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.
- Military Threat, Invasion, Subjugation
- Ethnic Cleansing, Displacement, Settler Occupation
- Cultural and Linguistic Imperialism, Cultural Genocide, Cultural Assimilation
- Colonial Administration
- Colonial Exploitation
- Denial of Self-Determination
- 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.
Following the Spring Statement, government approval falls to its joint lowest level since Labour were elected
Approve: 14% (-5 from 22-24 Mar)
Disapprove: 68% (+8)
Net: -54 (-13) pic.twitter.com/tRzUbMOXQ0— YouGov (@YouGov) April 1, 2025
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.
24 hours since I seen this video of Angus Robertson
dismissing Salvo/ < href="https://t.co/nmWFAqYT49">https://t.co/nmWFAqYT49;
attempts to have 🏴 listed for decolonisation at the UN and
I’m still very angry at the SNP.Still begging for a
s30 which will NEVER happen. 😡&—
James Campbell (@J4m35c4mpb3ll) March
31, 2025
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.
ALBA Party Leader, Kenny MacAskill speaking to members at conference yesterday 👇
🗣️ @KennyMacAskill: “ALBA will never endorse Scottish boots on the ground in Ukraine” #ALBAforIndependence pic.twitter.com/GFmV9LUhen
— ALBA Party (@AlbaParty) March 30, 2025
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:
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
I don’t really give a hoot about what happened in 1746 -I can’t undo it and I wasn’t in power at the time.
What I can change is the idiots running 3rd-rate (4th rate really) operations in Scotland -and most of them are Scottish.
I profoundly want an independent Scotland -we would be a force in the world- but it would not be a socialist one and it would not be in the EU. Independence means freedom of the individual to make his life as he sees fot, or it is nothing at all.
If the following were managed well, the independence movement would be unstoppable.
1) A brilliant and positive education system encouraging innovation and competence. (we apparentlyused to have that)
2) An efficient and trail-blazing health service (anyone who can’t see we are a joke is a dreamer)
3) An independent judiciary -our own people have installed the crooks in charge for now
4) A Parliament full of skilled and experienced talent, not lawyers, trade unionists or PPE graduates with no practical competence. Just one look at the glaiket expressions in Holyrood and Westminster tells you they couldn’t sort anything out.
5) Less power to the Parliament -leave us alone and trust us. And stop stealing our money in taxes and red tape.
6) Sports -why not encourage us to be healthy in the first place (that might reduce the drugs crisis a little)
7) Net Zero -in the trash-can. It’s an insult to our intelligence. Pollution is the problem,not CO2.
8) Public sector -half it, we are being soffocated by the double whammy of low production and high pensions from the public sector
9) Tolerance -it takes all sorts to make a nation. I don’t seemuch sign of tolerance & understanding anywhere these days.
10) –
11) –
12) –
When on earth was there a “brilliant and positive education system” in Scotland?
Hopefully you agree this can’t be argued with sole regard to the four oldest universities, which for centuries mostly took students from rich families.
There certainly wasn’t a ‘brilliant and positive education system’ in central Edinburgh during the 1960s.
”9) Tolerance -it takes all sorts to make a nation. I don’t see much sign of tolerance & understanding anywhere these days.”
I didn’t see much tolerance in your dismissive remarks about ‘trade unionists and lawyers.’
Your dream of a low tax, non -socialist tartan utopia is hardly an advert for tolerance either, unless it’s tolerance of privilege. You could pick up the aristocratic vote with a manifesto like that.
Duh! Standard colonial practice to use native levies and middle management to advance the Empire.
In 1805 did Horatio Nelson fight under the flags for “England expects…” or was it “The equal Union of England and Scotland expects..?”ffs Jethro, it wasn’t even “Britain expects..”
Also General Wolfe, the English General who took part in the pacification of the Highlands following Culloden and led the English Imperial troops at the Plains of Abraham in Quebec. He is remembered for his English racist quip, “I imagine two or three independent companies of Highland troops might be of use. They are hardy, intrepid, accustomed to a rough country, and no great mischief if they fall.”
