British Peerages and Titles

 

The British House of Lords is the second biggest unelected second chamber in the world – after China! Britain’s archaic constitution of 1690. Britain is an outlier in Europe – the only nation that continues to give nobility privileges such as tax avoidance. 

 

Is Britain the only nation that continues to revere and believe in a hierarchy with the monarch at the top? In Great Britain, nobility and titles are part of the peerage, which is a social class of titled people who share in the responsibility of government. The five ranks of British nobility, in descending order of precedence, are:

 

·       Duke: The highest and most exclusive rank

·       Marquess: The second most senior rank

·       Earl: The third rank

·       Viscount: The fourth rank

·       Baron: The lowest rank 

Titles can be hereditary or granted. Until 1999, peers were exempt from jury duty and entitled to sit in the House of Lords. Some things to know about British nobility and titles include

French Revolution!

 

**France – There is no nobility, its legal status was abolished 1789, while there are titles with no privileges.

There is no such thing as nobility in France today. French courts have held that the concept of nobility is incompatible with the equality of all citizens before the law proclaimed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, part of the Constitution of 1958. There are titles, which are considered part of the legal name, and entitled to the same protections in French civil and criminal courts, even though they give no privilege or precedence (the way they do in Great Britain). Regulation of titles is carried out by a bureau of the Ministry of Justice. The President has ceased to confer or confirm titles, but the French state still verifies them,  civil courts can protect them, criminal courts can prosecute their abuse.

 

History - 

1.     the abolition of feudalism and privileges in 1789, which did away with the legal status of nobility,

2.     the restoration of titles in 1808 by Napoleon, and their confirmation by the successive monarchical regimes until 1870

3.     the fact that the successive republican regimes have never passed any laws on the subject of titles.

The Revolution did away with nobility and titles, titles were restored (not nobility), and the Republic has not done anything about titles. French nobiliary law is mostly based on court cases. At present, titles have not been abolished. The final establishment of a Republic in 1875 left them in a kind of limbo, and it took a succession of court cases to define the jurisprudence, which is now well established. 

 

 

*Germany  - Abolished the legal recognition of nobility in 1919, while titles are still used. The Weimar Constitution of 1919 removed legal privileges and disadvantages of birth or rank. Current status - Titles of nobility are only valid as part of a name and may no longer be conferred.

 

August 1919, at the beginning of Weimer Republic (1918 – 1933) Germany's new constitution abolished royalty and nobility, and the respective legal privileges and immunities appertaining to an individual, a family or any heirs. Today, German nobility is no longer conferred by the Federal Republic of Germany (1949–present), and constitutionally the descendants of German noble families do not enjoy legal privileges.The Nobility of the German Empire was similar to nobility of the Austrian empire developed during the Holy Roman Empire and both ended in 1919 when they were abolished, and legal status and privileges were revoked.

 

*Austria - In 1919, Austrian nobility was abolished under the First Austrian Republic (1919–1934) and the and legal recognition of hereditary titles and aristocratic particles and use as part of surnames was banned. Today, Austrian nobility is no longer conferred by the Republic of Austria (1945–present), and the official use of noble titles, is a minor offence under Austrian law for Austrian citizens

 

* Denmark - The Danish constitution of 1849 stripped the nobility of its privileges, though the titles remained.

History - The Danish nobility was granted social, economic, and political privileges in the 16th century in exchange for their military service to the king. Some of the families still own and reside in castles or country houses. A minority of nobles still belong to the elite and they can be guests at royal events, are objects of media coverage, for example Kanal 4s TV hostess Caroline Fleming née Baroness Luel-Brockdorff. Some of them own and manage companies or have leading positions within business, banking, diplomacy and NGOs

 

 

*Holland – After Constitutional reform 1848 the privileges of the Dutch nobility were abolished and they lost their constitutional roles. The only privileges they were alllowed were titles and coats of arms. They became civilians with a noble title. Nobility became a small elite class consisting of families recognized as noble, and with or without a title in the Kingdome of the Netherlands

Questions of Identity

 

Tory MP Tony Hayes claims that, Welsh and Scottish identities devalues British identity.

Scottish self-determination is about how we are governed – not from the centre but locally, by those who understand Scotland’s needs and concerns. Cleary though if England/ Britain regard Scotland as a colony – and not an ancient nation – they want Scottish identity supressed. Just as they did across the empire.

