The issue of Scottish Restitution is arguably the ONLY issue in Scotland. Resolve this issue and everything else is solved. I am not saying the issues will resolve themselves automatically, they won’t, and I am not saying it won’t be very difficult, it will; bloody difficult. But ….
How did we get into this mess anyway. Why on earth did Scotland find itself subservient to England? Never mind what Scotland wanted, what was in it for England? what did they want from Scotland that was so precious? sheep, haggis, tartan, rain, midgies? NOTHING, absolutely nothing. England had one demand, it was not what they wanted, it was WHAT THEY DID NOT WANT – A CATHOLIC MONARCH – that’s all it was, nothing else.
But where does all this come from, what is the actual problem. That is simple – the Union of Parliaments 1707. But let’s not just dismiss this as the problem without some understanding. So, I would like to set a bit of context. This will give you sufficient knowledge to dismiss any challenge to Restitution or as some say, I don’t ‘now’ say Independence. Here is the summary and a link to read up on it if you are a masochist [Union of the Parliaments]
First of all Scotland and England Union was not something that appeared in 1707. This argument had been raging and brewing for more than a century, in fact 1603. [The Union of the Crowns]
Trouble is, history is written by historians. They are like football commentators. You know, the guy who has never kicked a ball in his life yet will tell you what Renaldo is thinking in front of goal in the world cup final. Historians relate events in history like a fly on the wall. They will tell you if the Queens period is late or the Prince has a lad’s mag under his pillow. I say, just remember they were not there. They get their account from writing or documents. Imagine if history was written on the back of your last tax return? – OK, we’re there.
There were a number of antagonists, and I mean really serious antagonists. They are familiar to you, at least in concept.
First of all, King James V1 of Scotland and 1st of England. He wanted a bigger kingdom, a unified kingdom. He tried and tried and tried. Neither country was buying it. In fact this was the Union of the Crowns-2 crowns 1 head. In really terms meant very little.
Next, and extremely relevant to the James ambition, the various or rather multitude of religions. Some may even say flavours of the same pudding. The principle antagonists were the Episcopals and the Presbyterians. Don’t even try to understand where they were all at. Try reading the link about and that will … actually, no it won’t. I can imagine God look down at them thinking ‘children, play nice’ – now I am sounding like a historian. Side thought-history; his story mmmm! Basically, there was a massive power struggle between the various religions, a covert battle for supremacy. Nothing really changes! Add to that the fact that James became Catholic and the English absolutely did not want a Catholic Monarch. Was this the ghost of Henry 8th?? Sadly, there was no reality TV in these days, it would have been a hoot.
The final point may be all too familiar. Think Brexit. We have been here before? Scotland was doing just fine, sure there was a 7 year ill but everyone was in the same boat. Scotland’s main export market was the Dutch region. England was basically warring with various European nations including the Dutch. The Scottish export market was wrecked. Scotland had a business opportunity that seemed to arrive at the right time. The Darien Scheme offered a lifeline to the Scottish economic. In part due to the same issue with the Dutch market the English Navigation Act enables them to protect English shipping from piracy. However, this was a serious impact on the Darien Scheme – not the only issue with this ill conceived scheme but a factor nevertheless. The Darien Scheme had sucked a huge amount of speculation capital that vapourised. Scotland was in serious difficulty. Carpe Diem England. Spotting an opportunity to promote the Royal and Religious ambitions in Britain, Scotland was offered a great financial and trading deal with England. The clowns who naively invested in Darien, oddly received compensation, the trade deal, in a real Brexitesque manner did not materialise. The sting in the tail was the entire deal was predicated on a Scotland England deal. England promised Scotland:
ACCESS TO COLONIAL MARKETS-NEVER HAPPENED?
313 YEARS LATER THEY ARE DOING IT AGAIN! – TAKING US FOR IDIOTS
JUST ANOTHER BREXIT
Amongst the public there was absolutely NO support, enthusiasm or appetite for the Union. When it went to a vote in Scotland a large number of Commissioners saw a swelling of the bank balance and the deal went through. So popular was this Union Of Parliaments that shortly afterwards martial Law was introduced to counter objection and resistance. Funny how nothing really changes. The benefit to Scotland or England for that matter from the Union of Parliaments was … non existent?? Over the years, Scots discover their taxes and fighting men (canon fodder)were being sucked into Westminster to help fund their trademark global belligerence.
The good news was the Royals and Churches seemed to benefit from the Union. The people, as anticipated were royally shafted. Wind forward to the 20th Century and matters became worse – much much worse.
