Scotland After the Referendum – Is It Now A Nation of Political Eunuchs
The outcome of the 2014 Scottish referendum was pleasing for Unionist partys since Westminster gained much by retaining the union. But there existed the fear that 59 Scots MP’s holding nationalist sympathies would, through their eloquence extend and cause confusion in commons debates and committees. However the prevailing view was that Scottish arguments would be effectively emasculated by English common sense manipulated by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
So. Apart from continued devolution of very limited powers to Holyrood (controlled through a Scottish Secretary appointed by the governing party at Westminster) the vast bulk of Scottish affairs would still be decided upon by Westminster. Emancipation, (promised in a “vow” by Unionist party leaders just before the referendum vote) would be placed in the “matters arising tray” for extended discussions. Any additional devolution to be very limited, betraying the “Vow”.
Scotland would be required to accept, (yet again for another 5 years at least) a political economy totally foreign to the beliefs of the Scottish electorate within which their representation would be in the minority and without influence. Manifest in 2015/16, the first year of the new parliament at Westminster was that any proposals, measures or complaints advanced by Scottish MP’s were rejected. The UK government pressed on enforcing policies, (vehemently opposed by Scottish MP’s) on Scots.
Nearly half the population of Scotland believe that retention of the union is a continuation of the 1707 conspiracy against Scottish liberty since the Scottish parliament had no right under Scots Law to pass an act handing over dominion to another country, without asking consent of the nation. Conversely Westminster oppose the concept of “sovereignty of the people” prefering to refer to the UK being a voluntary association between two countries gaining common benefit. They say Scottish wealth and commercial expertise is nurtured and protected by the Union.
But Scottish patriots contend that Westminsters concilatory words are designed to deceive, and that Scotland’s continued presence in the Union will bring disaster.
Indeed examination of the UK Union and its adverse effect on Scotland reveals that the system is ill conceived and brutally enforced on unwilling Scots. Simply put, it does not work for the benefit of Scotland since in the past 100 years the existence of the Union has depressed Scottish industries and resources and Scotlands wealth has fallen markedly compared to England. There is also the indisputable fact that Scotland contributes much more to the UK treasury than it receives back. Despite this Scotland is portrayed as a welfare sponger, never happy, always asking for more.
Relentless, ever increasing poverty caused by an extravagant Westminster’s wasteful and lavish policies has forced many Scots to emigrate markedly reducing Scotlands population.
Much of Scotland, outwith the central belt is owned by large corporate bodies and/or very rich absentee landlords, an obnoxious land ownership system created by Westminster through illegal confiscation of property, estates and other land coupled with forced eviction (“Scotch people are of happier constitution, and do not fatten like the larger breed of animals.” said the Dutchess of Westmoreland) and barbaric deportation of many thousands of Scottish crofters and their families. Adding insult to injury just about all revenue gained from these properties is transferred abroad or to England (primarily London) where the vast bulk of these absentee landlords have their place of residence. A huge financial loss to the Scottish economy.
Much later Sir Walter Scott wrote: “In but too many instances the Highlands have been drained, not of their superfluity of population, but of the whole mass of inhabitants, dispossessed by an unrelenting avarice which will be one day found to be shortsighted as it is unjust and selfish”.