So Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, has finally unveiled the long-promised date for the Scottish independence referendum: Thursday the 18th of September 2014. Good news for the broad Nationalist movement in Scotland which now has a target date to aim for (along with the encouraging – if slight – rise in the polls for the potential pro-independence vote seen recently).
However the political war over Scotland’s (and Britain’s) future is well and truly on and nothing seems to be excluded. I noted back in January of 2012 the calls emanating from leaders of the separatist British Unionist minority in the north-east of Ireland suggesting that their vital (as well as historic) links with Britain and Lowland Scotland should be secured by “partitioning” any future independent Scottish nation (essentially moving the border between Scotland and England up to a line between Kilmarnock on the west coast and Dunbar on the eastern coast, and taking in areas around or including Glasgow). Lord John Kilclooney, better known as the former UUP head-honcho John Taylor, was the first off the blocks with this:
“Northern Ireland is not only geographically close to Scotland but shares more with Scotland than with any other country. When the majority in Ireland voted for independence from the UK… Northern Ireland remained within the UK as was the desire of most people in that part of Ireland. Should there ever be a majority in Scotland for independence it should not be binding on all the people of Scotland.
If, say, Strathclyde or the Lowlands prefer to remain in the UK then that decision should be honoured by a partition of Scotland.”
Ah yes, because appeasing a small, violent and anti-democratic British separatist minority worked out so well in Ireland didn’t it?
But no matter, Taylor’s attitudes were reflected in those of other British Unionist leaders. Tom Elliot, the then worse leader of the UUP up to the present worse leader of the UUP, declared:
“…the constitutional approach of Alex Salmond appears to pose a greater threat to the union than the violence of the IRA.”
Ta-dah! But others remained focused on the idea of divide and conquer. Like Tory bigwig Malcolm Sinclair, the 20th Earl of Caithness (but of course):
“A former Conservative minister has said Orkney and Shetland should have the right to remain part of the UK if Scotland votes for independence.
The Earl of Caithness has tabled amendments to the Scotland Bill, which gives further powers to Holyrood.
He said a referendum vote favouring independence should not be binding on the Northern Isles, unless the majority of islanders voted “yes”.”
For a while the battle-drums fell silent but they are droning loud again. From the Telegraph:
“The Orkney and Shetland islands could remain part of the UK if the rest of Scotland votes to separate, according to a report submitted by their MSPs to the Government. The islands could even declare independence themselves, it adds.
Alternatively, they could agree to join a separate Scotland only if they are granted a much bigger portion of North Sea oil and gas revenues, around a quarter of which lies in Shetland’s waters alone.
Tavish Scott, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Shetland, agreed the threat was political “dynamite” but questioned why Mr Salmond was the only politician who could use oil wealth to argue for self-determination.
Their residents have traditionally been extremely hostile to Scottish independence and preferred Westminster government to that from Holyrood. The SNP has previously recognised the islands’ right to decide their own future but Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, recently angered residents by stating this was wrong because they are “not a nation”.”
Could it be that one of the Unionist tactics for the Scottish referendum campaign is a simple threat: if you break up our nation we will break up your’s! And of course, all those oil and maritime resources in the northern extremes of the North Sea do help.
Related articles
- Scottish independence: islands consider their own ‘home rule’ (guardian.co.uk)
- Scottish independence: Northern Isles devolution bid (scotsman.com)
- ‘Home rule’ for Shetland? You’re on your own, Tavish Scott | Malachy Tallack (guardian.co.uk)
AN SIONNACH FIONN 
Am I the sole lefty to see that when Scotland goes there is a real chance to turf out the Schleswig-Holsteins from London? Also Unionism makes no sense with a Saor Alba – will a million “huns” want repatriation? Shetland an interesting adjunct!