There are innumerable examples demonstrating the reality of the English Empire rather than any enterprise conducted by a Union of Equals
“In 1805 did Horatio Nelson fight under the flags for “England expects…” or was it “The equal Union of England and Scotland expects..?”
Ah but look at the HSBC logo. Doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart!
It really is possible to think up support for anything if you weren’t reasoned into it in the first place. Of course Nelson was an English nationalist as well as a British one. Nobody serious would possibly deny that. It doesn’t make the British empire into an English empire, though. Thomas Sutherland the founder of HSBC, aka Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, was presumably a Scottish nationalist as well as a British one. Like Nelson, he was into flags – in his case, the Scottish one. For football hooligans and middle class people who have as many brain cells as football hooligans, this kind of thing is doubtless very real and relevant even in 2025.
The working class have no country. It’s very simple.
Why do you think MI5 built up Scottish nationalism in the early 1970s at the precise time that they did, shortly after e.g. the workers’ takeover of the Clydeside shipyards etc. etc.
Incidentally comparable ops were run both in South Wales and Northern Ireland. Bloody Sunday buried Free Derry.
In Scotland see the large swing to the SNP from the first 1974 general election to the second.
Lest anyone not get what I’m saying, you gotta consider that powerful forces in the ruling class were quite seriously considering staging a military coup in Britain around that time. They saw a revolutionary workers’ movement as a big threat.
I’m telling you there really was no England versus Scotland sh*t in working class struggles such as the miners’ strikes of that epoch. Solidarity among strikers on both sides of the border was assumed. Nobody in Scotland thought oh the Yorkshire miners, they’re a bunch of posho English twats in top hats. Nobody in England thought the shipyard workers of Clydeside were a bunch of kiltheads either. There was respect. Screw nationalism.
Hold on, the overwhelming majority of UN members votes to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine and you think that UN solidarity is not with Ukraine?
Given that Israel voted along with Russia and N. Korea on that vote, what do you think of Trump instructing the US to do likewise? Why is your anti-American commentary post-Presidential election, anti-American rather than anti-Trump – when beforehand it was decidedly anti-Biden?
We know your (justified) thoughts about Macron abandoning international law in order to have an appearance (and it is only an appearance) of a say in Lebanon but what do you make of Orban, the only EU leader actively supportive of Putin and anti-assisting Ukraine, welcoming Netanyahu to Hungary and seceding from the ICC?
Pretty sure that if it was Macron, or Starmer literally actually doing that (though they are not far away from doing so), you would be – rightly – all over them like a rash.
It seems pretty obvious that your commentary is quite selective over **who** outrages you with the same conduct on the same issue. In short, you are inconsistent because, sadly, for you it isn’t actually about policy, it’s about personality. And for some reason, you seem to prefer the personalities of Putin, Trump, sycophants et al.
For the avoidance of doubt (and as I have previously avowed on your blog), I am pro-Scottish Independence and anti-colonialism.
oh and curious, too, about what you make of the white supremacist comments on your blog? You removed the Holocaust-denial ones pretty quickly but seemingly not so quickly the recent ones essentially describing black people as a sub-human plague
Good luck with the next independence campaign.
I mean it sincerely.
I guess some kind of future constitution – perhaps along the type the Swiss live under – would be a good way of convincing many that a clean government that is not a fascist financial theocratic monarchy masquerading as a democracy would be a good idea. It may encourage the next generation to get away from the Crown and its Westminster puppets Laws.
Such a clear guiding star is vital.
@DunGroanin
Switzerland was set up in its modern role in the 1930s by mafia boss Meyer Lansky for laundering mafia money including for the New York-based Sicilian mafia. It had child slavery in agriculture until the 1970s and maybe still has it now for all I know. (Search on the term “verdingkinder”.) As for its famed “democracy”, this has famously involved the majority population putting on white conical hats and chanting “whoop whoop whoop” as they voted in 2009 to ban the construction of minarets.
Switzerland – land of mafia, slavery, and mass-participation Islamophobia. It’s fascist in all but name. That there’s pluralist voting there doesn’t change that fact one iota.
You seem to have been misled by the fact that Swiss streets are mostly clean. What do you think of Singapore?
My take on this democracy stuff seems to be different from yours.
