Monthly archives: April 2025


Kashmir and the Indus 7

India’s Hindutva President, Narendra Modi, has used the Kashmir terrorism incident to abrogate the 1960s Indus Waters Treaty – a longstanding goal of Modi. The Indian version of the “terrorist attack”, most of whose victims were Muslim, has largely been accepted by Western governments without evidence.

False flags abound nowadays. You may recall that we were told that the most deadly rocket ever fired by Hamas killed only Palestinians in a hospital compound, while the most deadly rocket ever fired by Hezbollah killed only Druze children. I have at present an open mind about what occurred in Kashmir.

It is however certain that tearing up the Indus Waters Treaty is a long term Modi goal. The Indus supplies 80% of Pakistan’s agricultural water, and the supply is already insufficient, with disastrous salination of the lower reaches of the river as the sea creeps into the areas once occupied by the mighty flow. I visited the area of lower Sind five years ago and witnessed the fields encrusted with white salt.

India controls the upstream flow into Pakistan of approximately 70% of the total water of the Indus, about 55% of all of Pakistan’s agricultural water.

In September 2016 in response to earlier violence in Kashmir, Modi initiated his slogan “Blood and water cannot flow together” and threatened to cut the Indus supply. He increased India’s out-take from the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej tributaries and restarted the Tulbul canal project. In both 2019 and 2022 while campaigning in Haryana, Modi made strong speeches threatening to cut off the water “wasted on Pakistan”.

In 2023 Modi issued formal notice to Pakistan of India’s desire to renegotiate the Indus Waters Treaty and repeated this in 2024 when Pakistan did not respond. On both occasions India cited “counter-terrorism” as one of three reasons for review (the others being environmental protection and hydro-electric generation). As counter-terrorism can scarcely be linked to agricultural water allocation, this illustrates Modi’s grandstanding approach.

Modi does not have the physical power to stop the Indus, but does have the ability short term to divert more of the river to Indian irrigation and storage, sufficient to cause some immediate distress in Pakistan. Indian media are already thrilled with the idea. But long term major rebalancing of the river water allocation would require substantive new infrastructure in India. Such projects however would be both economically viable and likely wildly popular with Modi’s Hindutva base both for promoting Indian development and for damaging Pakistan.

In 2019, Modi revoked Article 270 of the Indian constitution which gave special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir, incorporating them into India proper. He did this despite the Constitution stating it could only be done with the support of the “Constituent Assembly of the State”. That body no longer existed, having been replaced by a “Legislative Assembly”. Modi used another Constitutional provision to replace “Constituent Assembly” with “Legislative Assembly”, which seems fair enough. But having suspended the Legislative Assembly, he then claimed that its powers were now vested in the Governor, a Modi appointee.

Modi then agreed with himself to remove the autonomy of Indian Kashmir – a move that had no significant support among its 97% Muslim inhabitants and was accompanied by a ferocious crackdown – indeed, lockdown – and the destruction of its once thriving tourism industry. He simultaneously repealed another provision preventing non-Kashmiris from buying property in the region. Modi himself is therefore very much the cause of heightened ethnic, political and religious tension in Kashmir.

It is generally recognised that the situation of Kashmir, partly in India and partly in Pakistan with a small portion in China, and the Indian part occupied by deeply dissatisfied Muslims, is a result of the disastrous British partition of India in 1947. But in fact British responsibility for the disaster of modern Kashmir goes back a hundred years further than that, to 1846.

Kashmir was part of the Durrani Afghan Empire from 1758 until 1819, when it was captured by the Sikh Empire of Maharajah Ranjit Singh. Singh was always careful to place Muslim Governors over Muslim lands, including from the Durrani family itself. He allied with the British during the First Afghan War, and sent troops, including Kashmiri levies, to aid the British invasion in 1839. However after Ranjit Singh’s death and civil war over the succession, the British attacked the Sikh Empire to “restore stability”. Following the Battle of Sobraon, the British annexed the land between the Beas and Ravi rivers, while by the Treaty of Amritsar of 1846 the British sold Jammu and Kashmir to the former Sikh wazir, Gulab Singh, for 50 lakhs of rupees.

Gulab Singh was a particularly murderous character who had played an extraordinarily Machiavellian role in the Sikh court of Ranjit Singh and his immediate successors, and had of course looted from the Sikh treasury the money he paid to the British. So he paid the British with stolen money for land the British had just stolen.