 

But also if we look across the world, we can see that identities can co-exist. In Scandinavia there is a strong identity as a Nordic states, but people also feel Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Finnish. They learn many languages from a young age.

 

In America, people firstly feel New Yorkers, Texans, mid Westerners, Californians – while they also hold a firm allegiance to their country of American states – united in their belief in liberty for all and the pursuit of happiness, freedom and democratic principles.

 

So what of the British isles? We will always be connected by geography and family ties. A major factor is the narrative of the British empire over recent centuries – with the British monarchy still head of state today across the English speaking world. Britain imposed its culture on many far away lands and islands. Teaching Caribbean islands poems such as Wordsworth To a Daffodil, even though they’d never seen one! Teaching Irish children about English rivers and Scots about English kings. Britain became dependant on exploiting other nations. Instead of replying on its own resources.

 

There’s this narratives of empire here UK – from the Romans, Ottoman, Hapsburgs, from our historic past. Many of us now hope the EU is a new model – one in which each nation retains its sovereign laws and rights of self determination, while working together collaboratively for trade, defence and security. While there remains threats of out-dated dictatorships across the world, which threaten our democracies.

 

Scottish independence is in no shape or form about Scotland not wanting to be good neighbours and friends with England, Ireland and Wales. The present voting system in Britain is not a democracy. It’s a fake.

 

Some here in Britain continue to believe in ‘centralized’ governance, as being most efficient. Surely what’s required is environmental regulations and some joined up thinking, with laws, training and quality assessment (NHS say) and high standards in education. They believe in top-down control, rather than equal rights. We are all equal under the law – or should be. With the familiar cries of the “previous government has ruined the economy.”

 

But where is the money if Britain is a rich country?? Labour continue the austerity project and false claims of no money. 

Union with David Olusoga BBC Review

 

While Olisoga is an informed historian, and consulted many experts and this is a highly watchable  if it times biased program.

However he at times skims over relevant sections of the 320 years of the union between Scotland and England 1707 and later of the four nations to form the United Kingdom is 1801.

For instance he focuses on the hardships in Ireland and of their being bribed to join the United kingdom union in 1801 – but does mot mention the mass murders and of the obliteration of the highland way of life in Scotland after the Jacobite 45, when the clans were disarmed. There is no mention of the Scottish Parcel of Rogues who sold Scotland for bribes.

The only way to be able to wear the kilt was to join the British highland regiments. 

Union flags designs of James VI

After the JACOBITE 45 rebellion Olusoga states “ the British state, with the help of some clan chiefs, launched a campaign to repress the Scots” –what they really did was mass murder of women and children and the destruction of the highland way of life. the huge contribution Scotland, as the workers of the empire made to the empire is ignored, while England were the rulesr is ignored. 

By the 18^th century – one in 10 lived in London – which became the centre of Printing, key port, trade artery, parliament, monarchy, finance, banking, theatre, arts and culture. Why is it good that so many had to travel to London to make their fortune?

Then there’s the episode Four on Union and Disunion – which focuses on Wales and Ireland, with only a mention of the closing of Ravenscraig steel work at Motherwell – but no mention of Scotland’s oil which was used by Westminster to increase spending on London. 

Olusoga had a chat with A professor from Oxford who stated, ‘There isn’t a long history of power being spread outside the capitol…the starting dates of universities in the north, many are just over a 100 years old. Civic buildings are not that old.” This by implication gives the strong impression that the rest of Britain, outside of London, is backward and uncultured. This is basically untrue. 

Scotland boasts 4 of the UKs oldest universities – Oxford and Cambridge were initially centres of clerical teachings late 1090s: in the 1400s it was Scottish universities which were the four leading centres of learning – St Andrews 1410, Glasgow 1451, Aberdeen 1495, Edinburgh 1583. And it wasn’t until the 1800s that England set up its universities - Manchester 1824, London 1826, Durham 1832.

Olusoga also misses the crucial point that Scotland’s self-determination is about democracy and democratic rights and NOT identity at all. 

The Rise of Ireland - small is Beautiful

Ireland’s population will reach 5.1 million, the highest it has been since the great famine of 1848 – when the British administration allowed food to be exported, when thousands in Ireland were starving. Many emigrated to America then, resulting in the influential American-Irish contingent today, including President Biden. Many also emigrated from the north over to Scotland, in search of a better life in the UK – more stability and better living standards. Twenty years ago Ireland decided for its future to invest in education. 

