A recent diary about Scottish Independence needs a response, and needs one tonight. He makes a number of good points, but it's important to set the record straight. I thank the Diarist for a frank and intelligent way he dealt with these issues, but he is clearly wrong.
Here, I argue that Scotland should not be denied its right to self determination, and respond to the Diarist's arguments.
First things first, let's deal with the major issue:
Scotland isn't oppressed by the English.
Scotland is oppressed by the Government of the United Kingdom, and entity which now exists to serve its own ends rather than the needs of its people. The English are just as disgusted with their government as the Scots are. It's just that the government an get away with treating the Scots poorly, because no matter which way the Scots vote, they will always be overruled by England with the handful of seats the Scots have in parliament.
The Litany of Wrongs could fill this diary: The near complete destruction of Scottish industry, giving the Spanish control of Scottish Fishing Grounds, the suspicious death of a prominent SNP politician who was being tailed by MI5 (the government to this day will not release the files on the incident), MI5's infiltration of the Scottish National Party, and the fact that the government is still keeping some documents on the SNP secret, all points to one conclusion. The UK Government has throughout the 20th century consistently violated the rights and civil liberties of the people of Scotland, by denying them effective representation and government, starving them, destroying their social services and industries, interfering with their right to free speech and self governance, and is suspected in at least one case of outright assassination.
That's Scotland since 1950. Let's leave the labor conflicts in the 1920's out of this. Let's leave the land war of 1860-1880 out of this. Let's leave the radical war of 1820 out of this. Let's leave out the constant rebellions from 1689-1745, and the cultural genocide that occurred afterward out of this.
Because I don't have time to write a book. This is the context for Scottish Independence. This isn't about the horrors of Scotland's past under the Union. It's about the future that Scotland can choose for itself.
And lets not blame it on the English Either. Alex Salmond and Hardeep Singh Kohli:
It's time to stop blaming the English for the failures of the UK government and time to get out.
Now on to everything else the Diarist got wrong:
2) It proposes to create essentially a petro state
One of the major arguments that the SNP has used over the years is that the North Sea oil revenue should just benefit the 5 million Scots rather than the 60 million collective British, and if it could, those 5 million could live high on the hog off that money.
First I note the irony of a supposedly leftist party proposing to become a petro-state. But beyond that, what gives them the right to not share the wealth? On this blog, we rightly mock notions of Alaska or Alberta suceding from their respective countries because they don't like the idea of sharing the oil revenue. This thrust of Scottish secession is not really that different. The oil was discovered in the territorial waters of the UK. In fact, it was mostly found in the Shetland Islands, which were stolen from Norway by Scotland way back when anyway. It is as much the UK's oil as it is Scotland's oil.
The Diarist's argument is this:
“Keep your poverty, but share your wealth.”
Do other nations which have broken away from the British Empire have a right to their own resources? What right does Canada have to its oil? What right does India have to its gold?
By the Diarist's argument, the British Government should retake India and Canada, and exploit their resources with little thought to the local populations. This is morally abhorrent.
What gives them the right not to share the wealth is the fact that Scotland has been brutally economically oppressed for three hundred years. Despite the high taxes it pays and the fact that it generates more money per head than any other Nation in the UK, it is one of the poorest regions of the EU. The Shetland Islands in question were originally stolen by Norway from Scotland, and then stolen back by Scotland. The original inhabitants were ethnically cleansed by the vikings.
Scotland will not be a petro state. The idea is to use the money from the Oil to create the greenest nation on earth, expand an electrical grid across the channel, and power half of Europe. I've never heard of a petro state that talks about Smart Grids and wave power, but there you go.
This idea that the Scots would live high off the hog on the oil is a ridiculous lie. It's just like that lie about those teachers that want to live high off the hog on the government dole. Yeah, those teachers sure are avaricious. Just like the 450 Scots who starved to death in modern Scotland.
With increasing population in the Southern Lowlands and the rise of their medieval town system called the Burgh, with its immigration of Normans, Dutch, and Germans, the Scots language came to dominate so that by the time of the union of the crowns in 1603, Scotland and England were essentially two English speaking polities.
In sum, the process by which Scotland transformed from a Celtic speaking nation 1000 years ago to an English speaking one today is not primarily the result of anything England did or the union of the two countries. Rather, it was the result of the multi-ethnic nature of Scotland itself.
One of the historiographical misconceptions made in most scottish history is that “By X date, Scotland had X culture.”
The truth is that Scottish Gaidhlig is still on firmer footing than every other celtic language. The current Irish language is a state-mandated, anglicized amalgam of several dialects, and it has destroyed the dialects of Ireland. The language itself may die because of over-interference in culture by an ethnic nationalist government.
Scotland has always been and will always be multiethnic. The three languages of Scotland are Scottish, Scots, and English, all of which are distinct and unique languages. The UN is involved in a preservation of the Scots language, which has led to interesting developments like the Unco Case O' Dr Jekyll an' Mr Hyde.
Scotland is not and never has been an “English Speaking Country.” There's also a Scots Wikipedia, and it is still spoken today.
