker, makes a very good point on this matter.
In the prism chat you mention quantative easing and debt and are right to point out that 1) the money is created by the bank and redistributed internally and 2) Scotland has no debt. I would go further and state that Scotland having been robbed of most likely trillions over the centuries is owed money from the English government and its establishment. Far more than many may even contemplate. At the start of 1900s the English governmentโs reports on revenues showed Scotland only got a 5th back from what the English government declared Scotland had raised and paid into the treasury. This then changed to GERS where the same 5th is recorded but now the 5th is used to justify Scotland maintaining the treaty. It ignores the other 4/5ths but you can guarantee the figures will be recorded somewhere even if the English government and its establishment wonโt reveal them to the public.
And yep, where are the policies that they used to champion? And the 60% is an inverse 40% rule similar to what the Labour party used in 1979.
It is also worth pointing out that Scotland cannot afford to wait for elections to come around. The damage is being done on a daily basis. Scotland must fight back on a daily basis too.
And one last wee thought, it would be interesting to get footage of folks local supermarkets showing how few genuine Scottish products are stocked and sold.
All so true. How do we turn things around? Dispense with Sturgeon & Co and establish a group of politicians keen to form a government and take responsibility for our country? Sounds like a position for the ALBA PARTY.
Excellent and highly informative paper Gayle, and thanks to Roddy for publishing.
On the critical core matter of ‘responsibility’ – under colonial rule and in regard to a people thus inculcated with a ‘colonial mindset’, our past is deleted for us and our future is decided for us. According to Albert Memmi:
โThe most serious blow suffered by the colonized is being removed from history. Colonization usurps any free role in either war or peace, every decision contributing to his destiny and that of the world, and all cultural and social responsibility. The colonized feels neither responsible nor guilty nor skeptical, for he is out of the game. He is in no way a subject of history any more. He has forgotten how to participate actively in history and no longer asks to do so.โ
Here “the colonized are conditioned to feel inadequate”.
And, due also to the impact of linguistic and cultural oppression/imperialism and colonialism:
“The dilemma involved introduced a schizoid element into the (Scottish) national psyche..” (Dr David Purves)
This personality disorder in part explains why Scots, under colonialism, do not take responsibility for their own affairs and become passive bystanders. As Frantz Fanon said: “Colonialism is a disease of the mind.”
We clearly have work to do, but first it is important to recognise that independence is decolonisation, as postcolonial literature and even the UN (C-24) tells us it is.
We don’t need a referendum. I know that. Sturgeon and the SNP know that and do nothing, and great damage is being done to Scotland’s people, it’s economy and culture while we watch and wait…………….for what?
What are the routes, if any, to depose the extreme negligence of Nicola Sturgeons governance?
She is the most ruinous person in Scotland’s drive to free itself of an English Westminster run by the grossly privileged ruling class that is neither benevolent to the English people.
The problem for Scotland is that it is not a colony despite acting like one. It is because of this that many make the common mistake of citing international law regarding colonies just as Crawford and Boyle did when they penned the paper on behalf of the English government during the Scottish referendum but the legal position is entirely different. The late professor regius emeritus of law, David Walker, tears Crawford and Boyle’s argument apart with his article on the union and the law. Unfortunately, Scotland’s representatives having a colonial mindset refuse to assert Scots sovereignty and to treat Scotland as the equal partner with equal authority it actually is. As I’ve stated previously elsewhere there is not a Scot alive today who has not been raised to believe the English continuator state narrative. And sadly, even Alba MPs are espousing this narrative. Neale Hanvey MP and Alba representative put out an article yesterday regarding parliamentary privilege in which he cites the English Bill of rights which is akin to citing the Magna Carta in order to justify not taking action on those who had testified against Salmond by naming and shaming them. With regard to the Magna Carta the English courts stated that being English it had nothing to do with Scotland and could not be enforced. The same is true for the English Bill of Rights which Hanvey cited.So why is he treating the parliament of GB as an English parliament under English law? Excuses were made to try and justify his stance but folk should have been pointing out that there is nothing in the treaty which permits English law to determine the manner in which the parliament of GB is to be run. Neither the crown nor parliament is sovereign in Scotland. The Scots are. Yet at every level the Scottish government and Scots representatives let Scotland down through abdication of duty. How do we go about changing things when they will not help themselves? I’ve always said that using the right terminology is important as Scots must learn to rethink the way Scots see themselves and their country instead of continuing to view it as a colony or English region in which they can make the excuse of being powerless to act. But even this powerless to act argument falls short as every people has the fundamental right to self determination which is not reliant on anybody else for permission to exercise.
Thanks for that clarification Gayle.
Searching finds there is a wikipedia entry for the late professor David Walker here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Maxwell_Walker
and The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland
seems to have the article you refer to available in the June 2007 issue here:
“The Union and the Law”
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-52-issue-06/the-union-and-the-law/
๐
The article is very thought provoking as is the follow up by Ian Campbell and the linked references.
Professor David Walker was a well respected man in the legal sphere. Think I would have got on well with him. The follow up article by Ian Campbell, a former circuit judge, is also worth reading.
Heh! It was through finding the Ian Campbell article that you recommend, that I was able to trace back to the original David Walker article.
Here is the link if others are interested:
“The Union and the Law” revisited. [1]
p.s. Gayle, might I respectfully suggest that if there articles that you recommend,
and feel that this audience might benefit from reading,
that you might add an annotation thus:
[1] https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-59-issue-07/the-union-and-the-law-revisited/
Just a thought.
๐
On the Scottish produce in what are basically English supermarkets, now that the Butcher’s apron adorns everything you can bet that Scottish produce is either set at a high price in-store, or reduced to a small section possibly an end of isle shelf or tucked away in a remote part of the store, whilst English produce takes pride of place.
As for the Scottish government lacking responsibility, we need an FM who has guts and is willing to go all the way on independence.
Has been the case with supermarkets in Scotland for a long time but it is even more noticeable now with the butchers apron on everything.
And definitely with regards to the FM, but not just an FM. It needs the other representatives to hold the FM and the Scottish government to account and to demand that Scotland asserts its sovereignty on a daily basis.
“… I can understand why some folk would falsely belief Scotland to be a colony but that is not the legal reality. The late professor, David Walker, makes a very good point on this matter… ”
Agreed, Gayle. The late Professor Walker approached the question of Scotland’s status within the Union from a purely legal/constitutional viewpoint, and he would never have agreed that we are a colony. However, matters have moved on, and Brexit puts a very different complexion on the same matters, and, although I doubt that we would be considered a colony by conventional standards, we are suffering the same kind of impositions as a colony would suffer. However, we endure these impositions as a full partner in the Union, and you are right to say that it is a lack of will and courage to protest about them. Most people in Scotland simply don’t understand that England has no jurisdiction over us.
England-as-the-UK takes it upon itself to have jurisdiction over us and we accept it. That is where the problem lies. We should not accept England-as-the-UK – ever, no matter how big it is in comparison to us. It has no authority to act and behave in this way, and it is acting ultra vires when it does. The utter incompetence of the English administrators and jurists in both the Commons and the Lords has led us to this anomaly. To state it simply: England, in relation to the UK, is in precisely the same constitutional and legal position as Scotland. It has no authority/legitimacy to rule us except with our permission. The widely-held belief that the English parliament never dissolved is patent and legal nonsense. It has not existed as the English parliament since 1707, and neither has the Scottish parliament. Westminster, surreptitiously, has become the English parliament in all but name, and the Scottish MPs of any party are far too outnumbered to have any effect at all. That is the reality.
As for a referendum: no, we do not need one; either in domestic constitutional law (Scottish and British and English) or in international law. Our primary source of democracy and legitimacy, an election, is perfectly legal and constitutional – as the SNP government knows perfectly well, as does Westminster. Both pull the wool over our eyes. However we achieve our independence, that bloody Treaty will have to be negotiated and resiled to end the Union because it is the authoritative and founding document that is the very basis of the Union itself – the original Union between Scotland and England that cannot be superseded by any domestic legislation, such as the Acts of Union, which merely translated the Treaty into domestic law in both countries.
Absolutely, Lorna, this situation is of the Scots own doing as they refuse to hold their own government and representatives to account and thus actively treat Scotland as beholden to the English government. Scots need to, in essence, be deprogrammed. Even if England had 99% of MPs in the parliament of GB it would be an irrelevance as they still have no say in and over Scotland bar what the Scots themselves allow and therein lies the problem. As only half the partnership England has no more say than Scotland with regard to the treaty no matter how many representatives they have. An example, I sometimes use, is that of company shares. Simplistic but makes the point well. If only Scotland’s representatives had the will and where-with-all to assert Scotland’s rights.
An excellent article, in my opinion, Gayle. Thank you very much to you and Roddy, both. May I say, though: What the “legal reality” regarding Scotland’s sovereignty vis-a-vis England is (and I wholeheartedly agree here with your reckoning of that legal reality), must remain, this side of independence, as a purely abstract matter. What cannot be considered as an abstract matter in any way, however, is Scotland’s on-going colonial status as seen through the eyes of the colonizer, many of the ramifications of which you’ve documented above. It seems to me, at least, that far too much concrete evidence exists as to make it nigh impossible for anyone to “falsely” believe that Scotland hasn’t long-since been colonized by its bigger, more powerful neighbor, England. Our national tragedy is, again, in my personal opinion, that we have yet to realise and fully acknowledge the liberative, concrete reality of that position. It would be remiss of me in this context, not to mention, indeed recommend, Alf Baird’s book: Doun-Hauden.