LikeLike
From what one hears the SNP are already inclined to give Shetland and the Orkneys more regional self-government if they wish it. Part of larger plans for reformed local government post-independence. The federal Unionists of the Lib-Dems are merely trying to scare people. Wait until the threats of creating a “Scottish troubles” start being made in the British nationalist press.
Yes, the British monarchy looks shaky if the Scots regain their freedom. But then again it may well be used as a focus for “national unity”. One could see the “mystique” of royalty revived in an exclusively English setting.
LikeLike
Puzzled as to how Western Isles (Gaelic speaking) fit with Shetland (Norse)
LikeLike
will u stop calling britain ‘greater england’. Its an artifically created 17th century construct past its sell-by-date that has its origins in a scottish monarch
LikeLike
Hi Mark. I’m using the term “Greater England” in the sense of a redrawn border between both nations, and one moved substantially northward. It also has some application in terms of what the UK is (as spelled out in the recent UK government legal briefing on Scottish independence). The UK is a continuance of the English state. Britain is England and England is Britain.
If you want to put across a different view feel free to send on an article, long or short, to the blog email. There is no problem publishing different views here 🙂
LikeLike
The foundations of the UK were formed when King James VI of Scots took over the English throne in 1603.
Great Britain is not just England, it is also Scotland, and even Wales.
It’s a geographical collective term, not a singular term denoting one single nation.
The Scots, English and Welsh are therefore all British in much the same way that the Norse, the Danes and the Swedes are all their own singular national identity, but also all collectively Scandinavian.
The idea that Britain is just England and vice versa stems from Irish republican views and American ignorance largely.
The reason the north of what is now Ireland is separate is because it’s people did not identify with being Irish and still don’t, it’s also important to note that Ireland was not a fully united nation as Scotland was,
i.e.
Scotland ~ 843 AD
England ~ 927 AD
Ireland ~ 1542 AD
Ireland was not a recognised entity until the 16th century.
The terms ‘Irish’ and ‘Ireland’ being Anglofied variations of the older Latin terms for Irish and Ireland being ‘Hiberni’ and ‘Hibernia’, imposed by Pope Leo X.
There were some Scotti in Hibernia in the north in this time before this also, however, they were forced to become collectively ‘Irish’, when they had that name imposed and planted over them by Pope Leo X whom told them they were lying when they said they were Scots and their country as Scotia. ~ Benedict Fitspatrick on Ireland and the foundations of Europe.
LikeLike
Britain or British as a geographical term along Scandinavian lines is the very argument the SNP are making. In other words the Scots and English can be independent of each other while still being “British” neighbours along the lines of Scandinavian neighbours Norway and Sweden. That is what some Scottish nationalists mean when they talk about being Scottish and British. The argument is that one can be both in geographical, cultural and even social terms – but choose not to be so in political or national terms. Which is fair enough.
The idea that England is Britain, and Britain is England, exists far beyond Irish Republican or US circles. It is one widely shared in Britain itself so it can hardly be unfamiliar to you. Furthermore it is, as of 2013, one argument in the UK’s government’s legal advice on the definition of the Union between Scotland England and part of it’s official response to the SNP’s movement for change. The Union did not create a new nation-state – rather it was simply the continuation of the nation-state of England with a new territorial accretion. Scotland ceased to exist as a separate national entity with the Act of Union. England did not do so. The United Kingdom of Great Britain is England and the English state.
A British ethno-national minority, 15% of the population of the island of Ireland packed into the north-east of the country, through violence and the threat of violence overthrew the democratic wishes of 85% of the population of the island of Ireland for self-rule. A wish expressed in several elections in quick succession.
Ireland has been a recognised entity since the times of the Massalian Greeks some 2300 years ago! That is two millennia of historical recognition as a distinct geographical, territorial and cultural entity.
Irish and Ireland are derived from Old English words, cognates of Old/Middle Irish words. They have nothing to do with Latin.
