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
Hi,
You seem (once again) to have forgotten Wales and Cornwall. Is there a valid non-racist reason for this? Can you also explain why you have never written about the Dublin slave markets of the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries? Historical cherry-picking, non?
Classic whataboutery. Do you have no rejoinder or rebuttal of Craig’s cogent remarks?
You seem (once again) to have forgotten Craig is Scottish. His wish is that his own country be granted the status of independence. Perhaps YOU need to get moving on creating a liberation movement and getting independence for your own country. There is ZERO racist about fighting for your own country’s independence. Are you fighting for Scotland’s independence? If not, why not? Is there a valid non-racist reason for not doing so? Perhaps he’s never written about Dublin slave markets because he’s Scottish, lives in Scotland, his family is being raised in Scotland & not in Dublin. Historical cherry-picking are you not?
Sadly I think we overestimate the voters feelings in this. I’ve heard people say they voted against Indy because ‘it wasn’t a good time’ and failing to understand that it was the only chance they’d ever have. What’s needed is a concerted campaign for support even though there is no referendum. It will only be when support is embarrassingly high that anything will happen. Support steady at 75% would be sufficient but less than that would be ignored.
I believe that independence is being prepared for. Some infrastructure and organs of government have been gradually closed in Scotland only to be moved a few miles south for no financial reason I can see..
“Support steady at 75% would be sufficient but less than that would be ignored.”
But surely aiming for 75% would be better than aiming for 51% quite regardless of what anyone outside Scotland would “recognise”?
Otherwise you are asking for blame and hatred to be directed at minorities, who may even include some who are as indigenous as f***, such as Rangers supporters – or even people from Edinburgh, in some scenarios.
“Sadly I think we overestimate the voters feelings in this. I’ve heard people say they voted against Indy because ‘it wasn’t a good time’ and failing to understand that it was the only chance they’d ever have.”
There’s something wrong with your logic there.
Perhaps I should explain my comment. Even if it was the only chance they’d ever have, that doesn’t mean “this isn’t a good time, therefore I won’t go for it” wasn’t totally reasonable.
Do you believe in national destiny or what? That’s a horrible notion.
Many who voted No were motivated by what is viewed (and was viewed by themselves) as the good ol’ Scottish virtue of prudence 🙂
I’m not particularly averse to the principle of Scottish separation, and as I said, I detest the English elite, even more than 99% of Scottish separatists do. You just gotta understand why many people in Scotland voted No. Seriously – you have to understand. Don’t say they’re all Uncle Toms or analogues of members of the Raj.
“You just gotta understand why many people in Scotland voted No.”
Yes, you do indeed:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/03/03/the-colonial-mindset/
“I detest the English elite…”
Have you met the Scottish elite?
Obviously if a majority of Scots want independence, it should happen, and I’m broadly in sympathy with the people who seek to persuade their fellow Scots to take that path.
But Craig seems to go a bit over-the-top. In the history I learned at school, it was a Scottish king – James VI – who added England to his domains, not vice-versa.
“In the history I learned at school, it was a Scottish king – James VI – who added England to his domains, not vice-versa.”
That was just the unions of the crowns, where you had one monarch ruling two separate countries. This endured until the Act of Union a hundred years later, when Scotland was subsumed into England.
The two kingdoms were never united. The King of Scots, James vi, inherited the throne of England in 1603 because their queen, Elizabeth 1, had no children and therefore no direct heirs. James was the nearest eligible relative. In 1707, in the process of pushing through the Treaty of Union, Queen Ann declared herself monarch of Great Britain. The two kingdoms have different constitutions, and they would not be united by a simple declaration. Such things require a process.
People who argue that the kingdoms were united should be able to demonstrate and provide evidence about the process of them becoming united.
Queen Anne already was the monarch of England (which included Wales) and Scotland. Calling herself the monarch of Great Britain didn’t change anything, as the name “Great Britain” for England + Scotland had been in use for almost a century.
Complete Bollocks. Both Scotland and England jointly ran the British colonial empire. It was Scottish soldiers machine-gunning natives resisting foreign autocratic rule in the British colony of Aden. Scots were well represented in the ranks of colonial administrators in the African continent. Scottish businessmen were complicit in selling opium to China and inciting the British Opium Wars. Scotland’s political status is not comparable in any way to Ireland. If you want to seek the independence of your pipe dream Scottish ethnostate, then find a credible excuse
You’re right. It is very much to some Scottish separatists’ discredit that they don’t recognise this. It was in the Caribbean too – not just in Asia and Africa.
