tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87806125274347456482024-02-20T07:40:39.933+00:00This ScotlandThis Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-12916791325341631322020-09-29T12:31:00.004+00:002020-09-29T12:39:44.299+00:00Deconstructing the Union: Why it Doesn’t Work for Scotland and How it Can be Challenged<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicjk3GXfy-11hm4vubKJOX3CeATsJVAIE2D4SRWLfUeUuIdXBbSwmduRbCxH2c2SqtTAncVpU03yu79BkpwHfoWr2P3A0v9rgWg-wlhEr8A4QslVcPypF09kOnRWqMluFRxz_FeymIcdS-/s650/1+Saltire+%2526+Union+Flag.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="339" data-original-width="650" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicjk3GXfy-11hm4vubKJOX3CeATsJVAIE2D4SRWLfUeUuIdXBbSwmduRbCxH2c2SqtTAncVpU03yu79BkpwHfoWr2P3A0v9rgWg-wlhEr8A4QslVcPypF09kOnRWqMluFRxz_FeymIcdS-/w410-h214/1+Saltire+%2526+Union+Flag.jpg" width="410" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1pt solid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 462.1pt;" valign="top" width="616"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<o:p><b><span style="font-family: "arial";">TABLE OF CONTENTS</span></b></o:p></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1pt solid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 462.1pt;" valign="top" width="616"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2020/09/deconstructing-union-why-it-doesnt-work.html#introduction">INTRODUCTION: THE SYNONYMY OF ENGLAND AND THE UNITED KINGDOM</a></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1pt solid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 462.1pt;" valign="top" width="616"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2020/09/deconstructing-union-why-it-doesnt-work.html#imbalance">THE IMBALANCE OF POWER WITHIN THE UK</a></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1pt solid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 462.1pt;" valign="top" width="616"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2020/09/deconstructing-union-why-it-doesnt-work.html#constitution">THE UK CONSTITUTION & THE NOTION OF PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY</a></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1pt solid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 462.1pt;" valign="top" width="616"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2020/09/deconstructing-union-why-it-doesnt-work.html#treaty">THE TREATY OF UNION - WHY DID SCOTLAND REALLY GIVE UP ITS STATEHOOD?</a></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1pt solid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 462.1pt;" valign="top" width="616"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2020/09/deconstructing-union-why-it-doesnt-work.html#2014">THE 2014 REFERENDUM - WAS THE NO VOTE A VALIDATION OF THE UNION?</a></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1pt solid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 462.1pt;" valign="top" width="616"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2020/09/deconstructing-union-why-it-doesnt-work.html#fantasy">THE FANTASY OF FEDERALISM</a></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1pt solid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 462.1pt;" valign="top" width="616"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2020/09/deconstructing-union-why-it-doesnt-work.html#section">IS A SECTION 30 ORDER NECESSARY?</a></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1pt solid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 462.1pt;" valign="top" width="616"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2020/09/deconstructing-union-why-it-doesnt-work.html#conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></span></o:p></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1pt solid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 462.1pt;" valign="top" width="616"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2020/09/deconstructing-union-why-it-doesnt-work.html#sowhat">SO WHAT NOW?</a></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-family: arial;"><br /></b></div>
<div style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-family: arial;"><br /></b></div>
<div style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<b id="introduction" style="font-family: arial;">INTRODUCTION: THE SYNONYMY OF ENGLAND AND THE UNITED KINGDOM</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">As a nation, Scotland is gifted with majestic mountains and lochs, alluring islands and vibrant cities. It’s a land of ancient castles and modern infrastructure, with a proud history and a rich culture. In a survey conducted by Rough Guides, a leading travel company, Scotland was voted the world's most beautiful country in 2017.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Yet for all this, Scotland is nowhere near as well-known as it should be. Scotland may be a beautiful nation; it may be a culturally rich and vibrant nation; yet it is not an <i>independent </i>nation. And the everyday reality of this means this it does not have the same level of international identity that far smaller independent nations enjoy.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">As a part of the United Kingdom, Scotland lives in the shadow of its larger neighbour, England. And this situation is further compounded by the fact that England and the United Kingdom are, to the world at large, largely synonymous. Because of this, international recognition of England, as a name and a brand, remains strong.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVJF-FactTzU1yXYL-y6fnR79Wjk2TYrqcnjgqzVqxYhjlpnF-kgHjji_JEGffRrtWFQ0ZIaT8_M6fQrAPL23QsUdWTrvKO91E1l2FrIhQEb6PhglUb0fhqxpLwnE1mvKPuwOGAD3Dq5qe/s1332/2+Made+In+England+Search.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="773" data-original-width="1332" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVJF-FactTzU1yXYL-y6fnR79Wjk2TYrqcnjgqzVqxYhjlpnF-kgHjji_JEGffRrtWFQ0ZIaT8_M6fQrAPL23QsUdWTrvKO91E1l2FrIhQEb6PhglUb0fhqxpLwnE1mvKPuwOGAD3Dq5qe/w410-h238/2+Made+In+England+Search.jpg" width="410" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The same cannot be said for Scotland, however. A traveller from Scotland will, time and time again, find him or herself having to explain to all and sundry both what Scotland is, and how it differs from England.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So why are things this way? Why, after three centuries of Union, does England continue to be widely known internationally, whereas Scotland is not? After all, England is a part of the United Kingdom, just as Scotland is.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The roots of this situation are twofold. Firstly, there’s the population imbalance. With a population of 56.2 million, England currently has over 10 times the number of people that Scotland has <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[1]</span></a>. It was not always thus. Indeed, at the time of Union, England had a population of just over 5 million people - only five times that of Scotland <a href="http://www.spanishsuccession.nl/uk_england.html#:~:text=Queen%20Anne-,1%20Population%20of%20England%20in%201700,million%20and%20Scotland%201.1%20million"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[2]</span></a>. Comparing similarly-sized European countries such as Denmark (5.7m) and Norway (5.3m), both had populations lower than that of Scotland at the time of Union <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1700"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[3]</span></a>. Certainly, in population terms at least, the Union has not benefitted Scotland.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Secondly, we need to acknowledge the reality that “Great Britain” was never truly designed to be a separate and distinct entity from England. The Kingdom of Great Britain was, at its core, an English state. Likewise, its subsequent incarnations (namely the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland) remained in essence little more than rebranded English states.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Take, for example, the Houses of Parliament and their historic traditions. Article 3 of the Treaty of Union specified that the Union would be “represented by one and the same Parliament” <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[4]</span></a>. It did not state that Scotland’s Parliament be abolished. Nor did it state that England’s parliament could simply continue on as if nothing had happened. In reality, however, that is fundamentally what happened. The Westminster Parliament that you see today is essentially the same parliament that started life in 1295, over 400 years before the Treaty of Union, with its historic traditions and procedures dating from long before 1707 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Westminster"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[5]</span></a>. For example, the tradition that each sitting of the house begins with prayers can be traced back as long ago as 1558 <span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/prayers/">[6]</a>. </span>Or, alternatively, there's the position of “Black Rod”, the usher who summons the House of Commons to the State opening of Parliament. This post dates from as far back as 1522, with the office itself dating back to 1350 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rod"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[7]</span></a>.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhzYhpB-7lOnxdwVan3vTHX4c2L5IXq7eIuO6oBIAW6XfMrRcBcoT1cwOxI2EgJjr9T7yYg1lGfqVsZSZTBWbh-zYvLaQxDH_JeeKdR1ra064OSD4DLKhoamCg5appEX-vcV0RCbaiDj_P/s875/3+Black+Rod.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="582" data-original-width="875" height="273" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhzYhpB-7lOnxdwVan3vTHX4c2L5IXq7eIuO6oBIAW6XfMrRcBcoT1cwOxI2EgJjr9T7yYg1lGfqVsZSZTBWbh-zYvLaQxDH_JeeKdR1ra064OSD4DLKhoamCg5appEX-vcV0RCbaiDj_P/w410-h273/3+Black+Rod.jpg" width="410" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">When the “new” parliament came into being in May 1707, with the addition of Scottish MPs, it was not even considered necessary to hold a new general election. This was despite the fact that the electoral map of Scotland had been substantially redrawn. Furthermore, although Scotland had a population that was 20% the size of England’s, it was only awarded 45 MPs compared with England’s 513 MPs. Cornwall alone had no less than 44 MPs <span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Parliament_of_Great_Britain">[8]</a> <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/end-of-the-old-scottish-parliament/">[9]</a></span>. And the situation was no better in the House of Lords, where Scotland was awarded just 16 seats compared with England’s 196 <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/end-of-the-old-scottish-parliament/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[9]</span></a>. Essentially, there were so few Scots in Westminster that they were barely noticeable. England’s parliament simply continued on as if little had changed <a href="https://www.scotland.org.uk/history/act-union"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[40]</span></a>.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">International treaties that had been concluded by England prior to the Union were considered to remain binding, whereas those signed by Scotland were not. The <i>Anglo-Portuguese Treaty</i> of 1373, for example, is still in force today and is in fact the oldest active treaty in the world <a href="https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Treaty-Of-Windsor-1386/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[10]</span></a>. And, whilst the Treaty of Union did call for a new Great Seal of Great Britain to be created to replace that of Scotland and England, it specified that <i>England’s</i> seal should be used until such time as a new seal was created <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[4]</span></a>. Moreover, it’s also worth noting that even <i>to this day</i>, the UK’s international agreements with other states are prefixed ‘Anglo’ <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nda-signs-anglo-french-decommissioning-agreement"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[11]</span></a>.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1Wdv4DRPlNRaiyK68u3hAV7qu7YlAAEu6wVQXGoPWrPdkrtjBlUjTS1GdyRiqj_Y0JJJO9B3xMlVMamSK8UV5gEbcq9JFPJLHIjVPrIN2yzE7VL9OggMnnj70b6yNnaXKSLOgPBRjYt9M/s640/4+Anglo-French+Decommissioning+Agreement.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="312" data-original-width="640" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1Wdv4DRPlNRaiyK68u3hAV7qu7YlAAEu6wVQXGoPWrPdkrtjBlUjTS1GdyRiqj_Y0JJJO9B3xMlVMamSK8UV5gEbcq9JFPJLHIjVPrIN2yzE7VL9OggMnnj70b6yNnaXKSLOgPBRjYt9M/w410-h200/4+Anglo-French+Decommissioning+Agreement.png" width="410" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Under the Treaty of Union it was specified that Scotland would harmonise with England, and not vice-versa. Consequently, Scotland had to adopt England’s laws in a whole raft of areas including the Regulation of Trade, Customs & Excises, Coinage, and Weights and Measures <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[4]</span></a>. In 1953, the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate came before the Court of Session. The case was brought to court to determine whether Queen Elizabeth II was entitled to use the numeral "II" in Scotland (as there had never been an earlier Elizabeth reigning in Scotland). During the hearing, where a number of constitutional issues came to the fore with regard to Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom, Lord President Cooper stated the following:</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><i>“I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England.” </i><a href="https://oup-arc.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_17.htm"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[18]</span></a></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The reality of this newly created state, “Great Britain”, meant little in England. Its capital city continued to be the hub of political and economic decisions and, furthermore, it remained the home of its head of state. Yet, with Scotland having abolished its parliament, the city of Edinburgh - the capital city of one of the world’s oldest nations - was reduced to little more than a provincial city. Great Britain was not so much a new state as it was the continuance of the English state with a nameplate change.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">In the House of Commons in 1889, Dr Gavin Clark, Liberal MP for Caithness, noted the following during his motion calling for Scottish Home Rule:</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><i>“An attempt is made here to ignore Scotch nationality. We hear of the English Government, and the Minister is not called to order for the expression. Why, only the other day the Secretary for War spoke of the English troops he was sending to Egypt - the Scottish Borderers. I notice the honourable Member for East Renfrew has an Amendment to my Resolution. I saw a report of a speech made last year to his constituents; and in that speech he speaks of Scotch Members feeling insulted by the way their nationality is ignored or treated with contempt. I only wish he would call some of his leaders to order when they so insult his nationality”.</i> <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1889/apr/09/home-rule-for-scotland"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[12]</span></a></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">As the old French expression goes, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><b id="imbalance">THE IMBALANCE OF POWER WITHIN THE UK</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Complaints from people in Scotland about the English-dominated nature of the British state have persisted since its inception, and in that regard it may seem that little has changed in three centuries. Yet, in reality a lot <i>has</i> actually changed since 1707. There are now parliaments in both Scotland and Wales, and an assembly in Northern Ireland (which, despite only being called an assembly, actually has significantly more powers than Scotland and Wales). Yet devolution also serves to highlight that the UK is a <i>faux</i> union. There is no reciprocal English parliament, save that of Westminster. Nor is there a secretary of state for England in the same way that there are secretaries of state for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">There are clearly some very glaring inequities within the Union, but not just between England and the devolved nations. There are also inequalities amongst the devolved nations themselves. Of the three devolved administrations, Northern Ireland’s is the most powerful. Indeed, Northern Ireland’s devolution settlement is more akin to home rule, owing mainly to the fact that it previously <i>had</i> home rule between 1920 and 1972. Northern Ireland also has its own civil service and, importantly, the legal right to choose its own constitutional destiny enshrined in an international treaty. The Belfast Agreement states that, if at any time it appears likely that there is support to leave the United Kingdom, a referendum may be held. And if the vote is not in favour of doing so, another referendum can be held seven years later <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[13]</span></a>.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Contrast this with Scotland. When it’s not being ignored or ridiculed as regards its right to hold a referendum, it is simply dismissed with remarks like “now is not the time”. Furthermore, Scotland’s devolution settlement is a considerably narrower and shallower affair than that of Northern Ireland. It lacks a civil service of its own, and has only about one third of the powers that Northern Ireland has <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8544/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[14]</span></a>.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span face=""><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfazCRxsMdmPOC9Rx6hOP18c7jKHSAiwnQVQc6LGY_m52YLCo0Tb53FCOGbS02gdQOYiv38d8UPfH99EKpOktddVXgRx-uf5YqlOo0PB-I3x5G3rPjRchftnH2Zygw6O-VYIipsLhA0bSQ/s2048/5+Scotland+v+N.Ireland+Powers.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1151" data-original-width="2048" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfazCRxsMdmPOC9Rx6hOP18c7jKHSAiwnQVQc6LGY_m52YLCo0Tb53FCOGbS02gdQOYiv38d8UPfH99EKpOktddVXgRx-uf5YqlOo0PB-I3x5G3rPjRchftnH2Zygw6O-VYIipsLhA0bSQ/w410-h230/5+Scotland+v+N.Ireland+Powers.jpg" width="410" /></a></div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The devolution settlement in Wales is largely comparable
with that of Scotland. Initially Wales lacked many of the powers that Scotland
had, yet it has since gained considerably more autonomy to the extent where,
with the exception of a few matters in the area of Home Affairs, its powers are
identical to that of Scotland <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8544/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[14]</span></a>. Certainly, Wales does not currently
constitute a jurisdiction like Scotland and Northern Ireland both do, yet that
is largely due to the historical fact that it was never in a union with
England, but rather had been merged with England. For now, Wales remains part
of the jurisdiction of “England and Wales”. How sustainable this will be in the
long term remains to be seen.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span face=""><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">And then there is England - a nation whose constitutional position is an entirely different affair when compared with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A casual observer may conclude that, without its own parliament, it had been somewhat short-changed. Yet that ignores the fact that England doesn’t <i>need</i> a parliament separate from Westminster. Westminster, or more accurately, the Palace of Westminster, <i>is</i> its parliament – it always has been. Having existed for over 700 years, it has thus spent less than half of its existence as the Parliament of the United Kingdom. And, with 86% of MPs in Westminster being English MPs, what England wants, England usually gets.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">On closer inspection, England appears to be something of a colonising nation, with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being its colonies. Yet, if the UK is not what it purports to be - that if rather than being a Union, it is in practice essentially little more than <i>Greater England</i> - then this is potentially something that Scotland can take advantage of constitutionally. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><b id="constitution">THE UK CONSTITUTION & THE NOTION OF PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">When examining the constitutional nature of the UK, the first thing that needs to be understood is that the United Kingdom <i>has</i> no constitution - at least not in the sense of having a specific codified document. Certainly, there are a loose collection of statutes, laws and precedents that are claimed by constitutional experts to <i>amount</i> to a constitution in lieu of an actual specific document. Yet the fact that there is no clearly defined, codified constitution is especially important when defining constitutional matters.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Take, for example, the issue of sovereignty. Because there is no written constitution, there is no specific document detailing where sovereignty lies within the United Kingdom. Of course, given that the UK constitution is claimed to be defined by its laws and statutes, one would naturally assume that the parameters of sovereignty would have been established by the laws and statutes published by Westminster. Yet when you search for the term ‘sovereignty’ in the records of the national archives (<a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/</a>) under the parameter <i>All UK Legislation (excluding originating from the EU)</i>, the only listed results relate to three acts from the pre-1707 Scottish parliament.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuTfh8b4DJC84yL6GIkYkwfudPzJjog5e0Pbce77KH-dJK5Q_hDU4hzsoPQ-ETcdtNM04WtTos_x7zQMZe1w_lE2vCj7fcQk14ooQP8T3v93Ot2q1jAT8M-pP6uk7Em6UDuzsyqdfzegEj/s1022/6+Sovereignty+1+-+UK+Legislation.bmp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="368" data-original-width="1022" height="147" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuTfh8b4DJC84yL6GIkYkwfudPzJjog5e0Pbce77KH-dJK5Q_hDU4hzsoPQ-ETcdtNM04WtTos_x7zQMZe1w_lE2vCj7fcQk14ooQP8T3v93Ot2q1jAT8M-pP6uk7Em6UDuzsyqdfzegEj/w410-h147/6+Sovereignty+1+-+UK+Legislation.bmp" width="410" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The simple fact is that there <i>is</i> no act of the Westminster parliament relating to the matter of sovereignty – a fact that becomes even more astonishing when you change the parameter and search for the term ‘sovereignty’ in <i>UK legislation that originated from the EU</i>. When this parameter is applied, you get over 180 results <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[15]</span></a>.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOD4h1BGxfZF1dgp7PgNmyUBIXu-BJqhX1MWIRC2P1i29DQpkH8HE5x-Y8icdcqDFaxr2fk9EdUATfh_Y21ACw6VlKuYD2HYubAuLt76ZgPebaUAhWCBqdzaKb-icPJZh__90tA99xrOQb/s1022/7+Sovereignty+2+-+UK+Legislation.bmp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="316" data-original-width="1022" height="126" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOD4h1BGxfZF1dgp7PgNmyUBIXu-BJqhX1MWIRC2P1i29DQpkH8HE5x-Y8icdcqDFaxr2fk9EdUATfh_Y21ACw6VlKuYD2HYubAuLt76ZgPebaUAhWCBqdzaKb-icPJZh__90tA99xrOQb/w410-h126/7+Sovereignty+2+-+UK+Legislation.bmp" width="410" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Constitution experts will of course assert that sovereignty in the UK is said neither to be defined in terms of laws or statutes, nor in terms of the constitution, but rather by legal precedence and the notion that “Parliamentary Sovereignty” holds sway. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">And indeed, when you search the records of the Supreme Court, there are numerous references and rulings with regard to sovereignty <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[16]</span></a>. In one such judgment by the Supreme court on <i>The UK Withdrawal From The European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill</i>, sovereignty is referred to no less than eleven times. Looking at one example, it refers to Section 28 of the <i>Scotland Act</i> (1998) and states: </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><i>“That notwithstanding the conferral of legislative authority on the Scottish Parliament, the UK parliament remains sovereign”</i> <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0080.html"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[17]</span></a>.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">There are two key factors to take into account here. Firstly, and importantly, sovereignty is not actually mentioned in the <i>Scotland Act</i>. Certainly, it does state that the Act “does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland” <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0080.html"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[17]</span></a>. Yet this is it is vague and potentially open to interpretation. Secondly, the <i>Scotland Act</i> was <i>created</i> by the UK parliament, the very body with which may not actually be sovereign - at least in relation to Scotland.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Indeed, questions have previously been raised in courts as to whether the notion of Westminster’s parliamentary sovereignty is actually valid in a British context. For example, in the aforementioned case of <i>MacCormick v. Lord Advocate</i>, the Lord President (Lord Cooper) stated that "the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law". Moreover, it was stated that legislation contrary to the Act of Union would not necessarily be regarded as constitutionally valid <a href="https://oup-arc.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_17.htm"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[18]</span></a>.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">In some respects, the issue of sovereignty in Scotland has become something of a vicious circle. Firstly, Westminster <i>acts</i> as sovereign body, and creates a Scottish Parliament and electoral system in such a way as to ensure that the London Parliament is the superior body, and Edinburgh is its subordinate. Then Westminster creates the Supreme Court to its own specifications. The Supreme Court in turn rules that - due to a previous Act passed by of the Westminster parliament - Westminster is the sovereign legislator of Scotland. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, Westminster becomes sovereign through precedence.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">It would appear that the UK parliament has, in the absence of any clearly defined parameters of sovereignty, simply asserted itself as such through precedence – precedence it set itself. Yet, if this is the case, then why can’t the Scottish Parliament similarly set its own precedents by acting in a sovereign manner? </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOAwJwNxTs8w263GfigFMUtsjK9c_v_YenrU71nOQHxmozgSd5BK1Lk68iMpHpA8LL_621j2_1WVMyIkJKF4vIke0ViMnzGlZl_g_Im1W8k6EeNtfJ5MOMacJImBFCn6N0dWhW_xsbhp1-/s499/8+A+Claim+of+Right+for+Scotland.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="360" height="399" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOAwJwNxTs8w263GfigFMUtsjK9c_v_YenrU71nOQHxmozgSd5BK1Lk68iMpHpA8LL_621j2_1WVMyIkJKF4vIke0ViMnzGlZl_g_Im1W8k6EeNtfJ5MOMacJImBFCn6N0dWhW_xsbhp1-/w288-h399/8+A+Claim+of+Right+for+Scotland.jpg" width="288" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">In 1988 a document called <i>A Claim of Right for Scotland</i> was produced by the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly (CSA). The document was a seminal milestone in a movement that would culminate in the creation of Scottish Parliament in 1999. Taking its title from the <i>Claim of Right Act</i> in 1689 that limited the power of the monarch in Scotland, it stated “the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs” <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-07-04/debates/18070455000001/ClaimOfRightForScotland"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[19]</span></a>.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The document was signed on 30th March 1989 by all of Scotland’s then-serving Liberal Democrat MPs and all Labour MPs (bar one). It included the signatures of a future Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, a future chancellor of the exchequer, Alastair Daring, and two leaders of the Liberal Democrats, namely Charles Kennedy and Menzies Campbell <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_Right_1989"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[20]</span></a>.