Take a look at say this vote in California in 1964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_California_Proposition_14
or of course, for a British example, the Powellite vote in favour of Brexit in 2016.
Brian thanks for the link and reply.
Just to be clearer about what I meant.
You might have missed the qualifier
“perhaps”in the “along the type the Swiss live under – would be a good way of convincing many”
Which i don’t mean to condone that system. As I don’t condone other shining light systems like Singapore for instance
Or the other satraps.
“Perhaps” Means there is a choice that can be invented.
For Scottish independence to be viable, those historic People need a modern C21st reinvention.
One that would be as vital as their contribution to the British Empire was, in shaping the future multipolar world order.
Where they can also be unique as they should always have been.
“Eventually, Scottish Independence will be determined at the UN General Assembly”.
Ah, yes. The same body that – lubricated by vast amounts of Jewish money and the support of President Truman (who owed his recent reelection to Jewish money) – gave half of Palestine to Israel. Whereupon the Israelis took 90%, and the UNGA did nothing.
What I don’t understand is what on earth the government of Palestine or Scotland has to do with the UNGA. It’s an assembly chosen almost by definition to contain virtually no Scots, and very few people who know or care anything about Scotland.
Having Scotland’s fate decided by English politicians is not ideal, but it’s better than having it decided by Paraguay, Mongolia, Japan, and Lesotho.
Zionist money, if you please.
Don’t give the Scottish nationalists ideas [1] – perhaps they’ll be seeking Jewish state [2] pals (following in the footsteps of their Catalan analogues) rather than appearing on Russian state media so much.
Notes
1) After all, some of them might feel a need for some “ideas”, should the moneygrabbing sh*te by Adam Smith or the monarchist sh*te by David Hume ever be felt to be unattractive or insufficient.
2) “Jewish state” means “Zionist”. “Zionist” means “Jewish state”.
Our first colonies, Scotland and Wales, have been under the firm grip of England for over 400 years. Maybe the slight religious differences gave the Irish a more unified defiance to the English, even though there are still some counties to go. Independence should be wanted by over 80% of Scotland but it is only a little over half, even though the country is exploited and poor, a total English vassal.
@Ray – Maybe find out about the Tudors, the Stuarts, and the Scottish plantation of Ulster in Ireland.
The Tudors and Stuarts succumbed to corruption by London. Oh and by the way the plantation of Ulster did not happen until after Jamie the saxt became King James I of England.
I apologize in advance for entering into a topic that is not related to me. But l nevertheless allow myself to address our dear host with a suggestion.
Appeals to historical injustices carry weight among older generations. The young people are more focused on pressing issues, because they need to decide their fate here and now.
I consider myself to be of a younger age than Mr. Murray, so the story of buying foreign ferries instead of building a seaport in Scotland resonated more with me, than the historical background of colonial relations or the legal situation with the UN, etc.etc.
I believe that Scotland Independence could win sooner, if people could visualise real practical goal of it. Economy, finance, business. Simply showing them how they can benefit financially from independence would probably get you more support than describing historical unfair events.
I agree with you Tatyana, it is difficult to envisage Scotland being financially better off with independence in the short term at least. Just as an example the annual subvention from the UK must be taken into account.
“Record £41 billion per year for Scotland in budget”
“The Autumn Budget 2021 will deliver the largest annual funding settlement to Scotland since devolution, helping level up across the whole of the UK”.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/record-41-billion-per-year-for-scotland-in-budget
Self determination (independence) is generally a good thing especially when sought after minerals are found in the area (oil and gas off the coast of Scotland) for instance. The case against this is the UK (as a whole) most of the economic activity in the UK is centered around London and the home counties (a generalization) in other words economic activity ‘sticks’ where the profits accumulate, that is why China is growing so fast, capitalism grows fastest where the profits are greatest and the market is large. Imagine if a huge deposit of gold or diamonds was found in England would the English Nationalists refuse to share with other parts of the UK? This conundrum is mitigated by the UK government moving government departments to various devolved areas of the UK as well as the annual financial subvention to those parts.
Quite a few people I talk to from the Far East Region appear very aware of the potential benefits of greater independence and of close economic cooperation with Korea, Japan and,perhaps, China,
“…the “Labour” government in London, actually centre-right conservative….”