This is how the extraordinary situation arose that the Muslim territories of Kashmir and Jammu had a Hindu ruler (Gulab Singh was a Hindu Dogra). That anomaly was the direct cause of the disastrous division of the territory by the British in the Partition 100 years later.

It is extremely frequent that today’s conflicts are caused by the actions of the British Empire reverberating down and continuing their evil over generations. It is equally frequent that it is very hard to find analyses that explain the truth behind the conflicts.

 

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.




Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

 

View with comments

Syria to Recognise Israel By End 2026 203

A British diplomatic source tells me that “President” al-Jolani aka al-Sharaa has assured the UK that Syria will “normalise relations” with Israel, recognise the State of Israel and exchange ambassadors, by the end of 2026. This is part of a deal in exchange for substantial Western financial support and the lifting of sanctions on Syria.

I asked whether the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from Syria was part of the deal, and surprisingly this was not raised by either side. The UK regards it as a bilateral matter between Syria and Israel, and al-Jolani does not appear to prioritise Israeli withdrawal.

I was also told that the European Union’s External Action Service (EEAS) and Directorate General for International Partnerships has decided that al-Jolani’s Syrian cabinet of ministers does meet the promises he gave to the EU Pledging Conference in Brussels on 17 March, through “foreign minister” al-Shibani, to form an inclusive government, specifically including Alaouite and Christian communities and also female ministers.

The conference pledged 5.5 billion euros to Syria in grants and loans, half of it from the EU itself. The condition of an inclusive government was stressed by the EU in its public statements.

Subsequently on 27 March al-Jolani announced his “inclusive” cabinet of 24 ministers. There are 21 male Sunnis, including all the key posts – Finance, Interior, Defence, Foreign Affairs. There is just one woman, who is also the token Christian (and is Canadian). There are three minority representatives, all in minor ministries – one Christian, one Alaouite, one Druze. There is no Shia representation. One of the Sunni ministers is a Kurd.

I am sure when you look at this image, like the EU you immediately think “oh good, a diverse cabinet”.

That this is an “inclusive” government is a farce – only the most flimsy nod to tokenism detracts from the fact that it is a Sunni regime with strong theocratic leanings. It was German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock who made the most public song and dance in Brussels about the need for an inclusive government, yet it is she as one of a triumvirate of women – along with EU Commission President von der Leyen and external affairs head Kaja Kallas – who has insisted that al-Jolani’s cabinet is acceptable.

Of course, al-Jolani’s pro-Israeli credentials trump every other consideration.

This has caused much disquiet among staff at the EU External Affairs Service and there is enormous discontent at the blatant pro-Israeli agenda of von der Leyen in particular. The playing down of massacres of minorities in Syria, on top of the genocide in Gaza, is causing real concern both in the EU and within the UK at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, my old department.

A final snippet from my source. Al-Jolani has the support of both MI6 and UK special forces within Syria. A key part of their role is to guard against any potential revolt by his own militants who fought their way through from Idlib.

Chechen, Uzbek and Uighur militants are very happy for now with the spoils of victory, but may not take kindly to the notion of recognising Israel.

To be clear, this next did not come from my diplomatic source. But I strongly suspect that the game is for al-Jolani and his pro-Zionist regime, installed with Western backing, to strengthen its paid forces until the time comes for a night of the long knives, where al-Jolani’s own most fanatical supporters will be eliminated. That however is merely my reading of his most practical next step. I do not see how he is to reconcile the roles of Islamic fundamentalist and US/Israeli puppet otherwise.

This game is not over yet.

 

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.




Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

 

View with comments

Trump, Tariffs and Trade 130

There is a giant problem that commentators are ignoring. The United States’ trade deficit is of incredible proportions and is only sustainable because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency – a status it is going to lose.

The US trade deficit in 2024 was approximately 1.2 trillion dollars. GDP was approximately 30.1 trillion dollars. That’s a trade deficit of an eye-watering 4% of GDP. By contrast, the EU had no significant trade deficit as a percentage of GDP. Zero. Even the chronic UK trade deficit was only 2.2% of GDP.

Does it matter? Well, historically not much.