England and Westminster are really taking us for idiots. If we allow this to happen then perhaps we are idiots. Perhaps we are battered wives. Perhaps Stockholm Syndrome is our national pastime?
Section 30 of The Scotland Act 1998 mandates that Scotland must apply for leave to apply for Independence through the instrument of the ballot box in a referendum. [read it here]
Take a moment and let the statement above sink in.
This is tantamount to demanding that a person in a threatening or violent relationship who wishes to report their problem to the police must first ask their partner if it is OK to report them to the police. Don’t think about this one too long. I suspect we all know the answer and the outcome. It will end very badly.
The obvious options are:
- Challenge the whole concept and veracity of Section 30.
- Ignore Section 30 and move straight to UDI – Unilateral declaration of Independence.
- Challenge the original if not continued veracity of the Act of Union 1707.
There are also complimentary, less obvious questions which many Independent Nations were faced with not least of all ‘why would a country holding power over you oppose your independence’ or in other words, what is their interest, benefit or incentive to maintain this hegemony. There may be a question of outstanding contracts or agreement. Declaring independence may have serious impact on the dominant nation in terms of security, wealth or status for example.
Let’s take this one point at a time.
1.. Section 30
I cannot think of a nation or region or country that requested independence and it was successfully granted. Could be Scotland wants to set a precedent but we are playing with our children’s future so best be a bit more careful.
Westminster has made it abundantly clear that a section 30 would not be granted and even if it was, and that is a very big if, there is no guaranteed or automatic secession path – if I was a golf ball, I could see the long grass looming.
So, how did the section 30 come about. Basically, this is a section of The Scotland Act. It is fundamentally a legal instrument of suppression.
In 1979 we had a Devolution Referendum. The result was 52% in favour of Devolution. However, when multiplied by the turnout percentage that was not great this pushed the result down into the 30s and Scotland was deemed to have lost the referendum. Let me quickly and in very broad terms give perspective on this unprecedented electoral manipulation. In a General Election cc 22/23% of the electorate gets you a landslide. This represents about 17% of the people rather than the electorate. Multiply this by the turnout percentage and we can have a landslide victory based on about 10% of the people. This could be as low as single figure. If this was another country we would call it a dictatorship??
In 1997 the Blair Government recognised they were losing their grip on Scotland. Blair promoted another Devolution Referendum. Enoch Powell/Tony Benn commented that ‘power devolved was power retained’. This was Blair’s con. Scotland voted 75% for Devolution on a strong turnout and so the Scottish Parliament was born.
The resounding victory sent shock waves all the way to Westminster. They realised that Scotland was on a clear trajectory to Restoration of their Sovereignty, I call this Restitution rather than Independence. We were independent and we want it restored.
The following year in a blind panic, Blair introduced the Scotland Act. Section 30, yes that’s the one, basically dictates that Scotland must ask for permission to ‘apply’ for Independence.
2.. Unilateral Declaration of Independence UDI
First of all, I disagree with the term Independence. The word has connotations of isolation. Sovereignty is another common term we use, although technically the people are Sovereign. My preference is RESTITUTION- this is restoring a previous state. Jump to the final point.
No country ever anywhere applied for and achieved Independence. That said, since WW2 over 50 countries have DECLARED themselves Independent. Here is a sample of some countries achieving full independence from [Unilateral Declaration of Independence – read me]
The UK, of which we are an equal partner [not possible] is a Member State of the EU although strictly they have left and are in the process of agreeing the Withdrawal Agreement.
A key factor in UDI, although not a condition, is recognition by other nations. The EU never interfere in the internal politics of a Member State so has been unable in principal to embroil itself in Scottish Restitution. Of course, that is now changed.
There are 2 new and powerful arguments:
- The cost of Covid-19 weights heavily on England. English media, Westminster and Unionist supporters have pointed out for years that Scots are basically scroungers, dependent and living off English taxes. OK, when under such heavy financial pressures this is a good time to cut the Scots loose, get rid of the burden on England.
- The Withdrawal Agree negotiations are going very badly indeed. Michel Barnier is clearly upset about many topics of UK intimidation and intransigence. Top of that list is access to fishing and Fishing Rights. Of course 75% of the fishing grounds are Scottish, not English. This is the gift that keeps on giving. In exchange for an agreement to access our fishing grounds albeit under a sustainability policy Scotland can secure recognition with the EU nations as a Sovereign Nation.
3.. Veracity of the Act of Union
A Union of Equals?
The people of Scotland were not consulted in 1707. We were simply told we are now in a hegemony and England is our new overlord. The whole scam was predicated on members of the ruling classes in Scotland losing everything, or perhaps being tricked into the Darien Scheme. This was their problem and they made it ours.