 

Joining the EU has been transformational for all of Ireland – both north and south. Only 8% of Ireland’s trade is now with the UK, most of its trade is with the EU and the US. Today major global businesses have set up their European headquarters in Dublin - Google, Facebook, IBM, Apple, Pfizer. Dublin is also a main transfer airport. Ireland’s GDP is now at 5%.  Ireland is now setting up a Wealth fund, similar to Norway, of 65 Billion, to protect for the future. 

 

Our own personal experience defines us and shapes our attitudes to the policies and politics of today. its with a sense of dismay I read of Ireland’s success, while happy for the Republic of Ireland and our relatives still living over there, I feel sad and regretful for Scotland. I loved our visit to Dublin a few years back – our singing tour guide, the impressive writers museum, the historic Trinity university and book of Kells. Sadly my last memory of Belfast and County Down, is one of military checkpoints, hovering helicopters and heavy overcast clouds. I hope to travel over soon enough and find a more prosperous and settled north. I read that one of the main reasons for sectarian problems there is poverty. 

 

Ireland was partitioned in 1921, to allow for the setting up of the independent Irish Republic. I have an old black and white photo of my grandfather who was captain of the Ards football team and won a few caps for the Irish football team, before partition (dated 1909 I believe) So its within living memory not so long ago. My parents left the north to settle in Edinburgh and my husband’s father also left the south too for Scotland. 

 

We moved to America for a decade after the depressing debacle of the 1979 referendum for a Scottish parliament. Britain’s joining the EU brought much needed economic stability and prosperity, and we returned to Scotland. However the British establishment/ state felt threatened by new EU laws over transparency over tax havens. Nigel Farage was put on the BBC Question Time week after week to persuade the undecided on the merits of leaving the EU – take back control meant us all being richer, our NHS being well funded – instead we get reduced trade and less funding. 

 

This year we had King Charles coronation and a concert celebrating the work of those “who serve” – the carers, the teachers, the nurses, and doctors, social workers etc. During the pandemic we all clapped for them but Britain cannot go on offering those who serve mere crumbs, when what these dedicated workers need is decent pay for their hours of hard work. Most voters want investment in our services (health, education, energy) and not in weapons of mass destruction. 

 

Most of us have now travelled far more than our parents generation, and can see clearly there are other options available to us, than a failed British model. Many of us have known for decades that things are wrong in the UK – with declining living standards, the young unable to buy their own homes. While many ignore these serious problems, they should and could be fixed. As a teenager I spent two weeks in Imatra Finland, even then I wondered where the slums were – everything was very clean and the air fresh with the smell of those very tall pine trees. Most families enjoyed their weekend retreats. And in my time living in America I saw that each state had totally different identity, institutions, laws, trade, regulations, and most decisions are made at local level (such as taxes for schools). That’s not to say there are many problems in America – one being lax laws on pollution, another the way healthcare is delivered. 

 

I was devastated with Brexit and Scotland’s enforced exit from Europe, when the majority of Scots support being inside the EU. Sadly the realities for Scotland are that we have a Scottish Parliament which is essentially the construct of Westminster and controlled and constrained by Westminster policies. QC Joanna cherry tells us Scotland does have the right of self determination under the UN charter. In Scotland historically the people sovereignty outweighs the sovereignty of Westminster – is this true?.

 

The UK government controls our economy and imposes its will, austerity policies and Brexit on Scotland.  During the Brexit debates the profound issues of our island nations were not even considered by the English/ British people. I don’t know I understand why Scotland doesn’t have the right to self determination. But I know independence needs to be ‘taken’ with both arms out stretched – we can’t simply ask or request to be free!

 

Now the Tories are attempting to constraint devolution further, rather than allow Scotsself-determination.

Tom Nairn why Scotland missed the European national revival 1800s

 

 

Tom Nairn why Scotland missed the European national revival 1800s

 

Scotland’s greatest political theorist of the modern times. 

Tom Nairn’s brilliant Break Up of Britain (1977), is one of the best reads on how and why the archaic institutions of the British state and its pre-democracy are failing us. How Scotland lost its way and its literary voice over the 1800s and of the fake tartanry of Walters Scott’s novels, of a Scotland that’s lost and can never return - “the heart regrets, but never the head.” Of the destructive and false nature of the Labour party. 

 

He writes on why Scottish nationalism is different to the rest of Europe. 