The “Scotti” are the Irish. Scotti (Modern Irish Scoit) was the Roman name for the people of Ireland and of Ireland itself (Scotia) and was a word of Irish, Welsh (British) or Roman origins. The Irish and the Scots are Gaelic peoples sharing related languages and cultures.
Sorry but your latter points are a bit out of date.
LikeLike
Okay, first off, to dispel that myth that finds no grounds in real concrete evidence what so ever and hence should never be accepted as fact, the ‘Scotti’ were not the Irish at all, the term ‘Scotti’ was merely the Latinised form of the older terms of ‘Skotto’ (Ancient Greek referring to Scotland as ‘Darkland’) and ‘Scythia’. Scotti is therefore nothing more than the Latinised form of the Anglicised form ‘Scot’ or ‘Scots’.
The ‘real’ Irish of that time were not called ‘Irish’, but were known as Hiberni (Latin cognate for Irishman), St.Patrick makes mention of two races inhabiting Hibernia/Ireland at the time, one of which is in his letter to the chieftain Corroticus, the other in his ‘confession’, where he describes the Scotti as new comers to the island of Hibernia/Ireland, and that there was a ‘marked difference’ between them and the Hiberni/Irish.
What does this mean then? It means that there were Scots in Scotland/Caledonia and some Scots in Hibernia/Ireland, but only the Scots of Hibernia became ‘Irish’, when they had that 16th century papist name imposed upon them, along with the Hiberni (real Irish) by Pope Leo X, whom told them they were lying when they claimed they were Scots and their country as ‘Scotia’, whereas the Scots of Scotland were never Irish, and retained their real national identity to this day in their land.
As for Ireland being a recognised entity, I am talking about as a nation state/Kingdom, a united entity with a common people and nationality, this did not happen until 1542, long after Scotland and England.
Ireland has been shaped by many migrations of peoples over time and different waves of settlers, but as you know, it was not a united recognised entity at the same time as the nations of Scotland and England, if we are to talk about the very first settlers on what is now ‘Ireland’, it’s also well documented that Ireland was the last place in Europe to be settled.
Also, ‘Gaelic’ is not only all too often overused by those who subscribe to a pro-Irish version of history, but it is also often inaccurately used by these same people also, to attempt to turn it into a collective term of two entirely separate nations when it was originally a singular term only, the term ‘Gaelic’ is derived from the ancient British appellation ‘Gwydell’, and was no more significant than what the term ‘Viking’ was, they both referred to the same thing – ‘Raiders’. Plus it was initially used only to refer to the Scots, not the Irish/Hiberni. The ‘Scots’ being the true Gaels, which itself also had an ancient British appellation ~ ‘Y-Scot’, it was from this that the Romans first came across the Scots.
You’ll be hard pressed to find a Scot who believes that Scotland is like Ireland or the same, they are very different nations with entirely different histories and identities, although Scotland does have more in common with Northern Ireland/Ulster right enough.
Back on topic however, I have very rarely ever heard anyone claim that ‘British’ and ‘English’ are interchangeable terms, those who often do try to claim this I’ve found tend to be pro-Irish republicanist supporters and their American terrorist funding cohorts. The actual fact of the term confusion stems from the fact that most English traditionally held their British identity strongly, while, for the Scots, it was an alternative secondary identity, in more recent generations, most Scots seen themselves as Scottish first, British second, for the English, it was British first and then English second, which of course had an affect on the opinions of outsiders, but aside from that, the only times anybody ever tried to equate ‘British’ with ‘English’ depended on their political views, usually Irish republicans tried to impose this view, for obvious reasons.
As for the union being England with an accretion, the Union was actually passed as agreed law by both the parliaments of Scotland and England, Scotland maintained it’s own legal , and education system and church, all Scottish institutions that were never part of the UK set up, but entirely for Scotland and it’s people alone.
The union was not an overnight event, it was a gradual build which had it’s foundations from the very day King James VI of Scots took over the English/Irish thrones in 1603.
Also, what latter points were you referring to?
LikeLike
The last point at least is correct. However once the Scottish parliament was merged with the English at Westminster, the Scots, although they retained many rights under the Treaty of Union, had in practise no way to assert them. The English/British quietly forgot that Scotland was anything but an appendage, and most English people, even now, will unthinkingly say ‘England’ when in fact they mean ‘Great Britain’ or ‘The UK’. (And foreigners are naturally even more confused). Once the new Scottish parliament had been created and had declared itself the continuation of the pre-union parliament, then in effect the Scots had the English by the balls. I’m sure Cameron (= cam shròn btw) fully understands the situation, but is making a show of talking tough to save face, and Salmond has been happy to play along. So the Edinburgh agreement was made to look as though the Scots were making concessions and the English giving them permission to hold the Independence referendum, whereas the bottom line always was that Scotland had and has a perfectly legal/constitutional right to dissolve the Union provided that’s the will of the people. All else is bluster, smoke and mirrors.
As for history, well Scotland was always a political/geographical entity, not a linguistic or racial one. Originally a union of Scots (settlers from Ireland), Picts/Caledonians, Britons/Strathclyde-Welsh and Angles in the Lothians. All united against the Norse, but eventually they too were brought into the mix. There was much coming and going between Scotland and Ireland up at least until the Ulster plantations. English only became the dominant language with the rise of towns, while it was never the only language, Gaelic was a very important language until only a few hundred years ago. And Scottish and Irish gaelic were the same language with a shared literary standard well into early modern times. This I think implies a fairly close cultural unity, a unity which the English made of point of breaking. Divide and Rule is always their first option.
LikeLike
You’ve put a big slice of Scotland south of the ‘border’ on your map. Do you think we deserve partition like Ireland??
More seriously. There is a total disconnect now between Scottish and ‘British’ (i.e. London) politics. Scotland wants to be a modern European style social democracy; London still thinks it has an empire and is inclined to align itself with the US. The main UK parties in Scotland are simply puppets of head office in London. The main appeal of independence is that we might at last have our own politics. The monarchy is not really that big an issue, far more important is getting control of the Crown Estates holdings. A big issue for many more Scots is getting England’s filthy WMD’s off our soil. The pro-union campaign, such as it is, has yet to come up with anything positive. It just keeps churning out scare stories, supported by the now blatant bias of the BBC and most of the press. Hopefully the SNP have planned for this and are playing a carefully managed long game. Constitutionally the UK is a voluntary union of Scotland and England (which includes Wales), either party has the power to dissolve the union under the terms of the treaty. When this happens the UK will cease to exist. I don’t know where this will leave NI, and honestly most folk this side of the water couldn’t give a shit.
LikeLike
Based on your statement of being a puppet, the UK government is also an EU puppet state, with Rep.Ireland being a debt slave EU state-let.
No country on earth is truly independent, the correct term would/should accurately be ‘Inter-dependent’, as that’s closer in reality to what it truly is, anything under or beyond that is a delusion of grandeur.
LikeLike
Oh, I see now. (Sorry, no edit facility that I can find). There’s really no desire within Scotland to hive bits off, and the borders, Galloway etc. are just as Scottish as anywhere else. More likely parts of Northern England will be envious. Scotland has no expansionist ambitions though, although it would be nice to get Berwick back again 🙂
LikeLike
Hi. Sorry about that, WordPress (the host-architecture of the blog) gives no edit function for folks leaving Comments (that lies with the blog admin). Partly it is to prevent spamming 😉
As you may have guessed the map is based upon some of the suggestions for partition coming from the British Unionist minority in Ireland and their fellow travellers in Britain. For the Unionist minority here the advantages are obvious and shared by some in London.
As I wrote last year:
I agree that there is little desire amongst Unionists of any stripe in Scotland for partition or hiving off chunks of the national territory but that doesn’t mean some more extreme Unionist elements won’t try and create such a desire.
It is being talked about in Unionist circles which means we should take note. Forewarned is forearmed.
LikeLike
Well it simply makes no sense in a Scottish context. When Scots write about ‘Unionist Parties’ these days, e.g. on Newsnet Scotland, they mean the three main British parties, which are increasingly becoming indistinguishable in their policies towards Scotland. I.e. all pro-austerity, pro-WMDs and generally Business as Usual. The LibDems have lost all cred. since going in with the Cons. Ulster-type ‘Unionism’ really only resonates with a few small groups in Glasgow etc. and they get little sympathy from the population at large.
The idea of trying to split off Orkney and Shetland again is a bit of a red herring. They are a little different politically and culturally, but still basically Scottish. It’s been pointed out btw that even if they did somehow split from Scotland they’d only get a small section of seabed immediately adjacent to their coasts, not a vast slice of the North Sea. That apparently is how it works in international law.
LikeLike
Great video. Clever, clever, clever. The message is everything. Get that through and all else will fall into place.
LikeLike
Gu dhearbh fhéin / Go deimhin! Nuair a bheidh an t-am agat b’fhéidir go mbeadh seo go suimiúil leat :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saqQnj0LKlQ
LikeLike
Marconatrix,
You said “Constitutionally the UK is a voluntary union of Scotland and England (which includes Wales), either party has the power to dissolve the union under the terms of the treaty”.
Not so fast! Wales WAS annexed by the Kingdom of England following the earlier conquest, but today, following numerous Acts of Parliament is a distinct country once again, although both countries remain in a ‘judicial union’ i.e. England an Wales as a ‘legal state’. This is an entirely anomalous situation between two neighbouring countries where each have their own legislative national parliaments/governments and two distinct bodies of law (Welsh laws are growing in number). It can’t last. Nevertheless, I’m sure that there will be attempts to claim that Wales ‘belongs’ to England from some quarters in the years to come. We shall see.
Séamas,
The suggested partition of Scotland by some Unionist politicians is a truly horrific spectacle that no one in their right mind would support. Then again, not all ‘Unionists’ are in their right mind, are they?
Hwyl.
LikeLike
Dwi ddim am siarad un gair yn erbyn Cymru. The constitutional position of Scotland within the UK is fairly clear (although London is intent on confusing matters). The relationship is governed by the Treaty of Union. I agree that Wales is gradually constituting itself as a separate state from England, but the situation is by no means clear-cut. Could not London simply unilaterally revoke any or all of the devolved powers? Actually I’m puzzled as to how the Welsh have got as far as they have, and yet so few of them vote Plaid. Welsh Labour seems in contrast to Scottish Labour to have a mind of its own. But could they not also be reined in at any time by head office in London?
Wedi i’r Alban gadael yr Undeb, fe fydd y dyfodol yng Nghymru yn ddiddorol iawn 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, London could unilaterally revoke Wales’ devolved powers, but to do so after two public referendums which delivered Yes votes would be tantamount to ‘re-annexation’, would it not?! There would have to be a MASSIVE swing in favour of a party advocating abolishment of the National Assembly for the UK government to have the confidence to override the referenda results, and I can’t see that happening. Welsh self government is far more likely to get stronger. After all, it’s what Carwyn wants.
Devolution was delivered by the Labour Party, the ‘traditional’ Welsh vote, albeit starting from a very low base (a limited degree of transferred powers, and secondary legislation only) because of their deep internal divisions on the matter of home rule for Wales, divisions which remain, and will hopefully see a permanent split emerge in the not too distant future with Labour Assembly Members pushing for a Welsh Labour Party constitutionally separate to that in England.