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">And, whilst Conservative MPs didn’t sign it because they were firmly against Scotland having any degree of autonomy, perhaps more noteworthy is the fact that the Scottish National Party also didn’t sign it. The reason for this was that whilst the Claim stated that the Scottish people had the sovereign right to choose their own form of government (and their own assembly or parliament), it would, however, only be ‘within the framework of the United Kingdom government’. Independence as a constitutional option had been rejected by the CSA <a href="https://constitution-unit.com/2020/02/19/the-history-behind-nicola-sturgeons-call-for-a-claim-of-right-for-scotland/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[21]</span></a>. Thus, whilst the Claim asserted the sovereign right of Scotland to choose its own form of government, it was under the somewhat contradictory precondition that the government <i>itself </i>wouldn’t be sovereign. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">At that time, Scotland was a predominantly Unionist-voting country, with the SNP being only the fourth most popular party. As such, the CSA was a product of the political landscape at that time. Yet over three decades have now passed since the Claim was signed, and both the political landscape and the public mood have been completely transformed in Scotland. Subsequently, the notion that Scotland should have the sovereign right to choose its own government, but not a sovereign government in itself, now seems completely out of touch with the modern-day Scottish political zeitgeist.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7G18jQ565OMxf0Hd5xlu0_BK7B2uv4pBAHUqK7BH4vZLEKZPDJu7UjtkjkOvNtYkhL31zjrnVIkps0W1fGTZYgfx6oP4lOAyF4_tH0VwzSkvVPkQJuCr-_pUS4Wnt5ykfGli4ThcRPlLa/s1562/9+Treaty+of+Union.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1225" data-original-width="1562" height="322" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7G18jQ565OMxf0Hd5xlu0_BK7B2uv4pBAHUqK7BH4vZLEKZPDJu7UjtkjkOvNtYkhL31zjrnVIkps0W1fGTZYgfx6oP4lOAyF4_tH0VwzSkvVPkQJuCr-_pUS4Wnt5ykfGli4ThcRPlLa/w410-h322/9+Treaty+of+Union.jpg" width="410" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><b id="treaty">THE TREATY OF UNION - WHY DID SCOTLAND <i>REALLY</i> GIVE UP ITS STATEHOOD?</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The Treaty of Union and subsequent Acts of Union resulted in Scotland giving up its independence. And, whilst Scotland remains a nation and a jurisdiction, it does not possess statehood.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Yet it is important to understand the circumstances that led Scotland to sign away its statehood and independence. In order to do this, it is first necessary to appreciate that England had long desired to control Scotland as part of an English-controlled state. This is something that had intensified following the Union of Crowns in 1603, and something, it should be noted, that Scotland had long resisted. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The oft-taught, simplified version of events is that, following the failure of the Darien scheme to establish a colony in the late 17th century, Scotland was essentially a bankrupt nation and so political union was seen as a way out of this economic black hole. The reality, however, is rather more nuanced. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Firstly, whilst the Darien scheme had attracted thousands of ordinary Scottish citizens to invest a huge proportion of the nation’s available capital <a href="https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Darien-Scheme/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[24]</span></a>, it had largely been privately funded. Thus, while the collapse of the scheme had proved to be a huge financial blow to the nation, it had largely affected the <i>people</i> of Scotland, rather than the state itself. It’s worth noting that, at the time of union, Scotland had a national debt of just £160,000. England, by comparison, had a national debt of £18 million <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eU0kDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT46&lpg=PT46&dq=%22scotland%27s+national+debt%22+1707&source=bl&ots=sayOAh5vYs&sig=ACfU3U26tlDEHjNsPYecvfqpvIMixHcLpw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1x6yBn6PrAhVhu3EKHdFWDcU4ChDoATANegQIARAB#v=onepage&q=%22scotland's%20national%20debt%22%201707&f=false"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[23]</span></a>. Indeed, the money accepted by Scotland, as part of the Union (£398,085) was actually given by England as compensation to assume its share of the combined national debt. “The Equivalent”, as the sum of £398,085 10s was called, was a payment from the English Government under the terms of the Acts of Union <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Equivalent"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[22]</span></a>. Yet the figure paid to Scotland fell short of what Scotland’s share of England’s national debt would actually amount to (an amount in the region of £2.5 million) <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eU0kDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT46&lpg=PT46&dq=%22scotland%27s+national+debt%22+1707&source=bl&ots=sayOAh5vYs&sig=ACfU3U26tlDEHjNsPYecvfqpvIMixHcLpw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1x6yBn6PrAhVhu3EKHdFWDcU4ChDoATANegQIARAB#v=onepage&q=%22scotland's%20national%20debt%22%201707&f=false"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[23]</span></a>. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">What cannot be denied is that the collapse of the Darien scheme had been a major blow to the Scottish economy, and moreover, it was certainly a factor in Scotland’s decision to sign the Treaty of Union. However, it was not the only factor. Indeed, in many respects, it was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">In the five decades prior to 1707, England passed a series of Acts that had a devastating effect on its relations with Scotland. These Acts harmed not just Anglo-Scottish trade and Anglo-Scottish interests, but even the Union of Crowns itself. The culmination of these measures would result in the downgrading of Scotland’s relationship with England to such an extent that the two countries ended up as bitter rivals rather than allies.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCDWtr_uef1cJ6kd0Q6g5nPwV7TLAgkppKUtFbC84GNUb0uYzIbOlep1Bn9fN5azax94IInDoXxq2TUZdD8MmfcouxC-IM3NeKLPazsvy8onZpII3ZJT3AgS7RH1iAsFDuROnuE-6HO1rR/s1600/10+English+Navigation+Acts.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1317" data-original-width="1600" height="338" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCDWtr_uef1cJ6kd0Q6g5nPwV7TLAgkppKUtFbC84GNUb0uYzIbOlep1Bn9fN5azax94IInDoXxq2TUZdD8MmfcouxC-IM3NeKLPazsvy8onZpII3ZJT3AgS7RH1iAsFDuROnuE-6HO1rR/w410-h338/10+English+Navigation+Acts.jpg" width="410" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">It all started with t</span><span style="font-family: "arial";">he</span><span style="font-family: "arial";"> </span><i style="font-family: arial;">English Navigation Acts</i><span style="font-family: "arial";"> of 1660 and 1663, which classified Scotland as a foreign country, and thereby excluded Scottish ships from trade with the English colonies </span><a href="https://knightscholar.geneseo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=proceedings-of-great-day" style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[25]</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial";">. These two acts were a key factor in the failure of the Darien scheme.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Then, in 1701, England passed the<i> Act of Settlement</i>. This was in response to the failure of Queen Anne to produce any surviving children, and the requirement that only a Protestant could take the throne. It was decreed by England that the Crown would pass to the German house of Hanover upon Anne's death. Scotland, however, was not consulted and, in response, passed the <i>Act of Security</i> in 1704, ensuring that it reserved the right to choose its own successor to Queen Anne <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[34]</span></a>. The Union of Crowns has essentially come to an end.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Yet alienating Scotland on the high seas, and driving a coach and horses through the Union of Crowns was not enough itself to force Scotland to abandon its statehood. What was needed was a much firmer push - something that would ensure Scots were alienated not just at sea, but on land too; a move that would <i>force</i> them to submit to a political union with England. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">This materialised in the form of the <i>Alien Act</i> of 1705, which led to an embargo on Scottish products being imported into England and its colonies, and curtailed exports from England and its colonies to Scotland. Further provisions in the Act classified Scots living in England as being aliens (i.e. foreign nationals) and asserted that Estates held by Scots would be treated as alien property, something that made inheritance uncertain<span style="font-size: xx-small;"> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_1705">[26]</a> <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/westminster-passes-the-alien-act-1705/">[27]</a></span>.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Looking through the lens of history, it’s clear to see that England had engineered the dismantling of the Union of Crowns, and had systematically alienated its closest ally with the aim of forcing it to submit to a political union. And it is though this prism that we must view the Treaty of Union. This was not two states voluntarily coming together for the betterment of both. Rather it was a larger state forcing its smaller neighbour to submit to political union for its own benefit. It was, in short, a takeover, not a merger.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">International law states that “nothing can be done without or against the will of a sovereign State” <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2359978"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[28]</span></a>. With this in mind, it is worth recapping that England - the nation calling for political union with Scotland – had, in the years leading up to 1707, implemented the following measures against Scotland: </span></div>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
</blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;"></p><ul><ul><li><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Decreed that Scottish ships were to be considered foreign and forbade
Scottish ships from trading with England’s’ colonies. </i></span></span></li><li><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Blocked all imports from Scotland resulting in Scotland losing half of its
export market. </i></span></span></li><li><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Curtailed many exports from England to Scotland. </i></span></span></li><li><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Unilaterally passed legislation relating to the monarchy despite being in a
Union of Crowns with Scotland. </i></span></span></li><li><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Reclassified Scottish citizens and their property in England as “alien”,
removing in the process many of the rights they previously enjoyed.</i></span></span></li></ul></ul><p></p>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><ul>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
</blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><ul>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Let’s also keep in mind that the above measures were implemented by a country that had shared a monarch with Scotland since 1603 and was supposedly an ally of Scotland.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Things were, of course, were done different in the past and the point here is not to question the validity of the Treaty. Yet that does not stop us from asking whether, given the circumstances under which it was signed, Scotland should have the right to revoke the treaty - or at least redraft the treaty on equitable terms. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Nowadays, The Concept of Sovereign Equality of States is a foundational principal in International Law. Consider the following from the GIMPA Law Review, 2(1), (2016), pp.14-34:</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><i>“The notion that the existence of a State must not be based on, inter alia, the military or economic power it wields to assure its existence and prevent interference from other states, has evolved over the centuries and has become a foundational provision in the United Nations Charter. States are deemed equal just by their status as states under international law. Sovereign equality is therefore juridical in nature in that, all states are equal under international law in spite of asymmetries of inequality in areas like military power, geographical and population size, levels of industrialisation and economic development.”</i> <span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3171769">[29]</a></span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Of course, it should be stated that this is an example of <i>modern</i> international law. Thus, whilst it would be hard to argue that Scotland and England were equal signatories of the Treaty of Union, we have to accept that it was signed in a time when smaller nations did not have the protections that are available today. The Permanent Court of Arbitration, for example came into being almost two centuries after the Union, in 1899, whilst the International Court of Justice was founded even later, in 1945.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Nonetheless, we live in a society today that is willing to try and right the wrongs of the past. Take slavery, for example, which was commonplace at the time the Treaty of Union was signed. These days, many historical statutes and symbols associated with the practice of keeping and trading slaves have been removed worldwide. Scotland should at least have the right to have <i>its</i> historical wrongs rectified. And, if this Union is to try and claim to be in any way fair, then Scotland should have the right to revoke the Treaty if it so choses – especially given the circumstances under which it was signed. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">After all, if England wanted to leave the Union (or more accurately, <i>dismantle</i> it), who could stop it? Neither Scotland, Wales, nor Northern Ireland (whether separately, or combined) could prevent England from leaving the United Kingdom. Yet, whilst England may be free to decide its own destiny and that of the Union, Scotland is essentially little more than a hostage of England’s greater population. And, when English politicians, who have neither lived nor worked in Scotland, continually dismiss Scotland’s right to choose its own constitutional destiny, it shows just how insecure they are about the Union they are forcibly trying to hold together.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGNJRioEp2fEfm7Qsuy8QyYoACuCO-BzXhczntQp6arTAfC_GQfOgqqwQWERn42ny1BnEqX6dnIqrZvMRR1veDtUU8mwZpiEUNE9WqYEh__oUJ31Ep7jNwfK9uva8YbtorH3QUds8Hwpoz/s749/11+2014+Referendum+Crowd.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="749" height="273" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGNJRioEp2fEfm7Qsuy8QyYoACuCO-BzXhczntQp6arTAfC_GQfOgqqwQWERn42ny1BnEqX6dnIqrZvMRR1veDtUU8mwZpiEUNE9WqYEh__oUJ31Ep7jNwfK9uva8YbtorH3QUds8Hwpoz/w410-h273/11+2014+Referendum+Crowd.jpg" width="410" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><b id="2014">THE 2014 REFERENDUM - WAS THE NO VOTE A VALIDATION OF THE UNION?</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Proponents of the British state could argue that the Scottish referendum was a de facto vote for the Union. And, to the uninformed observer it may seem that way. The reality, however, is that from the get-go, the cards were stacked almost entirely in favour of the Union. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Firstly, Scotland, at the time of the referendum, had already been subjected to over 300 years of UK state propaganda. For three centuries, the British state has been able to promote its case to exist - its raison d'être, if you will - to the Scottish populace without impediment or restriction. And whilst Scotland may now have its own parliament, it is still very much restricted within the devolution framework. Broadcasting in Scotland, for example, is entirely under UK government control, and almost every newspaper sold in Scotland is published by an English-owned, pro-Union media company <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Scotland"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[30]</span></a>. During the 2014 referendum, having almost complete control of the mainstream media was a major weapon in the British state’s arsenal, and was used to great effect to stoke up fear over the likes of jobs and pensions should Scotland have chosen independence. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaFMYmrlZc-aqOowHcrLZ6Lwt0AOyq72oeqUQxI0FI4zE7LEcaAMxs8KqpyY3-9CUfiA34y5zSyivChZFhl-lhXy4mG9I6yf2zRsFjFc2hu55N6kj_WLnR-lAU-uPEm6g9YMXPcfVeCHPd/s2716/12+Collage.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1158" data-original-width="2716" height="174" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaFMYmrlZc-aqOowHcrLZ6Lwt0AOyq72oeqUQxI0FI4zE7LEcaAMxs8KqpyY3-9CUfiA34y5zSyivChZFhl-lhXy4mG9I6yf2zRsFjFc2hu55N6kj_WLnR-lAU-uPEm6g9YMXPcfVeCHPd/w410-h174/12+Collage.jpg" width="410" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Those on the side of independence simply did not have the information infrastructure to counter the pro-Union message. Indeed, the only source where independence supporters were given a fair crack of the whip, as regards information, was in the realm of social media, in particular Twitter and Facebook. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Taking into account the fact that the pro-independence side had next to no control of the mainstream media, for it to have achieved 45% of the vote is nothing short of remarkable - and especially given that it had started from a support base of less than 30% <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/23/support-scottish-independence-slumps-lowest"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[31]</span></a>. Moreover, It would be entirely logical to assume that of the 55% who voted No, a great many did so out of fear for their jobs, pensions, economic well-being and the potential loss of EU membership, rather than a genuine love for the British state. After all, numerous surveys have shown that the majority of people in Scotland consider ‘Scottish’ to be their <i>only</i> national identity <a href="https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CoDE-briefing-Who-Feels-Scottish.pdf"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[32]</span></a>. </span><span style="font-family: "arial";">Whichever way you look at it, the 2014 vote was hardly a ringing endorsement of the Union.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTH0bzNz90yb0BJurW-CJIa-I9YLcS5m5kZTusAgKZwD4iBKsh3QgAkk5hfC-Y2bZFU_OSlOXpEn5xxaKu9ZZSfvTn-muy9P_h5hgbPh5ZffjoCqrpJQlYQ5ZRJu30yAUR8xKkccRO5ZFh/s1090/14+Federalism.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="378" data-original-width="1090" height="142" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTH0bzNz90yb0BJurW-CJIa-I9YLcS5m5kZTusAgKZwD4iBKsh3QgAkk5hfC-Y2bZFU_OSlOXpEn5xxaKu9ZZSfvTn-muy9P_h5hgbPh5ZffjoCqrpJQlYQ5ZRJu30yAUR8xKkccRO5ZFh/w410-h142/14+Federalism.jpg" width="410" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><b id="fantasy">THE FANTASY OF FEDERALISM</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">There are those who would argue that federalism offers Scotland the best of both worlds. Not only could it address the imbalances of the current United Kingdom, it could also deliver Scotland a greater level of autonomy without the need to leave the Union.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Since the 19th Century, Scotland has been promised everything from home rule and federalism, to “near–as-dammit federalism” and “devo max”. However, with a string of broken promises for a century and a half, the British government simply cannot be trusted on this matter. The simple fact of the matter is that the British state has absolutely no intention of ever implementing a federal UK. The reason for this is simple: to be in any way workable, it would likely require the breakup of England into smaller administrative units - something that would essentially mean the end of England. Yet the United Kingdom exists primarily to <i>benefit </i>England, not to extinguish it, or to threaten its constitutional integrity in any way.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Germany, for example, can exist successfully as a federal state, yet it was only made possible by the dismantling of its largest constituent part – Prussia. However, modern Germany’s federal system (which was implemented in conjunction with the break-up of Prussia) was a creation of the Allies, rather than of Germany itself <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/22/federalism-germany-britain-federal-system-uk#_=_"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[35]</span></a>. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Yet, there are no outside agencies with the power to temper the inherent political imbalance within the United Kingdom, and almost no desire within England for a federal system to be instituted. The United Kingdom was created to benefit English interests and it <i>remains</i> to benefit English interests. The creation of a federal UK would be a threat to this primary objective and thus would be highly unlikely ever to happen. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Even if federalism <i>could</i> be delivered, it would still ultimately fail to deliver key powers that Scotland needs to become a modern progressive nation. Firstly, a federal system would not allow Scotland control over key constitutional matters like the issuing of its own citizenship, or the right to choose its own elected head of state. More importantly, it would deny Scotland its own identity internationally, with the result that it would be unable to have its own seat at the UN, or membership of the EU. Furthermore, it would prohibit Scotland from forging its own foreign policy, and would not protect it from getting dragged into wars that it had no desire to participate in. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOtG_9f0-w8vwoo-3-qFTvhlxOStrN9OSmkyasia4BNx9cpU8_loYNjDG4nd_L3G4lPfETNE-rjZr5ujx_F494p_khKlYUPC0dqmnonhfgxA4h7m2_dEMwL5abWk_p8ckg4NaROwibdc0q/s792/15+Section+30+Order.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="515" data-original-width="792" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOtG_9f0-w8vwoo-3-qFTvhlxOStrN9OSmkyasia4BNx9cpU8_loYNjDG4nd_L3G4lPfETNE-rjZr5ujx_F494p_khKlYUPC0dqmnonhfgxA4h7m2_dEMwL5abWk_p8ckg4NaROwibdc0q/w410-h266/15+Section+30+Order.png" width="410" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><b id="section">IS A SECTION 30 ORDER NECESSARY?</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The main stumbling block as to the holding of another referendum revolves around the issue of whether or not a Section 30 order is required for a referendum to be legally binding. Section 30 of the Scotland act 1998 relates to the temporary (or permanent) transferring of reserved powers to Scotland from the United Kingdom and must be approved by the Scottish Parliament and both Houses of the UK Parliament <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8738/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[36]</span></a>. Yet the issue of a Section 30 order is not directly concerned with referendums, or with sovereignty. Rather, it relates to the Union. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Under Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, reserved matters are classified as either general reservations or specific reservations. Of these, “aspects of the constitution” are listed as general reservations. These “aspects” include the likes of the Crown, the Union and the UK Parliament <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8544/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[37]</span></a>.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">During the 2014 Scottish referendum, the UK Government employed the services of two academics, Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle. Their role was to determine whether, in the event of a Yes vote, the remaining UK (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) would stand to inherit the UK's membership of international organisations and trade deals as a continuator state, or whether two <i>new</i> states would be created <a href="https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13091858.state-extinguished-by-1707-treaty/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[38]</span></a>. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">In doing so, Crawford and Boyle had to examine the very nature of the Union itself. The UK, as we have seen, has never in its three century history defined itself either in constitutional terms, or in the way that, as a state, it differs from the English state that preceded it. In their report: <i>Annex A. Opinion: Referendum on the Independence of Scotland – International Law Aspects</i>, Crawford and Boyle state the following:</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial";">"Whether or not England was also extinguished by the Union, Scotland </span><span style="font-family: "arial";">certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state.</span></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><i>It is therefore misleading to speak of Scotland (or similarly of England, Wales, Northern Ireland or the isle of Great Britain) as if it were an entity already possessing international personality in its own right or some other relevant international status, regardless of what status it may have as a matter of UK domestic law.</i></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><i>It may also be misleading to speak of dissolving the ‘Union’ effected by the incorporation of those territories: whatever the position historically or politically or in domestic law, in international law the position of the UK does not necessarily differ from that of a state formed in some way other than by a ‘Union’”.</i> <span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf">[39]</a></span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLElF9qeyxSgFtZT_FMAAaRNCsqDr2gDcs9kwUZQr_ukiTURtcbTd71ntUs3AtwnHGq9OE7Dc4Zluju9HMl418Pyx2t_vwJTqTK0Qvlp2P0T9P8pQo1BUJ8z8DfdiQoWpk56c938MaTkFK/s665/16+Scotland+Extinguished+by+Treaty+of+Union.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="410" data-original-width="665" height="253" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLElF9qeyxSgFtZT_FMAAaRNCsqDr2gDcs9kwUZQr_ukiTURtcbTd71ntUs3AtwnHGq9OE7Dc4Zluju9HMl418Pyx2t_vwJTqTK0Qvlp2P0T9P8pQo1BUJ8z8DfdiQoWpk56c938MaTkFK/w410-h253/16+Scotland+Extinguished+by+Treaty+of+Union.png" width="410" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Crawford and Boyle, on behalf of the UK Government, are essentially stating that, firstly, the UK is little more than a rebranded, enlarged England; secondly that Scotland does not have an identity of its own, outside that which exists within the United Kingdom; and thirdly that the Union exists only as a historical event rather than an <i>existing</i> entity because, under international law, they consider the UK's position to be no different from any other state.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">If the Treaty of 1707 had extinguished Scotland, then the Union would exist only as a one-time event historical event, not a <i>continuing</i> entity. However, given that the Union, as an entity, has been <i>reserved</i> by Westminster, then, logically, it must still exist as a living entity. And if the Union is still in force, then the treaty that created it must, likewise, still be in force.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Clearly, the Union remains as a continuing, living entity. Yet if Scotland cannot leave the Union of its own volition, then the United Kingdom is not actually <i>working</i> as Union. And, by reserving power over the Union to itself, Westminster has effectively placed it solely in English hands by dint of England’s larger population and the fact that its MPs can always outvote Scotland’s.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><b id="conclusion">CONCLUSION</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The creation of the British state was brought about by England for its own benefit. It was not some mutual coming together of two states for the benefit of both. Testament to this stems from the fact that it wasn’t Scotland that introduced the <i>Navigation Acts</i> of 1660 and 1663, or the <i>Alien Act</i> of 1705 that essentially downgraded the status of Scotland from partner to that of a rival state. Nor was it England’s parliament that was abolished in 1707. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">For England, the Union was never about abandoning its statehood (as had been the case in Scotland). </span><span style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Rather they saw it as expanding and <i>enhancing</i> their state through the acquisition of Scotland. Not only did the Union leave it with almost full control over its neighbour, it also provided them with additional land and resources, as well as an enlarged consumer market. It was, in essence, the ultimate expression of English nationalism.</span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">And if England intended the British state to be, in the words of Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle, an “enlarged and renamed England”, then this is perhaps the reason why it chose not to define itself constitutionally. A written constitution would have cemented in place the fact that the British state was a separate, clearly defined entity from the Kingdom of England that preceded it. And the fact that the British state chose not to produce a codified constitution for any of its three incarnations (1707, 1801 and 1921) is arguably indicative of the fact that this was more about renaming the English state than superseding it.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">As regards the issue of where sovereignty lies within the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom, there does exist the notion of parliamentary sovereignty. Yet this is something that predates the Union and was never written into either the Treaty of Union or the subsequent Acts of Union. The assumption would therefore appear to be that, as Westminster was the continuing parliament, the notion of parliamentary sovereignty would simply be inherited by the newly created British state and cemented in place through precedence. Yet the use of precedence – or, more specifically, <i>binding precedence</i> - to declare parliamentary sovereignty over Scotland, is contrary to Scottish law (a law protected by the Treaty of Union itself). Moreover, it is also out with the <i>spirit</i> of the Treaty, which made no demand on Scotland to transfer its sovereignty.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Furthermore, if legal precedent is considered to be of such importance in determining Scotland’s constitutional rights within the United Kingdom, then surely the Referendum of 2014 has already <i>set</i> the precedent for the holding of a future referendum. And let’s be clear: throwaway remarks at the time of it being a “once in a generation” vote, were just that - throwaway remarks. There is absolutely nothing in writing that binds Scotland to being only permitted to hold a referendum on independence just once in a generation. Indeed, the sheer vagueness of the term “generation” is indicative of this alone. For example, with regard to Northern Ireland, it is stated in the Belfast Agreement that a referendum on Irish Unity can be held specifically seven years after a preceding referendum. No similar requirement exists in Scotland. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrfdbbe3FjaNSYi0fGBILU281oRQw2IOhBWZkM1FjOd-mzKeFaVevLdd-nu-GtN595SWlQXRhop4v6rNE3FIYL4-W8gkGDA9N06tgiMK3JNOcY5j-dGYGfFmZS7qePBwuaHrgnIAw2PdRZ/s654/17+Boris+Johnson+Refuses+Scotland+Powers+for+Independence+Vote.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="282" data-original-width="654" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrfdbbe3FjaNSYi0fGBILU281oRQw2IOhBWZkM1FjOd-mzKeFaVevLdd-nu-GtN595SWlQXRhop4v6rNE3FIYL4-W8gkGDA9N06tgiMK3JNOcY5j-dGYGfFmZS7qePBwuaHrgnIAw2PdRZ/w410-h177/17+Boris+Johnson+Refuses+Scotland+Powers+for+Independence+Vote.png" width="410" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">When politicians in London – politicians, let’s be clear who have never lived or worked in Scotland – choose to ignore, or simply brush aside Scotland’s right to determine its own constitutional destiny, they serve only to highlight the fact that Scotland is not part of a real union. Rather, the United Kingdom is a <i>faux</i> union, with decisions being made by England, and England alone. Ultimately, Scotland’s right to choose is being held hostage by a population imbalance that works entirely in England’s favour.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">And we should ignore every false promise of federalism. Federalism is the British state’s ultimate fall back plan for when the status quo becomes entirely unsustainable. For now, they consider it enough to simply <i>mention</i> it in the hope that “the independence threat”, as they see it, goes away. Yet federalism would fail to provide Scotland with many of the necessary powers it would need in order to be a truly progressive modern nation. Moreover, in order for federalism to work, it would likely mean that England would have to be broken up into smaller administrative units. Alternatively, if England were not to be broken up, the UK would have to be weighted considerably more in favour of the smaller nations in the Union. This is a practice that is used in the EU, yet it is unlikely to be something that England would commit to.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia1z0Y8N5f80LgsJCCPdwUqhh8NfNzddDJLY6GX5Xh_ebjFLBltxzD71qDp2-pAxPsCB-2lXgX3UaDKGjPeeEVeKwMVcHlY5q5ag4btcrATybUfitO0-_I8CfUd0lz3N_tSD_ZTf6wSGth/s1024/18+Bank+of+England.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="693" data-original-width="1024" height="277" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia1z0Y8N5f80LgsJCCPdwUqhh8NfNzddDJLY6GX5Xh_ebjFLBltxzD71qDp2-pAxPsCB-2lXgX3UaDKGjPeeEVeKwMVcHlY5q5ag4btcrATybUfitO0-_I8CfUd0lz3N_tSD_ZTf6wSGth/w410-h277/18+Bank+of+England.jpg" width="410" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">If the UK was in any way serious about being a British rather than an English state, then it would cease the practice of prefixing its international agreements and treaties with the word “Anglo”. Likewise, the Bank of England – the UK’s central Bank – could easily be renamed the Bank of the United Kingdom. These two very small steps could easily be taken in order to make the UK at least <i>appear</i> more like the union it purports to be. That there have been no serious moves to take these steps is somewhat indicative of the true nature of the Union as a fundamentally English state. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">In every respect, England is the glaring anomaly in the Union, because, as a constituent nation, it stands entirely apart from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in its relationship to the United Kingdom. If, for example, England wanted to be independent from the UK, all it would have to do is elect a party with a manifesto commitment to take England out of the United Kingdom. Then, upon election, this party could simply carry out its manifesto pledge unhindered. Of course, were England to leave the UK, it would have the effect of dismantling the remaining Union by default; without London to tether the remaining constituent parts together, it would simply disintegrate.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Further testament to England’s place in the Union being an anomaly is the fact that there is not a Secretary of State for England in the way that there is a Secretary of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Nor has there been an “England Act” in the way that there exists a Scotland Act, a Wales Act and a Northern Ireland Act. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Nor will England ever be a devolved nation like Scotland or Wales. England has no need for a devolution parliament because its parliament was never abolished. Its parliament is essentially the same parliament that has stood on the banks of the Thames for over 700 years. On constitutional matters it has the weight of 86% of all MPs on its side. And for solely English matters, it can simply subject a bill to <i>EVEL</i> ('English Votes for English Laws').</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The upshot of all of this is that the United Kingdom is a very unbalanced Union, favouring its most populous nation at the expense of its smaller nations. Essentially, the UK is not <i>behaving</i> as a union in any real sense, but rather as an English state with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being, at best, appendages, and, at worst, little more than colonial outposts. Forcing Scotland to remain in such an unbalanced Union is both unjust and undemocratic, and every avenue must be explored to challenge this state of affairs and to reclaim its right to choose its own constitutional destiny.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><b id="sowhat">SO WHAT NOW?</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The first issue that needs addressing is whether a Section 30 order must be obtained in order to hold a legally binding referendum. Certainly the UK Government could simply grant a Section 30 order, yet so far it has refused to do so, and is very unlikely to do so in the near future. Moreover, even if it <i>were</i> to grant a Section 30 order, it’s very unlikely that it would be granted in the same manner as it was in 2014. Given the level of hostility shown by the current Westminster Government towards Scotland’s Government, it would be safe to assume that any granting of a Section 30 order would only be issued alongside a whole raft of terms and conditions favourable to the Union.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The next logical step, therefore, would be to challenge, in a court of law, whether a Section 30 order is a legal requirement in order to conduct a binding referendum. As we have seen, Section 30 relates not to referendums, but to the Union itself. Yet if the Union is not <i>working</i> as a union, and can be demonstrably <i>shown</i> not to be working, then this may work in Scotland’s favour in a court of law. Moreover, as we have seen, both the issue of where sovereignty resides, and the constitutional status of Scotland (and indeed the UK itself) have never been adequately defined and remain open to interpretation.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">In the event that a legal challenge to the necessity for a Section 30 order is rejected in court, then the next step should be for Scotland to prepare to hold a referendum regardless. Much of the preparation for this should also include developing a close relationship with the European Union so that, in the event of a vote in favour of independence, Scotland will potentially have recognition already in place to support its subsequent declaration of independence.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYL9u0P3a2L9GZfclk0JBbFfdPUgEOQddQKwbTtXYZMIEn4E76ZMlui9eS6xUJFACpWBjJMAcWGhVU2ksUwrlYmiiV6BISE_SfDh2SWeochYQoqyIMb6cgpqRdWUcmQljLt1zABBUmPB6C/s1618/19+European+Parliament.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1079" data-original-width="1618" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYL9u0P3a2L9GZfclk0JBbFfdPUgEOQddQKwbTtXYZMIEn4E76ZMlui9eS6xUJFACpWBjJMAcWGhVU2ksUwrlYmiiV6BISE_SfDh2SWeochYQoqyIMb6cgpqRdWUcmQljLt1zABBUmPB6C/w410-h274/19+European+Parliament.jpg" width="410" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Developing such a relationship with the EU should be a relatively easy process. Firstly, Scotland is a predominantly pro-EU nation, and as such stands in stark contrast to the UK state which is somewhat out of favour in Europe, with trust issues at an all-time low. Secondly, the EU would likely jump at the chance to regain a pro-European part of the UK back into the club.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Another aspect that could work in Scotland’s favour in garnering support from the EU is the fact that, whilst the English judicial system is a common law system, most nations in the EU have civil law (i.e. codified) judicial systems. A simplistic way of looking at it would be this: civil law essentially details what you can do and how you must do it. Common law, however, focusses on what you <i>cannot </i>do. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The fact that the UK has neither a codified constitution, nor chosen to define where sovereignty lies within the different jurisdictions of the state, would likely be considered alien by most nations in the EU, where codified constitutions are the norm. And, were Scotland to vote in favour of independence - and the UK state chose not to recognise this vote - then these factors may well work in Scotland’s favour in helping it to win support and recognition for its independence from outside the UK.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The key to any nation’s independence comes first and foremost from international recognition. Without this, any independence bid will fail. If the UK state were simply to support Scotland’s right to be independent, then this would be an easy process. Yet the UK is currently in the grip of a right-wing English Nationalist government with absolutely no intention of letting Scotland go. Scotland needs to recognise this reality and instead focus its energies on developing relations internationally, because its’ greatest battle in becoming an independent nation may not be with the UK state, but in achieving international recognition for its independence.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><b>REFERENCES</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
</div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates">https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="http://www.spanishsuccession.nl/uk_england.html#:~:text=Queen%20Anne-,1%20Population%20of%20England%20in%201700,million%20and%20Scotland%201.1%20million">http://www.spanishsuccession.nl/uk_england.html#:~:text=Queen%20Anne-,1%20Population%20of%20England%20in%201700,million%20and%20Scotland%201.1%20million</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1700">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1700</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.parliament.uk/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf">https://www.parliament.uk/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Westminster">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Westminster</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/prayers/">https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/prayers/</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rod">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rod</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Parliament_of_Great_Britain">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Parliament_of_Great_Britain</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/end-of-the-old-scottish-parliament/">https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/end-of-the-old-scottish-parliament/</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Treaty-Of-Windsor-1386/">https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Treaty-Of-Windsor-1386/</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nda-signs-anglo-french-decommissioning-agreement">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nda-signs-anglo-french-decommissioning-agreement</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1889/apr/09/home-rule-for-scotland">https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1889/apr/09/home-rule-for-scotland</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8544/">https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8544/</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/">https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0080.html">https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0080.html</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://oup-arc.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_17.htm">https://oup-arc.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_17.htm</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-07-04/debates/18070455000001/ClaimOfRightForScotland">https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-07-04/debates/18070455000001/ClaimOfRightForScotland</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_Right_1989">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_Right_1989</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://constitution-unit.com/2020/02/19/the-history-behind-nicola-sturgeons-call-for-a-claim-of-right-for-scotland/">https://constitution-unit.com/2020/02/19/the-history-behind-nicola-sturgeons-call-for-a-claim-of-right-for-scotland/</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Equivalent">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Equivalent</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eU0kDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT46&lpg=PT46&dq=%22scotland%27s+national+debt%22+1707&source=bl&ots=sayOAh5vYs&sig=ACfU3U26tlDEHjNsPYecvfqpvIMixHcLpw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1x6yBn6PrAhVhu3EKHdFWDcU4ChDoATANegQIARAB#v=onepage&q=%22scotland's%20national%20debt%22%201707&f=false">https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eU0kDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT46&lpg=PT46&dq=%22scotland%27s+national+debt%22+1707&source=bl&ots=sayOAh5vYs&sig=ACfU3U26tlDEHjNsPYecvfqpvIMixHcLpw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1x6yBn6PrAhVhu3EKHdFWDcU4ChDoATANegQIARAB#v=onepage&q=%22scotland's%20national%20debt%22%201707&f=false</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Darien-Scheme/">https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Darien-Scheme/</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://knightscholar.geneseo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=proceedings-of-great-day">https://knightscholar.geneseo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=proceedings-of-great-day</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_1705">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_1705</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/westminster-passes-the-alien-act-1705/">https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/westminster-passes-the-alien-act-1705/</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2359978">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2359978</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3171769">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3171769</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Scotland">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Scotland</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/23/support-scottish-independence-slumps-lowest">https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/23/support-scottish-independence-slumps-lowest</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CoDE-briefing-Who-Feels-Scottish.pdf">https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CoDE-briefing-Who-Feels-Scottish.pdf</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/majority-of-scottish-born-voters-said-yes-z7v2mmhc8nt?wgu=270525_16644_15977400320683_59c30696cd&wgexpiry=1605516032&utm_source=planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=4551">https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/majority-of-scottish-born-voters-said-yes-z7v2mmhc8nt?wgu=270525_16644_15977400320683_59c30696cd&wgexpiry=1605516032&utm_source=planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=4551</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/22/federalism-germany-britain-federal-system-uk#_=_">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/22/federalism-germany-britain-federal-system-uk#_=_</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8738/">https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8738/</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8544/">https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8544/</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13091858.state-extinguished-by-1707-treaty/">https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13091858.state-extinguished-by-1707-treaty/</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf</a></div>
</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.scotland.org.uk/history/act-union">https://www.scotland.org.uk/history/act-union</a></div>
</span></span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-27809178911677706292017-06-16T09:14:00.000+00:002017-06-16T09:14:43.150+00:00The Truth About Ruth<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje-lNyZL1T2Y96RqHgiFXX0aUKxXUDpyo-9VQJCXlKvFVVMw1xXMRZy3e6WWXwBTxwjcqsTU5E23_PgEn_rciLTqDkZh6P5k3HaeobX8Eo6sPpRSpmy1cs-ujwsiYE2FAqlNOKW6eDeWEV/s1600/Ruth+Davidson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="433" data-original-width="650" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje-lNyZL1T2Y96RqHgiFXX0aUKxXUDpyo-9VQJCXlKvFVVMw1xXMRZy3e6WWXwBTxwjcqsTU5E23_PgEn_rciLTqDkZh6P5k3HaeobX8Eo6sPpRSpmy1cs-ujwsiYE2FAqlNOKW6eDeWEV/s320/Ruth+Davidson.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So with the “Scottish” Conservatives
having come second in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> with, let’s be frank, a single-issue campaign, Ruth
Davidson is now being heralded as the darling of the Tory party. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">No matter that the Conservatives
only polled 28.6% nationally in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> (versus 42.4% state-wide in the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">), they are, nonetheless, being seen as a “success”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Yet despite this, Theresa
May is on borrowed time and the only likely replacements - Boris Johnson and
Michael Gove - are simply too unpalatable for some. I could mention Angela
Leadsom, but I won’t…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The reality is that Ruth
Davidson just isn’t that good. She has had (and continues to have) a very easy
ride from both the media in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and throughout the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Yet on those rare occasions where she has been pushed
a little harder, when some journalist has dared to look under the thin veneer
of what it is that she stands for, she does not perform well, and has even
stormed away from interviews. The trouble is that for many, Davidson is the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Union</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> personified and to question her policies, is to question the very
fabric of the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Union</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In the aftermath of the
election, Davidson has been reported as having made recommendations to Theresa
May as regards Brexit being “more open”. Yet these sentiments are also being echoed
by many other Conservative MPs and Ministers and are in no way unique to
Davidson. Moreover, </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has been calling
for this very approach from the get-go. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The simple fact of the
matter is that Ruth has always been a lackey to her masters in </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">London</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and has never dared to question any of the
Conservative Party’s more extreme policies such as the Rape Clause or the
Dementia Tax. Consequently, she is not trying to wrest control of Brexit from
Theresa May as some of the London-based newspapers seem to be implying. Rather
she is simply offering her council as it has been requested.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Yet regardless of her many shortcomings,
Davidson is, nonetheless, <i>perceived</i> as
being the best of a very bad bunch and, for that reason, she’s being buttered
up by the Tory-supporting media as a replacement for Theresa May.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There are only two problems
with this. Firstly, her “winning” strategy (to coming <i>second</i>) essentially revolves around opposing the SNP and its
policies, whilst offering little else. This is unlikely to be of much relevance
to voters in, say, </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> or </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Wales</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> where the SNP does not contest any seats. Secondly,
Ruth Davidson is not a Westminster MP. So the question is: when the next
by-election in a safe Westminster Tory seat comes up, will she be parachuted in
to stand as a candidate?</span></div>
This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-4484073174259506662014-07-21T21:35:00.000+00:002014-07-21T21:49:57.612+00:00A New Dawn: Why a Yes vote is a vote for progress, ambition and hope<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtt5bVVq2Fs4vNrJAco7uZTyZGvPBABrPXykTHOpdjCn-xZ_LCW6_qUYyjxIoyuMPSdp6FcE2gVXPQ3_y-MuqaTxOVido4Xb4dgpZujFcsn5HiI-EN0xMPI52xhPImhPtIwFj1doA4gknI/s1600/Sunset.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtt5bVVq2Fs4vNrJAco7uZTyZGvPBABrPXykTHOpdjCn-xZ_LCW6_qUYyjxIoyuMPSdp6FcE2gVXPQ3_y-MuqaTxOVido4Xb4dgpZujFcsn5HiI-EN0xMPI52xhPImhPtIwFj1doA4gknI/s1600/Sunset.jpg" height="227" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I
was born in 1972 and, when I was growing up, the world was a very different
place to the world of today. Of course, many things were exactly as they are
now: we drove cars, we had electricity, we watched television and we used
telephones. Yet, it was a far more limited world in terms of the technology we
had, the information we had access to and the political choices that were on
offer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 99.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Certainly,
in primary school I, along with my fellow pupils, thought of myself as Scottish
and the idea of being British was something that I never really considered. We
were taught how to read and write as well as the basics of mathematics and
arithmetic. Yet the notion of citizenship and the curious dual Scottish / British
identity that exists in Scotland then and now, was never a topic of discussion
– we were simply too young to understand the intricacies and nuances of such things.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Yet,
when I progressed to secondary school, notions of British-ness started to come
to the fore. Scottish history was barely taught and English history started to
take precedence. The Battle of Hastings in 1066, for example, was taught as a
pivotal moment in British history - even though Britain as a political entity did
not, and would not, exist for almost another 650 years. Essentially we were
taught to think of ourselves as British and we were indoctrinated to <i>be</i> British. Certainly, I can only speak
of my own experience at school and, of course, others may have had a different
experience. Moreover, perhaps things have changed considerably since then. Yet
somehow I doubt it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">During
the 1980s, when I was growing up, </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> was thought of as little more than a football, or
rugby team. We would support the Scottish team during a match but, back in
school and in the workplace, people would revert back to talking about British
news, British politics, British celebrities and </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Britain</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> in general. Scottish football was perhaps the one
exception to this. Certainly, for those of us lucky enough to be able to travel
abroad, we would tell other people that we were from </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Yet, when we were asked to fill in the “nationality”
section in a hotel check-in form, we would dutifully write “British”. The
notion of being “British” at that time was something that nobody would ever really
question. And </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">, for its part, had become little more than a hobby
country. Yes, we’d support our team during a match; yes, we’d wear a kilt at a
wedding and yes, we’d toast the bard on Burns Night. Yet that was pretty much
it, as far as </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and being Scottish went. For everything else, we
were British. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But
then why wouldn’t we be? There were only three channels on television at the
time (four, when Channel 4 came along in 1982), comparatively limited stations
on the radio and the only other media outlets at the time were newspapers and
magazines. The idea of Scottish independence at that time was so “pie-in-the-sky”,
so “other-worldly” that the British media machine didn’t even need to try to be
British: it simply <i>was</i> British. And
that, at the time, was enough. There was a different Zeitgeist in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> at the time and it was reflected in the language
that we used and, to a considerable extent, still use today. People did, and
still do, refer to the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> as “The Country”, “The Country as a Whole” and “The