In the 300 years of unification, England and Scotland have developed into one British society with many common institutions. They have a common history of building and dismantling an empire, and saving the world from Napoleon and then Hitler. The Union has been successful for 300 years, so much so that there are so many people of multiple ancestries in Britain that it would be impossible to sort them all into separate countries.
This seems to be either a misconception or a lie. Scottish institutions including their established church, their legal system, and their unique military units have been preserved since the union. Scottish law is a completely different legal system. The only united institution is parliament. I don't know where this idea of united institutions comes from.
The idea that Scotland and England share a Tradition of laws/religion/monarchy/culture that should not be torn apart is a pretty widely believed propaganda point which has been used to support the British Union since the 19th century. It couldn't be further from the truth.
Scots Law is different from English Law, which is why there are separate court systems. The rights of the Monarchy as they pertain to Scotland and England are different. The Crown Estate does not own the Scottish sea bed. Scottish Law regarding land is different and quite confusing in the context of the union. That is why the monarchy was titled "Queen/King of Scots" rather than of Scotland. Because Scottish Waters and land were always managed by the Monarchy's appointees in Edinburgh, the Scottish Parliament considers the North Sea under the purview of the Scottish Parliament, which could very easily lead to legal wrangling. There have been other important issues occupying the attention of the SNP, so they haven't pressed a clear legal advantage yet, but chances are that with a Majority, they would.
Scottish Law regarding the Monarchy, its Rights and Privelages is also different from English Law. One of the reasons for the Jacobite Rebellions, and the bloody war in 1689 with the ascendancy of William and Mary was because of a violation of the Royal Oath.
Every monarch of Scotland from Union of the Crows to the Treaty of Union was required to swear a Coronation Oath, which includes the line
the Rights and Rents, with all just privileges of the Crown of Scotland, I shall preserve and keep inviolate, neither shall I transfer nor alienate the same;
Essentially, all monarchs swore that they would not make Scotland a part of any other nation. They would keep Scotland Inviolate. The fact that Queen Anne and William and Mary sought a union of Parliaments violated their royal oath. As set out in the Declaration of Arbroath, the people of Scotland reserve the right to kill any Monarch which sought to make Scotland the property of another nation, as Robert the Bruce killed John Comyn. It is the law of Scotland that Monarchs may be deposed for breaking faith with their people.
Thus, the Jacobites were within their rights as peoples of Scotland to revolt against the crown.
The declaration of Arbroath:
From these countless evils, with His help who afterwards soothes and heals wounds, we are freed by our tireless leader, king, and master, Lord Robert, who like another Maccabaeus or Joshua, underwent toil and tiredness, hunger and danger with a light spirit in order to free the people and his inheritance from the hands of his enemies. And now, the divine Will, our just laws and customs, which we will defend to the death, the right of succession and the due consent and assent of all of us have made him our leader and our king. To this man, inasmuch as he saved our people, and for upholding our freedom, we are bound by right as much as by his merits, and choose to follow him in all that he does.
But if he should cease from these beginnings, wishing to give us or our kingdom to the English or the king of the English, we would immediately take steps to drive him out as the enemy and the subverter of his own rights and ours, and install another King who would make good our defence. Because, while a hundred of us remain alive, we will not submit in the slightest measure, to the domination of the English. We do not fight for honour, riches, or glory, but solely for freedom which no true man gives up but with his life.
Thus, the Scots began the development of an important idea: legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the governed. This was not an expression of the modern idea of popular sovereignty, but it certainly was one of the roots which led to the development of that idea during the Scottish Enlightenment.
Around the same time, the English drafted the Magna Carta. These two traditions are entirely separate and professed entirely different ideas. The English supported a limited government with an inviolable monarchy, while the Scots supported a disposable monarchy with unlimited power. It would be in the time of John Knox, nearly 300 years later, when the Scots began limiting the power of their Monarchy.
It is precisely these varying traditions which have been tearing the Union apart since its inception. They cannot be at once the cause of discord and a reason for unity.
3) The UK is a democracy and Scotland is represented
Another major argument from the SNP and others is that Scottish political views are not being represented nationally because they have only 59 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. However, this is exactly the proportion of seats they are entitled to based on population.
No. Scotland is a Nation. Scotland is entitled to Nationhood if it wants it. Scotland traces its history back before 400 AD. Scotland should not be forced to be a part of the UK, especially when they never entered it democratically in the first place. The parliament was bribed by unionists, and the military had to defend the parliament building from an attempt to sieze it by the people. The riots in Edinburgh and Glasgow lasted for months. There were four wars to attempt to liberate Scotland. There were uprisings in the 1820's. There were land raids in the 1880's through 1920's. A nation in this position has a democratic right to secede, especially when it was annexed against the will of its people.
And no, the UK is not a democracy. They elect less than 40% of their government. The UK is still a monarchy with the appearance of Democracy. To call it a democracy ignores the reality that there is still an Unelected house of Lords which can sweep away any legislation at will.
