A Guest Post By, Gayle Miller
Prior to the signing of the Treaty of Union, England committed economic war upon Scotland. Its rulers who had been and continue to be, power hungry and with a constant desire for conquest looked to the north and saw a country that was resource rich. Its wealth then, like now, was abundant though not fully exploited. The English rulers knew from previous interactions with the Scottish monarchy and governments that Scotland would pay ransom after ransom in order to maintain some semblance of peace. The union of the crowns in 1600 should have brought amity between the two countries but the monarch, English government and its establishment saw a way to further increase their hold over Scotland. Then came the gift they could only have wished for. Darien. A scheme that would have taken the Scots to far away lands where they could resettle some of their kin. Unfortunately, for the Scots, the English and Spanish colluded to bring about the failure of that enterprise. Many Scots died, many lost their investment but Scotland resilient and rich in resource was not bankrupt. Far from it. As was the way in those days, folk bought land and other possessions. Many of the wealthy families in Scotland had invested in England. A mistake that would be their undoing for the English, a collective of Germanic conqueror tribes, were always looking for the next opportunity to strike. And so it was the English began their economic war on Scotland. With threats of confiscating lands and other possessions that the wealthy Scots families had in England the Scots were held once again to ransom. The Alien Act, as it was referred to, brought into motion what was to be the beginning of the Treaty of Union.
In 1706 the queen’s commissioners acting in their separate capacities drew up a TRADE AGREEMENT. The parliaments then read the articles and ratified the agreements in 1707 with the express condition that they would be equal partners with equal authority.
This most folk have learnt in some form or another. However, the most common interpretation of those events which has been promoted by the English government and its establishment is that Scotland failed on its own accord with the Darian expedition and that it became bankrupt as a result and that the trade agreement was the Scots saving grace. Had this version of events been true then the Articles of the treaty which state that Scotland would take on England’s debts would not be in the agreement, for how could a bankrupt country take on the debts of another country? And why would they agree to such terms? Repeatedly England’s debt is mentioned in the Articles, not Scotland’s.
But what makes it a TRADE AGREEMENT rather than a political union as has been espoused by the English government and its establishment? Apart from the Articles themselves, one has to look at what is specifically omitted from the Agreement.
The Treaty of Union begins with the creation of the binary parliament of Great Britain in which both countries governments are to sit as equal partners with equal authority, but there is NO state.
Government of Great Britain (named UK or otherwise)
Institutions bar a shared treasury with equal representation.
Military.
Border.
Religion.
Constitution
Legal System.
Parliamentary sovereignty nor clause transferring English parliamentary sovereignty onto the parliament of Great Britain.
The Party political system.
Majority Rule nor clause granting dominion based on majority of MPs or population.
Capital.
However, there is a termination clause which includes violation to the territory of either country, their legal systems, combining of their religions and failure to uphold their rights in full prior to and after the signing. In short, everything that would have made it a political union was specifically omitted from the Agreements leaving only an agreement of trade between the two countries (Wales having been brought in under England as a Principally at the time) with conditions that would bring both countries trade laws into alignment with one another and provision to adapt the terms of the treaty with regards to trade at a later date in order to maintain economic cohesion.
This however, is not what the English government and its establishment promote.
Prior to the ratification of the trade agreement, and for many years after, the Scots were furious at even the thought of such an agreement and with good cause. Many of their kin had been drowned at sea or killed by various diseases due to the English government, the monarchy and their ally, Spain, preventing much needed supplies and aid reaching them. To then have economic war waged on those who returned or had invested in England was a further insult. One that could not be ignored. The people rose up. The government barricaded itself in the cellar and having taken bribes, titles and been promised financial gain if they signed the agreement they did so. Some under duress with having their lands and possessions in England held as ransom but others with greed and power in their hearts signed the agreement. This agreement was witnessed by international observers, ambassadors from further afield, making it an international treaty ratified between two sovereign states.
