The Union has eaten away at Scottish culture

They are actively hostile to any notion that Scotland is a colony. However, any objective analysis of the evidence will show no other conclusion could be reached.

The Acts of Union in 1707 merged the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England into a single entity, the Kingdom of Great Britain, governed by a unified parliament in Westminster. This political Union effectively centralised power in London, diminishing Scotland’s sovereignty.

Despite the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, which has devolved powers over certain domestic issues, key areas such as defence, foreign policy and economic policy remain under the control of the UK Parliament. This centralisation of power is a continuation of a colonial-like relationship, where Scotland’s political autonomy is limited.

Scotland’s economic relationship with England has been characterised by significant disparities. Scotland’s natural resources – particularly oil and gas from the North Sea – have been exploited to benefit the broader UK economy, often at Scotland’s expense.

The revenues generated from these resources have historically flowed to the UK Treasury, with claims that insufficient reinvestment has been made into the Scottish economy. This economic arrangement is a form of economic colonialism, where Scotland’s wealth is extracted and utilised primarily for the benefit of another region.

The cultural landscape of Scotland has been heavily influenced by English language and customs. The decline of the Gaelic language and the anglicisation of Scottish society are evidence of cultural colonisation. English has become the dominant language in Scotland, and traditional Scottish customs and practices have been overshadowed by those of England.

This cultural dominance is seen as a legacy of historical colonial influence, where the imposition of English culture has led to the erosion of Scotland’s distinct cultural identity.

Scotland’s history includes periods of military occupation and political suppression by England. The Highland Clearances in the 18th and 19th centuries, where many Highland Scots were forcibly evicted from their lands to make way for sheep farming, are a poignant example of this oppression.

Additionally, the suppression of the Jacobite rebellions in the 18th century, which aimed to restore a Scottish monarch, further exemplifies the historical conflicts and subjugation experienced by Scotland. These events show Scotland as a nation that has been subjugated and oppressed.

While the Scottish Parliament has devolved powers, ultimate authority remains with the UK Parliament in Westminster. This means that significant political and economic decisions affecting Scotland are made outside of the country.

For instance, decisions on matters such as Brexit, which had profound implications for Scotland, were made by the UK Government despite a majority of Scots voting to remain in the EU.

This lack of full self-determination is another example of a colonial relationship, where Scotland’s ability to govern itself and control its own resources is constrained by an external authority.

The relationship between Scotland and England is undoubtedly one of colonial exploitation.

Alan Hinnrichs

Dundee

I WAS born in Jedburgh, known as “Jethart” to the locals. My great-grandad was a shepherd (known as “herds” to the locals) on a farm near the town. My family therefore clearly had nothing but great respect for all farm workers.

As for the folk that owned these farms and acre after acre of land throughout the Scottish Borders, that was a totally different kettle of fish! Not just that, but there was great anger about how the Duke of Buccleuch owned such a massive chunk of land in the Borders, much of it farmland. In other words, the attitude was most definitely, nae cap-doffing tae dukes and high-heid yins generally!

Currently, farmers are going apoplectic about measures to invoke inheritance tax on those that have assets of more than a million quid. It’s time for me, however, to seriously go off on a tangent now, but please bear with me.

One of my favourite films, starring two of my favourite actors, is Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, with Paul Newman and Liz Taylor. The brilliant Burl Ives is “Big Daddy” in the film and plays the part of Brick’s (Paul Newman) dad.

To cut a long story short, there is a scene where a very emotional “Big Daddy”, suffering from terminal cancer, recounts that when his own dad died, all he left him was an old suitcase with nothing of value in it for him.

Big Daddy is a man that believes in the necessity of money to be handed down from father to his offspring and was very contemptuous of his own dad due to this. However, that old battered suitcase with damn all of value in it was also a symbol of Big Daddy’s dad’s love for him.

In the film, a very emotional Big Daddy, strongly encouraged by his son, finally realises the error of his materialistic ways and breaks down with the realisation of how much his impoverished dad loved him.

So let’s return to the owners of farms worth at least a million quid, wanting to pass down their assets to their offspring after passing away. Were they greeting about how 14 years of their fave party, the Tories, have annihilated the living standards of millions of folk throughout Scotland and the UK, so people had to resort to food banks and dare not turn the heating on in freezing weather, like we have experienced this week? Were they descending on Westminster to support those, among their midst, that were basically dirt poor? Nah, a dinnae think sae!

Big Daddy had a suitcase with damn all in it but in reality a lifetime of love and affection. How many millions of folk throughout Scotland and the UK will effectively inherit this empty suitcase from their loving parents on their passing?

Methinks some folk should be eternally grateful for being in the position of having at least a million quid of assets full stop – tax or nae tax for god’s sake! Maybe they should all learn from a repentant Big Daddy!