Nation”. And, for many Scots the term “Down South” was,
and still is, a term used to refer to </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and not to the South of Scotland. It would be easy
to downplay the effect that such language has, yet semantics play a pivotal role
in shaping the way we perceive the world around us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But,
just because we have grown up with something, does not necessarily make it right. If, for example, you were able to step back in time to the 1950s and visit the Southern States of the USA where black people and white people were kept apart in separate schools, hotels, bars, hospitals, toilets, parks and even in separate sections of libraries, cinemas and restaurants, how many would seriously believe that you had come from
a time where a Black President now sits in the White House? Equally, if you
could go back to </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">South Africa</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> during the era of the Apartheid regime, how many
would believe that Nelson Mandela, a political prisoner in </span><st1:place><st1:placename><span style="font-family: Arial;">Robben</span></st1:placename><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span><st1:placetype><span style="font-family: Arial;">Island</span></st1:placetype></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> at the time, would go on to become the President of South Africa? Or,
what if we cast our minds back to countries such as Poland or Hungary in the
1980s, whose people at the time were not even allowed to travel to the West of
their own continent, yet can now travel freely throughout the world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Of
course, I am not<i> </i>comparing the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">United Kingdom</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> in any way to these repressive systems. I am simply
highlighting the fact that momentous change can be achieved and that it can
make our world a better place. Just because we have grown up in a political
system does not make it the <i>right</i>
system - or a system that we should unquestionably accept. The </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">United Kingdom</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">, as a state, is something that has been there for so
long that we have just come to accept it as normal. Yet, it would do us well to
at least understand that it was a </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Union</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> imposed on the
Scottish people, some 300 years ago, by the ruling classes of both </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. And, that it was those ruling classes who, <i>without the consent of the Scottish people,</i>
used the Scottish nation as a bargaining chip to selfishly better their own
futures, be it for land, title or coin.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I
was very young at the time, but I can still remember the FIFA World Cup in 1978
and the fever that had gripped </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> back then. Deep down, I don’t think any of us
seriously thought we would win, but it was the fact that we at least had a <i>chance</i> to win that was important. There
was hope, there was opportunity and there was optimism. Certainly the 1970s, a
decade marred by strikes, blackouts and three-day working weeks, must have
seemed like one long hangover after the hedonism of the swinging ‘60s. Yet that
decade was coming to an end and with it, a new sense of optimism started to
return. We were on our way to the World Cup, oil had recently been discovered
in Scottish coastal waters and the SNP were riding high in the opinions polls.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">We
could have seized on the opportunity that hope offered us. Yet, in the end, we
chose to settle for the system we had grown up in; that one that we had been
indoctrinated into; the “devil we knew”, so to speak. Little did we know just what
would be in store for us when, just one year later in 1979, Margaret Thatcher
would step into Downing Street and become the first woman Prime Minister in
British history. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Fast
forward to 2014 and, once again, I can sense optimism. And, just like in 1978,
we have choice and we have opportunity. And, for those that would denigrate Alex
Salmond for bringing about this referendum, it would do us well to remember
that he has not<i> imposed</i> anything on </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. He has simply offered us a choice. I do not agree
with everything that Alex Salmond, or the SNP stand for politically, yet I can
appreciate the fact they are the only people in over 300 years that have been
bold enough and brave enough to offer us a choice as regards our political
future. Those who choose to criticise Alex Salmond or the SNP for offering us
this referendum are those who wish to deny us choice. And by wishing to deny us
choice they are, by default, wishing to deny us democracy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Nobody
is forcing you to vote in the referendum and, if you do choose to vote, nobody
is forcing which way you vote. All we have to do is turn up at a polling booth
and place an X in a box. Unionists, who have had it all their way for over 300
years, are terrified of change. They fought tooth and nail to prevent this
referendum from happening in the first place; they opposed it when the SNP were
a minority government in Holyrood and now only grudgingly accept it because the
SNP government currently command a majority in the Scottish Parliament. Yet
regardless of this, the fact is that we <i>do</i>
now have the opportunity to vote for change. The only question is whether we
have the will to seize upon it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Were
we to vote no, because of a “better the devil you
know” type of mentality, we would, in my opinion at least, have squandered the best
opportunity we have had as a nation in three centuries. Yes, we have
devolution, but that was never intended as a gift to </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> for its loyal service to the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Union</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Rather it was intended, in the words of
George Robertson (Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland in 1995), to "kill Nationalism stone dead". The world i</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">s forever changing and sometimes the pace of
change can be overwhelming. Consequently, many may find it easier to stick
their head in the sand and say no to change. But change is what gives the world
vitality; it is the essence of life itself. To say no to change, is to say no
to progress, no to ambition and no to hope. Certainly, independence is a bold
step, but if humanity had never been prepared to take bold steps we would still
be stuck in the dark ages. Fire can burn us, but fire can also heat our homes
and light our world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-78609693257190058072014-07-07T20:11:00.000+00:002014-07-07T20:11:05.459+00:00That Better Together Moment...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFSLpW6BD8Z1cGNEHGDcMfpVr59YoiBKXi84Cfwl6xKBu9JH697SlvcDviMctAfMGCFb5patT0KWx1ZwaRbzgxto0q0BClhyphenhyphend_sfmtTqtIfmyjcmJfYtNY7zfJyBMPDHYg23YrlIjH_j8B/s1600/That+Better+Together+Moment.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFSLpW6BD8Z1cGNEHGDcMfpVr59YoiBKXi84Cfwl6xKBu9JH697SlvcDviMctAfMGCFb5patT0KWx1ZwaRbzgxto0q0BClhyphenhyphend_sfmtTqtIfmyjcmJfYtNY7zfJyBMPDHYg23YrlIjH_j8B/s1600/That+Better+Together+Moment.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-64265216017031513962012-06-18T18:11:00.000+00:002012-07-14T11:01:53.583+00:00The Economic Question Revisited<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW-tLo1S1OXbErfEBdhfnTAroP91ImTBP0NQPHdgPhEBNw2hciJGf890BBa0PGa77t8zr4OGMY8BNfqRSZgwza2zjEXzFB0WnUBh1TeYrxg_YiRHIBGWRfO0hhDpIM_gtumMuKJMAX1QFd/s1600/Scottish+Bank+Notes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW-tLo1S1OXbErfEBdhfnTAroP91ImTBP0NQPHdgPhEBNw2hciJGf890BBa0PGa77t8zr4OGMY8BNfqRSZgwza2zjEXzFB0WnUBh1TeYrxg_YiRHIBGWRfO0hhDpIM_gtumMuKJMAX1QFd/s320/Scottish+Bank+Notes.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: Gulim;">During
a recent BBC television debate programme on Scotland's future, one young lady
asked the question whether we will be better off or worse after independence. On
the surface this seemed a reasonable enough question and, given the amount of
time the panel spent debating the issue, it seems that it is something that concerns
a great many of us. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: Gulim;">Yet,
the reality is that it is entirely the wrong sort of question we should be asking.
Indeed, we’d be as well asking what the weather will be like after
independence as its simply not possible to predict the future economy of <em>any nation</em>, regardless of whether they are independent or not. <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Patrick Harvie</span>
MSP, co-convenor of the Scottish Green Party and a supporter of
independence was perhaps the most candid when he said that we simply don’t<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>know what the Scottish economy will be like
after independence. It could be said that it was not an answer that the
majority in the audience were looking for, yet the truth is that he was just
giving an honest response to what is essentially an impossible question to
answer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: Gulim;">Yet
perhaps the most redundant aspect to the question asked on the programme was
that it failed to include a time frame – i.e. it failed to ask <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">when</i> and for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">how long</i> Scotland would be better (or worse) off after independence.
There is simply no point in asking whether Scotland would be better off after
independence without being specific as to exactly what period of time you are
concerned with. Immediately after independence? Or maybe perhaps after ten
years of independence? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: Gulim;">Of course,
even with the clarification of a time frame, its simply not possible to predict
Scotland’s economic future, whether as <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">part</span>
of the United Kingdom or as an independent nation state. Moreover, even if we were somehow able to see into some specific point in the future, the results could very easily be misinterpreted. For example, what if an
independent Scotland <em>was</em> worse off in 10 years time, but it had been
better off in all of the nine years prior to this and it was just that
particular year which had been somewhat economically challenging? Equally, what
if in ten years time the entire global economy was in a much worse state than
it is now, yet Scotland was better off as an independent nation in terms of GDP
than England, but still worse off than it was ten years previously as a member
of the United Kingdom? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: Gulim;">Even with the benefit of a crystal ball, there
are simply too many variables for this type of question to be answered
seriously. Yet, as Nicola Sturgeon stated on the programme, we would at least
have a great deal more economic levers under independence than we do now.
Moreover, our economic future would clearly be dealt with best by a
government and parliament that serves us directly and not as a mere subsidiary
of another nation. When you have a population of 5 million and your southern
neighbour has 50 million, who <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">really</i>
takes priority? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: Gulim;">The
simple truth is that it is beginning to seem more and more likely that the
world economy will not return to the level of growth that we have become
accustomed to in previous years.<span style="color: #333333;"> </span>Finite and
ever depleting energy resources, especially oil resources, are hampering Western
society’s abilty to return to economic growth. Peak oil, the point at which oil
production reaches its highest point and after which starts to decline, is
either on the verge of occuring or has happened already (it is only possible to
ascertain its exact date of occurrence some years after the event itself). The
result of all of this is that there will be ever increasing costs for producers
and ever increasing costs for consumers, something that will make it ever
harder to return to the levels of growth we have seen in the past. Indeed, many
commentators, especially Richard Heinberg argue that Western society is now
entering a new phase in its economy and one in which the notion of economic
growth on a global scale, at least, will be impossible to return to. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: Gulim;">Being part of the UK did protect Scotland from the current economic turmoil, nor will it protect Scotland from future economic downturns. And, if it seems likely that the world economy is set for some turbulent times ahead then what we really need to ask ourselves is this: when the shit <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">really</i> hits the fan who are the British
government going to look after first? The 50 million people of the country in
which the UK parliament sits, or a bunch of 5 million whingers north of the
border?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
</div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-74463229814831287892012-05-19T10:15:00.000+00:002012-05-19T10:29:51.034+00:00If There’s One Thing We Can Depend On, It’s Uncertainty<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS-e7Q-ULs852MEhuF2IFiFZq03Fe6PUAjdSoDHcZzgF_V0sqlCxMLSnC1gUSZiFfhbwBhQ9Fmjw_h-tLhzxQZg0NdwZv-3BlqVke-5wzuFsvCfTvhMUMmhG0ZvdHmDzLN_ay1u8Vdd1KD/s1600/Asian+trade+hub+in+Athlone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS-e7Q-ULs852MEhuF2IFiFZq03Fe6PUAjdSoDHcZzgF_V0sqlCxMLSnC1gUSZiFfhbwBhQ9Fmjw_h-tLhzxQZg0NdwZv-3BlqVke-5wzuFsvCfTvhMUMmhG0ZvdHmDzLN_ay1u8Vdd1KD/s320/Asian+trade+hub+in+Athlone.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In recent weeks there have
been a number of Scottish-based businesses expressing concern about the
supposed “harm” that the prospect of an independent </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> is causing their businesses. Companies such as the
Weir Group and Maitland Mackie have both expressed concerns.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Such
fears, however, appear to be largely based on a somewhat outmoded view of what
independence actually means. National independence in the 21<sup>st</sup>
century is a very different animal to the ring-fenced, tariff-imposing states of
the 19<sup>th</sup> Century and early 20<sup>th</sup> Century. As a result of
both globalization and the European Union, we now have free movement of people
goods and services across </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Europe</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Under
independence, </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> will keep the Pound and will continue to be linked
by good road and rail links to </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Moreover, movement across the border for both
people and goods will be unaffected. Talk of having to show passports at the
border is simply nonsense spouted by desperate Unionists who like to pretend
that they haven’t travelled anywhere in continental </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Europe</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> in the last decade. There simply are no physical borders in </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Western Europe</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> any more. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There
really is no rational reason not to invest in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> either now or after independence. Yet for those who
remain unconvinced, it might be worth taking note of what </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Philip Grant, of Lloyds Banking
Group</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> had to say recently to MSPs. According
to Grant, rather than being a hindrance to the economy, the issue as regards </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s constitutional future has actually helped to boost
</span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s profile internationally. The reason for this is
simple: people are beginning to realise that there really is a country out
there called </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and that its not just a northern outpost of </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">For
those amongst you who are old enough to remember, who can seriously say that they
were aware of either </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Latvia</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> or </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Estonia</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> prior to the break-up of the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">USSR</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">? The reality was that, for most people, </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Russia</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">USSR</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> were simply one and the same in much the same way
that people today treat </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Holland</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">
and the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Netherlands</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> as being the same. Likewise, beyond the shores of
the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">British Isles</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">, the terms </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Great Britain</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">, The UK and </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> are pretty much synonymous. Take, for example, the
recent Olympic propaganda video from </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Argentina</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> showing one of their athletes training in the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Falkland Islands</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">. At the end of the video it says: “To compete on
English soil, we train on Argentinean soil”. The Olympics will, of course be
held on English soil, yet the point of the video is to clearly make the point
that they don’t consider the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Falklands</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> to be English soil. And nor should they: the
majority of settlers came from </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Wales</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Indeed, why would any Englishman have left their
green and pleasant land to settle in some barren remote archipelago in the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">South Atlantic</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> when there were plenty of economically disadvantaged
Celts to do the job for you? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The
reality is that </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Union</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> with </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> resulted in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> getting the shitty end of the stick. It gave up its
name and identity. It also gave up its parliament, choosing to be ruled
directly from </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s parliament. And those who choose to believe that there is such a thing
as a “British” parliament are deluding themselves. The </span><st1:place><st1:placetype><span style="font-family: Arial;">Palace</span></st1:placetype><span style="font-family: Arial;"> of </span><st1:placename><span style="font-family: Arial;">Westminster</span></st1:placename></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and its historic traditions all predate the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Union</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> of 1707. </span><st1:place><st1:placename><span style="font-family: Arial;">Westminster</span></st1:placename><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span><st1:placetype><span style="font-family: Arial;">Palace</span></st1:placetype></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">, for example, was built in 1097, over 600 years
before the Treaty of Union. Moreover traditions such as the prayers before each
sitting of the house and also the position of “Black Rod”, the usher who
summons the House of Commons to the State opening of Parliament, both predate
the Treaty of Union by centuries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Both
Scottish Independence and the publicity generated in the lead up to the
referendum on independence, clearly has its benefits. If you’ve ever been to </span><st1:place><st1:placename><span style="font-family: Arial;">Dublin</span></st1:placename><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span><st1:placetype><span style="font-family: Arial;">Airport</span></st1:placetype></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and wondered why it would easily dwarf the size of both Glasgow and
Edinburgh airport combined, the answer is really quite simple. People tend to
visit countries they know to exist as opposed to ones they don’t. Likewise,
multinationals have a tendency to locate in countries they know to exist. As a
dependent region, </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> has to compete against the likes of Humberside, the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">West Midlands</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">East Anglia</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Certainly, under independence, it would have to
compete against these areas too, but it would have the weight of its own state
behind it, with a direct voice at the top tables of </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Europe</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and the United Nations. Furthermore, it would have the tools and
resources to attract inward investment (like, for example, the ability to
control its own corporation tax). Yet, perhaps most importantly, it would be
counted equally among the community of nations as a contender with which to
invest in and do business with, and not a mere peripheral region of another
state.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The
Unionist naysayers may do well to look at the vast European trade hub that </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">China</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> is proposing to build in Athlone, </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Ireland (pictured above) <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-IE; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE;"><a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0502/1224315454567.html"><span style="background-color: black; color: #cccccc; font-size: x-small;">http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0502/1224315454567.html</span></a><span style="background-color: black; color: #cccccc; font-size: x-small;">.</span> </span></span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">The argument given for citing the trade centre in
Athlone was that it was geographically in the centre of </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Ireland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and served by good road and rail links to </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Ireland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s capital. A Scottish equivalent would perhaps be </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Falkirk</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">, located between Glasgow and Edinburgh and served by excellent road and
rail links between the two. Yet </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">China</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> would never have built the project in </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Falkirk</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">, or indeed anywhere in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. To the Chinese the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> is simply a remote outpost of the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> (during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, for example, the
Chinese media referred to the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> team as English). The simple truth is that the good
road and rail links between </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s biggest city and </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s capital really city count for nothing when </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s capital is little more than mere provincial city
of the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="ecxmsonormal" style="margin: 0cm 9pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Both </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> and </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Ireland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, in European
geographical terms, could be considered to be remote nations on the North
Western fringe of the continent. Yet only one of them is a member state of the
EU in its own right, something that gives it the ability to punch above its
weight. And when it comes to Chinese investment, this clearly makes all of the
difference.</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span> </h4>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-55916180868679504392012-05-18T20:57:00.000+00:002012-05-18T20:57:48.683+00:00The Scaremongering of the Warmongers<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI_eTz_hUFtcJH7hmDdzHEauKkAe2qa2nfiJ3yQWD_gTgQy80cAIpldWm50recEiTxUVi3LWCn0SYQxuI0DX5wtHs7z0VE-dCHMKpvL-lAWiEHEAzEqo00G7SsymCHqf5N6fD-63Bh4zmj/s1600/10-Absalon-ship.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI_eTz_hUFtcJH7hmDdzHEauKkAe2qa2nfiJ3yQWD_gTgQy80cAIpldWm50recEiTxUVi3LWCn0SYQxuI0DX5wtHs7z0VE-dCHMKpvL-lAWiEHEAzEqo00G7SsymCHqf5N6fD-63Bh4zmj/s320/10-Absalon-ship.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The
</span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> government’s "vote no" machine kicked up a gear the
other day when it asserted that it would no longer choose to buy Scottish-built
ships if </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> voted in favour of independence. According to a </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Westminster</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> spokesman, </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“No British warship has been built in a foreign
country for the last 50 years and we do not intend to start doing that now.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">What seems immediately
apparent, aside from the fact that this is little more than a cheap
scaremongering tactic, is that the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> government has not
quite grasped the essence of its true place within the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">United Kingdom</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">. </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">cannot </i>be a foreign country to the United
Kingdom Government, because without </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> there simply is
no </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">United Kingdom</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">. </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">The </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> government is not an English institution and, after
Scottish independence would, along with the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">United Kingdom</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> itself, technically cease to exist. Rather, it is a </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> institution and as such, it must surely remain
neutral towards </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Consequently, there will be no <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">British</i> warships built after Scottish independence. Likewise, The
Royal Navy is not the English Navy, nor the English Navy in waiting; </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> must be entitled to its share of the hardware too.
Furthermore, the current </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> government has no right to determine policy of its
successor governments in either </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> or </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Yet here we have a situation where the UK
government, which is meant to represent both Scotland and England equally
within the union to which they are supposedly equal partners, is choosing to
designate itself as the heir apparent to a future English state.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Of
course the reality is that the Royal Navy has always been an English Navy – it
simply <i>represented</i> </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Likewise, the </span><st1:place><st1:placetype><span style="font-family: Arial;">Palace</span></st1:placetype><span style="font-family: Arial;"> of </span><st1:placename><span style="font-family: Arial;">Westminster</span></st1:placename></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> always was the English Parliament. After the Treaty of Union they simply
brought in a few more chairs. Yet, if we’re going to be held accountable for
the national debt after independence, then we’ve got every right to claim our
share of the assets too. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="ecxmsonormal" style="margin: 0cm 9pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There
are some serious double standards being employed here too. After all, why is it
fine for the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> government to order American-made Lockheed Martin planes for the Royal
Navy, yet it would choose to boycott ships made in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">? After all, the United States not only declared independence
from </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Britain</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> in 1776, but it also discarded the monarchy in the
process – something </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> has pledged to retain. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The
idea that </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> would boycott </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> just for having the audacity to exercise its
democratic right to leave the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Union</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">, shows just what a shabby set up the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">United Kingdom</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> really is. Are these really the sort of vindictive,
mean-spirited, dummy-throwing hypocrites that we should be in political union
with? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Scotland simply has to be in
political union with another country (for fear that it would it would be
subject to some sort of Armageddon-like scenario as predicted by Unionist naysayers),
then surely there must be some better options out there. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-14912266275660629312012-03-11T16:03:00.000+00:002012-03-11T16:03:38.080+00:00The Independence Referendum: How “Constitutional Uncertainty” Can Pay Off<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhryNHzOrVh2fY0a4I7cd4BezOGNj0_tWlqKshxF0Vpwtc6yRpoES7coLnjxy1RKFeFTAdu3Ka2-yr2wdcBo006diozkFOoAumwt63PHQf_daGdTHbZoo7Nj_ervefWVdizo3U_T55E2FmN/s1600/Saltire+&+Union+Flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhryNHzOrVh2fY0a4I7cd4BezOGNj0_tWlqKshxF0Vpwtc6yRpoES7coLnjxy1RKFeFTAdu3Ka2-yr2wdcBo006diozkFOoAumwt63PHQf_daGdTHbZoo7Nj_ervefWVdizo3U_T55E2FmN/s1600/Saltire+&+Union+Flag.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">According to the Scotsman newspaper, “the decision to make </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Edinburgh</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> the headquarters of the £3 billion UK Green Investment Bank was made in part to strengthen the case against </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> breaking away from the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">”. They also reveal that the letters </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> were added to the name of the bank “to emphasise </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">’s place in the </span><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Union</span></st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">”.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Of course, reading further down the article it soon becomes apparent that the bulk of the jobs will actually be based in </span><st1:place><st1:city><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">London</span></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">, </span><st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:country-region></st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">. However, according to the Scotsman, </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">the aim is that board meetings will take place in </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Edinburgh</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> and eventually half the jobs will be in the city”.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">So they’ll <i>aim</i> to have board meetings in </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Edinburgh</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">? In other words, they’ll try when they can, but the reality is that a good many will take place in </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">London</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> where the real work is going on. Furthermore, we’re told that <i>eventually</i> <i>half the jobs</i> will be in </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Edinburgh</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">. <i>Eventually</i>? <i>Half </i>the jobs? It really doesn’t sound like this bank is being based in </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Edinburgh</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> at all.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Of course, in reality, this is little more than a bribe to keep </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> in the union: stay with us and there may be more like this to come. The bribe is, however, something of a double-edged sword: leave the </span><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Union</span></st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> and the bank may go too. Yet, to some, it may seem strange for the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> government to base the headquarters of a newly-created bank in a part of the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">United Kingdom</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> which, in a few years, may well secede. Indeed, given the whole emphasis on responsible banking these days, it seems a highly risky strategy. Of course, </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Whitehall</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> knows this and it also knows fine well that the bank could easily operate in an independent </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">. Take the case, for example, of the HSBC, or The Hong K</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">on</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">g and Shanghai Banking Corporation</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: Arial;">, to give its full title. This is a bank that was founded in the former British colony of Hong Kong. Yet despite the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, the HSBC retains its headquarters in London. There’s also the case of a </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">British institution like the Abbey National bank which has since been taken over and re-branded by the Spanish bank Santander. Indeed, since we moved away from the gold standard in the 20<sup>th </sup>Century, banking and finance has truly become a global industry, unconstrained by national borders. The City of </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">London</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">, for example, is not the financial hub that it is because it only serves the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">United Kingdom</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">If all of this were not convincing enough, then it would be worth reiterating the fact that an independent </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> would retain </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Sterling</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> as its currency. The simple truth is that whether </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> remains a part of the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">United Kingdom</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> or not, it really will have little bearing in its effectiveness to provide a base for the headquarters of the Green Investment Bank, or indeed any bank. In essence, the message we should be telling </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">Whitehall</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> is: thanks for the bank but it doesn’t in any way tie us to the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">United Kingdom</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">. </span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Yet, even if this bank is being offered to Scotland as a bribe and regardless of the fact that the Edinburgh headquarters of this bank may be little more than a “brass plate” address (as the Scotsman puts it) for what is, in reality, a London-operated bank, the fact that Edinburgh was chosen at all can, at least in part, be attributed to what has been described as the current “constitutional uncertainty” as regards Scotland’s future. In essence, if there <i>wasn’t</i> a serious possibility that </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> may leave the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">United Kingdom</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">, would this bank have had its headquarters offered to </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">? Likewise, if the prospect of independence was not a reality, would David Cameron have recently promised to “consider” more powers for </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The irony of all of this is that, rather than suffering from this “constitutional uncertainty”, as Keith Cochrane the chairman of the Weir Group warned recently, Scotland, if anything, seems to be benefiting</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN;">. Of course, there will always be the likes of </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Michelle Mone who will threaten to leave Scotland if it becomes independent (perish the thought). Yet this seems somewhat reminiscent of when Paul Daniels, Frank Bruno and Jim Davidson threatened to leave </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Britain</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> if Labour got into power in 1997 - all of whom, when push came to shove, chose to stay.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Yet for those who genuinely fear constitutional uncertainty, the only way that it will truly come to an end, is if we vote “yes” in the upcoming referendum. This is because, even if there is a “no” vote, as the successive referendums in </span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Quebec</span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;"> have proven, this will not be the end of the matter, because the feeling of unsettled business will remain. <o:p></o:p></span></div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-20078955967424383962012-02-16T22:56:00.011+00:002012-02-18T13:31:04.999+00:00The Empty Rhetoric of The Unionist<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8Ps-w_wk-87WqgGHWAbPOHVlYEYVW_1BluPTB6vw0ZyxTK9or8VKBYljJ4Z5zpgIQXJwJ9FZzln3QESQYiZJoCsyZxSCGIMIbrcy3e-_8FgbA4NYJDlw-DdA3_NG6i8iKdDeTl9NLPZx0/s1600/speech-bubble-quote-background.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8Ps-w_wk-87WqgGHWAbPOHVlYEYVW_1BluPTB6vw0ZyxTK9or8VKBYljJ4Z5zpgIQXJwJ9FZzln3QESQYiZJoCsyZxSCGIMIbrcy3e-_8FgbA4NYJDlw-DdA3_NG6i8iKdDeTl9NLPZx0/s320/speech-bubble-quote-background.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">According to the Daily Telegraph, “David Cameron promises more powers for <st1:country-region><st1:place>Scotland</st1:place></st1:country-region>”. How very thoughtful of him, you may well think. After all, what is power if not to be shared? Yet, read underneath the banner headline and it clarifies this slightly (and dilutes the message somewhat) by stating that “Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">consider</i> more powers for <st1:country-region><st1:place>Scotland</st1:place></st1:country-region> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">if voters reject independence</i> in a referendum”.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let’s reiterate that. He promises to “consider” more powers “if voters reject independence”. Now, leaving aside the fairly obvious fact that this is little more than bribery, when we look at what he is offering here, it is actually no more than empty rhetoric.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">According to the Scotsman, his actual words where: “When the referendum on independence is over, I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further”. “And, yes, that does mean considering what further powers could be devolved”. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Perhaps he is, but “considering” to do something is one of the vaguest commitments anyone could actually make. You might be considering washing the car this weekend, but actually going ahead and doing it can be a very different matter. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A cynic might suggest that the reason Mr Cameron is so against a second referendum question offering more powers to the Scottish Parliament (albeit falling short of full independence) is that it might actually <em>deliver</em> more powers, rather than leaving them as an option to be merely considered.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mr Cameron also stated: “It's never been part of my argument that <st1:country-region><st1:place>Scotland</st1:place></st1:country-region> couldn't make it on her own - there are countries in <st1:place>Europe</st1:place>, small countries that make it on their own, but my argument is, we are better off, we are stronger together, we're fairer together, we're richer together.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So there you have it: stronger, richer and fairer. Yet looking at this a little more closely, what is he actually saying here? Firstly, he implies we are stronger by being part of the <st1:country-region><st1:place>United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Yet, considering our non-existent membership of the United Nations, our lack of statehood and our inability to be counted as a nation in the Olympic Games, this seems a highly dubious claim. By ceding our right to represent ourselves independently on the world stage, be it in politics or at the world’s premier sporting event, it is difficult, to the say the least, to see how we are in any way stronger as part of the United Kingdom.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As far the part about us being fairer, is he implying that an independent Scottish state would be less fair than the <st1:country-region><st1:place>United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region>? Finally, there is the claim that we are richer as a part of the <st1:country-region><st1:place>United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region>. This is certainly an intriguing claim to be making, especially without any clarification as to exactly how much we are richer, and for exactly which fiscal period(s) in the future we will be richer if we choose to remain within the <st1:country-region><st1:place>United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet to be fair to Mr Cameron, he is not the only one offering empty rhetoric as a counter argument to the independence movement. Former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, David Miliband, a Labour MP stated on the 30th January this year that independence would “undermine the drive to bring social justice to the <st1:country-region><st1:place>UK</st1:place></st1:country-region>”. Firstly what exactly does he mean by “social justice”. Secondly, if “social justice” is actually so important, why has it taken over 300 years since the Treaty of Union, before anyone considered bringing it about. Finally, in what way would an independent <st1:country-region><st1:place>Scotland</st1:place></st1:country-region> not be able to bring about “social justice” on its own?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IE; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE;">It all smacks of desperation, like when you visit someone and it starts to get late. You want to get back home and on with the rest of your life, yet they try to coax you to stay a little bit longer with the promise of treats if you do.</span></div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-5946023284214295642011-11-13T13:23:00.001+00:002011-11-13T13:24:13.192+00:00The Devolution Max/ Independent Lite Question<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZrOYfJJo0KxFKShzYCvx35NaBvYAjzXNAkGPKvxMQG-VV2NeYjO23FdgLkex6gX7-RywxYptpRHHc_yiSS1dxGpgYPUBCurhh5_2q76jdu4X682Mm_SB0c35PWstqYCCEep9ArF3pXCbq/s1600/pepsimaxfin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZrOYfJJo0KxFKShzYCvx35NaBvYAjzXNAkGPKvxMQG-VV2NeYjO23FdgLkex6gX7-RywxYptpRHHc_yiSS1dxGpgYPUBCurhh5_2q76jdu4X682Mm_SB0c35PWstqYCCEep9ArF3pXCbq/s320/pepsimaxfin.jpg" width="310" /></a></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The forthcoming independence referendum seems to have got somewhat sidetracked recently by this whole “Devolution Max”/ “Independence Lite” issue. Essentially it centres around the idea that </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> would have full, or close to full fiscal autonomy whilst remaining part of the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">United Kingdom</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. The idea sounds fine in principal, offering both a halfway house to those wanting independence and placating those not ready to take the full step to independence. Yet the reality of the situation is that the Devolution Max issue is currently doing little more than giving the Unionists more ammunition with which to load their weapons of mass negativity. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Take, for example, a recent debate on <i>Newsnight Scotland</i> when Labour Unionists tried to argue that if a referendum produced a majority in favour of independence it would lose credibility (to the point that it could be ignored) if a second question regarding increased powers for the Scottish parliament received a <i>greater</i> majority. This really is quite a childish argument to make and it seems that now the SNP hold a majority in the Scottish Parliament and have gained a clear democratic mandate with which to hold a referendum on </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s constitutional future, Labour Unionists really will try anything to derail that referendum. Yet Labour have nothing positive to offer the people of Scotland and the sad reality is that their negativity seems to be born largely out of the bitterness that they are no longer the main party in Scotland.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Conservative/ Liberal Democrats, for their part have already hinted at both a </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">London</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> government-instigated referendum and a second referendum (which I’m quite certain they would not hold if there was an initial “no” vote to independence). Murdo Fraser has on a number of occasions accused Alex Salmond of being” feart” as regards his decision to hold the referendum in the second half of the SNP’s term in office. Yet the only people who are feart are those who do not agree with the referendum, those who are feart of the Scottish people’s right to choose their own constitutional destiny, those who are feart that </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> is too small and stupid to govern itself and those who are feart of Scottish statehood. It is Unionist politicians who lack ambition for </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and in their own ability to lead an independent </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">, believing as they do that </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and its people should remain subservient to </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">London</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">. That is the true nature of being feart. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Alex Salmond believes in the ability of Scotland to be a successful independent nation and in his ability to lead that nation .The Unionists, for their part, are stuck in the political equivalent of a dead end job with no prospects of advancement, believing that their superiors in London possess more intelligence, drive and ambition than they do. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Yet perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the whole Devolution Max issue is that we may end up in a situation where we trust the Scottish Government to have full fiscal autonomy, yet at the same time <i>not</i> trust its ability to print passports, run a few embassies and attend the occasional meeting of the United Nations. Surely if you have the ability to run a country economically, then the rest would be child’s play. Moreover it seems like we’d end up doing all of that work and get none of the credit, because any fiscal success on </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s part would not be recognised internationally. Rather, it would simply benefit the yearly balance sheets of UK plc, with </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> being considered a mere subsidiary. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">If a Devolution Max question has to be included in the referendum then it must, as a bare minimum, guarantee Scottish statehood. And not statehood in the sense of being akin to an American or </span><st1:place><st1:placename><span style="font-family: Arial;">German</span></st1:placename><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span><st1:placetype><span style="font-family: Arial;">State</span></st1:placetype></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">, but Statehood in the sense that it could take its place at the United Nations. This would be quite possible if the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> were to move towards a confederal structure whereby </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> could share a currency, share elements of defence and be involved in various cross border institutions. Yet, regardless of what settlement is decided upon in the referendum, it must make a <i>symbolic</i> difference to </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and it people. Simply adding more fiscal powers to the Scottish parliament will do little to enhance the standing of </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> on the world stage. The bottom line is that we either believe that </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> is capable of representing itself on the world stage or we don’t and some halfway house measure of autonomy will not satisfy in the long run.<o:p></o:p></span></div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-15176210192423141132011-08-09T22:10:00.006+00:002011-10-11T16:19:19.107+00:00Scotland: Independent Nation State, Or Dependent Welfare Junkie – Your Choice<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqDUa7q20u17Jd7KVEDiJ-K3tSvzax_ufQwVZhvW_b6cBh_oOPa2N77cHUVKW21rB93Ht2ZE6RykHgLM5ZANryYd-g4QbqzPp7xog_hkRkIN2_B4xkKMXI_ZRm28_XsobPABGExj70jTJM/s1600/6768238-colored-syringes-on-money-and-deaths-head-posion-label.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqDUa7q20u17Jd7KVEDiJ-K3tSvzax_ufQwVZhvW_b6cBh_oOPa2N77cHUVKW21rB93Ht2ZE6RykHgLM5ZANryYd-g4QbqzPp7xog_hkRkIN2_B4xkKMXI_ZRm28_XsobPABGExj70jTJM/s320/6768238-colored-syringes-on-money-and-deaths-head-posion-label.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There was an article in The Herald newspaper recently about how the Conservative/Liberal Democrats were trying to get the SNP to answer how, under independence, the Scottish Government will continue to fund an alleged £13 Billion that the UK Government currently spends on welfare in Scotland.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Firstly, the argument is essentially flawed. The economy of an independent Scotland will be very different to that under its current state of dependence. Some businesses may leave and some will naturally remain. Yet Scotland will also gain many industries and companies who will want, and indeed need, direct access to the Scottish market. Whereas currently, multi-national companies are able to base themselves in England and serve Scotland as a mere peripheral market, under independence many would actually need to be based here. Indeed, this is a subject that I've blogged about previously: <a href="http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2010/09/cost-of-scotland-not-being-independent.html.">http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2010/09/cost-of-scotland-not-being-independent.html.