The US, as the world’s reserve currency, has been able simply to create more dollars through bonds or quantitative easing to finance its trade deficit. Nobody – including the US Federal Reserve – really knows how many dollars exist in the world. On the wide M3 measure encompassing cash, bank accounts, government bonds and all other instantly convertible dollar-denominated instruments, it is believed there are about 21 trillion dollars in the world. (This is a measure of money, not of assets such as property and shares).

Nobody knows how much of this money is held outside the United States; about 65% seems a broad consensus but you can find estimates from reputable institutions ranging from 45% to 75%.

Because the US is the world’s reserve currency and essential to trade, at least half and probably most dollars exist outside the US economy. That is what is unique about having the world’s reserve currency. It means nations will always be willing to borrow from you more money you have just created, to finance their purchases of oil, grain and other essentials and luxuries.

What prevents governments in general from just printing more money is fear of inflationary effects by devaluing the currency (though the notion that this is a simple relationship is less prevalent now than at the height of monetarism). However, the unique advantage of the United States is that any domestic inflationary effect from creating more dollars is effectively buffered by the fact that most dollars are not in your economy: they are in other people’s economies, or sitting in overseas reserves. You can thus create dollars without creating much domestic inflation.

So it is great to have the world’s reserve currency. There is no danger of the US not being able to finance trillion-dollar trade deficits in the next few years. But for how long?

What the trade deficit actually is, in practice, is the world giving the USA astonishing quantities of very real goods in exchange for some transferred data or bits of paper. That depends on a confidence which is waning.

In the simplest of terms, in 2000 the USA had approximately 30% of world GDP and China approximately 4%. Now the USA has approximately 26% and China approximately 18%. In manufacturing, China has overtaken the USA.

Attaining world reserve currency status ultimately depends on trust around the globe that your currency represents the best store of value. It is a status essentially linked to economic performance.

Famously, nations which moot using other currencies than the dollar for trading, particularly in oil, are immediately targeted for regime change. This represents a realistic appraisal by the USA of the importance of retaining its global currency status. In time, people and institutions are simply going to want to hold yuan not dollars. The dollar-oriented Bretton Woods institutions are already losing ground to Chinese finance in importance to development in the Global South.

Proposals such as a BRICS basket of currencies for trade are only symptoms of the coming change; the configuration of institutional and trading arrangements as the dollar loses its dominance do not affect the big picture.

How crypto will ultimately fit in with the governmental systems is a very large question. If it does have a significant role, that too can only be a threat to the dollar’s necessity for trade.

To circle back, the US cannot enter the period of loss of reserve currency status with this level of trade deficit. Whether Trump sees this, or is rather fixated on the social effects of globalisation and the gutting of manufacturing in Middle America, I do not know.

Leaving aside the total chaos of Trump’s on/off tariff implementation, I do not see how Trump’s policy can succeed. The difficulty is that America’s manufacturing capability has been destroyed. There are no great rows of blast furnaces sitting there just waiting to come back on and replace imported steel.

Take the cotton industry, once massive in the USA. The 46% tariff proposed on Vietnam and the 37% on Bangladesh relate primarily to imports of clothing. The cotton textile industry is a fine example of the effects of globalisation. Levi Strauss, Fruit of the Loom, Hanes and Carhatt outsourced their factories to Latin America and Asia, almost entirely ending US production. American Apparel tried to hold out, but went bankrupt in 2017 and now produces largely overseas. Only niche production (organic or upmarket) remains.

This has happened since the 1990s – Levi Strauss, for example, stopped all US manufacturing in 2003. Entire cities were devastated. The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (ACWA) union folded for want of members.

But can the clock really be turned back? The factories are gone. Will sticking a 46% tariff on Vietnam cause Fruit of the Loom or Levi Strauss to return manufacturing to the USA, or will it just make clothes more expensive in the USA? That might itself reduce the trade deficit by causing people to buy less clothes. But for cotton manufacturing to return to the USA, entailing massive investment, companies would have to be certain the tariffs were permanent. That appears to be the least likely obstacle to overcome. Tariffs would also have to be sufficiently high to overcome the difference in labour costs; that is dubious.

The USA is still a massive exporter of cotton, in large part to those countries where it is manufactured into textile and sold back to the USA. Whether there is a labour force inside the USA waiting to work in textile and clothing factories I am less sure. Insofar as there is, I suspect Trump is trying to deport it.