“All I’m arguing for is nations, minus the dratted “ism”; democratic natural, independent, diverse, ordinary, even boring rather than the museum pieces, or dictatorship or hustlers like Blair of Berlusconi.” Tom Nairn, Free worlds End, opendemocracy, Dec 4^th 2004. 

 

Nairn writes of the misfit of the British state to the modern world and not from the express of romantic tartanry, which the author excoriates – and the centrality of the nation in political change. 

That the Scottish Enlightenment was very much a Tory project. While Scotland prospered during the 1800s with manufacturing, its literary voice became bereft. He sees Walter Scott’s work of a mythical Scotland and Scots heroes, as very much glorifying a past that was gone and to be forgotten. Scotland became north Britain. While Scott’s romantic and mythical novels were highly successful across the world. 

**Those Myths of Blood and spirit, such as Jacobites, Rob Roy, Robert the Bruce.

Nationalism, Nairn argues is always both good and bad. ’ And originated from that derived in – the impossibility of escape from the uneven development of capitalism.’ Nationalism is not a question of simple identity, but rather of something more – a catalyst. Nearly all modern nations have a myth – a key to their nationalism and regeneration. But not England… :with an astonishing resistance of a fossilised and incompetent political order.  

“England’s peculiar form of nationalism  hopelessly stultifying inheritance of the state.…The main character of English history since 1688 “of which English ideology most proud is, her conditional and parliamentary revolution. “

“the mobilising myth of nationalism is an idea of the people … an emotive notion anchored in popular experience of love” – the revolution, war of liberation.”

 

He writes, “What counts is later mass beliefs. These are amplified into an inheritance, broadcast in ballads, written into documentary history text-books, novelized, sermonised and institutionalized into street-names and statues. From the process there derives an always latent conviction of popular will and capacity. That the people could always do it again.” 

 

**By contrast in Europe 1800s, nationalism took hold with the demise of empires, and the rise of nation states. “Only one country “stepped over before the Europe of 1800s – Scotland politics and culture was decisively and permanently altered by the great awaking of nationalist consciousness – Scotland or north Britain …due to the uneven development of capitalism. “

 

“After the black the unspeakable 17^th century was 1688 which marked the real dawn of Scotland, after the dark bloodshed years of religious conflicts across Europe. – William Robertson, in his book History of Scotland. When the Scottish bourgeoisie exploited the results of the English revolution. Scotland progressed from fortified castles and witch burning, to Edinburgh new town and Adam Smith in only a generation:”

Highlander Adam Fergusson, saw this contrast around him. “The Highlands were under-developed and didn’t have pre-requisite for nationalist existence. The Highland life was destroyed after 1745. The Scottish Enlightenment ended early 1800s. The Scottish literary tradition paused 1825 – 1860. Instead there was the Industrial Scotland of Glasgow-Edinburgh- Dundee – engineering, shipbuilding and iron stone. 

Scotland reverted to being a province in the 1800s Victorian times, while prosperous and imperial.  Why – because of the absence of political nationalism and a literary voice. The Scottish bourgeoisies pre-possessed the country’s distinctive and proto-national features – they believed in a universal and enlightened civilization .Therefore Scotland remained stuck betwixt and between - too much a nation to be a mere province, yet it could not develop into a nation-state on the basis either via nationalism. 

Nationalism, Nairn argues is always both good and bad. ’ And originated from that derived in – the impossibility of escape from the uneven development of capitalism.’

There is a duty to progressive England to positively urge Scotland onto independence in Europe.

England-Britain where, perhaps because Westminster no longer has a genuine interior life that links to public self-belief, almost everything that is political is unauthentic.

 

”national-democratic character of the need our self-government to ensure meaning on self-belief.”

Nairns approach is both international and rooted in Scotland and he wrote for the new left review London. He explores the nature of nationalism. In UK more confused by the overlay of British-ness, a nationalism without a nation. His case of Scottish independence advocated becoming LIKE other countries. The self-abasement of the union.

A Future???   A British isles or federation, confederation or modernised multi-national states.’

**DONATE to the conference to celebrate the work of Tom Nairn, organised by Peter McColl (Scottish Greens) , Janice Maxwell (co-editor), Pat Kane, Joyce Macmillan, Anthony Barnett (English democracy activist)

 

His most famous BOOK Tom Nairn’s brilliant The Break up of Britain 1977, is well worth reading and one of the best reads on the archaic nature of the British states’ pre-democracy. https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23475146.impact-tom-nairn-great-let-slip-quietly-away/

The most influential book on British politics to be published in the last half century,”  writes Anthony Burnett

Scottish Nationalism for a Progressive modern state

It’s a strange thing, I’ve been reading Tom Nairn ‘s excellent book the Break up of Britain (1977) and he makes many profound insights into the archaic nature of the British state – one being that unionists view all the supposed benefits of the state of Britain, and that some view Scottish nationalism as a backward-looking project. I’ve been told too that I should move beyond the Battle of Bannockburn (1314).