</a></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Secondly, it is simply not possible to predict the future economy of any nation, independent or otherwise. Economies change over time and the idea of presenting some figures related to Scotland's current economic state as a region of the United Kingdom and trying to imply that they have any relevance at all to its future as an independent nation-state at some unspecified time years in the future is an entirely futile argument to make. The economies of both Scotland and England will be very different in the future and entirely impossible to predict. Indeed with globalisation, as the current turmoil in international markets show, national economies are not only unpredictable entities, but highly susceptible to forces from outwith their own national borders. And, given that this is the case, surely it would be in Scotland's interest to have direct access to, and representation at, those international organisations that maintain some modicum of control over global markets, namely the IMF, the World Bank, the European Union and the United Nations?</span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet, returning to the initial argument with regard to Scotland's current alleged welfare dependence on England, surely it serves only to highlight the fact that political union with England is simply not working in Scotland's favour. Indeed, if Scotland is currently a welfare junkie dependent on England then clearly its high time to check into rehab and shake off its debilitating addiction to the Union.</span></div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-15751897835719833222011-06-12T20:42:00.003+00:002011-06-22T19:41:21.383+00:00A Second Referendum: The Conservative Party’s “40% Rule”<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyImuupmiBTVdI9pdQVvZcDUL0yDAdrbAsOLQxOJ0oMWRtCLiKUe-3T9KzKoS0aV2bVyC6eGLW9tM-Nq0zeqRE5QV0oI0aK5oO0t5YNA0xwA6a1U4CclNw-K7ecSA7vbYS1HYp7wTq11DV/s1600/Referendum.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyImuupmiBTVdI9pdQVvZcDUL0yDAdrbAsOLQxOJ0oMWRtCLiKUe-3T9KzKoS0aV2bVyC6eGLW9tM-Nq0zeqRE5QV0oI0aK5oO0t5YNA0xwA6a1U4CclNw-K7ecSA7vbYS1HYp7wTq11DV/s320/Referendum.jpg" t8="true" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So it seems that the Conservative/Liberal Democrats are arguing that any Scottish referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future must be superseded by a referendum conducted by the UK government. This doesn’t come as much of a surprise. After all, during the counting of votes following the Scottish Election, as it became clear that the SNP were going to win a majority of seats, deputy Scottish Conservative leader Murdo Fraser was calling for the UK government to hastily organise its own referendum. He argued that it should be held as quickly as possible, his intention clearly being to scupper the Scottish Government before it had a reasonable chance to put forward a positive case for independence. Cleary this would be unfair as the UK and the propaganda mechanisms that ensure its cohesion (i.e. the British media) have had more than a 300 year head start!</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet now the Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, is arguing that any referendum held in Scotland must be followed by one from the UK government. Firstly, I’m assuming this will <em>only</em> be held if there is a yes vote, so how exactly can this be democratic and fair? Secondly, there is, of course, no legal requirement to actually have a second referendum. Certainly, the UK government has rather conveniently reserved the power of constitutional matters for itself, yet that simply means that it can either choose to accept or ignore the vote of the Scottish electorate. They are by no means required by law to hold their own referendum, after all the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution in the way that many other states have. Furthermore, the Treaty of Union that created the United Kingdom in the first place was never put to the people in a referendum (and would most likely have been rejected by the Scottish people at the time if it had).</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And yet here we have a situation where in order to <em>leave</em> the union, there must be not one, but <em>two</em> referendums. It simply beggars belief! Moreover, could you imagine the furore in the English media, if the United Kingdom were told by the European Union that any referendum to leave the EU must be superseded by an EU-run referendum?</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is not the first time the UK government has tried to impede the Scottish people’s democratic right to choose its own constitutional destiny. In 1979, the Scottish people were given the opportunity to vote for an assembly with considerably less powers than the Scottish Parliament currently has. It was, of course, a knee jerk reaction to the rise of the SNP in the 1970s with the discovery of North Sea oil, and its intention was to kill the nationalist vote.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet despite the fairly limited scope of devolution on offer at the time, the very Labour government that was running the referendum on home rule, was fearful that a vote in favour would weaken the power of the British state. In essence it was only <em>offering</em> a referendum; it was not exactly enthusiastic of it resulting in a yes vote. Nor had it any intention of delivering on it. It was all about giving Scotland the <em>illusion</em> that it had the right to choose an assembly of its own.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the referendum vote, 51.6% actually voted in favour. Yet, despite this majority, it was not accepted as valid because the Labour government had craftily inserted what has come to be called the 40% rule, meaning that regardless of whether there was a vote in favour, 40% of the <em>entire Scottish electorate</em> had to have voted yes. Effectively those who didn’t vote, or couldn’t vote, were treated as a no vote. Now this is plainly unfair - after all 100% turnouts are nigh on impossible to achieve without voting being made a legal mandatory requirement. Voter turnouts for elections in the UK tend to be between 60% and 70%, and the fact that the 1979 referendum had a voter turnout of 63.8% was quite normal and by no means low. Furthermore, the very Labour government that had brought in the 40% rule was only voted in by 28.5% of the entire electorate, something that highlighted the gross hypocrisy of the situation. The recent AV referendum only had a turnout of 42%, meaning that actually only 28.5% of the entire electorate voted no. And as for Labour’s so-called “landslide” victory of 1997, well it was only voted in by 30.8% of the entire electorate!</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The simple truth is that the United Kingdom, despite what it might proclaim to be, is not a political union of nations where its constituent countries have a free and democratic right to leave as they chose. This might explain why the current waiting list to <em>join </em>the United Kingdom is somewhat empty and will likely remain so for the rest of human history. As <em>The Eagles</em> put it: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. And if any historical proof were needed that you can’t simply decide to leave this supposed shining example of democracy, then one needs look no further than Ireland in 1918 when Sinn Féin, a party whose clear intention was <em>not </em>to take up its seats at Westminster, but rather to set up its own parliament in Ireland, won a majority of seats in Ireland. The result was (in the absence of one being legally available to the Irish people) a <em>de-facto</em> referendum on independence. Yet this rather bold slap in the face to “Mother England” left Ireland in a state of war with the British which in turn ended in a messy partition settlement.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Of course the idea that a yes vote on Scottish independence would lead to English troops being sent into Scotland would be highly unlikely today. Times have changed, and wars have gotten rather a bad rap lately, what with Iraq and all of that. Furthermore, with the internet and the 24-hours news cycle, people are more aware of what’s going on in other countries than they were in the early 20th Century. It just wouldn’t be the acceptable way to do things now.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet it is perfectly fine, at least in the view of the current UK government, to try and put a spoke in the wheels of any political movement that might allow, <em>through democratic means</em>, the self-determination of a constituent nation of the current United Kingdom. After all, the United Kingdom is not some cosy club for the benefit of its constituent nations. Indeed, the poetic notion of the “home nations”, so often used in sporting commentary, is little more than a sham cover-up for the reality of a Greater England. The simple truth is that Scotland is not in a political and economic union with England; rather Scotland has become <em>absorbed</em> by England.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Post-1707 Scotland is a conquered nation, with it’s conquest having happened in a political rather than military fashion. Consequently, the British state is, in essence the <em>English</em> State. It was Scotland’s parliament that shut up shop in 1707, <em>not</em> England’s. Westminster was and remains England’s parliament. And that, to put it bluntly is why the West Lothian question has never been addressed. After all, it would simply be <em>absurd</em> to have an English parliament separate to the one that already exists at Westminster. After all, historically, it has always <em>been</em> England’s Parliament.</span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Likewise it would be absurd to rename the Bank of England as the Bank of The United Kingdom. Its simply not going to happen. And that is why it is a parliament in England and not the Scottish parliament, or its people who will have the final say on Scottish self-determination.</span></div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-38806120676788762892011-04-21T10:54:00.004+00:002011-05-22T15:21:57.340+00:00When The World Knows Your Name As England<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtV9qy-w5nlKII-kVVyz78xra8PtkWdU4xDc2zCNyZH7QqAgmer8RymvLegXVEGIpIjWkn3NMp-K99rgwkP9l_YdnZfAZ3XSBH3e4koC0djGIoDfRnRRV57EctLADvT707LUHjOtkRtTbD/s1600/Corona+Bottle+Tops.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" i8="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtV9qy-w5nlKII-kVVyz78xra8PtkWdU4xDc2zCNyZH7QqAgmer8RymvLegXVEGIpIjWkn3NMp-K99rgwkP9l_YdnZfAZ3XSBH3e4koC0djGIoDfRnRRV57EctLADvT707LUHjOtkRtTbD/s320/Corona+Bottle+Tops.bmp" width="287" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I purchased some bottles of Corona Extra beer in Ireland recently and happened to notice that the inside of the bottle top was marked Irlanda. It was obviously stamped as a signifier for the export market to which it was intended. Naturally, I was interested to see what the inside of the bottle top would say in Scotland. It would, of course, have been too much to hope that it said Escocia, yet I presumed it would say either Reino Unido or Gran Bretaña. But alas, the world knows our name as England and, accordingly, it was stamped Inglaterra.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It made me think about those Scots who bemoan the fact that they are treated as English when they travel abroad and then, come an election, vote Labour as they always have. Labour are a unionist party and the very reason why the wider world thinks that Scotland is a part of England is <em>because</em> of the Union. Indeed, shoehorn any country into a shared state for 300 years with a country 10 times its size, in terms of population and the inevitable result will be that the smaller country essentially disappears - at least in the eyes of the wider world. Neither Labour, the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats have any genuine interest in Scottish national identity – why would they when it is in direct competition with their own sense of British identity? </span></div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-87350303692262949962011-03-01T15:05:00.003+00:002011-06-22T19:52:35.767+00:00The Union Dividend<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlhlYoI9JwWmt0biV4QJTqJPSM2k4JTAqWGEMMbQ_ci22GFYFRi31OFfUClI_7wxs0ULk33H1QIKwHvoQXp_rRHI3ByUG4a6DgTBgAS_0_V07T_9rZerqN-zzF48Et0KZDWBj4ZYGBNId9/s1600/Olympics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" l6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlhlYoI9JwWmt0biV4QJTqJPSM2k4JTAqWGEMMbQ_ci22GFYFRi31OFfUClI_7wxs0ULk33H1QIKwHvoQXp_rRHI3ByUG4a6DgTBgAS_0_V07T_9rZerqN-zzF48Et0KZDWBj4ZYGBNId9/s1600/Olympics.jpg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is an old adage that Scotland punches above its weight because it is a part of the UK. Yet, for that to be true, Scotland would actually need to be able to compete on the world stage. Yet it cannot, because, paradoxically, it is a part of the UK. Scotland doesn’t “compete” at the UN or the EU (at least on a direct level). It also doesn’t compete at the Eurovision, or the Olympics. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In reality, Scotland can only compete on the world stage in sport and even then, only in a limited number of sporting events. It can, for example, compete in the Six Nations Rugby Championship (if only because a Great Britain team would result in the six nations becoming a pitiful four). It can also compete independently at football, although its case with FIFA for doing so may be considerably weakened with the all-English “British” team being fielded in the 2012 Olympics. It can also compete at the Commonwealth Games. Yet, this is really just the modern-day incarnation of the old British Empire Games and thus can hardly claim to be representative of the wider world. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Surely Scotland could at least have its own Olympic Team? Well you might think so, but speedy cyclist, Chris Hoy argues otherwise, and considers the idea to be “ridiculous”. Hoy states that he “would not have three gold medals hanging round (his) neck" if he had not been part of Team GB. Really? Would he have thrown the dummy out of the pram and ridden slower out of protest? No, argues Hoy, it is because Scotland doesn’t provide the resources that he requires. Which I’m presuming would be a bicycle, a bicycle pump, a puncture repair kit and perhaps maybe a velodrome. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The irony is that Scotland is actually currently building a velodrome and naming it in his honour. It will be called The Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome and is being built for the 2014 British Empire, sorry, <em>Commonwealth</em> Games. Yet, despite this, I wouldn’t expect Hoy to relocate back to Scotland anytime soon. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I suspect that the real reason Hoy does not want to see a Scottish team is because it would mean that his medals would have been won for a state that no longer competes in the Olympics (like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia) - that somehow his achievements would be rendered obsolete. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hoy states that he is "a proud Scot and a very proud Brit as well", stressing that the two identities are not “mutually exclusive”. Yet, during the Beijing Olympics the British team was referred to in the official Chinese (Mandarin) commentary as <em>Ying Guó</em>, meaning “England”. One wonders whether Hoy was aware that in China, the country where he won his medals, there is no “mutually exclusive” word for Britain and that, in the eyes of the host nation, he and his team were considered to be English? And, if he was, would he even care? Sadly, I don’t think he would. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The simple fact is that because Scotland is not independent and does not field its own Olympic team, it has not had to provide the resources necessary to support its athletes. Of course, if Scotland had been independent prior to the Beijing Olympics and sent its own Olympic team, it would no doubt have provided the resources necessary. Indeed the very reason it is currently building a velodrome is because the facilities are required. Yet, for the 2008 Olympics there would have been no point in duplicating facilities that already existed in England. Especially given the fact that England (with its considerably greater population) will always be providing the lion’s share of athletes in any British Olympic Team. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Essentially, the crux of Hoy’s argument is that Scotland punches above its weight by being part of the UK. Therefore, it would be worth considering some statistics. According to <a href="http://www.olympics.org.uk/">http://www.olympics.org.uk/</a>, 26 out of the 311 Team GB athletes sent to Beijing were from Scotland. That’s about 8.3% of the total. Now Scotland has a population of about 5 million, which is about 8.3% of the UK’s 60 Million. So it would seem that Scotland is not so much punching above its weight, rather it is punching <em>at</em> it’s weight.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Except that it isn’t. And here’s why: at the 2008 Olympic Games, Ireland with a population of 4.4 million people sent 54 athletes; Croatia with a population of 4.6 million people sent 110 athletes to Beijing; New Zealand with a population of 4.2 million sent 209 athletes and Lithuania, with a population of 3.2 million, sent 74 athletes.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet leaving the Olympic Games aside, the cost of Scotland’s lack of independence is such that people throughout the world have no idea what exactly Scotland is. This is something that becomes all too apparent whilst on holiday and you find yourself having to explain for the umpteenth time that Scotland is not actually a part of England. Irvine Welsh summed it up nicely in <em>Trainspotting</em> with the line: “it’s shite being Scottish”. And it really is. Denmark, for example, is a country of 5 million people situated to the north of Germany. Yet do its citizens have to constantly explain that they are not German every time they go on holiday? </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I came across an atlas being sold in LIDL recently. Like much of what LIDL sells, it was a German-produced atlas and made by a company called NGV. Out of interest, I looked for the map of Scotland. Now, most UK-produced maps will show Scotland’s border with England, albeit in a lighter shade than an “international” border, but there nonetheless. Yet this German Atlas did not show Scotland’s border at all, or even mention Scotland. It simply wasn’t there. All that it said was “Great Britain”, which in the wider world is as interchangeable with "England" as "Holland" is with "The Netherlands" (despite the fact that there is a difference) and to the way that the USSR, prior to its dissolution, was simply called Russia by so many. Obviously, I don’t have the resources to check every atlas in Europe, but I suspect that this particular atlas would be typical of most throughout Europe. And these are the countries on our own continent - God only knows what the rest of the world thinks. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet it really is little wonder that the world at large has no idea of Scotland’s existence, because, in modern day usage, the terms nation and state are really not “mutually exclusive” (to quote speedy cyclist Chris Hoy once more). To be a real nation you really have to be a state. And, as for talk about punching above our weight, it would seem that quite the opposite is true.</span></div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-69878553958330769752011-02-21T20:55:00.004+00:002011-06-22T19:34:17.579+00:00I Despair...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzHDUEXAc_pSFXYgoU2wOhvaGua5uApxdFtV5U1EHoscRwX0pp7xE7N2NW6bxaz0YQ5RfRTFm1gStwQx2Q4osoNBEI_DUxgl4bDli4rhGf5jqDR9HTufsYfi525TEllO-Cm5eB613lp3B0/s1600/Herald+Poetry+Contest.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" j6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzHDUEXAc_pSFXYgoU2wOhvaGua5uApxdFtV5U1EHoscRwX0pp7xE7N2NW6bxaz0YQ5RfRTFm1gStwQx2Q4osoNBEI_DUxgl4bDli4rhGf5jqDR9HTufsYfi525TEllO-Cm5eB613lp3B0/s320/Herald+Poetry+Contest.JPG" width="244" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I've just come across this newspaper article in <em>The Herald</em> newspaper which was published a few days ago stating that a Scot had won a national poetry contest. Now, surely it would only have been newsworthy if the winner of this national poetry contest <em>hadn’t</em> been Scottish, given that it was, after all, being reported in a Scottish newspaper? Of course, upon reading, it soon became apparent that the “<em>national </em>poetry contest” in question actually referred to a UK-wide poetry contest. Yet it really brought home just how far Scotland is from seeing itself as a real nation. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Now The Herald has, since 2003, been an English-owned newspaper (owned by Newsquest, from </span><place><city><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Weybridge</span></city><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">, </span><country-region><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">England</span></country-region></place><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">), yet I really do not think this had any bearing on the article. It is the Scots themselves, through careless use of semantics, who have talked themselves out of nationhood. I recently watched a Kevin Bridges DVD and grimaced every time he talked about “down south” and his ambiguous use of the term “country”. On Michael McIntyre’s Comedy Roadshow, Bridges even joked about the difficulties he faced with having a “regional accent on National TV”. Given that the “regional” accent he was referring to meant Scottish and by “national” TV, he meant British television, it became very hard to watch. Another comedian from </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Canada</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">, called Craig Campbell, appeared on the same show. He talked about having Scottish ancestry (the show was being filmed in Glasgow), yet thereafter referred to everything Scottish as being British and talked almost exclusively about the differences between Canada and the UK (rather than acknowledging the fact that he was actually <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in Scotland). I imagine it would be somewhat annoying to Canadians if someone from this side of the </span><place><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Atlantic</span></place><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">, speaking to a Canadian audience, was too lazy to differentiate between </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Canada</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"> and the </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">US</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"> and simply referred to </span><place><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">North America</span></place><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Of course, I’ve blogged before about the issue of semantics in Scottish life (<a href="http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2009/07/semantics-of-being-british.html">http://thisscotland.blogspot.com/2009/07/semantics-of-being-british.html</a>), yet it seems clear that unless people start to become acutely aware of just how important the use of language plays in undermining Scotland’s sense of national identity, then we might as well give up on the whole notion of actually being Scottish in the first place. After all, I’m not interested in a Scotland whose only <em>raison d'être</em> is to participate in the Six Nations Rugby Championship. Especially given the fact that I don’t even watch rugby...</span></div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-34877343573896736242011-02-18T11:18:00.008+00:002011-05-17T19:26:07.468+00:00The Symbols of Statehood<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpOQSbnbKZwl9K4J61KhJZ6c_QIxMhODIqYsyd88G8VYiS-OhDUILT6Fjn8IexHJQ1yDjazKOXqqeSwfw8aYG6jaK3jPGI9Aid8kN9-AY-vVTSZMIJB0HOzsUciaqGnv-iHwo2ywvmz-Ib/s1600/Isle+of+Man+Number+Plate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" j6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpOQSbnbKZwl9K4J61KhJZ6c_QIxMhODIqYsyd88G8VYiS-OhDUILT6Fjn8IexHJQ1yDjazKOXqqeSwfw8aYG6jaK3jPGI9Aid8kN9-AY-vVTSZMIJB0HOzsUciaqGnv-iHwo2ywvmz-Ib/s320/Isle+of+Man+Number+Plate.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Convincing the Scottish people that they are worthy of independence, after 300 years of English-led, pro-British propaganda will be no easy task. The English-controlled media has conditioned Scottish people to think of themselves as little more than a region of the </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">United Kingdom</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The simple truth is that if </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> wants to be recognised as a distinct entity separate from </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">, then it needs to start portraying itself as such. Only by doing so, will Scots find that they no longer have to experience that old “here we again” moment on holiday where they find themselves having to explain that Scotland is not actually a part of England. </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> needs to understand that the wider world knows nothing of its “wee pretendy parliament" (as Billy Connolly once called it) and, in order to gain recognition abroad, it needs to start portraying itself as being a distinct and independent entity. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">There is a well known American motivational speaker called Anthony Robbins who argues, amongst other things, that people who want to become successful should act as if they already are. Robbins argues that: “Acting ‘as if’ is most effective when you put your physiology in the state you’d be in if you were already effective”. Indeed, if </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> started to act and look more like an independent country then its people would be more accepting of the actual transition towards statehood.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Perhaps one way to do this would be to emulate the political autonomy that the </span><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Isle of Man</span></place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> currently enjoys. As a crown dependency, the </span><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Isle of Man</span></place><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s citizens are technically British, but their passports are slightly different, stating on the cover: </span><place><placename><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">British</span></i></placename><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></i><placetype><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Islands</span></i></placetype></place><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> - Isle of </span></i><state><place><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Man</span></i><span style="font-family: Arial;">.</span></place></state><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span><br />