Hyd yn oed petai’r Alban yn penderfynnu aros mewn undeb gyda Lloegr, mae’n bur debygol y bydd newidiadau cyfansoddiadol pell-gyrhaeddol yn dilyn o fewn y DU, gyda’r farn ngwleidyddol yng Nghymru, a mwy na thebyg y farn gyhoeddus mwyafrifol, o blaid pwerau i gynulliad Gymru fel sydd gan senedd Yr Alban. Ymlaen!
LikeLike
I really do hope you’re right. Labour in Scotland is so entirely a creature of London policy that it’s hard to understand how Labour in Wales gets away with such an independent line. I seem to recall that the devolution settlement was intended to “kill nationalism stone dead”, and remember the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament was purposely rigged to prevent any party having an overall majority. Clearly they miscalculated rather badly. The fear is that is the referendum is lost the Parliament will be slowly neutered by London, it’s budget restricted, etc. In short there’ll be the mother and farther of a backlash from the centre.
However, even if Scotland ‘escapes’ from London’s clutches, is there not a danger that the main parties in their humiliation will declare “never again”, and immediately begin to back-peddle on Welsh powers? They would not of course abolish the assembly all at once, they would simply restrict finance, pile on extra red tape, and generally obstruct it’s functioning. A case could then be made a few years down the line for abolition on efficiency grounds. Or it would continue as a sort of glorified county council.
The only way out would either be for Plaid to get much more support, or for an independent Welsh Labour Party to be formed. This last however goes in the teeth of all Labour traditions. If Welsh AMs opposed London’s policies they’d simply be deselected on orders of central office. This has happened before I think.
One thing I don’t really understand and which you might explain is how they have managed to promote the Welsh language fairly uniformly through Wales, not just in Welsh speaking and nationalist areas, without provoking a backlash in places that have been anglicised for generations (apart from the few vocal ‘usual suspects’).
LikeLike
I agree that there are potentially heightened risks for Wales’ fledgling democracy in the event of a Yes vote by the Scots, but there’s no avoiding them. Hopefully, the sight of Scotland taking control of her future would be sufficient to wake up the currently downhearted Welsh masses. It’s Plaid’s job to offer the vision!
I would suggest that the popularity of the language has grown strongly as a medium of education in the most anglicised areas of Wales, especially the South East, because of such things as the naturally multilingual nature of the European Union, the good record of Welsh medium education, the advantages of being bilingual in the Welsh job market (especially of course the public, but increasingly the private sector), the advantage it offers to learn a third language later on and the general resurgence of Welsh identity and nationhood since devolution and the desire for roots in an increasingly globalised world. All common sense stuff really! There’s still a great deal to resolve but the fight goes on…and I very much hope that the Irish will re-embrace their native language as a feature of daily life in far greater numbers.
Slán agus Hwyl
LikeLike
Some great points there, Neilyn. The high level of endorsement for the Welsh language, even in some of the ostensibly Unionist parties, is inspiring. And notably the Welsh took a carrot and stick approach of promoting the language while defending the rights of existing and future speakers. The language is everywhere.
In Ireland we ghettoized the language in the school system and left it there with no rights to speak or use it outside of the schools. A disaster.
LikeLike
@ Robert.
I’ve seen this argument or similar ones before but to be honest they are very much on the fringe and run contrary to the weight of academic opinion. There is an argument to be made that the term Scot had a wider pan-Gaelic application and could have referred to the indigenous Gaelic-speaking peoples of Ireland and western Scotland and that the Romans only latterly became aware of the existence of indigenous Gaelic-speakers in northern Britain from c.300 CE onwards but it does seem unlikely (if not impossible).
Northern Britain in Roman times seems to have had at least two population groups. The indigenous Brythonic-speakers (and the ancestors of the “Northern Britons”) who controlled some of the Lowlands and beyond. However westwards were indigenous Gaelic-speakers with cultural links to Ireland. A third separate population in terms of the ancestors of the Picts may also have existed as the Caledonians though it’s possible that they arose from a mixture of Gaelic and Brythonic speakers in the south-east and north-east during the late-prehistoric era. In any case they were certainly Celtic-speaking with a form of P-Celtic (ancestral to Brythonic) superimposed over a Q-Celtic (ancestral to Gaelic) base.