He writes, ’Nationalism is not a question of simple identity, but rather of something more – a catalyst.

 

What’s strange really is in my view the British state is the total opposite of unionist’s world view. I see Scottish nationalism and Scottish independence as a progressive, modern project to bring a more authentic democracy for progressive socialism and fair opportunities alongside a healthy capitalism, that encourages and protects small businesses, we need both. 

 

And I have longed viewed the British state as archaic and as a pre-democracy – as does Nairn and many other commentators. The British state as established 1688, of the Crown in Parliament, well before universal suffrage, Nairn writes, is a political cul-de-sac, unable to reform itself under its two party system and its first past the post voting system. 

 

Because of this Britain “is stuck in the past and not a modern state. Crucially FPTP voting means Bills at Westminster don’t get proper scrutiny. (New book, How Westminster Works and How it Doesn’t by Ian Dunt  how Westminster is not effective at governing). 

 

Nairn writes, “Although not of course an absolutist state, the Anglo-British system remains a product of the general transition from an absolutism to modern constitutionalism: it led the way out of the former, but never genuinely arrived at the latter,…..it is basically an indefensible and inadaptable relic, not a modern state form.” 

 

Perhaps it’s now time we stop hiding behind nationalism, but view it as the positive, progressive project it is. Nairn views nationalism as both good and bad, and as a process that happened across Europe in the 1800s. Scotland is only now trying to catch up. 

 

He also writes Scotland became bereft of a literary voice due to the false romantic myths of Walter Scott – of a Scotland gone forever – and due to emigration and the Kailyard school. Nationalism is also viewed as anti-globalization.

 

Nationalism, Nairn argues is always both good and bad. ’ And originated from and derived in – the impossibility of escape from the uneven development of capitalism.

The reason is that when the nation states in Europe were transitioning in the 1800s, due according to Nairn, to the uneven nature of capitalism, Scotland was the only nation state to have previously jumped across during the enlightenment and the Edinburgh new town. 

 

But now today Scotland has been left behind, in the 20^th century, There has been no revolution, and the absence of change. 

By contrast in Europe 1800s, nationalism took hold with the demise of empires, and the rise of nation states.  As a nation Scotland jumped, ahead in the 1700s, with increased trade, the enlightened thought,  when Scotland moved very fast from a place of superstition and tribal warfare.

“Only one country stepped over before the Europe of 1800s – Scotland politics and culture was decisively and permanently altered by the great awaking of nationalist consciousness – Scotland or north Britain …due to the uneven development of capitalism. “

 “After the black the unspeakable 17^th century was 1688 which marked the real dawn of Scotland, after the dark bloodshed years of religious conflicts across Europe. – William Robertson, in his book History of Scotland. When the Scottish bourgeoisie exploited the results of the English revolution. Scotland progressed from fortified castles and witch burning, to Edinburgh new town and Adam Smith in only a generation:”

 

***Tom Nairn’s book The Break Up of Britain

“The most influential book on British politics to be published in the last half century,”  writes Anthony Burnett

 

 

Peace in Northern Ireland, To find a political solution

 

On Friday Northern Ireland celebrated the 25^th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. 

Democracy or anarchy

 

Civil Rights protest 1968 which began the Troubles

Bloody Sunday 1972

 

The Hunger Strikes – 1981

Drew attention worldwide, Bobby Sands elected MP and died.

 

Security commission set up. concerns in Dublin of riots and violence in Dublin. The Taoiseach held talks with Margaret Thatcher in 1985. The Republic would give up claims to northern Ireland, if they had a consultative role in Joint authority/ administration. Anglo /irish secretary set up Belfast and inter-governmental conference.

**Anglo Irish Agreement 1985 

Consultative role policing. The consent principle – no unity without majority support. 

 

Ulster freedom fighters. Gaddafi sent weapons, he was against colonization. 

Enniskillen bombing

SAS men killed IRA men. But the war could not be won.

Bomb undermining success at the ballot box, no military solution. 