<br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikbv_GrR_0MqVT5KKq3P3_PQG5glil2Pd1p6LK5aK4RxOCli0zh16x0NVJT1gAcTqpdBnMmW0V2S5zi6Fu6-pfXl-8xb3uYIU2-L23FIG5ZqrZCuMEJzJyNpuSqij2tfkFZHGCskDYL0Ao/s1600/Isle+of+Man+Passport.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" j6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikbv_GrR_0MqVT5KKq3P3_PQG5glil2Pd1p6LK5aK4RxOCli0zh16x0NVJT1gAcTqpdBnMmW0V2S5zi6Fu6-pfXl-8xb3uYIU2-L23FIG5ZqrZCuMEJzJyNpuSqij2tfkFZHGCskDYL0Ao/s320/Isle+of+Man+Passport.jpg" width="228" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The </span><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Isle of Man</span></place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> also has its own constitution, mints its own coins and produces its own postage stamps. Indeed the island enjoys full self-government in respect of all internal domestic matters, leaving foreign relations and defence as the responsibility of the British Crown.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Certainly, there are two areas that </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> could emulate from the Isle of Man. One is the issue of its own postage stamps where every letter and postcard sent overseas would promote </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s identity throughout the world. Secondly, </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> could issue its own car number plates. Indeed, Manx car number plates are fairly distinctive and capitalise on the island’s Celtic heritage, promoting the country not only to its own people, but also to the other countries of the </span><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">British Isles</span></place><span style="font-family: Arial;">. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Of course, it could be argued that the reason the Isle of Man enjoys such autonomy is that it is not technically a part of the United Kingdom and it's constitutional status is therefore different to that of Scotland. Yet, there is already a precedent for one part of the </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">United Kingdom</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> itself issuing car number plates separately from the rest of the </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">UK</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">: </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Northern Ireland</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Indeed, not only does </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Northern Ireland</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> issue its own car registration plates, it also operates its own version of the DVLA: the DVLNI. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> needs to look distinct from </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Distinctive road signs and car number plates are one way to do this. At present, a tourist on a bus who slept past the “Welcome to Scotland” sign would barely know they were no longer in England when they woke up. The cars number plates would look the same and the road signs would look the same. Bilingual English / Gaelic signs would go a long way to addressing this. Of course the Unionists, like the broken record that they are, will predictably argue about the cost issue. Yet it could be legislated that there need not be a Scotland-wide wholesale replacement of existing road signs. Rather, that every new, or replacement sign be bilingual. Exceptions could be made for Orkney and Shetland, of course, where bilingual English / Norn (Old Norse) signs may be more appropriate.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Of course any attempt to make </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> a little more Scottish will meet with opposition from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Unionists who fear that it threatens their sense of British-ness. They will always complain about money being spent to promote Scottish identity. Indeed, cast your memory back to the building of the Scottish Parliament and the very same naysayers were there day-in-day-out complaining about the costs. For many at the time, even the building of a garden shed would have been deemed too expensive and unnecessary. Yet one simply has to look at the architectural magnificence of </span><city><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Westminster</span></place></city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> to realise that it cannot have been cheap to build. Nor, for that matter, was </span><city><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">London</span></place></city><span style="font-family: Arial;">’s new Wembley Stadium, or it’s Olympic stadium.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Only statehood can renew the pride of the Scottish people and, if </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> is serious in wanting to bring this about, then it needs to start acting like it was a state of its own already and stop begging for scraps from the table of it’s masters in </span><country-region><place><span style="font-family: Arial;">England</span></place></country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. </span></div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-51158635743210365342011-01-06T13:58:00.002+00:002011-02-18T12:16:40.988+00:00A Scottish Internet Domain Name<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiazChL0y58eJAaAlttVLyIuw4r5MIUKo4k8no2pwy_DFqhuhOO7qmq5akH7lHfIoKUG5Hp5kTHKrOFuqnGTSDLaIxk2mstvv2q4BvcvelDH20VSQpaUs_CHO0SkvG6KyxsLpgnLSAHl6CS/s1600/Domain+Names.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="210" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiazChL0y58eJAaAlttVLyIuw4r5MIUKo4k8no2pwy_DFqhuhOO7qmq5akH7lHfIoKUG5Hp5kTHKrOFuqnGTSDLaIxk2mstvv2q4BvcvelDH20VSQpaUs_CHO0SkvG6KyxsLpgnLSAHl6CS/s320/Domain+Names.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is currently a movement in support of Scotland attaining its own internet domain name (<a href="http://www.dotsco.org/">http://www.dotsco.org/</a>). Scotland, of course needs its own domain code. Yet it needs to have a proper two-letter country code. This is the standard and is referred to as a Country Code Top-Level Domain. If a domain code has any more than two letters, then it is not a Country Code Top-Level Domain, but a <em>Special Interest Domain</em>. </span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Catalan people have settled on .cat, which is classified as a Sponsored Top-Level Domain. This is, in essence, a special interest domain and is neither nationally nor territorially assigned. As such, .cat is a code for the Catalan language and culture rather than a code for Catalonia itself. It resides amongst other un-prestigious codes such as the hotel and travel industry (.travel), museums (.museums) and the air transport industry (.aero).</span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Unfortunately it seems that Scotland is heading down the .sco or .scot route. Personally I feel this would be a mistake as it would relegate Scotland’s status on the internet to being little more than a special interest group. Even the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey have their own internet country codes (.im,.gg and .je respectively) and there is no reason for Scotland to settle for anything less. </span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If Scotland were to go down the road of accepting either .sco or .scot, simply because they were easier to attain than an actual country code, it would be the equivalent of ignoring the old adage that if you buy cheap then you buy twice. For, when Scotland does attain its independence it is going to have to choose its own proper country domain code, lest it forever be associated with the likes of hotels and museums.</span></div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-76531260318894260232010-09-06T23:19:00.017+00:002014-03-16T16:35:30.958+00:00The Cost of Scotland Not Being Independent<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig5N6kX-oTMJqbkv8wPmZf50sNRczcz6BTG9b8utbgZHBcits75Ne_qkGTvyhCT5T848VxyPh3WTwT-pCJPWQMeCks1Zxc7fptN9urFkcs0Mwyt67y6GghTdCuR7d0UL7ccValcLSPq1G7/s1600/colgate_jpg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig5N6kX-oTMJqbkv8wPmZf50sNRczcz6BTG9b8utbgZHBcits75Ne_qkGTvyhCT5T848VxyPh3WTwT-pCJPWQMeCks1Zxc7fptN9urFkcs0Mwyt67y6GghTdCuR7d0UL7ccValcLSPq1G7/s320/colgate_jpg.jpg" ox="true" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Unionists have
often argued against Scottish independence on the grounds that businesses
would pull out of </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland,</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> damaging it's economy and resulting in a loss of jobs. Yet this
argument is deeply flawed as the reality is that, with independence, many companies
would actually<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em><span style="font-style: normal;">choose</span></em><em> </em>to have representation in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Scotland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> as it would be a sovereign nation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are a number of legal, financial, marketing, distribution and logistical
reasons for this, but ultimately, the main reason that multi-national companies
choose to have direct representation in those sovereign nations that they sell in, is
to better market the products and services they provide. </span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A case in point would be Ireland. Look closely at the labelling on most household products and you will see not only the UK (in most cases English) contact information, but also the contact details for the Irish market. The people based at these addresses are real employees and Ireland’s gain in terms of being independent translates into real jobs. Scotland, as a constituent member of the UK, has effectively ceded these jobs to England. Here are just a few examples from the likes of Procter & Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser, Johnson & Johnson, Kelloggs, Colgate and GlaxoSmithKline:</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxxJEQCdpLg8FRjDr59Fk77CmWJjXnrJY912HeOhFUTSlw_3foco4HjCluz7JDpDyDQNf1c8GMjM2ZyAnhn2ChbS-7jCxq_P6wG9VBHe0IfYMn6ZVxFrcevJhyCaAsFz9lxgQSnCV0tjxp/s1600/Johnson+%2526+Johnson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxxJEQCdpLg8FRjDr59Fk77CmWJjXnrJY912HeOhFUTSlw_3foco4HjCluz7JDpDyDQNf1c8GMjM2ZyAnhn2ChbS-7jCxq_P6wG9VBHe0IfYMn6ZVxFrcevJhyCaAsFz9lxgQSnCV0tjxp/s320/Johnson+%2526+Johnson.jpg" height="171" j6="true" width="320" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL6N7CaOE6m4iPxT1g9OYmtsI3sCR1qrYKGC8XdVmYpCdIIBGQv_N6fZGC9NSMVQMFaBeCjcC5Xcf-QUE6EZ1_gp3Uau9DEIHnZEMIX7QOyAdyuNB2LzEoAJCrJKFxOTA00RJ6ua02mnVh/s1600/Colgate-Palmolive.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL6N7CaOE6m4iPxT1g9OYmtsI3sCR1qrYKGC8XdVmYpCdIIBGQv_N6fZGC9NSMVQMFaBeCjcC5Xcf-QUE6EZ1_gp3Uau9DEIHnZEMIX7QOyAdyuNB2LzEoAJCrJKFxOTA00RJ6ua02mnVh/s320/Colgate-Palmolive.jpg" ox="true" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2rMEGEhjdmxllqzWcEsBWIasWVL-nuCiI8V9S0GXD219CES1y9ccuZNc2gb7kD9a0nUYke854yAONOnrvv9moclv8H62T_9taw3139dZozGHff6wJ-wRs_4pz50Bzj8L9E8Krs9IxMgfa/s1600/Kelloggs+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2rMEGEhjdmxllqzWcEsBWIasWVL-nuCiI8V9S0GXD219CES1y9ccuZNc2gb7kD9a0nUYke854yAONOnrvv9moclv8H62T_9taw3139dZozGHff6wJ-wRs_4pz50Bzj8L9E8Krs9IxMgfa/s320/Kelloggs+2.jpg" ox="true" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinJjD4W1wzik6XnA7bRHkIV9LjmsFZPDXH_9apV4dkUzbFqwGrVb6Nt1fjGpltzpsWBLpvY5w2f9U8phFBr3ygskWZN13KqCIyScps-DFG3ooCWwbDncLH68ASe2A3tkeWgQBCFGaAJv1X/s1600/Procter+%26+Gamble.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinJjD4W1wzik6XnA7bRHkIV9LjmsFZPDXH_9apV4dkUzbFqwGrVb6Nt1fjGpltzpsWBLpvY5w2f9U8phFBr3ygskWZN13KqCIyScps-DFG3ooCWwbDncLH68ASe2A3tkeWgQBCFGaAJv1X/s320/Procter+%26+Gamble.jpg" ox="true" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhniN6gv7b9IHOPv306zq1dlJ2yRQNNcGoe9TACYR0q6IK9BfjbkVy2imYN0uKjnZ9-s8YJrrgipW7YDj8vlC4krMjwFo2TOzuuL_F7tA9vJQARrRbALyV2mTQvKA3aEq8gO2MrZw-jyxLB/s1600/Reckitt+Benckiser.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhniN6gv7b9IHOPv306zq1dlJ2yRQNNcGoe9TACYR0q6IK9BfjbkVy2imYN0uKjnZ9-s8YJrrgipW7YDj8vlC4krMjwFo2TOzuuL_F7tA9vJQARrRbALyV2mTQvKA3aEq8gO2MrZw-jyxLB/s320/Reckitt+Benckiser.jpg" ox="true" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0K-vck45NRng-VRi33BjsM4CdLfSQrjprG1Xv_uPalBIRrf-AglnVZogAM7WsjaE8SfQj0ZH_k8VgoGgP1Y3asDb5960vbB6hzdKbjoi5aVHkEynsL1PbxPvNOcYT6PhUdgZA6-t9l5NX/s1600/Sensodyne+Toothpaste.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0K-vck45NRng-VRi33BjsM4CdLfSQrjprG1Xv_uPalBIRrf-AglnVZogAM7WsjaE8SfQj0ZH_k8VgoGgP1Y3asDb5960vbB6hzdKbjoi5aVHkEynsL1PbxPvNOcYT6PhUdgZA6-t9l5NX/s320/Sensodyne+Toothpaste.jpg" ox="true" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even Northern Ireland, a constituent part of the UK, has some level of representation independent of the British market in a way that Scotland not. For example, Coca-Cola in Northern Ireland is bottled in Northern Ireland (Coca-Cola HBC Northern Ireland in Lisburn, Co. Down), whereas the Scots have to drink English-bottled</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Coke. And companies like Lidl also have representation in Northern Ireland:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaGCF_AS_iJHM0Kw03l1H5pyJHg83n0S-TTmOZWIQ6WNiSBjM6GW7F02oiwntfNa_Zqoqe_yXpga4Pl6O3jY7kpuWT7VZIyw1iufZEJBy8eas6k_lOzFpRx2Xt8UwYvnC3y7mvoaRP63t6/s1600/Lidl+Northern+Ireland.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; height: 81px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; width: 203px;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaGCF_AS_iJHM0Kw03l1H5pyJHg83n0S-TTmOZWIQ6WNiSBjM6GW7F02oiwntfNa_Zqoqe_yXpga4Pl6O3jY7kpuWT7VZIyw1iufZEJBy8eas6k_lOzFpRx2Xt8UwYvnC3y7mvoaRP63t6/s200/Lidl+Northern+Ireland.jpg" height="86" ox="true" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
</div>
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdsb7vcb2gDivchOMdR77Yf1KVHmiiU7DvR2FicRp_YFb-buT1ZbwFWhsDhAIoQuM-nlsXBYCVZl_ahq45OH0vVsXTkPtAF6h206FZrLb6NhB7iyB3X9CmfEWdx-8ap8xWqcFRhw3s5m23/s1600/Coke+Bottle+Northern+Ireland.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: right; float: left; height: 177px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; width: 182px;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdsb7vcb2gDivchOMdR77Yf1KVHmiiU7DvR2FicRp_YFb-buT1ZbwFWhsDhAIoQuM-nlsXBYCVZl_ahq45OH0vVsXTkPtAF6h206FZrLb6NhB7iyB3X9CmfEWdx-8ap8xWqcFRhw3s5m23/s200/Coke+Bottle+Northern+Ireland.jpg" height="193" j6="true" width="200" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Of course these are examples of multi-nationals, but what about the indigenous industries in Scotland? The sad fact is that Scotland’s place at the heart of the Union has seen its manufacturing industry decimated. When was the last time you saw any household product that said “Made in Scotland” on it. And for those few products that <em>are </em>actually made in Scotland (with the notable exception of Whisky), companies have a nasty habit of labelling them as “Made in Great Britain”, rather than Scotland. One example is Crabbies, who make a rather excellent alcoholic ginger beer. Sadly however, they show no pride in having being produced in Scotland:</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSgFhsTns4XRw_tU0aL6cO1dzaXQG9Yql1EzORlAM5H-b14sgx9htycf_bgqIbwKyIQcbhMg5pEY9W4ssVyH_AaqgTL1VztuJzjgL3YZvMLg8yhkcmYPZ9oWd8eGIfKfExrgpGO6vHYv_x/s1600/Crabbies+Front.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSgFhsTns4XRw_tU0aL6cO1dzaXQG9Yql1EzORlAM5H-b14sgx9htycf_bgqIbwKyIQcbhMg5pEY9W4ssVyH_AaqgTL1VztuJzjgL3YZvMLg8yhkcmYPZ9oWd8eGIfKfExrgpGO6vHYv_x/s320/Crabbies+Front.jpg" ox="true" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY98zk5edh1Z6UjEwSSZ4hj30XDhL0ujcqd4EVyd9_EkBwPy384pCRLlyL-XlupeCGhW5-IrIP1kB-YoOX7sY-r3MH7UFtskC9d-DnTQwgEJM7zI2G5CUkz95FthyVGxcOnprLiA3PoMAs/s1600/Crabbies+Back.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY98zk5edh1Z6UjEwSSZ4hj30XDhL0ujcqd4EVyd9_EkBwPy384pCRLlyL-XlupeCGhW5-IrIP1kB-YoOX7sY-r3MH7UFtskC9d-DnTQwgEJM7zI2G5CUkz95FthyVGxcOnprLiA3PoMAs/s320/Crabbies+Back.jpg" ox="true" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, if you were to ask companies like this why they don’t market themselves as being Scottish-made, they will no doubt tell you that they are trying to appeal to a wider market. In essence, they believe that people will not buy their products if they say that they were made in Scotland. This is absolute nonsense. After all, the Chinese manage to sell their goods to the English extremely well without a “Made in Great Britain” stamp on them. </span><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The irony is that “Scottish”, as a marketing brand, actually sells extremely well. It conjures up romantic images in a way that “British" does not. The Scottish Whisky industry knows this only too well. After all, “British Whisky” sounds pretty unappealing in much the same way as British Wine does. The simple fact is that “British”, as a marketing brand, in not in any way romantic. Yet “English” or “Scottish”, as marketing terms, <em>are</em> romantic. You don’t hear of British Lakeland poets, for example. Think of Scottish Cheddar and it conjures up an image of something that is pure and clean. Likewise, think of English Cheddar and you’re probably imagining the beautiful Cheddar Gorge, where the cheese originated. Yet, call it “British Cheddar” and before you know it you’re thinking of some mechanically-produced cheese from an industrial estate outside Milton Keynes. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“British”, as a marketing brand is for many people associated with failed industries from another time: car companies that no longer exist, ships that are now built by the Koreans, household products that are now manufactured by the Chinese and electronics that are made by the Japanese. “British” conjures up an image that is out-dated and unreliable. And if you’re looking for one company that embodies all of this, then think of British Leyland. And who are they, you might ask? Who indeed.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-9543641780710318052009-07-12T16:07:00.001+00:002011-05-17T19:32:18.083+00:00The Language of New Labour and the Scottish Parliament<div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDXHBvr2Y-JpjjQdMoKmrnfBPkaXHlCaqHYPF454fRqFdv16Mz-RqMKHdoyYP8fXJGbWoe38WKigmGUnsYQUupojOpa6yTTQEIAwE912mBsi0JweE-F4JNYCQjy6NLby7gvcMVEdpGFaHF/s1600-h/Scottish+Parliament.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357627265278008546" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDXHBvr2Y-JpjjQdMoKmrnfBPkaXHlCaqHYPF454fRqFdv16Mz-RqMKHdoyYP8fXJGbWoe38WKigmGUnsYQUupojOpa6yTTQEIAwE912mBsi0JweE-F4JNYCQjy6NLby7gvcMVEdpGFaHF/s200/Scottish+Parliament.jpg" style="cursor: hand; display: block; height: 133px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 200px;" /></a><span style="font-family: arial;">The Scottish parliament was never set up to reward Scotland for its 300 years of loyal service to the union, or to ensure that survival of Scottish identity in the 21st century. Rather, it was created with one clear purpose in mind: to kill Scottish nationalism stone dead. Yet the creation of a new Scottish parliament had to be done in such a way that it did not actually fan the flames of nationalism. Careful use of language in the new parliament had to be employed in order to ensure that the Scots did not get any ideas above their station.<br />
<br />
There is a saying that a picture can paint a thousand words. Yet a word can paint a thousand pictures. Indeed, listen to any motivational speaker and they will all stress the importance of language in the framing of the mindset. This is why Labour employs terms like divorce and separation to scare people away from thoughts of independence (which linguistically is a positive term).<br />
<br />
With regard to the creation of the parliament itself, Labour essentially renamed three key elements. Firstly there was the act of creating the parliament itself. Historically, this had always been known as <em>Home Rule</em>, yet this was ditched in favour of the considerably more obscure term, <em>Devolution</em>. The trouble was that Home Rule, as a term, would have likely been seen as a one-off event, with the potential danger that the Scots may have felt somewhat short-changed with the end result. Devolution, however, can be sold as a process and, as such, it gives the UK a comfort blanket – something to hide behind, because a process is forever ongoing and no eventual conclusion need ever be reached or even stated.<br />
<br />
Secondly, the term <em>Executive</em> was employed instead of <em>Government</em>. There was a fear that by calling the Parliament’s governing body a Government, this would undermine the authority and status of the UK Government. In reality, what this did was to confuse people, with many unable to distinguish between the Scottish Parliament and its governing body. Thankfully, the SNP administration has now ditched the term <em>Executive</em> in favour of the term <em>Government</em>, ending a great deal of the confusion.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, the term <em>First Minister</em> was used rather than the term <em>Prime Minister</em>. This is despite the fact that, from the years 1921 to 1972, there were actually two prime Ministers in the UK. One was the Prime Minister of the UK Government, the other was the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and people at that time seemed perfectly able to distinguish between the two. Sadly, because of Labour's insistence on using the term <em>First Minister</em>, historians now have to refer to Donald Dewar as being Scotland’s First First Minister, something that sounds like poor grammar.</span> </div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-39215061107378411932009-07-12T13:26:00.001+00:002016-08-24T14:14:31.688+00:00The Semantics of Being British<div align="justify">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirP2tzdf0NaY61FeAqlQcAfK7LFYnzqbUhMJjxD40r-M7TXAgmoRy9Me-a6QqeD-BTHP1lGvRTu8QwK1k92ZVMHmFCTTtIdpwBCKyVpBqgPzLNy6W8KbdJsAwZatd4OdUGOtavct5PLhW8/s1600-h/Language+Investigator.bmp"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357592169784308594" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirP2tzdf0NaY61FeAqlQcAfK7LFYnzqbUhMJjxD40r-M7TXAgmoRy9Me-a6QqeD-BTHP1lGvRTu8QwK1k92ZVMHmFCTTtIdpwBCKyVpBqgPzLNy6W8KbdJsAwZatd4OdUGOtavct5PLhW8/s200/Language+Investigator.bmp" style="cursor: hand; display: block; height: 200px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 176px;" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 85%;"><em>The ambiguity of terms such as “Down South”, “The Country as a Whole” and “This Country” serve only to reiterate the notion that Scotland is not a nation in itself.</em></span><br />
<br />