Far right, if you please.
Anyone remember Scotch on the Rocks (TradBBC 1973)?
Except that British foreign policy is these days controlled by the US. The US need a ‘strong’ UK and therefore there is no way they would allow the EU to pick off Scotland (as they might see it). And as we have seen clearly in various recent elections, public opinion is a fiction of rigged opinion polls, rotten boroughs and intelligence-agency smear campaigns channelled through our corrupt media, with the voters herded like cattle. That’s also why there is an otherwise very weird lack of debate about Brexit in UK politics or the UK media even though half of the population voted Remain – the US won’t allow rejoining or even proper economic cooperation.
If the Yes side were ever to win an independence referendum it would advocate a customs union with rUK within hours of winning, which would rule out joining the EU.
Whether it would get one is a different question.
Key point for me is the population graph over the last 300 years. Ever since the Union, Scotland has been haemorrhaging its brightest, its best and its young – all because their options at home are limited. The 3 lesser partners in the United Kingdom are unique in the world for having an effective population growth of zero, whilst the remaining countries in Europe have generally trebled.
As to the UN and EU – don’t hold your breath. If it suited the US or EU for Scotland to be independent, we would be already. The NGO money would have flooded throughout the country to achieve it, as it does in Georgia and Moldova at this time. I think the number of NGOs in Georgia was listed at 25,000 – all promoting EU accession.
Where a country can be used AGAINST an enemy of the West, no expense is spared in its quest for independence – Ukraine, Georgia, the various xxx’istans, Myanmar, the Philippines, Hong Kong….. the list goes on and on. Where the country is seeking to break away from a friendly country – crickets.
@Al Dossary – “The 3 lesser partners in the United Kingdom are unique in the world for having an effective population growth of zero, whilst the remaining countries in Europe have generally trebled.”
You should examine why you wrote that. The graph seems to say the population of Scotland has ~trebled over the past 300 years.
One explanation for why you couldn’t see that fact would be that a hairy great caber-like chip on your shoulder is affecting your vision and comprehension. Is there another explanation?
Try this selective attention test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
The graph does show ~trebling.
Is it that the rate of growth isn’t as big as England’s that irks you?
How do you feel about the result in the 1966 football World Cup? 🙂
I meant to write “on the last 100 years”, but missed the edit window. Glad to see that I gave you something to pick up on at least.
Practically every country in the world shows at least 2*, 3* population growth over the last 100 years. Just not Scotland or Wales – although Ireland has returned to growth since 1916.
So a double typo then. E.g. for England not trebling in 300 years but doubling in 100. Mkay…
Nor does the curve for the population of Ireland show 1916 as a point of interest. The famine of around 1850 and its aftermath, yes. Which mostly hit native Irish people and not Scottish colonial settlers in that country.
I’m not seeking something to pick up on.
*adjusts monocle*
The Presbyterians in Ulster (and the rest of Ireland) were ignored during the Famine by the Anglican establishment, just like the Catholics were.
I’m not convinced that historical events such as the Highland clearances or the military occupation of Scotland are particularly relevant to today’s arguments. They are I suppose a good support for the idea that Scotland is an “occupied nation”, but do you need that particular argument anyway? Much better to stress the present issues, the cultural and political differences and to provide a full prospectus for a future independent Scotland, including presumably nuclear disarmament and a nuclear free economy. . I have never seen such a prospectus, which would include military, monetary, political, economic, land ownership, taxation and environmental trajectories combined with a written and agreed constitution for Scotland – which though could still acknowledge and make use of the flexibility of legal and social precedent. Unless independence advocates can show exactly how an independent Scotland would work, then why would the Scots in their large majority vote or work for it?
As an aside, Scotland’s low population might indeed be related to its low status in the UK as compared to England, but I can’t help thinking that a 5 million population is more than adequate for any small nation like Scotland, indeed may well be the ideal size. As I’ve noted before, the Scottish Enlightenment took place in a population of 1.5 million people. Overpopulation in a world increasingly constrained by contracting resources is truly an existential issue. That’s one of the major issues for any future Scottish nation, abandonment of most of precepts of the original enlightenment and the construction of a “New Ecological Enlightenment” that might even preserve humanity itself. If an independent Scotland could accomplish this, it could lead the whole world to wisdom and an actual future worth living in. Would for instance a new Scotland refute the idea of perpetual economic growth? A “New Scotland” would be a worthless exercise without that revolution in thought, merely substituting one unworkable system for a more parochial equivalent.