Following the signing the Scots continued to wage war on those who had betrayed Scotland. The English government and its establishment in an attempt to quash the uprising placed garrisons all over Scotland and banned all things Scottish. War broke out and then in 1801 England having broken the agreement proceeded to create a new treaty. One which included Ireland. And thus the start of England calling itself the UK which Crawford and Boyle later go on to state was the name the English government and it establishment used to refer to a Greater England where Scotland was extinguished and subsumed into England under the dominion of the English government and its monarch. Just over a hundred years later the Irish reinstated their statehood but not before the English had managed to annex a portion of the country using tactics that had proven effective with numerous other countries they had colonised. (Noting that no new treaty was drawn up once the 1801 treaty had ceased to be in effect with Ireland reinstating its statehood.)
Fast forward to today, just over a hundred years since Ireland stood up and reclaimed its statehood. Scotland finds itself looking into the reflection of those who had gone before them. To the colonies that had reclaimed their statehood, to their close friends and often allies, Ireland. The difference superficially is almost non-existent. England had either conquered them or had attempted to. However, Scotland is in a unique position. What was ratified in 1707 was only ever a trade agreement. Not a political union. And it retained all the rights prior to and after the signing. These rights included the sovereignty and independence of both countries as the 1707 Agreement did not have the authority to abolish the other international treaties, constitutions or declarations.
So we arrive at the situation Scotland now finds itself in. The English government and its establishment promoted the paper written by Crawford and Boyle and openly stated that they had never enacted the 1707 Agreement and if they ever had it was no longer in effect. The termination clause has been repeatedly broken. As has every single term and condition and as the English establishment state, themselves, they do not consider the 1707 Agreement to be in existence. Scotland, therefore, does not require a further plebiscite. They have elected a Scottish government to act on their behalf and to put Scotland’s best interests first and foremost. Those include the protection from encroachment, violation of its territory and economic terrorism. The Scottish government that was chosen to deliver on those was outwardly a pro-independence government with independence as its raison d’etre. The people have already spoken. What Scotland needs now is for the Scottish government to act upon the sovereign will that was placed in them. To stand up in the parliament of Great Britain and proclaim once and for all that Scotland’s statehood is hereby reinstated. This is the method that the English government stated was suffice prior to devolution and the idea of a referendum was planted that would ensure that Scotland would remain tethered to the Agreement based upon the English continuator state narrative that has been promulgated for the past 200 years. A narrative that has found itself deeply embedded within not only the English but the Scots psyche.
Scotland needs a new narrative. One that says,
This is my Scotland. This is my country. This is my nation and, we have spoken!
Excellent essay, Gayle.
The Irish rebellion happened at a fortuitous time in history for them. Germany flooded Ireland with arms during the ’14-’18 war, enabling them to take up arms. That route is closed these days.
‘All’ we need now is a political leader to show courage, state what you have so eloquently said, and withdraw from this treaty. That might cause a fight on the streets though.
Unfortunately, the only route I see happening is a referendum.
We have Polis Scotland to deal with street disturbances. A unitary force under the control of Scottish ministers. Salmond did that deliberately and with foresight. We can handle those.
Excellent essay indeed Gayle . Our problem is further compounded by the result in 2014 , which , as we know , is being used by the Brit Nats as the Scottish people validating the Union and a ” once in a generation ” ( in effect , from their POV 1st and last ) opportunity to revoke the ToU and choose Independence . We also know this is garbage and no nation can be held captive in an unsuitable arrangement in perpetuity , particularly one as flawed and flimsy as our situation , which , as you say , was more of a Trade Agreement than a political one . As others have said , the granting of a S30 is extremely unlikely , the only way it would be is if there were so many conditions attached as to make it unwinnable , or easily rigged ( mass postal voting for example ) , I personally wouldn’t trust the Brits to allow a free and fair Referendum , even if there was can we be confident it could be won by native Scots alone , who , after all are the ones who should be the ultimate shapers of the destiny of their nation , and not hijacked again by those with no real sense of Nationhood ? Another route would be safer .