Jethro Boateng, try reading Craig’s second and third paragraphs (sigh).
Scottish slaveowners who “owned” slaves in the Caribbean weren’t part of a local Carib elite. This is not an arsy point. There were Scottish colonialists across the whole of the British empire. The British empire was…British.
The thing is, this makes Scotland a special case. Why not run with that?
Scotland was a willing participant in the British Empire, not a victim. https://academic.oup.com/book/12634
A higher proportion of Scots than English owned slaves, by 1796 Scots owned nearly 30 per cent of the estates in Jamaica and by 1817, 32 per cent of the slaves. There were only ever about 70 or 80 slaves in Scotland but the country reaped the rewards of their labour in the colonies; in the sugar, cotton and tobacco plantations. Like Bristol and Liverpool, Glasgow grew rich on the backs of slaves.
Many Scots masters were considered among the most brutal, with life expectancy on their plantations averaging a mere four years.
And another like Jethro Boateng above. Sigh. You could even try reading the New Testament as a political account rather than a load of superstitious fables. Ruling classes collude.
Pears Morgaine
Yes some Scots were co-opted by unionism they benefited from it, however the majority of Scots did not really benefit from the union with taxes, such as the Malt tax -added to their financial woes – of course the “Treaty” had to be signed in a basement of a shop, on corner of a street in Edinburgh, well away from prying eyes – whilst Scots above rioted on the streets – because they didn’t want the union – we know this as the English spy Daniel Defoe reported it back to his London masters at the time.
The romantic version of the signing of the treaty – was one of it being signed in a summerhouse with happy smiling faces all round. Part of the Equivalent – the monies given to some Scottish nobles etc to sell Scotland out, part of it was used to set up the royal Bank of Scotland.
“According to renowned economist Utsa Patnaik, professor emeritus at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, the British drained approximately $45 trillion from India between 1765 and 1938.”
One can only wonder how much Westminster has stolen from Scotland in the last 300+ years – I think Westminster’s Treasury department, stopped producing how much Scotland send to Westminster – and how much it got back in the 1950’s – because the former figure was always much greater – than the latter figure.
Dear Craig, good luck with your endeavors.
I tend to think current affairs may show the possible trend towards others in the future.
For instance, if tomorrow Greenland can achieve independence, no longer be a Danish colony, but neither become an American one,
Then, it’d be possible to seriously think of Scotland’s renewed sovereignty. But clearly, there’s still a very long way to go, and for a variety of reasons, I personally surrender the hope the UN may play any positive part in such a situation.
As the Donald always says, we’ll see what happens…
Be careful with Greenland. Greenland has been absolutely shat on by Denmark, and I am in favour of Greenland independence. But doing it “tomorrow” would be dangerous given USA government intentions.
Remember what Ho Chi Minh said about sniffing French sh*t for five years rather than eating Chinese sh*t for a lifetime. He was no fool, and no French stooge.
It has been suggested that the Scots voted Yes in the majority, in the 2014 referendum. The swing to no was the non-Scots voters. Are there statistics to verify this? It seems there were vehement opposition to an exit poll.
It’s racist xenophobic c*ck, put out by the kind of scumbags who want to disenfranchise people living in Scotland who aren’t ethnic Scots.
Similarly if only 49.5% in Britain had voted for Brexit, there would have been knuckleheads who blamed blacks, or Muslims, or women, or gays.
If you want Scottish independence, try to win over large chunks of the population who currently don’t. Don’t just aim to win 51% and tear the country apart.
‘It’s racist xenophobic c*ck, put out by the kind of scumbags who want to disenfranchise people living in Scotland who aren’t ethnic Scots.’
It was a study out of Edinburgh University actually Brian.
The Brexit Franchise devised by the English Government was different from the Scottish Independence franchise. Was it ‘It’s racist xenophobic scumbags who wanted to disenfranchise people living in England (there was no movement in Scotland at the time proposing or supporting an EU ref.) who weren’t ethnic English’ or was it a franchise based on citizenship?
Although I had lived and worked in the UK for 25 plus years at the time of the Brexit referendum and was entitled to vote, I declined to do so.