Ivor Telfer

Dalgety Bay, Fife

IN his letter of November 21, by repeating his earlier suggestion of an indyref under the Referendums (Scotland) Act, L McGregor completely ignores the plain impossibility of that route, clearly pointed out to him by my original response – namely that in terms of Holyrood’s founding act and its interpretation by the Supreme Court (whether we like it or not), the Scottish Parliament is categorically forbidden from making legislation to set up such a referendum without London’s approval through a Section 30 order.

That is that, and the Referendums (Scotland) Act is neither here nor there, since it does nothing more than set out the format of any referendum actually held under Holyrood legislation.

There is nothing to stop the SNP or any other party from putting out a manifesto to turn Holyrood 2026 into a head-count vote on independence, but even if it was to win by a democratic majority, it could take no legally or constitutionally effective step of actual independence at its own hand.

Leaving the Union is the highest decision which the people of Scotland could possibly make, but while we remain part of the UK, we cannot turn the subsidiary Scottish Parliament into the supreme representative body which would be required. So the Holyrood exercise would be a dry run, so to speak.

What well-intentioned campaigners like L McGregor fail to see is that as far as the Union goes, the restrictions on Holyrood are of no real importance anyway because Scotland already has its body of supreme representatives, and has had throughout the existence of the Union, in the shape of its members of the Union parliament.

By voting Yes, even by the smallest majority, in a Westminster General Election duly transformed into an independence plebiscite by the appropriate manifesto, we would fill virtually every Scottish seat with a member mandated and empowered to end the Union for Scotland. That step itself would require no legislation whatsoever, since it would be by simple fiat of the Scottish members.

Having said so, I do not believe the final step of independence would have to come about in that way. If Scotland took and won the vote, and if the Scottish members were manifestly resolved to take the actual step of independence, London would come to the table and independence would come about through a negotiated settlement.

Remember, the really important point about the 2014 referendum was not the holding of it, but the fact that London, in the person of the prime minister, had already stated its acceptance of the result beforehand in the Edinburgh Agreement. It would therefore be patently and absurdly irrational for it not to recognise a democratic Scottish vote for independence given in the formal, legal, constitutional and solemn forum of a general election.

For that reason, a plebiscite at Holyrood 2026 is not necessarily pointless because London could relent on a victory for Yes, without awaiting the outcome of a similar, but weaponised, exercise at Westminster. We will never know, unless we try it. I cannot gauge its political practicality, which I leave to others.

Of course, without a party willing and able to take the course, all of this is mere chatter. With 50% of the Scottish people already marshalled for independence, the fact that we lack such a party is the bitterest gall.

I will allow L McGregor the final word.

Brian Boyce

Motherwell

READING Julia Pannell’s very disturbing letter in the Sunday National (November 17) concerning Germany’s recently introduced gender legislation fills me with absolute fear and dread.

I just can’t believe how any government could get it so wrong.

It can only be through lobbyists succeeding because of general apathy of an electorate concerned with other matters like the cost of living etc. and ignoring the impact on them and society in general.

Isn’t it time folks woke up and realised that what happens beyond their front door does impact on them?

If I could offer anything on her excellent contribution it would only be to add that her struggle for women’s rights is a fight that should not only be borne by women protecting their status and rights, it is equally imperative for men to support and engage with the fight too.

It is all of our fight and while men may have sat back and allowed this to happen in Germany, all reasonable thinking men here should engage with the campaign to ensure what has transpired in Germany can never be allowed to happen here.

We must never allow the legal status of the natural sexes that are naturally and immutably assigned at birth to be eradicated, and fight diligently against the promotion of misguided gender politics to our vulnerable and impressionable children and adolescents.

Jim Taylor

Scotland

NOWHERE is the cruel social disparity in outcomes in the UK ‘justice’ system starker than in sentencing.

Years ago, as a then lawyer, there would be much eye-rolling at the lenient sentences given to sex offenders compared to those accused of - for example – crimes against property.

Obviously if those doing the ‘robbery’ were at the very elite end of society - i.e. bankers - there were generally no consequences at all. Main example being the number of bankers who faced any fall-out after the horrors of the greed-induced financial meltdown of 2008.

Let’s recount. Just how many fiscal fiddlers actually went to jail?

Oh - yes - ONE.

Fast forward to the recent incredibly harsh sentencing for the anti-fossil fuel protestors - between five and four years.

One of the reasons given for the brutal sentencing was the cost of policing.

The real cost of funding for policing the coronation of Charlie bags-of-cash turned out to be just under £22 million. And that is before you factor in other government (public) expenditure running to around £50million.

There is something very off here...

Amanda Baker

Edinburgh