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Since the Union was created, the Scots have, at least until recently, been willing to play the British game. The English however have just never played ball. When the Scots talk about “down South” they mean England, even though “down South” should mean Dumfries, Gretna, Galashiels or any southern Scottish town or region. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">The English don’t refer to France as “down South”, just as the Irish don’t refer to England as “over East”. Moreover, when the English talk about “up North” they mean no further than Carlisle!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";">
<br />
The Scots would dutifully fill in “British” when asked their nationality on an official form, whilst their English counterpart would often tend to put “English” - not because they were making any kind of political statement, but because they really didn’t see any difference. Thus, when the Beatles sung about how “the English Army had just won the war” in <em>A Day in the Life</em>, they were not talking about any war prior to 1707. It was simply that, for so many people in England, “English” and “British” are interchangeable terms. Hence, they’ll order “English” food abroad, complain about how much it costs them to change “English” money and how the “English” weather is so terrible. The Scots, however, will say they’re from Scotland to anyone who asks, but will thereafter refer to everything “back home” as British.<br />
<br />
The terminology that Scots themselves use reinforces their sense of being little more than a region. Aside from their misuse of expressions like “down South”, they use terms such as "national", "the nation", "the country" and “the country as a whole” to signify the UK. Perhaps a new low was hit by Ford Kiernan and Greg Hemphill on their show <em>Still Game </em>when, in a spoof television weather report, the reporter talked of “Scots throughout the country” rather than actually just saying Scotland. It was highly symbolic of just how ingrained the idea of Scotland as an inextricable part of Britain is for many people. This aside, it is interesting to note that the name Britain historically never actually referred to the island as a whole. Rather, Britannia was the name given by the Romans to what is today known as England and Wales*. Scotland, however, was called Caledonia and deemed to be separate.<br />
<br />
<em><span style="font-size: 78%;">* Modern day England and Wales were once inhabited by a Celtic people know as the Britons. They were the ancestors of the people known today as the Welsh. When the Anglo-Saxons (the ancestors of today’s English) arrived in Britain from northern Germany, they drove the native Britons westwards to what is now Wales and Cornwall. The name “Wales” actually comes from “Wealas”, the Old English word for foreigners, as the native Welsh were indeed foreign to the invading English. Other Celtic Britons fled to France, forming the region known as Brittany. It is for this reason that the language of Brittany, Breton, is so closely related to Welsh and Cornish. </span></em></span></div>
</div>
This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-16339641895755067962009-07-11T17:14:00.002+00:002011-06-22T19:46:34.495+00:00Scotland: Creating the Hobby Country<div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgemOxJ-i8dXOKu84e3-zQtAFXfDl7uZwHxywm6tCJSWaJmsFDK7vaVMcmNRSH5Dw3RRIDTkptFp9Es8n4SidWV4OzoXtbnmC9-I5ofMDGxa1nIhe_6b440Zo21UGetdg871ISXpcC1qilI/s1600-h/Scotland+Jigsaw.bmp"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357264443952943938" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgemOxJ-i8dXOKu84e3-zQtAFXfDl7uZwHxywm6tCJSWaJmsFDK7vaVMcmNRSH5Dw3RRIDTkptFp9Es8n4SidWV4OzoXtbnmC9-I5ofMDGxa1nIhe_6b440Zo21UGetdg871ISXpcC1qilI/s320/Scotland+Jigsaw.bmp" style="cursor: hand; display: block; height: 220px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 147px;" /></a><br />
<span style="font-family: arial;">Let’s face it, the Scotland you know today is little more than a hobby country. You wear a kilt at a wedding, you toast the Bard on Burns Night and you cheer on the team in the Six Nations. And that’s about it. Scotland doesn’t participate on the world stage because it can’t. It has no seat on the UN and its flag is not internationally recognised. The Saint Andrews Cross is actually only recognised internationally as a nautical flag (meaning “my vessel has stopped” - somewhat appropriate when you consider the state of Scotland's nationhood after 1707). Yet Scotland’s journey from being one of the oldest countries in the world to being that of a British region has a long history. It all started with that age-old tactic of divide and rule… </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: arial;"><strong>Divide and Rul<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPJCsKs5lggXO6KD9NQ2R7z-E8zhHxrgXPDDKfB9rLbFxa-SxG5W-K0xQ32QWEhVzq7nz6KgwXQ9fu0SrSz4XeL3j1xkbfobJOZyngxbVfpTxjhl43UHSr133bKYIBfMMNG4qEKT2hg2Ff/s1600-h/Redcoats.bmp"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357267864856782866" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPJCsKs5lggXO6KD9NQ2R7z-E8zhHxrgXPDDKfB9rLbFxa-SxG5W-K0xQ32QWEhVzq7nz6KgwXQ9fu0SrSz4XeL3j1xkbfobJOZyngxbVfpTxjhl43UHSr133bKYIBfMMNG4qEKT2hg2Ff/s200/Redcoats.bmp" style="cursor: hand; float: left; height: 156px; margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; width: 169px;" /></a>e</strong><br />
You would think that most countries would envy Scotland, bestowed as it is with misty mountains, loch-side castles and world famous whiskies. Scotland is a land steeped with a rich heritage and culture, and gifted with its own indigenous languages and traditions. Yet for centuries, Scotland’s very existence was under threat from an England hell bent on claiming the island for itself. Scotland, however, was a hard nation to conquer and, as a result, England resorted to one of the oldest military strategies known to man: divide and rule. In essence, turn the natives against each other.<br />
<br />
The primary focus of this strategy stemmed on creating a Highland / Lowland fault line in Scotland. It was a manufactured split, but one which would work to great effect. Indeed, testament to the success of the strategy lies in the fact that, even today, Lowland Scotland is often distinguished from Highland Scotland as being a linguistically and culturally separate entity.<br />
<br />
<strong>Attacking the Language and culture</strong><br />
Essentially, England focused its attentions on embracing the Southern Lowlanders as being their cultured and civilised brethren whilst castigating those in the Highlands as barbarous. And, by the start of the 15th Century, the distinction between Lowlander and Highlander appears to have become firmly established. By the 16th century, Lowland Scots had even started to refer to Gaelic as “Erse” (meaning “Irish”), even though Scots Gaelic as a language actually pre-dated the existence of Scotland itself! In reality, Scots Gaelic was not a Highland language but was in fact spoken throughout Scotland from Thurso in the North to the Rhins of Galloway in the far South. Indeed, in Galloway, there was even a very distinct variety, known as Galwegian Gaelic.<br />
<br />
Next, it was the turn of the Scots language to face the firing squad. The particular method of attack was to downgrade its status to that of a dialect. Yet Scots is not just a dialect, but a language. It is branched off from early Middle English around the mid-14th Century in a similar fashion to the way that English branched off from German, or Norwegian evolved from Danish. Indeed, to say that Scots is a dialect of English would be the equivalent of saying that Norwegian is just a dialect of Danish, a statement that would undoubtedly be received poorly in Norway, to say the least. Yet, regardless of this, the Scots language was nonetheless demoted in status - a factor that ensured that the writing and speaking of Scots could be belittled as simply poor English grammar.<br />
<br />
As usual, there was no shortage of spineless Scots eager to out-do each other with just how much they disdained their Scottish-ness. And, one by one, prolific Scottish writers in the 18th Century started to turn away from the use of Scots words (or “Scotticisms” as they were disdainfully referred to at the time) in their work. Indeed, renowned Scottish philospher, economist and historian David Hume even went so far as to publish a list of “Scotticisms” to be avoided in the Scots Magazine in 1760.<br />
<br />
Yet language was not the only element of Scottish culture under attack. After the last Jacobite Rising ended in 1746, the Hanoverian government tried to obliterate all Highland Scottish culture and, a year later, the playing of the bagpipes in Scotland was banned by an Act of Parliament. Furthermore, the wearing of tartan and carrying of weapons were also forbidden. Coupled with this was the fact that, from the mid-18th to early 19th Century, Highlanders were cleared from their lands to make way for sheep.<br />
<br />
<strong>The final nails in the coffin of Scottish nationhood</strong><br />
As the 18th century progressed, more and more lowland Scots, eager to embrace their new lords and masters since the Acts of Union, continued to turn their back not just on “Highland” culture, but on Scottish culture itself. With Scots Gaelic dismissed as Irish, Lowland Gaelic all but defunct, the Scots language dismissed as little more than bad grammar, “Lowlander” turned against “Highlander” and Scots customs either banned or ridiculed, it was pretty much game over for Scottish nation. Modern day writers and historians have often argued, through the likes of “Kailyard” Myths, the Kirk (Church of Scotland) and the continued existence of Scots Law, that Scotland retained key elements of nationhood after 1707. Yet, in reality, by the end of the early 19th Century, with the end of the Napoleonic Wars with France, the notion of a Scottish national identity distinct from that of England was almost laughable.<br />
<br />
It would not be unreasonable to assume that it was the Highlands that lost most in terms of culture over the centuries, given that it was so often the primary focus of attack. Yet, in reality, it was the Lowlands that lost more. It had sold everything for the promise of English gold. It has lost its culture and its languages. And it has now lost everything that it traded these for in the first place: its place as the workshop of the world.<br />
<br />
The Empire is long over and with it, the industries that lowland Scotland so depended on. Scotland’s biggest city Glasgow, once the so-called 2nd City of the Empire after London, no longer builds ships. Nor does it serve as a trading port of any importance. Rather, its people answer phones. And this is not because Glaswegians have an aptitude for this, or because they have “classless” accents, as is so often the reason given for the prevalence of call centres in these parts. Rather it is because they are a seen as a cheap source of labour compared with England. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial;"><br />
<strong>Scotland today: the hobby country</strong><br />
There is a scene in the film Four Weddings And A Funeral when the character Gareth walks into the wedding reception, witnesses a ceilidh and shouts: “It's Brigadoon! It's Bloody Brigadoon!”. A harmless bit of humour perhaps, but indicative of the way that Scottish culture has come to be viewed in the UK. The so-called “Tartan / Shortbread” image, whilst endearing to so many people elsewhere throughout the world, is actually viewed by the Scots to be something of an embarrassment. The years of ridicule have taken their toll and Scotland today can sometimes resemble little more than a “hobby” country. It’s a place where people will wear a kilt at a wedding, pour a dram for the bard and cheer on their team when it plays the “auld enemy”. Yet, once the 90 minute game is over, they soon revert back to being unquestioning subservient Brits they’ve been for the last 300 years. </span></div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-22892734501831261752009-07-11T16:51:00.001+00:002014-03-16T18:00:01.756+00:00The Absorption of Scotland into a Greater England<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOwh9e_Nc6ubpsIPJtOG8h7GbPynMxPr0kZ5ETT5KIG7OhI6vrUVY6Ct2N_-VXNmjaYdeHWWQLbKKjC9_1L_1SWKPAAEsbcJWr9hx50dWmjg-JSBPeZiCEPkXgmz4NUKxDXDykmYO06PQY/s1600-h/Rule+Britannia+Picture.bmp"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOwh9e_Nc6ubpsIPJtOG8h7GbPynMxPr0kZ5ETT5KIG7OhI6vrUVY6Ct2N_-VXNmjaYdeHWWQLbKKjC9_1L_1SWKPAAEsbcJWr9hx50dWmjg-JSBPeZiCEPkXgmz4NUKxDXDykmYO06PQY/s200/Rule+Britannia+Picture.bmp" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357248476282799026" style="cursor: hand; display: block; height: 200px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 175px;" /></a><span style="font-family: arial;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Virtually every article you read on The Acts (and subsequent Treaty) of Union will talk of the fact that both the Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of England were dissolved and replaced with a new Parliament of Great Britain. In reality, however, England never actually abolished its parliament, it just absorbed Scotland’s. The “New” Parliament just happened to based at Westminster, somewhat conveniently the “former” home of the English Parliament.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The fact is that the Westminster you see today is the same parliament that started life in 1097, over 600 years before the Acts of Union. Furthermore, its traditions and procedures stem from before the Acts of Union. For example, the tradition that each sitting of the house begins with prayers can be traced back as long ago as 1558. The position of “Black Rod”, the usher who summons the House of Commons to the State opening of Parliament, stems from as far back as 1522, although the office itself dates back even further to 1350.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Indeed, if one thing truly highlights the case that this was, and remains, an English Parliament, it is that when the “new” parliament came into being in May 1707, with the addition of Scottish MPs, <i>it was not even considered necessary to hold a new general election</i>. It simply continued on as if nothing had changed.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Former Foreign Secretary, the late Robin Cook (a Scot, apparently) in a key speech to the Social Market Foundation in London in April 2001, talked of Britain having a thousand years of history. Other politicians, political parties and historians, including the UK Independence Party and highly respected and prominent historian Simon Sharma, have also talked of Britain having “a thousand years of history”. Yet Britain has only 300 years of history (or, at the very most, 404 years, if you consider the Union of Crowns in 1603 to be a more pivotal point).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is not hard to understand the confusion, when you realise that the Union was only ever seen as a Greater England. The United Kingdom’s central bank is still called The Bank of England and treaties with other states are prefixed “Anglo” (Anglo-Irish, Anglo-French etc) even though this clearly means “English”. Either way, as the English would say, it’s just not cricket.</span></div>
This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-68887378720775695922009-07-11T16:39:00.000+00:002009-07-11T17:03:27.184+00:00The “Marriage” of Scotland and England<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJVXzis-70TjbV_hXDYqr6kOI3scuynwOpnOl6zXA3aTXrf9UTj-blVqePeCIbgJLcG4EtjWnPsg4sPoUYQJBjU-YDmHvUcJ_x-G3DpuZdhzO9CcKt8vfoYxdBVDPzz15qhjQkbd4Njjx5/s1600-h/Ball+%26+Chain.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357244540889321314" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 196px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJVXzis-70TjbV_hXDYqr6kOI3scuynwOpnOl6zXA3aTXrf9UTj-blVqePeCIbgJLcG4EtjWnPsg4sPoUYQJBjU-YDmHvUcJ_x-G3DpuZdhzO9CcKt8vfoYxdBVDPzz15qhjQkbd4Njjx5/s200/Ball+%26+Chain.bmp" border="0" /></a><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">Terms like divorce and separation often used by the tabloid media in Scotland to scare people away from the idea of independence. They are used because they are perceived to be negative conations, yet in reality they are highly misleading. Their usage implies that the Union with England equates to something akin to a marriage. Yet the concept of marriage generally implies an equal partnership, something that Scotland with a population of only 5 million could hardly boast when saddled with a neighbour ten times its size in population terms. Furthermore, whilst the percentage of Scots living in England stands at under 2% (according to the last census), the English-born population in Scotland is nearly 10% and rising. That’s a sizeable proportion of the population in Scotland who would vote against Scottish independence, regardless of any coherent argument put in its favour.</span> </div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-53719122579576040412009-07-11T16:24:00.000+00:002009-07-11T17:05:44.512+00:00The Tabloid Arguments Against Independence<div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6niB6ePdVLNxDEoctCKHNuhChrduXz2hH7lJTanUB6wTMZCr5eYOG59Z7uslAPHJQr1kw0R1f-xuzsoyx2GXJ7fVFrKeFPf9aZjGKXTAzzU-Sj31NfPm2fTzjheEHTCEE_yFuxs5lxVhg/s1600-h/EastEnders.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357240077434628466" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 268px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 192px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6niB6ePdVLNxDEoctCKHNuhChrduXz2hH7lJTanUB6wTMZCr5eYOG59Z7uslAPHJQr1kw0R1f-xuzsoyx2GXJ7fVFrKeFPf9aZjGKXTAzzU-Sj31NfPm2fTzjheEHTCEE_yFuxs5lxVhg/s320/EastEnders.bmp" border="0" /></a><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">Leaving aside the tired old argument about the economy, as regards the issue of Scottish Independence, there are those who express fears over some of the more basic aspects of life. Whether they are of a social or vocational nature, or are concerns over current leisure pursuits such as watching television, they are the sort of arguments you might hear in the pub, or in the letters page of the Daily Record. Here are just a few:<br /><br /><strong>I would never support Scottish independence - I have friends and/or family in England.<br /></div></strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><em><span style="font-size:85%;">Applying this logic, it would therefore surely be absurd to have friends or family in Canada, or Ireland, or Denmark, or France, or Australia or indeed anywhere outside of the UK. There are huge numbers of people from the Republic of Ireland living in England and plenty of English people living in Ireland. Yet Ireland has been independent since the early 20th Century. Likewise there are huge numbers of Canadians living in the United States and vice-versa, yet the two remain separate countries. There are equally large numbers of New Zealanders living in Australia and vice versa. Furthermore, it has been estimated that up to 2% of New Zealand citizens are resident in the United Kingdom at any one time, yet the two states remain sovereign and independent of each other.</span></em> </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>My son works for the passport office (or the Civil Service), surely he would lose his job?</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><em><span style="font-size:85%;">Scotland, like all other independent countries, would have its own passport office and civil service.</span></em> </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>I watch EastEnders. They wouldn’t show that on TV here if Scotland gained independence.</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;"><em>People in Dublin watch EastEnders. In fact, EastEnders is aired around the world in many English-speaking countries, including New Zealand, Australia and Canada. It is also shown throughout Europe, Africa and Asia. Furthermore, wih the age of digital television truly upon us, the idea that your viewing pleasure would be in any way seriously affected is highly unlikely.</em></span> </div>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780612527434745648.post-81148643994517909142009-07-10T15:36:00.001+00:002009-07-10T15:55:17.306+00:00Britain’s Leaders on the subject of Scottish Independence<div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjKSkdtSOW3OnuI8RwfK2WLUwARpv7O3oWaeSv-i1YRuOAHfyskHkV0EAR0w0WsqqXCyfXho2Ep_x0HSzFmU-JD3gMGU6VCXGgJEGuLbmj04ULEttn8MfMthsHLpMqiiPPniDXrSuLNwlp/s1600-h/Gordon+Brown+1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5356857654438423810" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 144px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjKSkdtSOW3OnuI8RwfK2WLUwARpv7O3oWaeSv-i1YRuOAHfyskHkV0EAR0w0WsqqXCyfXho2Ep_x0HSzFmU-JD3gMGU6VCXGgJEGuLbmj04ULEttn8MfMthsHLpMqiiPPniDXrSuLNwlp/s200/Gordon+Brown+1.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">Prime Minister Gordon Brown has warned that everyone in the United Kingdom would suffer economically and culturally if Scotland voted for independence, arguing that the economic futures of Scotland and the rest of the UK are inextricably linked. Well that’ll be lucky for us then, as the UK sinks deeper and deeper into recession. Gordon Brown, of course, is the man that promised us no more boom and bust. We might now be bust, but, to be fair to old-man Brown, he certainly ensured that we here in Scotland never did see a boom, as thankfully our oil revenues have continued to line the pockets of those in London - something they have done since the 1970s.</span><br /></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><p align="justify"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5356857062388028066" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 145px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 212px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxoJSMi20J-9DYXdx7KYj3Vvr130HjKN2vn3GJm9qphqp0W_gYrx2Tz3TGbPgLbsIyXnPC6fLT7G5A7A3Nks6pI_RbwN-FtI17ra1_Ui_HZvJolqmL3WevrCoZgF24pyUrwuZkkINA3gSz/s200/Tony+Blair.bmp" border="0" /><span style="font-family:arial;">Former Prime Minister, Tony Blair has previously said that "Independence would be a disaster for Scotland because it would wreck its economy”. In keeping with Unionist tradition, Mystic Tony gave no date or time-frame for this period of economic woe. Unless he meant that Scotland’s economy would be permanently wrecked, in which case his powers are greater than previously thought: he can see till the end of time. His lucky numbers for this week are 19 and 28 and Tony believes that a chance encounter with a stranger could bring good fortune. Known to be an admirer of Thatcher, Blair once echoed her opinion on Scottish Independence when, on 16th January 2007, he described Scottish Independence as “Crazy”. So there you have it: the Scots are too stupid and crazy to run their own country. You’ve been told!</span><br /></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></p><br /><br /><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaagxD1GIUE1NP94ujbiGFfxBDv3ORraMuP-kbiIRlW76mUjdUOW7Ihg3EUVoX1BMHHRpo7deUHNAq_B6P_kcVSb5KkffyzqQWXfn2R2swibRv2NOGPOFz0JhHUIvbcr8BUrdtk8cVbJdV/s1600-h/Margaret+Thatcher.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5356858092321786146" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 147px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 179px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaagxD1GIUE1NP94ujbiGFfxBDv3ORraMuP-kbiIRlW76mUjdUOW7Ihg3EUVoX1BMHHRpo7deUHNAq_B6P_kcVSb5KkffyzqQWXfn2R2swibRv2NOGPOFz0JhHUIvbcr8BUrdtk8cVbJdV/s200/Margaret+Thatcher.bmp" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">Pro-Union and no friend of Scotland, Margaret Thatcher described Scottish independence as "stupid". With the discovery of North Sea Oil in the 1970s, Scots had the perfect opportunity to stand on their own two feet, yet when push came to shove they were too spineless to leave the Union. As a consequence of this, they were rewarded with Margaret Thatcher and 18 years of continuous Tory rule. During this period, Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom were taken on a “boom and bust” economic rollercoaster ride. Other highlights of the time included the risking of life and limb to Scottish soldiers to protect some colonial sheep farmers off the coast of Argentina from the horrors of having to accept an Argentinean Passport. And then of course, there was the Poll Tax. Rule Britannia!</span></div><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5wTY1zuXjAmldLlvNMUs0MB7uwJqTLPB45EUG6Ybo0Ff1y1qK2ct95ArGEh7HqKgbzaRiDSdzGHCOBAfld-a_ekW4GM106OrL4rYrFn4aK2HPjD10NndMWLouRYfgXwKYrqbVcoI-YHjP/s1600-h/Ken+Livingston.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5356858853896023026" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 144px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 181px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5wTY1zuXjAmldLlvNMUs0MB7uwJqTLPB45EUG6Ybo0Ff1y1qK2ct95ArGEh7HqKgbzaRiDSdzGHCOBAfld-a_ekW4GM106OrL4rYrFn4aK2HPjD10NndMWLouRYfgXwKYrqbVcoI-YHjP/s200/Ken+Livingston.bmp" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">Whilst Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone claimed that London was subsidising Scotland. And was this before, or after you’ve taken into account the oil revenues that Scotland has provided you and your city since the 1970s, Mr Livingstone?</span><br /><br /><br /><br /></div><p></p>This Scotlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15582615038930733064noreply@blogger.com0