As an Irish citizen I felt it was not for me to vote and it was for the British to decide for themselves. I’d have voted remain had I voted.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the fact of Scotland’s sovereignty being vested in its people is exactly why the franchise must prioritise the authochthonous Scots over incomers, because any formal plebiscite of those sovereign Scots is a formal sovereign Scottish decision, and cannot legitimately be reversed by a larger non-sovereign majority. History, constitututions and sovereignty actually matter!
Thus the franchise is actually about ownership of that sovereignty, and not about racism. That is the real point.
Edinburgh Uni did a study. Non-Scots voted no 3 to 1.
What made queenie ‘purr with delight’ as Lord snooty ‘call me Dave’ Cameron related his phone call with her informing her of the result – in my opinion was the work of Dominic ‘Strangelove’ Cummings – who had set up and practicd the not so dark art of postal vote fixing.
It was set up and tested in the North East first to ensure the Scottish referendum would fail and secondly to set up and ensure BrexShit referendum would succeed.
Both were fixes based on independent polls prior to the votes.
It had to also be resorted to stop Corbyn winning both his general elections!
Which is much harder to conceal under the fptp system.
Of course all the voting details are still not public as the voting is ‘now privatised’.
They also had to resort to such in keeping Trump out of his second term.
Presumably because being a Putin agent he was not likely to let the Ukropian proxy war proceed!
Fair voting is not to be allowed if it can give anything but a ‘uniparty’ choice of the Supreme Fascist Deepstate Barons.
Which is evident across Europe and all the colonial states, including the U.K. which has got the Blairite Ziofascist scum politicians clearing out local party membership and the local choices for candidates.
The pretence that we are not all living in Occupied Terrirories and are free and have fair elections and systems is just that. A pretence. One that ensures because of the controlled media narratives and elite academia which chooses and streams imperial stooges into the echelons of ‘government’.
We are as much a tinpot miltary dictatorship as we always were under Norman Rule!
With a direct line to being the actual Nazi, Ziofascists that has caused non stop mayhem for a millenia in their Thousand Year Empire.
Coming to it’s sudden end in all corners of the Collective Waste near and far. Get it while you can!
While it sounds exciting to see own region as an independent country, it can be easily argued that more borders do not make the humanity happier or richer. Quite the opposite. That’s why it is viewed as politically progressive to remove borders, and forming federation of regions has become a necessity in a world increasingly dominated by superpowers.
I’d argue that the Scottish nation will be better off striving to achieve more influence over the entire UK and more parity between the regions than for breaking up an already relatively small state. Small states don’t matter, even smaller matter even less.
Tear down walls, not build them.
“I’d argue that the Scottish nation will be better off striving to achieve more influence over the entire UK”
Are you sure you’re a monarchist, @Kacper? Because that’s what you’re implying, when you call Britiain “the UK”.
The state is called the United Kingom. Britain was name of an island last time I checked. I certainly meant influence on state affairs, not on islanders.
Yeah, come on Scotland – let’s stay artificially poor.
Do you know why poor Greenland hasn’t yet declared independence, even though so many nationalists there claim that it would make everyone richer? Because it simply doesn’t add up.
Scotland would depend entirely on the mercy of its southern neighbour – in trade, in transport, in infrastructure. I’m 1000% certain that it wouldn’t be able to join the EU for many decades. There are EU countries where’s it’s a state policy to oppose separatism of any flavour. Spain, Greece or Cyprus haven’t even recognised Kosovo, as a matter of principle, even though maintaining good relations with Serbia is quite a low priority for them. Not mentioning allowing it into the EU. If you believe that these countries would do anything to show that separatism can succeed – you’ll be in for a big disappointment.
I’d love for all peoples to have their own independent motherlands. Yes, some treaties say that nations have an inalienable right to self-determination. I get it why nations want it. But do small motherlands make sense in today’s world? What does “independence” at all mean? That small nations don’t have to listen to the more powerful ones? Good luck.
I would hate for Scotland to become the Kosovo of Britain or the Greenland of Denmark. Federalisation feels much more promising. EU is effectively a federation. Why not work towards turning the UK into a federation?
Hah, with any luck, an independent Scotland will never join the EU(SSR) because that rotten infernal institution will have ceased to exist. That will save stupid Scots from leaping out of the frying pan into the fire.
Mind you, Scotland would be a lot better off if ye were speaking German.
True, that is exactly why Scotland should leave the UK and join the EU. The EU is the biggest economic block in the world, and Scottish interests would be better served as part of such a large block, then part of an increasingly irrelevant UK
The evidence suggests that smaller countries are happier and better-governed than larger countries. The happiness index tends to show smaller countries at the top.
The UK doesn’t seem to have much to offer post-industrial Scotland. Arms industry no doubt, military recruitment potentially, air b n bisation of all the tourist attractions and wildernesses. The UK is planning to flog its assets as a bundle, freeports and special economic zones which will chip away at any practical sovereignty. Certainly a movement in Scotland to resist its inclusion in this process would have a head start on other parts of the UK with the basis of a strong independence movement
The right to self determination [of all peoples] is part of the UN charter, unfortunately it does not say ‘which people’ [quite understandably] since Catalonia is an integral part of Spain it can only gain independence from Spain with the consent of the Spanish parliament [not forthcoming] only a civil war or the serious threat of one could convince Spain to break up the country. The European Union did not back the Independence movement in Catalonia since they realized that to do so would be to open a can of worms in many other regions of the EU, in France and Italy for instance.
I am thankful that the country has offered the right to self determination to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, dependent on a 50% plus 1 majority referendum. But first of all another referendum must be held, and won, then the UK government would have to talk turkey, in my opinion it is futile to try and influence the UN general assembly at this point without the mandate of a referendum win. Angus Robertson’s view that independence must have the agreement of the UK government is debatable, but since the Kosovo judgement at the ICJ it could be said that any majority nationalist party win was the express will of the Scottish electorate, and therefore legally legitimate in International law. Of course it would be better if the UK government did agree with the result, since we would still be close trading nations etc. it has been suggested that nationalist party candidates indicate when campaigning, that any vote for them is a vote for independence regardless of section 30, with that mandate the ball would be firmly in the UK governments court.
Independence must have a clear majority vote, with the electorate fully informed its vote is for independence and not some halfway house or other constitutional malarky, otherwise a Pandora’s box [as I mentioned above] could be opened as in the case of Catalonia, also in Cornwall and the Mebyon Kernow Nationalist party who at one time had the Liberal leader John Pardoe as a member.
Some western politicians are willing to start WW3 to stop the Russian speaking peoples of the Dombass and Crimea from exercising their right to self determination and their right to secede, even when that right is backed up with vast electoral support.
We now know exactly why the EUrocrats didn’t live up to the legend of progressive, federation of states – because they have revealed themselves to be just another ZioFascist Shapeshifting imperialist project – with the Nazis of ukropia – engaged to make another attempt at the World Island Great Game.
The reason why Ireland suceeded where others have failed I expect is because of the many Irish who achieved fortunes and high positions in the US – peaking with the Kennedy clan (and other multi billionaires)
“This is how colonies are managed, and Scotland is one.”
You’re a bit nuts on this. Of course colonial rule involves local elites. It also involve a role for colonial settlers – y’know, colonisation. Where TF are the colonists in Scotland? Ireland had loads of them (many of whom were Scottish). Most English people in Scotland are not in the elite at all.
You also say nothing about the role of Scots in the British empire further afield – the literal British empire in Africa, Asia including India and China, and America including the Caribbean. That’s not a typical model for colonies. I don’t think any slaveowners in the Caribbean were black or Carib, but many of them were Scottish. One reason this is important, if we can avoid sparring, is that it makes Scotland highly unusual, and there aren’t any close parallels – but perhaps if one wanted one, Hungary might suit.
I detest the English elite and will do until my dying breath.
It made me feel sick when Alec Salmond described himself as an Anglophile. It is probable that he had good intentions and simply meant that he had nothing against English people and indeed that he liked the English. I respect that a lot. But as an educated man he should have known that that’s not what “Anglophile” means in practice, even if it “means” it in some etymological sense. In practice it means that a person has respect for the English elite.
It is certainly true that the English elite treat Scots as their inferiors. That’s also true of the way they treat Germans, the French, other “Europeans”, Africans, Indians, the Irish, the USA, etc. They are truly f***ing scum. They treat everybody as their f***ing inferiors, as I am sure you will be able to confirm from your experience in the Foreign Office.
Also as a former British ambassador…did you ever believe in all the British bullshit or were you a mole all along (in which case good on you – no criticism intended!) ?
Today’s crossword clue;
A country whose (vast) resources are controlled by another country -or-
A country that has to ask the country next door for permission to hold a referendum on it’s own future, 6 letters
C-L-NY
On the commodity markets the Benchmark used to be Brent Crude; now is is listed as London Brent. The Brent Field is the northernmost and borders on the Norwegian Sector. Couldn’t be further from London if it tried.
