The death of Elizabeth Saxe Coburg Gotha released a tsunami of volksgemeinschaft schmaltz.
Dear reader, this is very clear to foreign observers like your humble correspondent.
Sometimes distance can lend clarity to the view.
For this Irish Republican, it seemed fitting that the British state tried to reinforce their position on the global stage with a funeral.
Much was made of the longevity of the pomp on display.
In fact, what was seen yesterday were ancient traditions that were invented in the Victoria era.
The revanchist impulse is intertwined with the deep awareness that post-1945, Britain was no longer a global power capable of unilateral action.
What they could still do was oppress the people they had previously colonised.
In 1952, the year that Elizabeth ascended the throne, Britain was already facing a serious insurgency in Kenya.
Meanwhile, on the home front, the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha became a soap opera for the post-Suez televisual age.
The branding was of the perfect family at ease with each other and born to rule.
It was three score and ten years of relentless propaganda and it worked.
Only very rarely was the messaging subverted.
Yesterday the damn of subservience burst across Britain, and it was quite a sight to behold.
Not the funeral, but the gushing commentary.
In terms of completely losing it, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Lyndsey Hoyle, stole the show.
Now, that’s gloriously delusional.
Unsurprisingly, republican Twitter wasn’t long before it deployed derisive mockery.
That’s the sort of thing that British Police might consider an arrestable offence on the streets of dear old Blighty.
I was actually at the last one, in 1989.
Now, I was fully aware as Die Mauer came down that I was witnessing history.
It was certainly the end of something that had seemed immutable.
The funeral of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha WAS a moment in history.
I thought that Channel 4 News handled it quite well.
Yesterday was probably peak grovelling from the media in a polity where food insecurity is now widespread and fuel poverty is on the horizon for millions this winter.
The warm glow of the pageantry will not insulate the poor against hypothermia as the nights draw in across the Realm.
Moreover, the Royalist credentials of the SNP cannot be in doubt after Grief Fest.
Scroll to 3.28.
Here it is in full:
“I, Charles III by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of My other Realms and Territories King, Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled ‘An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government’ and by the Acts passed in the Parliament of both Kingdoms for Union of the two Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland. So help me God.”
That was signed up by First Minister Sturgeon on the day.
One Scotland many cultures.
Really?
Discover more from Phil Mac Giolla Bháin
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ironically, one of the many titles held on the bloated list of those reserved to “protect and serve” the English monarch is that of Earl Marshall, whose role is to organise the monarch’s funeral. The current Earl Marshall, the Duke of Norfolk, is, according to the royal family’s website, “regarded as the highest ranking member of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain”.
So, they let a tim organise the funeral. I wonder what Chuckie, defender of the protestant faith, and the baying hordes over at The Rangers, make of that.
If you live in a Nation ruled by another Nation you live in a colony. Simple as.
That’s A definition, I suppose. An insufficient one for me, I’m afraid. The trouble with the word ‘colony’ is that there isn’t a singular, unifying definition. But, to say the very least, it certainly doesn’t FEEL right in the Scottish case. I’d maybe say more generally that the word ‘colony’ isn’t helpful in this debate (unlikely to move it forward, much less resolve it). I’m therefore reassured that it is not a word used by any contemporary front-line pro-independence politicians.
This is a good read, I thought.
https://thenewpolis.com/2022/01/17/is-scotland-a-colony-richard-saville-smith/
I’m in no position to endorse or decry every word or position. But, well put, I thought.
These last couple of days have been difficult for all things Ibrox. The royal Misery-Fest is officially over. The Klan, and Souness, are going through a cold turkey process. They’re obviously missing all this death and gloom. Grovelling is also an addiction. But, the ghoulish SFA has just handed them an additional fix for tonight’s international game. Naturally it’s in their interest to prolong the Mourn-Porn.
By the way, putting aside our semantic and moot differences, many thanks for the Channel 4 bulletin link. I’ve largely not been watching or listening to the news throughout all this, and I’ve been very careful not to click on all that much about the issue (for fear of messing up my algorithm with silly white noise). I did buy the latest New Statesman issue, which I thought dealt with the issue with balance and a thoughtful and discursive intent, but that’s about it. I thought the Channel 4 link did likewise.
It’s almost laughable seeing Charles done up like something from the circus. All those gleaming medals must’ve been attained by hanging around Balmoral. Or maybe he was involved in conflicts unreported. There’s been elements of medieval servility from the Ibrox Klan in recent days. Some have likened it all to scenes from Nazi Germany, with ugly nationalism, crude militarism, fixation of a racist royal establishment, and a warped sub-culture, distracting people from the real economic hardships.
I do not believe the SNP are capable of running a raffle, never mind a country.
They have decimated the NHS, education, policing, Ferrys.
They tried to have Alex Salmon jailed by subverting the truth and blatant lies.
They have tried to have spies in the camp, by their attempts to enforce the “Named person act”.
They are as corrupt and untrustworthy as anything the Tory’s can offer.
Had they shown leadership and improved the services they have complete control over, I would listen to thier calls for independence. All they have done is destroy Scotland and try to blame Westminster, even when it is obvious that the SNP are simply incompetent.