However elsewhere Scot and Hibernian are interchangeable terms and there seems little confusion in Roman minds about this. As an aside, the suggestion that Attacotti was a (rarely used) separate name applied by some Romans to the Gaelic-speakers of northern Britain though interesting seems impossible to prove.
While there were close familial, communal, political, economic and cultural links between north-eastern Ireland and western Scotland in the Roman and post-Roman periods (and probably had been for millennia before hand) this does not imply a separate Scottish “ethnicity” or “nationality” as such. They would have simply been Gaelic-speakers but from either Ireland or Scotland. “Tribal” identity (if I may use that loaded term) would have been far more important/relevant than if one was from the island of Ireland or the island of Britain. If your point is to claim that there existed a distinct and separate “Scottish people” (as we would understand those words) in northern Ireland until they had a “16th century papist name” of “Irish” imposed upon them then I’m afraid you’re into the Dan Brown school of history.
The rest of your points simply don’t stand up to contemporary scholarly opinion and seem, if you don’t me saying, rather “prejudicial”. It has nothing to do with a “pro-Irish” history. I certainly don’t argue that Scotland was, in ancient times, an entirely Gaelic nation. I recognise that at least two indigenous populations groups, Gaelic-speaking and Brythonic-speaking existed, with a possible third group that represented both (either as a mix or an overlay of one over the other).
Neither of the latter two languages have survived (unfortunately) and Gaelic became – for a time – the dominant language of Scotland. Therefore I follow my fellow young Gaels in Scotland in referring to Gaelic as the Scottish language and the national and indigenous language of Scotland (while recognising Scots or Scots-English and its important historical and cultural position).
Phrases like “…pro-Irish republicanist supporters and their American terrorist funding cohorts” hardly help your case. Especially when we have seen, as I have recorded here many, many times, the involvement of the British government, the British armed forces and the British intelligence services in a war on the Irish people that involved the use of British state death squads and British organised, armed, funded and directed terrorist groups (which Britain’s own PM recently tacitly admitted in relation to the assassination of the civil rights lawyer of Pat Finucane).
As for Scotland’s status here is the British government’s own legal advice describing the Act of Union:
“35. …as a matter of international law England continued, albeit under a new name and regardless of the position in domestic law, and was simply enlarged to incorporate Scotland. In support of this view, among other things:
35.1 Scottish members joined Parliament at Westminster, but there was no new election of its English members. This was in accordance with the Acts of Union Article XXII.
35.2 Treaties concluded by England appear to have survived to bind Great Britain.
35.3 England’s diplomatic representation in the rest of Europe continued uninterrupted. The Acts of Union Article XXIV appears to acknowledge this in retaining the Great Seal of England for transitional purposes.
36. We note that the incorporation… of Ireland, previously a colony, under the Union with Ireland Act 1801 (GB) and the Act of Union 1800 (Ireland) did not affect state continuity. Despite its similarity to the union of 1707, Scottish and English writers unite in seeing the incorporation of Ireland not as the creation of a new state but as an accretion without any consequences in international law.
37. For the purpose of this advice, it is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state.
43. … Great Britain was the continuator of England rather than a new state.”
LikeLike
Q. If Scotland was absorbed into England how come the Scottish legal system remained in force, whereas in Wales and Ireland English Common Law was imposed and the native systems abolished? There has been expert legal advice which contradicts what you say above, but of course lawyers are trained to argue and disagree. Anyway, as I understand it, the section of the Acts of Union that preserved the Scottish legal system also preserved its constitutional position, including inter alia, the sovereignty of the people.