 

Father Alex Reid wrote to John Hume – leader of the SDLP, to talk with Sinn Fein.

 

“I’m about Dialogue – the seed of peace process”

 

People don’t support violence, reasons no longer existed. British to declare their neutrality. Politically neutral, a way of getting out. Change in British position.

 

“Secretary of state for northern Ireland, state not there for colonial reasons - “The British government has no selfish security or economic interest in northern Ireland. “

 

The agreement reached was that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and would remain so until a majority of the people both of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise.

 

Bridges can be built -Take the time, Keep our minds and heart open

Travelling is about asking questions rather than finding answers – people as partners. 

Time to Speak Out!

Time to Speak Out!

 

Scotland’s struggle against Tory austerity policies

The anger among public service workers is palpable. They have seen their incomes reduced by 30% under Tory austerity the past years. Strikes will continue. The Tories would rather invest 5.5 billion in Ajax vehicles, which are six yeas behind schedule – than a billion on health service workers  (or in education). Perhaps they should ask voters where they would rather see investment?  NHS Scotland has huge waiting lists and lack of staff, partly the result of Covid and Brexit, but mainly the result of austerity policies and the lack of funding under the Tory UK government.

 

The UK is no longer a super power with a captive empire, and should not be spending billions on weapons of mass destruction – but rather on ways to save our planet! The British empire collapsed after the second world war, after which 62 nations sought their independence. The Tories lack of investment has seen a lack of productivity and average UK incomes have fallen by 11K  since 2008. The unionists are living in a romantic past of an imperial British empire that no longer exists - its time to look to our future prosperity and potential.

 

The Scottish Parliament is only responsible for 20% of the Scottish economy (and mainly income limited tax levers) so has only very limited control over budgets. George Kerevan writes that “being hamstrung to a failing UK, the Barnett formula is like a vice around Scotland, holding us back from pursuing policies that could make a real difference to peoples lives.” The south of England elites only care about the financial global economy of the super rich and with a lack of UK manufacturing, the British economy has no solid base to grow. 

 

The UK government has refused investment in many future innovative Scottish businesses. It appears that unionists see their future potential as a “managed decline.” They may be disparaging a well-bring economy, but a healthy, well-educated society is necessary for investment, businesses, infrastructure and a thriving economy. The latter requires the former. 

 

Meanwhile Ireland, with far less resources than Scotland, decided twenty years ago that for future success their country should focus resources on education, which has paid dividends now, with a well educated workforce, record investment and a healthy economy.

 

I’m beyond angry now. We have such high levels of poverty and inequality, and we need land reform and fair opportunities, 20% of children live in poverty in Scotland. But how far can the Scottish Parliament with its limited powers, mitigate damaging Tory government policies? (Or the Red Tories who are equally as bad.) Scotland needs control of its energy policy, immigration, vat, and all economic levers. The reality is that Scotland has world leading universities, major international arts festivals, tourism, leading renewables. 

 

I worry for our children’s future. Its good Kate Forbes won nearly half of SNP votes because we need change. We urgently need a focus on businesses - business is half of the coin for a well-being economy. Sweden for example pursues a healthy, inclusive capitalism while also providing a decent standard of living – we need both Humza! Change is necessary and possible.

 

Scotland needs investment and a stake in future industries such as ScotWind – but Westminster has control of Scotland’s energy; Scotland needs more immigration to sustain our working age population but Westminster has control of immigration; Scotland needs to invest in infrastructure but Westminster has control of all economic levers; Scotland needs investment in it public services ( NHS, education, security) but its impossible as Westminster has control of austerity policies. 

 

Scotland needs a new way forward - independence. We can do better, why not? How angry are we? What are we afraid of? Time to speak up! 

(Please Note. We need independent-minded people in our independence movement – otherwise we can’t have only yes people who only want to toe the conservative line.)

 

The SNP now sees a new generation at the helm, a chance for renewal, I hope they are as angry as the generation before, on whose shoulders they now must build. Our strongest voice is the grassroots movement, our strongest hope is freedom to choose, our democratic right and sovereign will.

Time to speak up!

 

 

Tories disregard serious issues like poverty and only care about their own back pockets. In time of crisis we have small minded people, with small minded ideas – we need to think past this.