The UK is a monarchy with just enough of an appearance of democracy to keep the lower orders in line.
The SNP's idea of 'independence' is conflicted and contradictory
Why is Brussels better than London? I have not received a satisfactory answer for this. Already, in the present situation, Scotland has control over much of its internal policy with the Scottish Parliament. That leaves the UK in charge of foreign affairs and monetary policy. Exchanging the UK for the EU in this regard seems like a strange version of independence.
... One of my favorite people is a professor in Edinburgh. He is originally from England but has lived in Edinburgh for years. It is not fair and completely ridiculous that he would suddenly find himself on the opposite side of an international border from his family and friends. Likewise for hundreds of thousands of others, both in England and Scotland.
This is completely untrue. There would be an open border between England and Scotland. Any EU citizen would have equal legal protection, and equal ability to gain employment. This idea that there would be some great split shows complete ignorance of the European Union.
This is an old and tired argument. Now that the EU exists, the Union of Scotland and England is irrelevant to Scotland. This is because the British Union was always an economic union. Nothing more. It existed to bail the Scots out after the disastrous attempt to colonize the Ithsmus of Panama, a disaster caused in no small part by the English. It is the EU which now regulates things such as Scottish waters, agriculture, and emissions. London is now essentially irrelevant.
I don't know where this argument that Scotland is better off in the UK came from, but it is clearly false. The main difference is this: If Scotland is a member of the EU, they have a member of the council of Europe with equal power to every other nation. Scotland has no body where it is equally represented with England. The US has the senate to keep this peace between the states and prevent the complete domination of small states by large states.
Just look at the numbers:
Belgium's Flemish Community: 14 MEPs, 6,000,000 population.
Belgium's French Community: 9 MEPs, 4,000,000 Population.
Denmark: 14 MEPs, 5,400,000 Population, 1 Council of Europe Member.
Finland: 14 MEPs, 5,200,000 Population, 1 Council of Europe Member.
Lithuania: 13MEPs, 3,600,000 Population, 1 Council of Europe Member.
Slovakia: 14MEPs, 5,300,000 Population, 1 Council of Europe Member.
Latvia: 9 MEPs, 2,300,000 Population, 1 Council of Europe Member.
Slovenia: 7MEPs, 2,000,000Population, 1 Council of Europe Member.
Luxembourg:6MEPs,440,000 Population, 1 Council of Europe Member.
Estonia: 6MEPs, 1,300,000 Population, 1 Council of Europe Member.
Cyprus: 6MEPs, 780,000 Population, 1 Council of Europe Member.
Scotland: 6MEPs, 5,000,000 Population, 0 Members of the Council of Europe.
Latvia is way smaller, and far better represented than Scotland is.
Let me continue dispelling myths:
Small Countries are usually poor.
Actually, small developed countries are better off than the big ones, almost always.
Here's a cute video because I don't feel like typing the data out, but the Data checks, and you can check it yourself if you wish:
Braveheart! Braveheart! Braveheart! Wallace was a Murderer! Anglophobia! Xenophobia! You know who else was nationalist? HITLER.
If I were being intellectually dishonest, I could accuse the Diarist of bringing up the Xenophobia issue when he argued that Scotland wasn't Celtic. I wont do that, because he dealt with the issue responsibly. The Diarist did not tread in this territory, I want to make that clear.
Still, I have heard this argument over and over again from sane and well-meaning people that I usually agree with on just about every point. In honor of one of these very reasonable, very good people, I plan to write an article about English identity, and how racists have attempted to usurp English national symbols. That is a different diary.
The word Nationalism is a scary word because of what it means to Americans. It means very similar things to the English. In both England and the United States, fascist organizations have seized the idea of white culture and white people, and misused the symbols and traditions of whites for the purpose of the oppression of other people. Racism has been a strong tradition in the United States, with organizations like the Aryan Brotherhood, the Dixiecrats, and the KKK taking the lead in the oppression of other peoples.
In England itself, there have been similar groups such as the British Union of Fascists, the National Front, and the British National Party. Nationalism scares English people and Americans because when they hear the world nationalist, it naturally brings to mind images of jackbooted thugs breaking down the doors of innocent people and hauling them away to torture and death.
In the same way that there is a difference between the Democratic Socialism of Bernie Sanders, and the Stalinist Communism of the USSR, there is a difference between the Civic Nationalism of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, and the Ethnic Nationalism of hate groups.
I will once again remind you that the first non-white and non-christian member of the Scottish Parliament was an Asian Muslim man named Bashir Ahmad. He was the founder of Asian Scots for Independence, and a member of the Scottish National Party. Other prominent Scottish Nationalists include Osama Saeed and Hardeep Singh Kohli. These are not token Asians. These are people of significant influence. Scottish Nationalism is not non-racist, it is anti-racist and cosmopolitan.
I guarantee that because of this, if Scotland ever gains its independence, Fox News will call it a Muslim Conspiracy.
I hope this gets rid of all those silly misconceptions about why Scotland should be denied the right to self determination.