I agree, Robert, that another referendum is not the panacea that it appears. It has to be won, and won well or it will be open to challenge. To my knowledge, not one single PRE independence referendum has been won in the past 50 years and more, and Quebec lost twice. The second one was looking fit to be won by the nationalists, but many of those who said that they would vote YES in the polls voted NO on the day. This is always the risk you run. Also, having studied the various PRE independence referendums around the world, including our own, it is very evident that people living in the country seeking its independence, but not originating in that country, have added to the indigenous (UN usage) NO vote to take it over the line, when in every case, the indigenous people would have won their independence. That is contrary to the UN Charter on both self-determination and on colonialism, not to mention the basic human rights of the indigenous population.
In Ireland, just prior to the establishment of the Irish Free State, both De Valera and Collins, and the other negotiators, asked for, and expected, the three pre dominantly (or significantly) Catholic counties of the North to be ceded back to Ireland proper, leaving three counties as an unviable rump. The British State deliberately decided not to do this, and the partition took place under Ulster’s James Craig’s urging. Most NI immigrants into Ireland were, in fact, Lowland Scots. Ireland simply had not the resources or manpower go to war with Britain at that time, and Britain, although exasperated by the Ulstermen under Craig, knew that they would have to send in troops to defend the North if Ireland invaded, and the government would be blamed for the loss of the three counties. We are at a very dangerous juncture here, in Scotland, too, with calls for partition of Scotland. The Treaty is very specific here about what Scotland is: the pre Union territory, both terrestrial and maritime. International law precedent and convention would also favour Scotland.
I agree with much of what Gayle says, but, having studied the Treaty closely, I believe that it was an international, political agreement between two independent states, with the subsequent Acts extending the intentions into actual lego-political facts. The setting up of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in London is where it all went wrong, in my opinion. Had a neutral place roughly half-way between Scotland and England been chosen, even if on English territory, I do not think that the mess we are in today would be quite so bad. As it was, the English MPs and movers and shakers simply saw the Union as a continuation of English hegemony, and their jurists, who must have been fully aware of the real situation, did nothing to disabuse them of that notion. Basically, the Union we have today was never intended to be the Union we have today. The Treaty Articles leave no doubt, in my opinion, that the agreement was intended to be the means of setting up a bi-party state wherein each was equal in proportion to its population at the time. What actually happened was that Westminster became a mere continuation of the English parliament by a complete misunderstanding (probably deliberate) of the Articles of the Treaty, by the English side. It was English perfidy and the likelihood outcome of the Union that Scots mourned, being well aware that they could not trust England to behave with scrupulousness and decency. It never had before.
That no Scottish government has ever had the Treaty ‘sound’ in Scots Law and adjudicated upon in international law is an utter disgrace, but understandable in the context of Unionist governments until 2007. It should have become the preferred route out of the Union after 2014 showed quite conclusively that Scotland was in thrall to influences from non-indigenous minority groups who augmented the indigenous Scottish NO vote, but no groundwork was done on it. Gayle is absolutely correct that almost every Article has been trampled on by Westminster, and always on England’s behalf. It is so one-sided now as to be a disgrace to international law. That Westminster and Whitehall know this perfectly well is no comfort. The final insult came with Brexit and the Trade Articles, the Internal Market laws and the assumption that English hegemony was the sole arbiter.
We should look to Crawford and Boyle and the reasons for their commission before 2014/2016 to understand the dynamite that Treaty represents for English hegemony, more so since Brexit. It underpins the British State, it underpins the Union itself. Without its acting as that underpinning, there is no British State, there is no UK. That the Scottish government will not know this, too, is la-la land politics. Which begs the question: why does the SNPG refuse to even look at it, because it will come into play in any negotiations with Westminster on independence, in any case? Because it fears to do so, I would suggest. Because it knows perfectly well that the Union would be over and England might react badly. By sticking to the referendum route, they hope to avoid real political conflict with England – which will be impossible, anyway. However, this administration has never taken the pragmatic route to anything where acquiescence can be the preferred medium of operation.