I am a 64 year old Catholic who was born and bred in the West of Scotland.
Free prescriptions, free college and university education for our young adults, 10 year freeze on Council Tax, mitigation of the bedroom tax, etc.
It’s not been that bad!
How well have the Tories run the UK? Did you vote form them?
Scotland didn’t but we still get them anyway when England wants them.
The whole point is that we have no real say in who wins a UK general election.
That’s frustrating.
I don’t think the SNP in its current guise cares a jot about independence. Power has corrupted and now their only goal is retaining power.
It’s sad, as they really had potential.
So you think the Tory government in Westminster isn’t to blame for most of what has happened in the UK over the past 12 years whilst they’ve been in government such as Brexit, PPE contract corruption during Covid, no windfall tax on Oil and Gas companies to combat the energy crisis. What planet are you living on. Most Independence supporters in Scotland support the SNP because they and the Greens are the only Parties who can possibly achieve Independence constitutionally. All in all I think they have done a reasonably good job with the limited powers that they have. Obviously the ferry debacle wasn’t great, I think in their haste to save and create jobs on the Clyde their judgement was questionable and the overspend was embarrassing but not nearly as bad as the Crossrail debacle in London where the overspend ran into billions. You won’t see or hear much about that on BBC Scotland.
I look forward to a new Independent Scotland where the Scottish people get to decide on all issues. Don’t even start me on whether Scotland could be financially viable. With the natural energy resources, agriculture, fishing grounds, tourism,etc we could be like Northern European neighbours of a similar size such as Norway and Finland.
To me religion in any modern European country isn’t an issue these days, most young people have lost interest, If you want to practice you’re religion you have the freedom to do so. I would hope that an Independent Scotland would be secular under a new Scottish constitution
The Status Quo of Westminster Government is what ratifies these Ancient and Archaic Vows. Independence will open up a proud new world for the young people of Scotland.
Bernard – genuine question from a fellow 64 year old.
Why do you quote your age, religion and geographical location within Scotland when discussing which political party to support?
The Hoyle clip is mind-blowing. Prince Edward, who took his title from a character in his favourite movie, “Shakespeare in Love” because he liked the sound of it, showed the same gravitas when he declared, of the the queen’s funeral, “no matter where you are in the world you will remember this day”. On the same day 9 million people in Japan had to be evacuated due to storm “Nanmadol”. Here’s hoping they remembered their laptops and had access to wi-fi.
The SNP is a vehicle to Independence , nothing more . I want an Alba with no Monarchy and a EU membership , take the Euro and with Ireland create a Eurozone …. I want to get as far away from the Crazy English as possible and put the Puritans in their place … starting with king Charles the third … in the Rubbish bin .
This is the case for the allegedly enlightened Scots Establishment though the historical spectrum of political enmeshments north and south of the border is more complex
https://www.academia.edu/34320725/Aberdeen_Aberdeenshire_and_Jacobitism_in_the_North_East_of_Scotland_1688_1750
No-one doubts the SNP’s credentials as a Church of Scotland leaning party, but, if you want a party wanting independence then SNP is the only one willing to follow this agenda, and for people who jump the gun and shout about cancelling, because they listened to Noddys friend, Big Ears, if and fingers crossed this party can give us independence then by giving independence to its people, I am pretty sure it will work hard to ensure it remains in power with your vote in an idependant, Scotland with choices in voting for Scottish Labour Independant, Scottish Conservative Independant, Lib Dems etc etc. I would swear allegiance knowing fine well that my plan all along is to screw these suckers as they have us and get to Fruck away from them.
That’s exactly it get your independence then vote in a party to run your country. My mum is from county Cavan, stays in Glasgow though but is a staunch labour voter and I’m fed up telling her this lol
Its a said state of affairs when there is one political party in the country which is any good. I would do away with the way the party system is used. In a General election all the main cabinet posts should be up for a vote. So each party who put someone forward for roles like home Secretary, health minister etc . Then hopefully that way all the top jobs are are shared around & no one party is in power. Plus that way you wouldn’t have a health Secretary who has never worked in public health because who would vote in someone with no experience.
Plus it would be funny watching them trying to work together
Why would such a system never lead to a health secretary with no health qualifications? People vote for people with no obviously appropriate qualifications for jobs all the time.
If he is saying claim of right does that mean Scotland can claim it’s independence under claim of right ?
Scotland is sovereign, it was never colonised.
The Scots were colonisers both in the 17th century and as part of Great Britain post-1707.
All that current Scottish leaders need to do is withdraw from Westminster, ideally with a democratic mandate to do so.
I thought that. In my opinion I would do it without mandate but can’t see the leadership of the SNP doing that. They have come accustomed to the bumper pay packet
Exactly that Tom.
After Sinn Féin won the 1918 election, the Brits thought that they would, in time, take their seats and enjoy the pay and perks.
Of course, they didn’t.
They were elected by their constituents to establish the Dáil Éireann here at home.
I’m an SNP member but it’s getting cancelled. My father in-law was in SNP and a true nationalist and would be turning in is grave at the referendum result and the way the SNP have turned out
For the avoidance of doubt, Tom, if I lived in Scotland, I would vote SNP.