In which case, though, how would an independent Scotland deal with the millions of English who might wish to live in the more “enlightened” country next door?.
Dear Mr Murray
At the risk of being in error, as much as you outline your theory, I believe you and, most Scots overlook a rather important historical fact that is right in front of you.
I am from Sweden and it is perhaps easier to see this, so if you allow me I will add some ramblings on the matter and, I will refer to Norse, which I myself do not really speak as it is ancient.
We all know that Vikings have influenced Scotland, etc.
England means Äng (=meadow) + land in modern Swedish. The pronounciation is pitch perfect, However, if one goes back to Norse, it should be Ang, which means a sweetly fragrant place, much like a meadow would smell, although a somewhat wider reference.
Similarly, York, means Jor(d)vik, ie Jord (=soil, Earth, perhaps also mud) + vik (=bay).
Now, Scotland is a mistranslation, I believe, as it was referred to as Skattland by the Norwegian king. Skatt (=tax) + land.
This is where it all gets rather amusing and interesting, me think.
To be taxed can be that of a colony, sure However, I am not quite sure Vikingsever did tax the way currently is done. I am simply guessing here,
A Viking was self sovereign, yet, had to pay tax. This tax was levied for the common defense of the reign, kingdom or land – whatever the definition was. The king only held power at a time of war and then had the right to demand defense teams, roddarlag, to appear. It logically follows that the king had the right to train and assess such teams.
Apart from this role, Vikings couldn’t care less about their king. To become king, he therefore had to travel around to ask for his acceptance to this role. This tradition still is there and is called Eriksgata.
Vikings had slaves, ie everyone was not a free man. Only a skattebonde, ie a farmer holding a homestead (someone able to perform husbandry) and able to pay tax to the king from its profits was able to help finance common defense and, thus, earned freedom not afforded by those of a lesser ability.
Skattland, therefore, can be seen and interpreted as both, ie a colony to those of a lesser ability, yet, a land of opportunity for those of ability as they would then pay tax to the Norwegian king in return for common defense and access to the table at which free men communed.
Seems Vikings had a knack at putting puns into phrases, now doesn’t it?
Vik is fjord or similar. Ing is used as in ingen (=nobody), ingenting (=no thing). Looking at Norse it is not easy to find a definition of ing, at least I come up empty handed.
However, there’s an important rune, Ingwaz https://vikingr.org/magic-symbols/ingwaz?srsltid=AfmBOooqVHXLK9dXJ50_g36P7X6ca8PxKOzJHptyToH3OU0aLi-sH0fN
Ingwaz can be portrayed as two X:s on top or as a (Diamond shape), which to my mind would be the closest one can come in portraying o or 0 (= zero) using futhark runes.
In modern Swedish, we do use o to negate meanings. To exemplify, we have bra (=good) and obra (=not good, or to those of a lesser tounge 0good).
So, viking, would not refer to someone from a fjord, yet do so – for those not in on the pun.
Vi means we in Swedish. Vi + king would the become we + king and be a multilayered pun as it’d refer to skattebonde + king for a situation where defense is needed, self sovereign otherwise and, possibly albeit not always living at a fjord or similar.
Looking at the phrase king with ing being o, it would have to an even better pun. K would be spelled g but pronounced as modern day k, typed as X in futhark runes. X is gebo ie gift in futhark. Add ing and, it’d mean not a gift, possibly, not that gifted, which, to my mind, would add some fun to the paying of taxes as well as the process of becoming king ax thought of as an act of ascension of sorts. A true king should act in the service of his people, now, should he not?
(https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runor)
Just my two cents on the matter and, I readily admit,most of it guessed as most Swedes have no true understanding of the phrase either and, likely, would contest the above – as it hasn’t been written down anywhere.
The latter, me think, would have a true viking rolling on the floor with laughter, but, that’s just me.