Not once has this administration ever embarked upon the realistic and pragmatic option – never. Everything has to cause the maximum pain to Scotland and/or its people, even in domestic legislation (GRA Reform/Hate Crime Bill) before it is dropped as being unworkable when, all along, people have been telling them that it was always unworkable from the word, go. If we go into another PRE independence (if we get one) and lose again – instead of making the forthcoming election a plebiscitary one, and then, if negotiations are refused, we take the Treaty route/international law/UN Charter route – I think I will be prepared to confront the FM in Holyrood. If we go for another PRE independence referendum (advisory) and win it, only for Westminster to declare it null and void, and the international community to turn a blind eye, ditto.
We have to win it and win it well or it will mark the end of Scotland. I will never, ever forgive those who shouted for this route if we lose again, because they have been warned over and over again that NO PRE independence referendum has been won, regardless of the pre referendum polls, in the past 50 years and more. NONE. NADA. ZILCH. NICHTS. RIEN. I hope to be wrong. I hope with all my heart to be wrong.
Thanks for that – typically – brilliant piece of writing and thinking , with which I agree 100% . Sorry , I don’t wish to embarrass you with praise , but I repeat , if only there were people like you leading us at this utterly pivotal point in our history we would be in much much stronger position to succeed , I should tell you also , although the thought had occurred to me previously about the effect of the broad franchise in the last Ref , your comments on the subject over the last while have caused me to reflect more deeply on this aspect of our situation and I thank you again for that . I’ve also said previously how frustrating it is that there are so many truly excellent thinkers and commentators on our side , willing to ask and confront difficult questions and advocate alternative strategies and yet we’re stuck with this abysmal mob of cowardly appeasers and ” I’m alright Jock , this arrangement suits me fine , Indy can wait ” ciphers who if they ever had an original thought it would die of loneliness or be quickly repressed as ” impractical ” . I too hope with all my heart to be wrong . Hope things are ok for you personally Lorna . All the best for now
I have very little hair left from pulling it out. The reason being our sovereignty is being ignored by the SNP completely it seems. 5 years of bluster has got us no further forward. Yes we’re up in the polls now but we keep missing own goals. Opportunities to change the narrative and at least tell a different point of view instead of handing bojo a veto. So fuckin sick of this nonsense. Be lucky if I see indy in my lifetime now. I’m 40.
Interesting article Gayle thank you.
I’ve read that the Treaty had to be signed in the basement of shop on the corner of an Edinburgh street away from prying eyes, as the public above who had no vote rioted, rioting against the Treaty was wide spread according to the English spy Daniel Defoe, who added the De to his name to make him appear more interesting.
I’ve also read that some of the money ( The Equivalent) paid out to those who voted for the Treaty, went on to be used to form the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Surely if we’re in a voluntary union, even though Westminster might have tampered with the wording over the centuries, then we do not require England’s permission to leave this union. England didn’t require the permission of the EU to leave, and I cannot think of another union of countries where one country required another country’s consent to leave the union. It appears to me at least to be all smoke and mirrors emanating from Westminster on Scottish independence.
Still what does all this matter when we have a FM reluctant to hold an indyref, even more so without Johnson’s permission.
ROS
One point of info worth noting is that the people of Scotland submitted petitions re the Treaty of Union – 80 petitions against the Treaty and only one petition for the Treaty. There was no democracy in 1707 for the people of Scotland and there has only been English dictatorship ever since.
The SNP have no right to throw away the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. I would like to see some sign that they do not accept the claim laid out by Crawford & Boyle that Scotland as a country has legally been extinguished. I am sick at the focus on social engineering when the only reason they have been getting my vote for forty years is to end the Union.