 

Dependency Supporters

Choice between Scotland’s independent sovereignty and the politics of DEPENDENCY 

Language really matters. I agree with the Wee Ginger Dog we must stop calling those who “advocate dependency” - unionists, which implies a positive working together, when this is not happening  at all. Scotland is ignored, Scotland’s resources have been plundered, and her voice suppressed. Its crucial we stop using the false term “unionist” and instead call those who want to hold Scotland back – “dependency supporters.” This UK is very much not a partnership – the term unionist is fake and  misleading. A union refers to a partnership (or marriage) one in which each partner has an equal say - of compromise, collaboration, negotiations. 

 

Culture and language drive and are ahead of our politics. This is about Scotland’s voice.

The policy makers in London are using derogatory language against those who believe in Scots sovereignty. – they use terms such as ‘separatist’ and ‘nationalists’ to imply Scots are driven by ideological greed, ignorance, selfishness, divisiveness. While they know full well most Scots want to work in an indy nation in the EU trading block and be international, left of centre and outward looking. 

For centuries Scotland has been a seafaring international and trading nation with our great seaports (now mostly closed apart from apart from Aberdeen). Scotland does not need to trade via the bottleneck of Dover - we can trade direct to Europe as Ireland does.

 

Succession actor Brian Cox suggests the British isles can be a “Federation of sovereign states, one in which we can all b citizens and participate, and have an equal say and pull together for the common good of all.” At the moment this is not happening here UK, because this is not a partnership. Its about 3 smaller nations being dependent on all rules, policies and decisions set in London, for the benefit of the south of England, in a highly centralized monarchy/ parliamentary sovereignty/ power structure, where the Crown is used to assert power, for the benefit of the empire state not the people. And operates its dirty money London Laundromat. Much more centralized than a century ago.

(Please note – Labour and Conservatives are English political parties. After Scotland’s indy Scotland needs its own political parties, which would naturally evolve here, to cover differing views. Scotland’s indy is about more local and accountable government.) 

 

Some refer to England as the “parent state” and they believe they own Scotland. By contrast most Scots believe that back 300 years ago in 1707, Scotland, as one of the oldest nations in Europe, with its rich diverse history, and deep lasting connections to scholarly learning in Paris from the time of Reformation - as explorers, as mercenaries, and innovators. - that Scotland entered into a voluntary partnership with England for trading reasons. At that time Scotland had 1million people, England had 4 million. Historians tell us Scotland was never a colony – yet if surveys asked the English or Scots if they believed Scotland is a colony, they will surely say yes – as we do not have self government but are ruled from the capital of another nation. 

 

There’s been a general ignorance of Scots history and Scots culture is not celebrated by Dependence supporters. That’s if Scots know any of their history, after decades of being only taught English history in our schools. Scotland was not conquered in 1690, even though Cromwell tried and got as far as Dunnottar castle. In fact Charles II was crowned firstly at Scone on our Stone of Destiny. Culloden was the last pitched battle here UK – there were Scots on both sides, as well as French and Irish. These were religious battles. Crucially at Charles III ascension he pledged the freedom of Scotland’s church. 

The big question is, how efficiently does Devolution work – with civil servants in London making decisions? What does devolution mean, when Scotland is allowed to run only some of its affairs? 

 

It’s a confused, messy picture. Do dependency advocates think that devolution works well, because most Scots are totally confused - what is reserved, what’s run here? Does Scotland run its own energy policy (no, the UK runs energy but has had no energy policy), does Scotland run its economy and tax (no). After leaving the EU, the London government now interferes in many devolved matters. So its even more confusing. Tories appear intent on wrecking devolution settlements. 

 

Back before WW1 Scotland ran more of its own affairs. This isn’t about Edinburgh becoming another centralising London either but about greater local control. This isn’t about personalities – its about the wider yes and civic movement. A good plan is for a Citizens Assembly to grow our ideas for the way ahead, organically from the ground up. That’s the only way to grow support for our independence. It appears from studies that many Scots are very confused over what devolution means, what independence means in todays world of interconnections over trade (as in the EU). I believe it would be very helpful for all sides, ideas and views, to clarify what both these arrangements really will mean. 

 

It all depends on whether you see the UK as a free democracy or an empire state more concerned with the global empire – than the people who live here. The UK requires radical reforming on all levels and to put people first! This is a struggle between Westminster sovereignty and the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Since union 1707 Scotland has always been run separately with a Secretary of State. Of course the uK likes confusion and has no constitution. We need clearer and simpler details of what devolution and independence means for us. Most voters are confused and I am sure the UK encourages confusion just as there no clear constitution.