Q. What evidence do you have for Gaelic speakers in any part of the island of Britain before the Irish colonisations of the early centuries CE? This does not contradict the fact that Gaelic language/culture became dominant in Scotland during the late middle ages. Later English became dominant and the Gaels were made to feel foreigners in their own land, G. being referred to as ‘Erse’ (Irish) etc. In response to this some nationalists attempted to ‘prove’ that Scots G. had evolved in Scotland.
I have never understood why the British establishment when to such extremes to hang on to NI, given that it has no economic or strategic value as far as I can see, and the whole business was extremely embarrassing internationally.
LikeLike
A: The legal opinion comes from the document released by the British government in February as part of its official response to the referendum debate in Scotland entitled, “Scotland analysis: Devolution and the implications of Scottish independence” and can be read on page 73, Part IV “The status of Scotland and the remainder of the UK in international law”. It is one of several interpretations of the Act of Union and subsequent UK history but forms part of the consensus of legal opinions in relation to Scotland’s status as a separate jurisdictional or national entity. On the basis of those legal opinions in the view of the HMG it has none. The British state is the English state and Scotland is a territorial accretion to that state that did not alter its original legal form as a distinct nation-state.
A: What evidence do we have for them not being there?;-) There is no archaeological evidence of any “invasions” or “colonisations” from Ireland into northern Britain in the early centuries CE. What we do have is continuity. Continuity in archaeology, technology, land use, settlement patterns and by inference social organisations. And that continuity extends from western Scotland into Ireland. A growing body of scholars now believe that the observable continuity must have extended to language and culture too. Q-Celtic in Ireland and western Scotland. P-Celtic in southern Scotland. And P-Celtic in eastern and northern Scotland over a Q-Celtic substratum.
Of course all three retained their Insular traits that marked them out.
Since Q-Celtic is generally judged to be older than P-Celtic the theory runs that P-Celtic developed on the Continent and filtered eastwards and northwards into Britain. Q-Celtic speakers were pushed into western Scotland – and Ireland of course where they continued to dominate. A similar phenomenon occurred on the Iberian peninsula with the mix of Q- and P-Celtic speakers. The movement of P-Celtic speakers may or may not be aligned to the movement of La Tène technological and artistic traits (Hallstatt is less likely).
The growth of Gaelic speakers in Scotland is related to the collapse of the British/Cambrian/Welsh-speaking kingdoms in southern Scotland under English (and Gaelic pressure) as well as the absorption of the Picts.
Under this paradigm Irish and Scottish speakers are related, as are Welsh and Cornish speakers.
To answer your last question: nationalism. Ireland was England/Britain’s first colony. It may well be its last.
LikeLike
The Scots/Gaels came to Scotland as part of a general expansion out of Ireland with colonies in all the Western facing bits of Britain, i.e. Cornwall, Dyfed, Llyn (same name as Laighinn), Man most probably, and Argyll (Oirthir Gaidheal). In the south the colonies were assimilated, in Scotland they gradually spread and assimilated the Picts. This is more or less history. All place names and personal names in Britain back to classical sources show now evidence of Q-Celtic. The only other Q-Celtic known is in Spain, which is exactly where the Irish claimed to have come from. You don’t have to take that quite literally, but why should they claim to be only the last of a series of peoples to settle in Ireland if there wasn’t a grain of truth there. In any case all Celts of whatever variety had to be in continental Europe and before that in somewhere vaguely near the Black Sea. I really don’t see your problem, since everyone came from somewhere. The modern nations of Ireland, Scotland etc. are a result of the past few hundred years of history, and the different mixes of peoples and cultures that came together over that time. At earlier time they didn’t exist as anything we’d recognise now. Different combinations and identities existed at different times.
LikeLike
Click to access Dysfunction1.pdf
LikeLike
Great link, will have a read when I get home. The economic case is the one the Yes side is making a mess of. They must get their act together and the SNP needs to bring in other parties and interested groups. The way the Greens and others have been pushed to the fringes of the Yes campaign is quite counter-productive.
LikeLike