Scots sovereignty must not remain abstract. It must be asserted at all times and Scots must stop viewing themselves as a colony and acting as such. They need to hold their own government and representatives to account and demand that they treat Scotland as the equal partner with equal authority to the state that they actually are. It is the failure to do so that has permitted the situation in Scotland to take root. One may dress as a duck, quack like a duck and walk like a duck but it does not make one a duck and the laws pertaining to ducks do not apply to the one adopting the appearance of said duck. So too with Scotland and its government’s abdication of responsibility.
In the same moment that Scotland becomes an independent country, Scottish sovereignty will become actual thus discernibly real. At that same moment, Scottish historiography will likewise begin. For both of these things to happen, we, of course, need Scottish independence. Until that day dawns, Scotland and her people will remain as an exploited appendage of an assumed by stealth “English” parliament. In my experience, most Scots (despite all the evidence, e.g. the on-going theft of our natural resources), don’t view themselves as having been colonized or even particularly exploited by England; and that is exactly as it’s meant to be. It is my contention that if the majority of Scots were to apply the “c” word regarding Scotland’s one-sided relationship with the “English” parliament, wherein our elected representatives are but powerless extras in an illusionary democratic process, our independence would be achieved very much the quicker as a result.
Yes, constitutionally Scotland is a signatory party to a treaty-based alliance; however, in all practical and political senses Scotland is treated as a colony and very much reflects a colonial legacy. This is set out here, as are the exit strategies: https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/08/29/determinants-of-independence-synopsis-and-strategies/
Thank you Josef for your recommendation. I agree with your analysis. The scientific evidence of Scotland’s colonial reality is indisputable, as is also reflected in a colonial justice system that is acknowledged by itself to be malicious and hence in which no Scot can depend on for anything, far less to uphold our sovereignty.
As The Corries said: “If the shoe fits, wear it.”
On the matter of ‘colonial institutions’: https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/08/01/the-determinants-of-independence-institutions/
Colony or not.
In legal terms quite clearly we are not but in practical terms we are.
Not sitting on the fence but that is how I have always seen the situation. If I was forced to say one or the other I would choose the daily practical situation and that is of a colonised country. The fact that the law may say otherwise has not prevented it happening. It may be as Gayle rightly says pathetic political leadership down the ages but it is what it is. Scots are not informed of their legal position in the Union and that is not only down to English political leaders but home grown ones. While Sturgeon goes on about trans rights – very small percentage of Scots – she ignores all Scots rights.
So if the law is of any value to the Scots fundamental right of self determination then why are our political leaders not applying the law. The only conclusion to draw is our leaders are either useless or they don’t think the law will succeed. I think they are useless because they have a colonial mindset which of course reinforces that in practice Scotland is a colony.
Excellent article and subsequent comment Gayle.
Thank you and absolutely, Cubby. It is down to having this colonial mindset coupled with the daily narrative which sees Scots that go into politics take that mindset with them and continue the cycle.
Great article as usual Gayle and great comments as usual from Lorna C , unfortunately we Scots have suffered the brainwashing and feelings of subservience for decades if not hundreds of years BECAUSE we had elected unionist parties in Scotland to govern us under the false premise that they were Scottish and had our interests at heart , WE are to blame WE kept inviting the FOX into the henhouse , it is still happening , the tories, lib dumbs and liebour are STILL unionist parties fighting for the union against Scots
Unfortunately again what we considered to be a Scottish party fighting for independence has turned out to be just another UNIONIST party with a Scottish label who are more interested in sexual perversions and deviance, even the ones who were considered to be intelligent and had our respect have turned out to be a shower of corrupt self serving despicable cowards who are ONLY interested in protecting their inflated salaries and gold linked pensions rather than fighting and exposing the corruption and lies within their party which is destroying the forward movement for independence
Absolutely. Scots needs to start holding their own to account instead of embracing colonialism as some suggest. Scotland is not a colony and it should never accept being treated as one by any representative in and of Scotland. This colonial mindset needs changed. Scotland is independent within GB as the English establishment acknowledge. It is a pity that many in Scotland fail to do likewise.
Gayle, with respect, the contradiction here is as follows: on the one hand you you state that “Scotland is not a colony”, yet you also state that our “colonial mindset needs changed”.
In order for a people to have developed a “colonial mindset” they must surely first be colonised.
The definition is explicit, colonization must first take place:
“A colonial mentality is the internalized attitude of ethnic or cultural inferiority felt by people as a result of colonization, i.e. them being colonized by another group.”