“It is certainly true that the English elite treat Scots as their inferiors.”
I’ve never run into that problem. Maybe you just are personally inferior?
Do you know many members of the English elite?
As far as I know, the elites of most countries treat everyone who is not a member of that elite as an inferior. There’s a kind of clue in the word “elite”.
“few would dispute that Ireland was a British colony before most of it became Independent”
I do. Up to 1801 you could make the case but after the Union with GB, and with Ireland’s handsome over-representation in the House of Commons, it perfectly obviously wasn’t. And Yorkshire wasn’t and East Anglia wasn’t, etc ,etc.
If you start an argument from such a ridiculously bogus base why should I read on?
C’mon – look at all the “Anglo-Irish” landowners in Ireland…as well as the Scottish ones. Two different groups, but both were British colonialists.
” look at all the “Anglo-Irish” landowners in Ireland…as well as the Scottish ones.”
That were still there after southern Ireland became independent. If they were colonialists before, what were they after independence?
Dear God, you might as well argue that since there were Scots who owned land in England, England was a colony. Why not engage with the point: after 1801 Ireland was part of the UK and was actually over-represented in the House of Commons.
In what intellectually serious sense can that arrangement be classified as being a colony? None: it’s mere deceit.
Anglo-Irish landowners were exporting food during the Irish famine when millions in Ireland starved or had to emigrate.
That was much more a problem with the Anglo-Irish landowners themselves than the Anglo-Irish system. Such thing have been and always will be replicated whenever you have a ruling class that considers themselves racially superior.
Stop being so presumptuous. Nobody really cares if you read on. The case has gone to the UN, it has been passed on to the C-24 Committee by the NGO Justice Pour Tout International – and you can do nothing about it. If it is successful (and after perusal to make sure they will not be wasting UN time, the JPTI says Scotland has a VERY STRONG case.) then Scotland can decide to have a Referendum, using UN Franchise, using UN rules and using UN Overseers. WM will get NO SAY and they will not be allowed to interfere. It is a choice that will be made IN SCOTLAND, BY SCOTS. And you and no one else will get a say. So you might as well SIT DOWN.
Ireland was also the home of the Belgian mercenaries of the ‘Norman’ invaders of England.
Many of these old aristo dynasties were agents of the East India Companies and Euro elites always engaged in imperilist adventurism for their Masters.
Including one famous ‘Englishman’ who was given 1 Buckingham Palace as a rewards his efforts and a new name. Wellesley of the EIC and general who beat up their loose canon Napoleon after he went off piste!
Arthur Wellesley was employed by the British government, not the EIC, who had their own soldiers. He wasn’t given “1 Buckingham Palace”, he was given Apsley House, which was nicknamed No 1, London. He was still Arthur Wellesley after he was made Duke of Wellington, too.
– “Trump’s attitude to Scottish independence is difficult to predict”
I predict he’ll treat it like he does Greenland and Gaza, i.e. as something he can buy.
Trump hasn’t yet AFAIAA made an attempt to buy people’s opinions in Greenland, but that may change. There are fewer than 60000 residents. There are probably about 20000-25000 households. Offering half of them USD1m would only cost about USD10-12.5bn. I am in favour of Greenland independence but if I were a Greenlander and there were an indyref tomorrow I’d vote against it.
Anyone who thinks that is a stupid position is putting some kinda notion of national destiny or national identity above the real conditions of life of people who live there.
re: CIA coup on Australian government via Zelman Cowen
John Helmer in the last 7 minutes of his appearance with Nima and Ray McGovern – allegedly for the first time in public ? – speaks out about how the CIA installed Zelman Cowen as Australian Governor-General.
Helmer knows first-hand because his family from his mother´s side was connected.
And with everyone involved then being dead now he may speak. His attempts to FOIA the US documents have so far been unsuccessful.
Helmer´s monologue starts at the end of the show:
TC: 1:06:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbfhQW6KWL8
Excellent.
“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.”
This seems a very legalistic point. If it wasn’t for the failure of the Scottish imperialist effort in Panama (Darien), there might not have been an Act of Union. In any case, screw the bosses whatever nationality they feel or claim. The working class has no country.
Who cares about the distant past anyway, other than nationalist mythmakers? Stuff such as forcible adoption of Greenland babies, born to parents labelled as inferior, is very much in the present.
great stuff Craig… I was shoked by Independence folks for truth about Ukraine… Power of the BBC etc
That colonial markers booklet seems good. The number of alcohol/drug deaths at the end speaks for itself.