The Act of Union 1707 is to all intents and purposes a contract. Contracts are not set in stone and can always be challenged if entered into in an unfair, illegal or imbalanced manner. Indeed if one party breaches the contract it becomes null and void and if the party of breach get off without being sued they are doing very well indeed.
A key factor in challenging a contract is the balance of risk. Risk is an evolving matter and it is essential that all parties to a contract have the ability to assess and reconsider the continuance of that contract. Does Scotland have the ability to assess the terms of the contract, written in to the contract – that’s a NO.
A simple example is marriage. This is a contract. If you discover your partner is violent, failed to disclose their bankruptcy or perhaps already married. In these circumstance one party can ask the Court to dissolve that contract. This is normal. What if the other party refuses to accept the dissolution. The Court can overrule the refusal. But what if the other party’s wish was the final authority – I think we can all agree that would be completely wrong.
The contract between Scotland and England falls into this same category. The UK claims to be a democracy. Of course this is untrue. The UK has never operated a democracy. They operate a ‘First past the post FPP’ form of election with no minimum quorum. General elections to appoint UK MPs adopt the FPP system.
This FPP variation of democracy is not universal. 32 countries operate a form of democracy much closer to the original concept. Everyone eligible to vote must vote. It is an offence, generally carrying a fine to fail to vote without an acceptable reason. Of course when voting there is an option of ‘No confidence’ which is counted and may even win the election. In this case the election is voided until new candidates are found.
In general, in the UK the winning party. often a majority Government has secured about 23/24% of the vote or about 17% of the people. If anybody feels that is a acceptable I am selling my old fridge.
For every 1 Scottish voter there is cc 11 English voters. In the UK Scotland always gets what England wants. This is NOT democracy, it is hegemony.
This fact alone is a powerful argument for the Act of Union being an unfair contract.
Many have argued that the UK Withdrawal Agreement from the EU is tantamount to a breach of the Union contract.
All of the above could be deemed an intellectual excursion. It probably is, but I find it all a distraction from COMMON SENSE.
The fact that England condemns Scotland as a financial burden yet holds on to them for grim life tells us something huge. It is hypocritical bullshit. England needs Scotland’s assets.
I say they have had enough. I believe it is sufficient for Scotland to explain to England that we are owed a fortune. However, that is history, they can keep what we are owed. But we are-
leaving the Union forthwith. If England thinks we owe anything, we can see them in Court but in the meantime we are-
LEAVING THE UK UNION WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT
SUMMING UP
This has been my version of the background explaining how we managed to get into this asymmetric Union and the options available to get out. It is important to break out of this Union and do it now. Another analogy. If a person is in a violent relationship it is clear they must get out. Do they get out in a few weeks or do they get out now. Given the clear and imminent threat you must get out now – tomorrow might be too late!!
Scotland must get out of this Union NOW, not soon, not working towards it, not negotiating it and certainly not REQUESTING PERMISSION. Tomorrow may be TOO LATE.
The entire UK map and structure is and has changed out of all recognition. I don’t mean just Brexit. Brexit is important but in the grand scheme it is actually not that important to Scotland.
313 Years ago Scotland was desperate for a trading deal. The country was in dire straits. Today this could not be more different. Our hegemony overlord England is in so much debt, not just deficit, actual debt. The debt is so massive there is no chance of recovery. I won’t go into the maths here but I calculate the debt at £6.2 Trillion NPV.
By contrast, Scotland is vastly wealthy. Oil was first discovered in Scotland in 1850 in the Black Isle region. Nobody knows where the name came from so I will leave that there. 125 years Scotland’s oil from the North Sea first came ashore. That alone makes as very wealthy, ask Norway, but that is the tip of the iceberg. Scotland has untapped vast resources of this Brent Crude, petro-chemical oil. We have vast gas reserves, fish, forestry, fresh water, limitless renewable energy with wind and waves, coal, whisky, forestry, science, tourism, some of the best people in the world and a reputation across the world that is almost unparalleled. This is just a snapshot. In the 18th Century Scotland was the Centre of the Enlightenment.
Among the fields that rapidly advanced were philosophy, political economy, engineering, architecture, medicine, geology, archaeology, botany and zoology, law, agriculture, chemistry and sociology. Among the Scottish thinkers and scientists of the period were Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Smith, Dugald Stewart, Thomas Reid, Robert Burns, Adam Ferguson, John Playfair, Joseph Black and James Hutton. [read this and become empowered]
WHEN WE ARE EMPOWERED WE ARE GOOD TO GO. ALL WE NEED CAN BE SUMMED UP IN 5 WORDS: