Excellent apart from the buy-in to a false orthodoxy:
‘In 1707, in legal terms, Scottish and English states dissolved and created a new polity, Great Britain.’
In legal terms? Didn’t happen. No new state was created. It was authorised by the Treaty and ratified by the Acts of Union, certainly, but there is a difference between words - even the words of a treaty to found a new state - and actions. And like more than 200 other English treaties this one was discarded while its legal authority was and is cited as the basis for Westminster rule. The single kingdom, & therefore the parliament that represents it, and the state these embody, never came into being. England continued unchanged except with Scotland added as a dependency. For this, no agreement exists. In the end, words matter, especially the words enabling a formal constitutional transformation. And they matter most where they have been discarded in favour of something for which no ‘contract’ exists. Because of this we have been reduced to the status of a kidnap victim or an unwilling concubine, not a marriage partner - one without any legal partnership rights whatsoever in this fictional union. While England under various aliases, GB and U.K., demands and takes the rights and privileges of an owner, which is what it is. This is always true of a coloniser.
'The English state with its 513 MPs, added 45 Scots MPs, and 16 peers to the 199 English ones to its parliament, and continued with its rules, traditions and conventions unchanged.'
Very true and what's worse my understanding is that around 1707 the ratio of Scotland to England in terms of population was close to 1:5 that today 1:11. So we should have had 100MPs and 40 peers.
How badly we were treated and we are supposed to feel grateful!
Briliant article. I hope it takes the skin off Scottish eyes blinded by 300 years of brainwashing.. 'too poor too wee too stupit '. We are not poor.. Scotland's riches have just been purloined by the parasitic neighbour next door under the guise of a 'union' for THEIR needs. .. wealth from oil used to rejuvenate the Docklands ..build a ring road round London and the Channel tunnel..the list goes on..the english must have thought they had won the lottery ..and what did we get....insults. ( Reform candidate described Scotland as a turd that will not flush away.)..if anyone is poor in this toxic union it is the pathetic english..living off the resources of their neighbour's wealth...too wee ...our tourist industry is amazing while Scotland sits with nuclear missiles dumped on her by our cowardly neighbours..too stupit..look at all the amazing inventions by Scots . It really is time we left this drifting sinking ship. Our neighbours are in the final attack on Scotland to get what is left ..once again for their needs. However the english populace are rising up and rioting. We must not be dragged down with them. When God made Scotland envious eyes complained at all the wealth and beauty he had given Scotland...'Ah ', said God..'wait till you see the neighbours....'
Time to go folks!
What an excellent assessment by you of where Scotland's stands.
I particularly like the comments about the dismal economic outlook for 'England as the United Kingdom as the British state'.
This could and certainly should be used in any future independence referendum to target erstwhile materialistic NO voters with our own 'Dread and Doubt' campaign.
With respect to oil in Scotland's territorial water it is self-evidently true that "In its own interests Scotland cannot sit back and allow it be drained at speed."
Any yet it has been happening at an ever accelerating rate for 50 years now, ever since the black stuff started flowing from the Forties Field in 1975.
We had better hurry or this quickening rip-off will leave us bereft.
Great article Jim, a lot of which we all knew already though.
It would be helpful if you could provide your interpretation of the legal/political mechanism to end the Union given Westminster will never grant a Section 30 order as they know they would definitely lose this time?
I also would be very interested to get your opinion on the excellent work done by Sara Sayers and Salvo too?
As things stand, the Scottish Parliament is not allowed to incur debt. It must live within the means provided by the Westminster Government under the inglorious Barnett Formula - an ‘allowance’ that represents a tiny fraction of the money England currently takes from Scotland.
Such debt as apparently exists is massively misrepresented in the annual GERS figures in which Scotland’s percentage share of contributions to UK defence and other matters reserved to (and by) the Westminster Parliament is so hugely disproportionate to its demographic size as to be considered ludicrous were it not so completely larcenous.
To date, any discussions of Scotland achieving independence are threatened by a supposed but unsubstantiated requirement to accept a disproportionate share of UK debt from day one - a threat that is both extortive and extortionate and which is never matched by any corresponding contemporary valuation of Scotland’s share of UK assets.
The debt question is one of many issues that have been known for a very long time and certainly from well before the 2014 referendum. The tragedy is that the SNP has done nothing in the 11 years since then to provide answers to this issue, nor to the questions of future borders, land ownership, passports, pensions et al, all of which, unanswered, were deemed to be detrimental to the independence case in 2014.
Worse, the party still refuses to work with or even recognise the many other parts of the independence movement that have done the heavy lifting on each of these questions and which have produced and have available well-researched and well-documented empirical answers. At a time when the urgent need to remove Scotland from its unequal position in an unstable union is paramount, the SNPs dereliction of its raison d’etre would be perplexing were the party not in such an obviously parlous state financially and intellectually. Hollowed out on both counts, it desperately needs to rediscover its mojo and to rapidly develop some very large cojones if it is to achieve a majority position in next year’s Holyrood election. Tragically, with only eight months to go until then, any signs of it doing so remain elusive.
Interesting, balanced article, inevitably followed by the the bitter, prejudiced comments of the ultra nats. Their leaders must despair of them at times.
Excellent apart from the buy-in to a false orthodoxy:
‘In 1707, in legal terms, Scottish and English states dissolved and created a new polity, Great Britain.’
In legal terms? Didn’t happen. No new state was created. It was authorised by the Treaty and ratified by the Acts of Union, certainly, but there is a difference between words - even the words of a treaty to found a new state - and actions. And like more than 200 other English treaties this one was discarded while its legal authority was and is cited as the basis for Westminster rule. The single kingdom, & therefore the parliament that represents it, and the state these embody, never came into being. England continued unchanged except with Scotland added as a dependency. For this, no agreement exists. In the end, words matter, especially the words enabling a formal constitutional transformation. And they matter most where they have been discarded in favour of something for which no ‘contract’ exists. Because of this we have been reduced to the status of a kidnap victim or an unwilling concubine, not a marriage partner - one without any legal partnership rights whatsoever in this fictional union. While England under various aliases, GB and U.K., demands and takes the rights and privileges of an owner, which is what it is. This is always true of a coloniser.
'The English state with its 513 MPs, added 45 Scots MPs, and 16 peers to the 199 English ones to its parliament, and continued with its rules, traditions and conventions unchanged.'
Very true and what's worse my understanding is that around 1707 the ratio of Scotland to England in terms of population was close to 1:5 that today 1:11. So we should have had 100MPs and 40 peers.
How badly we were treated and we are supposed to feel grateful!
Briliant article. I hope it takes the skin off Scottish eyes blinded by 300 years of brainwashing.. 'too poor too wee too stupit '. We are not poor.. Scotland's riches have just been purloined by the parasitic neighbour next door under the guise of a 'union' for THEIR needs. .. wealth from oil used to rejuvenate the Docklands ..build a ring road round London and the Channel tunnel..the list goes on..the english must have thought they had won the lottery ..and what did we get....insults. ( Reform candidate described Scotland as a turd that will not flush away.)..if anyone is poor in this toxic union it is the pathetic english..living off the resources of their neighbour's wealth...too wee ...our tourist industry is amazing while Scotland sits with nuclear missiles dumped on her by our cowardly neighbours..too stupit..look at all the amazing inventions by Scots . It really is time we left this drifting sinking ship. Our neighbours are in the final attack on Scotland to get what is left ..once again for their needs. However the english populace are rising up and rioting. We must not be dragged down with them. When God made Scotland envious eyes complained at all the wealth and beauty he had given Scotland...'Ah ', said God..'wait till you see the neighbours....'
Time to go folks!
What an excellent assessment by you of where Scotland's stands.
For OUR Scotland and her weans.
An excellent article.
I particularly like the comments about the dismal economic outlook for 'England as the United Kingdom as the British state'.
This could and certainly should be used in any future independence referendum to target erstwhile materialistic NO voters with our own 'Dread and Doubt' campaign.
With respect to oil in Scotland's territorial water it is self-evidently true that "In its own interests Scotland cannot sit back and allow it be drained at speed."
Any yet it has been happening at an ever accelerating rate for 50 years now, ever since the black stuff started flowing from the Forties Field in 1975.
We had better hurry or this quickening rip-off will leave us bereft.
Great article Jim, a lot of which we all knew already though.
It would be helpful if you could provide your interpretation of the legal/political mechanism to end the Union given Westminster will never grant a Section 30 order as they know they would definitely lose this time?
I also would be very interested to get your opinion on the excellent work done by Sara Sayers and Salvo too?
Cllr Alasdair MacPherson
Bannockburn Ward
Stirling Council
England's debt is substantial, but what is our debt and how would an independent Scotland fund our debt and our substantial public spending?
As things stand, the Scottish Parliament is not allowed to incur debt. It must live within the means provided by the Westminster Government under the inglorious Barnett Formula - an ‘allowance’ that represents a tiny fraction of the money England currently takes from Scotland.
Such debt as apparently exists is massively misrepresented in the annual GERS figures in which Scotland’s percentage share of contributions to UK defence and other matters reserved to (and by) the Westminster Parliament is so hugely disproportionate to its demographic size as to be considered ludicrous were it not so completely larcenous.
To date, any discussions of Scotland achieving independence are threatened by a supposed but unsubstantiated requirement to accept a disproportionate share of UK debt from day one - a threat that is both extortive and extortionate and which is never matched by any corresponding contemporary valuation of Scotland’s share of UK assets.
The debt question is one of many issues that have been known for a very long time and certainly from well before the 2014 referendum. The tragedy is that the SNP has done nothing in the 11 years since then to provide answers to this issue, nor to the questions of future borders, land ownership, passports, pensions et al, all of which, unanswered, were deemed to be detrimental to the independence case in 2014.
Worse, the party still refuses to work with or even recognise the many other parts of the independence movement that have done the heavy lifting on each of these questions and which have produced and have available well-researched and well-documented empirical answers. At a time when the urgent need to remove Scotland from its unequal position in an unstable union is paramount, the SNPs dereliction of its raison d’etre would be perplexing were the party not in such an obviously parlous state financially and intellectually. Hollowed out on both counts, it desperately needs to rediscover its mojo and to rapidly develop some very large cojones if it is to achieve a majority position in next year’s Holyrood election. Tragically, with only eight months to go until then, any signs of it doing so remain elusive.
Interesting, balanced article, inevitably followed by the the bitter, prejudiced comments of the ultra nats. Their leaders must despair of them at times.
Better an ultra Nat than a 'pseudo nat' eh John?