I appreciated the point about the educational philosophy. I asked ChatGPT about James Clerk Maxwell
“The Scottish tradition valued an interdisciplinary approach, blending physics with philosophy, mathematics, and engineering. Maxwell was not only a mathematician and physicist but also deeply interested in philosophy. His famous work, Maxwell’s equations, blended his mathematical ability with his understanding of the physical world. The Scottish tradition encouraged the kind of interdisciplinary thinking that allowed him to synthesize the work of earlier scientists, like Faraday, into a unified theory of electromagnetism. Despite his academic ties to England, Maxwell remained strongly tied to his Scottish identity.”
Seems that John Stewart Bell, who’s incredible quantum theorem is now validated by nobel prizewinners, is of some Scottish descent.
It seems to me that the Scot’s were bred to be the empire builders brains and engineers through their education and mercantile prowess.
The Bank of Scotland was the second oldest national bank and it was used to harness the Scottish intelligentsia and manpower for the effort of the East India Company’s expansion under the City.
This was achieved by bankrupting the many Scottish families who were then in debt to the City of London. When that Bank was bankrupted.
Many of them and their sons and daughters were then ‘indentured’ into the EIC to go forth and Occupy from the West Indies to the subcontinent and as far as New Zealand!
To repay their family debts. And indeed eventually build new banks and companies.
They retained their cultural system of excellence till quite recently, about 50 years ago I’d say.
Hence its depopulation and Eires and even the many English and Welsh that were sent out to settle in the Americas, Africa and Subcontinent.
The Scot’s were thus just the best resource for the multiple European Empires owners.
Now they have been convinced that if it wasn’t for the English handouts and welfare system they wouldn’t be able to survive! Gaslighted to suffocation. Woe to them.
Craig,
You fail to discuss the distinction between the Treaty of Union and the situation of a people colonised without their agreement.
You also fail to compare the case of Scotland with other cases of merger, by agreement, of territories of very different population numbers, such as Tasmania within Australia, or Newfoundland and Canada, or the tiny provinces in Canada generally.
You say “6. Denial of Self-Determination”. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “6. Self-Denial of Self-Determination”?
Certainly it is very interesting to discuss why a voluntary union between England and Scotland has been less harmonious than these other examples, but ignoring that it was a voluntary union (or failing to argue that it in fact wasn’t) makes me wonder about the rest of what you write.
What would it look like for the English parliament to be dissolved
and replaced by the Union parliament? A new building, maybe?
Or a new city to accommodate it (as was done in Australia)?
“You fail to discuss the distinction between the Treaty of Union and the situation of a people colonised without their agreement.”
Many colonized peoples’ elites and tribal leaders opted for a worthless and soon violated treaty usually through coercion, threat of military force, and bribery. Scots were ‘procured’ in precisely the same way, hence Burn’s apt line – ‘bocht an sold for Englis gold’.
“Scots must take and hold practical control of the territory of Scotland.” Splendid idea! At 12.55 PM on a suitable day, stand in Edinburgh in a kilt with a group of followers, and declare Scotland to be Independent, then see what happens.
If nothing happens, when the cannon goes off, go and have a good lunch.😁
I am English living in England and were it not for Craig’s blog I would never even hear about Scottish independence. I don’t know anything about the Alba party but they should campaign in England as IMO they would find plenty of support. I don’t want to be in a political or economic union with Scotland and I suspect that neither would most of my friends and acquaintances – if they were ever to think about it.
It’s a pity there aren’t many articles examining what an independent England would look like. I’m sure the UK government studies have been done but unlike the McCrone study, they are unlikely to ever see the light of day.
Here is a rare media report from 2014. Replace ‘oil’ with ‘energy’ and it still holds true. Explains the UK ‘better together’ for what it was and is.
https://archive.ph/cRmnU
8 ways an independent Scotland could spell U.K. economic disaster by Cyrus Sanati (Fortune magazine, 17 Sep 2014)
One of the biggest democratic deficits of Scotland is that those of us who support Scottish Independence do not have much representation or a strong voice in the mainstream media (except the National of course).
Without a clear and consistent voice on National Television, newspapers and radio stations, there are always going to be a percentage of the population who cannot be persuaded because they only listen to those kind of voices for their information. This was a big problem in 2014 and continues to be a problem today. We need to fight for some real broadcasting rights to ensure people hear the other side of the argument such as those films on the Scotland channel on YouTube.