I have just taken cotton as one example, but import substitution is much more difficult to achieve than to say. I am not such a fan of globalisation that I automatically decry tariffs. I enjoy cheap Chinese electronics and inexpensive underpants as much as the next man, but the profits have disproportionately gone to the billionaire class while working class manufacturing communities have indeed been devastated. But you can’t run an economy on nostalgia.

Trump’s tariff policy has been astonishingly chaotic and is not well articulated. But the underlying dynamics repay study beyond mockery, and the problem he is seeking to tackle is very real indeed. Those viewing Trump’s proposals as a joke need to say what they would do about the US trade deficit. Because the world is not going to supply them free goods forever.

 

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.




Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

 

View with comments

Is This The World We Created? 161

It is all a part of the same phenomenon. Western governments actively assisting genocide in Gaza; attacks on benefits for the disabled; a deliberate official narrative of Russophobia; rampant Islamophobia boosting the rise of extreme right-wing parties and fuelled by government anti-immigrant rhetoric; an incredible accumulation of wealth by the ultra-rich; rampant erosion of freedoms of speech and expression.

It is not happenstance that all of this is happening at the same time. It represents a radical shift in Western philosophy.

This shift is not simple to trace because anti-intellectualism is an essential part of the new philosophy. Therefore this philosophy does not really have its equivalent of Bertrand Russell or Noam Chomsky, whose careful exposition of societal analysis and ideals, based on a comprehensive understanding of previous philosophical discourse, is being superseded.

If there is a current equivalent we may look at Bernard Henri Levy, whose rejection of collectivism and support of individual rights moved ever rightwards into support of raw capitalism, invasions of Muslim countries and now outspoken support for the genocide in Gaza. If you want to find an embodiment of the shift in Western philosophy, it might be him. But few any longer pay attention to academic intellectuals sitting in their studies. The now-threadbare mantle of “public intellectual” in the West has passed to lightweight figures like Jordan Peterson and populist Islamophobes like Douglas Murray.

Part of this is institutional. In my youth, Bertrand Russell or AJP Taylor were quite likely to turn up giving serious talks on the BBC, and John Pilger was the most celebrated documentary maker in British media. But now left-wing voices are effectively banned from mainstream media, whilst left-wing academics are most unlikely to progress in academia. Academia is itself now entirely run on a corporate model in the UK as throughout all the West.

A young Noam Chomsky would almost certainly be told by the University authorities to stick to linguistics and leave aside the philosophy and politics, or not get tenure. Chomsky was already a renowned linguist in 1967, when he published his breakthrough essay “On the Responsibility of Intellectuals”. Essentially a call for academics to support the protest movement, a young professor who published it today would almost certainly get suspended if not sacked and even, in today’s climate, quite possibly arrested.

The deportations of students from the USA who have broken no law but protested against genocide; the fines there on universities for allowing free speech; the deportations of EU citizens from Germany for speaking out on Palestine; the police raid on the Quaker meeting house in London and the widespread “terrorism” charges against peaceful journalists – these are just examples of a wave of repression sweeping the major Western states.

They are all linked. It is a structural movement in government of the worst kind. It can only be compared to the wave of fascism that swept much of Europe in the 1930s.

The great irony of course is that it is the Western destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the Western destabilisation of Syria that led to the massive wave of immigration to Europe that caused the rise of the far right. Over 1.5 million Syrian “refugees” were granted asylum in the EU, because they claimed to be on the anti-Assad side, which the West was supporting. AfD is very much a result of Merkel’s decision to accept 600,000 Syrian refugees in Germany.

Fascinatingly, now their side has “won” and a Western-backed government been installed in Damascus, less than 1% of these refugees have returned to Syria. Despite the official anti-immigrant narratives of almost all Western governments, there seems to be no attempt to suggest that they might return. Indeed, those Western politicians most keen on deporting immigrants are the least likely to suggest that the reliably Zionist anti-Assad Syrians should leave, even though those same politicians portray Syria under al Jolani as a liberal paradise and rush to give it money.

The neo-con immigration narrative in Europe is peculiarly complex and flexible. Effectively immigrants viewed as on the West’s side in its wars (Sunni Syrians, Ukrainians) have an open door.

Mass immigration to Europe is therefore a direct result of imperialist foreign policy, and that plays out in complex ways, with the West’s victims arriving against official disapproval and the West’s clients arriving with official approval.

Equally, the economic dislocation and large rise in inflation which also has strengthened the populist right, is itself exaggerated by Western foreign policy. The proxy war in Ukraine is largely responsible for the step change in Europe’s energy prices, with the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline a key factor in the major struggles of German manufacturing industry.

Incredibly, for a year the entire Western media and political class tried to enforce the lie that Russia destroyed its own pipeline – just as they claimed Hamas blew up the first of the dozens of hospitals and health centres destroyed by Israel.

We come back to Gaza, as all serious discussion must at present. I cannot come to terms with the fact that the takeover of the political Establishment by Zionist interests – itself a consequence of the massive growth of the comparative wealth of the ultra-rich – is making it possible for the most brutal genocide possible to happen before the eyes of the world, with active support from the Western establishment.

It is not that the people do not want to stop it. It is that there is no mechanism connecting the popular will to the instruments of government. The major parties all support Israel’s genocide in almost all the Western “democracies”.

It has become impossible to deny the intention of Genocide now. Israel has stepped up its killing of children to dozens every day, is openly executing medics and destroying all healthcare facilities, is bombing desalination plants and is blockading all food.

The Zionist narrative on social media has shifted from denial of genocide to justification of genocide.

I simply cannot understand the mainstream tolerance of this Holocaust. I am living in an age where the power structures and social narratives I do not recognise as part of a societal organisation to which I can consent to belong. It is the British Labour Party which is actively supporting genocide whilst targeting the most vulnerable at home for cuts in income. It is the EU which is doing everything possible to promote World War 3 and transforming into a militarily aggressive organisation of Nazi leanings.

The UK, US and other first world nations are radically cutting overseas aid to provide money for imperialist military aggression. The broadly social democratic consensus of the Western world in my youth involved much dull compromise: but it was infinitely better and more hopeful than this Hell we are creating.

 

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.




Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

 

View with comments

Liberation Scotland 117

It is remarkable that few would dispute that Ireland was a British colony before most of it became Independent, but to point to Scotland’s highly analogous colonial position brings howls of anger.

All Empires employ the human resources of their colonies. India was conquered for the British by Indian soldiers, not by British troops. Nearly all of the major states in the Indian sub-continent were formally absorbed by Treaty, giving legal cover to the annexations.

Throughout the British Empire, as so many other Empires, the local ruling class was co-opted into British rule, often selling out the interests and sometimes the very land and homes of their peoples in return for acceptance into the Imperial elite. Frequently in the later stages of the British Empire, colonies had representative Assemblies of various kinds in which the local co-opted colonial elite could exercise limited self-government, subject to the supremacy of the Westminster parliament and of the Law Lords (precursor to the Supreme Court).

You will have grasped from the above that all of the reasons commonly trotted out that Scotland cannot be a colony – participation of the elite in the fruits of Empire, contribution to the Imperial armies, responsibility of the Scottish aristocracy for the Highland Clearances, the Treaty of Union, existence of the “Scottish Parliament” – are in fact classic markers of colonial status.

This is how colonies are managed, and Scotland is one.

All of these points apply equally to Imperial Ireland, yet people have no difficulty comprehending Ireland’s colonial status. The incomprehension over Scotland is a question of emotion not of reason.

Liberation Scotland have produced a simply fantastic document on Scotland’s Colonial Markers. It should be taught in every school in Scotland. It is very well worth reading, but I want here to reproduce some of the fantastic graphics.

This map of British Army outposts 1745-56 is clearly indicative of a land under enemy occupation, not a land hosting its own army. The extensive garrisoning of Atholl, Mar and Badenoch is especially striking, given that these were the key areas denuded of their civilian populations, ethnically cleansed of the Gael, in the immediately ensuing period.

The effect of the continued pillaging of Scotland’s resources by England on population is very obvious.

The historical research of Liberation Scotland has thrown up some facts you will not find in the history books. The provisions of the Treaties of Union of 1710 were never put into effect. In particular, while both English and Scottish parliaments were supposed to be dissolved and replaced by the Union parliament, only the Scottish parliament was in fact dissolved.

The English parliament continued its session, with a mere 10% of extra MPs added from Scotland.

Crucially, Scotland’s many international treaties were simply regarded as dissolved, while all of England’s existing international treaties continued in force, binding the UK. This is the clearest indicator that this was a colonial annexation by England. It is a point I have never seen made before this paper.

The Paper lists Colonial Markers under seven headings widely accepted in the academic discipline of post-colonial studies.