Yeah, it’s as if nothing done by the governing party in Scotland ever gets heard in Scotland.
This kind of chip-on-the-shoulder self-deluding nonsense is such an insult to people who really have lived, and still live, under REAL colonialism or neo-colonialism, or its effects. (That doesn’t mean nutters from Catalonia or Veneto, or Robbie the Pict.)
https://www.google.com/search?q=robbie+the+pict
Have the loons who drew up “Colonial Markers Illustrated” contacted Franz von Bayern, Duke of Bavaria?
He might be into asserting a Stuart claim. After all, that’s what’s suggested by the “my life is a mess because of a battle that happened 280 years ago” spiel. Legitimacy! End the colonial occupation! Nurse!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Bayern
That graph showing the Scottish population increasing a lot slower than the English population!
I don’t think it’s explained by colonial occupiers stopping the natives from reproducing.
Monty Python explained the true reason:
“Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life: Protestants and french ticklers” – YouTube, 3m 11s
Lets not forget A.V. Dicey’s forged documentation to make it look as though the union was legal – the Claim of Right which was reaffirmed by at Westminster just 20 odd years ago – without any objections from English MPs – states that Scottish assets lets say for the sake of it, oil and gas cannot be used for other purposes ie to enrich those outside Scotland – this is just one instance of the Treaty of Union that’s been broken if a legit treaty existed at all, another is the stealing of 6,000 sq miles of Scottish waters – for Scottish sovereignty is utterly incompatible with English sovereignty – that’s why a fake coronation in Edinburgh for Charles III had to be carried out – he’s not a king of Scots.
“Which is what we intend to do at the United Nations. Eventually, Scottish Independence will be determined at the UN General Assembly.”
As for the above, I wish I shared your confidence – the evidence may lead to an indyref – that we’ll lose because there’s now far to many incomers from South of the Border living in Scotland which will again swing the vote towards no – unless restrictions are placed on who can, and cannot vote
It would be useful to have a more detailed view of the map in figure 1.
Also to have similar maps for England Wales and Ireland.
The historical information notice (supplied by the city council) outside the old barracks near my home, points out that army barracks in England were mainly built after the French Revolution in order to segregate the Army from the common people, for fear that the Army would be subverted by revolutionary ideas which were then circulating among the working class. Previously soldiers had often lodged with ordinary civilian families.
Not to mention the various Colonial Govt countries in Africa supported by mercenaries post 1960.
Even if Scotland was not a colony at time of Union, having certain guarantees and limited autonomy, it could have become more of a de facto (and de jure) colony over time, should such guarantees and autonomy be eroded. But for context you should describe the current colonial arrangements of the British Empire, and the ongoing United Nations decolonisation efforts which challenge these. I agree with others that Scotland and Scots energetically, corruptly and violently participated in the British Empire’s crimes, but as our usefulness has waned, the relationship has changed. Not perhaps a colony yet, but heading that way.
Though England (and the British Empire) is not self-governing in a meaningful sense either, being under the dominion of the USAmerican Empire and essentially under limited military dictatorship through Royal prerogative and ‘permanent government’ institutions.
As I understand Craig’s argument, the attraction of having Scotland viewed as being a colony is that its situation can then be referred to the decolonisation committee of the United Nations which will then hopefully assist Scotland to become independent.
There are a number of reasons why that isn’t going to work and why the UN will not accept Scotland as being a colony. First, let’s look at the public perception of “colony”. Basically, it involved a developed foreign power sailing over to some distant part of the world where they find an undeveloped territory, land there, subdue the natives thanks to their military superiority, and set up an administration with the prime purpose of benefitting themselves and their country, the mother country, which will thereafter administer the colony, usually with the mother country’s interests taking precedence over those of the colony. And the UN’s description isn’t all that far off that: “Western rule of non-metropolitan areas.”.
Scotland doesn’t fall within that category, which is presumably one reason why the UN, notwithstanding its enthusiasm to end colonialism, does not regard Scotland as a colony. Helpfully, it lists the 16 territories that it considers remain under colonial rule and labels them “non-self governing territories” (NSGTs). It does not include Scotland among them. Can the UN be persuaded to include Scotland as a deserving NSGT? Almost certainly not. In 1960 the UN set out the principles “which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter”, a Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
• Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
• Free association with an independent State;
• Integration with an independent State.
And that of course is a major obstacle because back in 1707 Scotland integrated with a state, now known as the UK, which is now a UN member. That being the case, Scotland cannot be considered a colony by the UN. Also, in dealing with the issue, the UN places great reliance on the assistance of the mother country. In Scotland’s case, there is not and never has been a mother country. Up until 1st May 1707 Scotland was a reasonably well developed sovereign state, but on that date in was incorporated into a new state with which it fully integrated and with which it has remained integrtaed. There has never been a mother country. If there’s never been a mother country, there can’t have been a colony,
@DaveyTee19 but states are not the only colonisers. There are potentially many kinds, including religious colonisers, corporations, multinational enterprises, city-states, utopians, prospectors and other adventurers, escaped enslaved people, some penal colonies…
And there are territories of questionable status within the British Empire (where annexation remains a royal prerogative) which don’t meet the UN non-self-governing criteria. And states can fail or undergo revolution but colonies persist in some form. I read an interesting graphic novel recently from the perspective of Haitians as the French Revolution and wars in the Caribbean raged.
Limited integration falls far short of assimilation anyway, and there’s always the prospect of schismogenesis pushing the other way, as indeed appears to be happening in the British Caribbean today.
Well, the Geneva based NGO (Justice Pour Tout International) that presented the case to the C-24 Committee on Scotland’s behalf, had a good look over the case being presented (they won’t present it if they don’t think there’s a chance of it being accepted) and they told the C-24 Committee that Scotland has a VERY STRONG case. So who to believe? Them – or you?? Well… I think I’m going to believe JPTI, thanks just the same. The case has been presented to the UN and now… we have to wait and see. YOU don’t get to decide whether we’re a Colony or not, nor do you get a say and like all of us, you just have to wait & see.
“Up until 1st May 1707 Scotland was a reasonably well developed sovereign state, but on that date in was incorporated into a new state with which it fully integrated and with which it has remained integrated.”
Blethers, Davey, Scotland was never fully integrated with England. We’ve had this conversation before, remember? Scotland’s monarchical, constitutional, and legal systems are simply not compatible with England’s. England’s solution to these was simply to pretend that those differences didn’t exist, and that the UK was set up under the Treaty on purely English constitutional traditions. But the Treaty doesn’t contain any formal agreement for that arrangement. Nor does it contain any formal agreement for Scotland’s MPs to defer to England’s on any matter of the Union’s governance, nor for the use of a flat vote to resolve debates between the two bodies of MPs which separately represent the two sovereign founding kingdoms even today. That flat vote presumes an absence of distinction between the Union’s MPs, but that distinction is absolute, and is solidly based on the two radically different sovereignties, monarchical, and constitutional differences and much more.
These are not minor matters, and mean that the UK’s MPs do not constitute the uniform homogenous body of MPs Westminster’s voting system assumes it to be, thus eviscerating the democratic legitimacy of a flat vote between two bodies with such vastly different numbers. Why should Scotland’s formal representatives be obliged to submit their majority decisions made on behalf of their own sovereign kingdom, to those of the formal representatives of an entirely foreign sovereign kingdom? The Treaty obliges no such thing.
It cannot be legitimately argued that Scotland agreed to give up its sovereignty while England retained hers, nor that the Union’s monarch can wield territorial rights over Scotland’s territory that neither monarch possessed in 1706 if the Treaty is utterly silent on the matter, as it is silent on much else that England simply presumes to suit itself.
The Union is a lie, and predicated on a Treaty that was never properly implemented, because it didn’t suit the desires of the English establishment to do so.
Subjugation is not integration, and impotence is not acceptance.
I’m really pleased to see you are going to be part of the team presenting Scotland’s case before the United Nations. I know JPTI feel Scotland has a ‘VERY STRONG’ case so I’m hopeful. But knowing you, with your expertise on UN thinking and having done this kind of work in the past, when an Ambassador, it gives me even more hope. Prof Baird has outlined the case VERY WELL, with his expert knowledge on what constitutes Colonialism and the markers with which Scotland should be recognised as a Colony. And between the both of you, my hopes are raised. THANK YOU for doing this. I know you do it for yourself and your family because you feel its best for them. But I know you want it and do it because you truly believe it is best for Scotland and every Scottish family, as well. I’m not in a position to do it (health stuff) so you have my grateful thanks for doing it for me and mine and also for all the Scots that want it. Good Luck, sir!