  1. Military Threat, Invasion, Subjugation
  2. Ethnic Cleansing, Displacement, Settler Occupation
  3. Cultural and Linguistic Imperialism, Cultural Genocide, Cultural Assimilation
  4. Colonial Administration
  5. Colonial Exploitation
  6. Denial of Self-Determination
  7. Shared Features of Colonized Societies

It is very instructive indeed to constrain emotional reaction within this rigid intellectual framework and to assess Scotland’s past and present within this context.

Colonial-Markers-Illustrated is one of a suite of documents presented on behalf of Liberation Scotland to the UN Committee of Decolonisation, under cover of a Notice of Intent to present a case for Scotland’s adoption by the UN as a non-self-governing territory.

I do recommend you at least to browse them. They will open eyes and minds.

Which is what we intend to do at the United Nations. Eventually, Scottish Independence will be determined at the UN General Assembly. It is vital to understand that a state exists solely in relation to other states. Independence is not a question of domestic policy but of international recognition. The ultimate arbiter of statehood is the UN General Assembly.

Scotland is ruthlessly economically exploited by London, and the UK state will never willingly give up Scotland and its mineral, agricultural, maritime, energy and strategic resources. It is absolutely plain that London will never agree to another Independence referendum, having come so unexpectedly close to losing the last one.

Scotland will have to take its Independence – it will not be given. Taking Independence against the will of London will require two things. Following a Declaration of Independence, Scots must take and hold practical control of the territory of Scotland. They must then seek international recognition.

That time is coming sooner than most people think. British state colonial agents like John Swinney and Angus Robertson are not going to be able much longer to keep the lid on the constant demand for Independence, while the “Labour” government in London, actually centre-right conservative, is reaching new depths of unpopularity and is not capable of fulfilling its traditional function of diverting the aspirations of Scotland’s working class towards palliative measures of social democracy.

The party Reform UK in Scotland is not as popular as it is in England. In Scotland right-wing racist populism only resonates with the rump of uneducated unionist support. Political change in Scotland is now inevitable. Either the SNP will need to return to what it was under Alex Salmond – a party genuinely seeking to obtain Independence – or the SNP will be swept aside and replaced.

Angus Robertson of the SNP has responded to the initiative by Liberation Scotland by repeating the SNP mantra that Independence may only be obtained with the agreement of Westminster. This argument has no basis in international law and can only come from the mouth of a unionist. It is an impossibility in logic both to believe in the Scottish right of self-determination as a people, and to believe that London has a veto.

Some kind of democratic event will spark a Declaration of Independence in the not-too-distant future, presumably an election at the national level won overwhelmingly by pro-Independence candidates. At that stage Scotland will appeal to the international community for recognition.

That means countries have to be willing to act against the hostility of London. That is perhaps easier to achieve than it sounds. Brexit has alienated the UK from the EU, while UK support for the Gaza genocide and slashing of its aid programme has further alienated the UK from developing nations, while the UK/US alliance is rocked by Trump.

Trump’s attitude to Scottish independence is difficult to predict – whereas most US Presidents would oppose it for fear of weakening NATO.

The continued behaviour by the UK as an aggressive imperialist power – particularly in its active assistance to the Gaza genocide – is one of the important motivating factors for supporters of Scottish Independence like myself, who wish to see the UK broken up. Here is Kenny MacAskill, leader of the Alba Party of which I am a member, speaking at their conference last week.

These attitudes are an important point of confluence between the supporters of Scottish liberation and the large majority of countries at the United Nations, including key members of the Committee on Decolonization, such as Russia, China, South Africa, Venezuela and several Caribbean states.

The anomalous UK security council veto at the UN is a standing affront to the rest of the world, and if the UK were to attempt to use this power to block recognition of Scotland, it could precipitate moves for reform.

If Scotland can gather sufficient support at the UN, the UK might find that the threat to its coveted status as a Permanent Member of the Security Council might outweigh its interest in vetoing Scotland.

The UN is ultimately the key forum for Scottish Independence. While there is institutional resistance at the UN to recognising further non-self-governing territories, this is not insuperable, and in any event the process itself is extremely valuable in introducing Scotland’s case at the UN and preparing the intellectual ground for support for Scottish Independence.

I shall therefore be assisting Liberation Scotland in lobbying at the UN and ultimately in the formal presentation of the application.

 

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.




Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

View with comments