Not with any enthusiasm, but there it is.
If there were to be another IndyRef, I would vote YES.
However, I wouldn’t be expecting a Tartan Shangri-La to follow if it were successful.
To Tom & Phil
I too now vote SNP after years of mainly voting Labour. I see no realistic political alternative to gaining independence other than via SNP.
Alba appear to be a bit of a reactionary, grumpy old man’s party who have no traction with electorate.
The history and circumstances in Scotland in 21st century and Ireland of early 20th century are vastly different and cannot be directly compared. The method to independence in Scotland must be with majority consent and via established route of referendum. However if Westminster and British state block off the referendum route then other peaceful methods will have to come into play.
I think most people accept that an independent Scotland will not be a land of milk and honey but with the natural resources it possess it should be able to be a richer, more democratic country where there is less financial and social inequality within a reasonable period of time. There may even be an opportunity to get rid of monarchy at some future point!
None of these these opportunities are available to Scotland under a Westminster system wedded to Anglo- British exceptionalism (eg Brexit) where the English electorate’s default setting is to vote Tory.
The SNP’s performance in power is open to a lot of criticism but in comparison to other parties in Scotland they are still best of a bad bunch
Scotland isn’t sovereign. Sovereignty for the territory of Scotland lies outwith its borders. This doesn’t make it a colony and I’m not aware of anyone credible who argues otherwise. Power was surrendered for financial reasons by the Scottish ruling class early in the eighteenth century, and the arrangement was given a direct popular mandate in 2014 (though a strong inferred mandate existed long before). It’s more like the Hungarian bit of Austria-Hungary. The first minister doesn’t have the legal authority to declare independence. The legal power to do so rests where the sovereignty does. It’s getting interesting though, because since the 2014 vote, the SNP has won multiple elections which give a mandate to a further vote, given the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ hypothetically forecast even before the 2014 vote. The sovereign power has repeatedly rebuffed the possibility. On that basis, you could argue that while Scotland has never been a colony (at least SINCE the Act of Union), it could yet become one. But, we’re nowhere near that point yet. Swearing an oath of allegiance is neither here nor there in discussions surrounding whether a territory is or was a colony. The leaders of Australia and Jamaica swear the oath to this day. It doesn’t mean those territories were never colonies. Indeed, the leaders of the Irish Free State did likewise. That isn’t evidence against it being a post-colonial situation. The two things aren’t really related.
“This doesn’t make it a colony and I’m not aware of anyone credible who argues otherwise.”
The idea that Scotland is a colony of England has substantial currency among many in the Scottish nationalist movement.
Yeah, I’m not convinced. Again, haven’t heard that argument made by anyone credible. I’ve heard and read the argument that Scotland is NOT a colony – by George Galloway, say – but I’m never sure who he’s responding to. When I’ve heard him make it, it seems to be a fake argument made for the purpose of galvanising support among the pro-Union left (while also reaching out to whomever might be taken in by cheap demagoguery). Certainly all frontline pro-independence politicians never say anything of the kind. The most important ones have clearly said the exact opposite.
Craig Murray might be who you have in mind. I’ve never heard him refer to Scotland as a ‘colony’ exactly (though I may have missed it). I have heard him describe Westminster’s relationship to Scotland as ‘colonial’. Much as I’m not comfortable with that description personally, the ‘al’ suffix of the adjective is doing quite a lot of work there. When I’ve seen/read him use it, he appears to be describing the scenario I refer to above – that Scotland has returned SNP majorities on multiple occasions since 2014 and the sovereign centre continually rebuffs dialogue on the matter. Again, not a colony, but could yet become one. ‘ColoniAL’ (as an adjective, ‘as in a colony’) in the sense that the holders of sovereignty are underlining exactly where power lies – and where it does not. Where I think he over-eggs it is that he seems to presuppose a groundswell of Scottish public opinion which isn’t yet there (and may yet retreat). He’s also overlooking the fact that SNP victories have been via manifestos which commit any SNP governments to a referendum route. It might be the case that people would vote for a unilateral declaration route, but no one has ever returned a majority for such a manifesto and so there is currently no mandate for it.
Scotland isn’t a colony, it’s a nation for which sovereignty lies outwith its borders. I’m not sure there’s a single word which accurately describes that situation in and of itself. That is a common trait of a colony, admittedly. But it does not make a colony necessarily. Indeed, it’s quite hard to define a ‘colony’ universally. Almost all significant British colonies had quite different specific relationships to the sovereign centre. Some had ‘privileges’, or indeed specific repressions, which others did not. I can vaguely recall attending an Economic and Social History lecture two decades ago where the lecturer (from Yorkshire, as I recall) distinguished Scotland as a ‘peripheral nation’ as distinct from a ‘colony’. ‘A nation for which sovereignty lies outwith its borders’ is nevertheless about the best description I can muster.
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1568904594310266881
You are playing with words.
“Colonial” derives from “colony”.
I’ve dined with Mr Murray (2012 NUJ conference).
Our conversation was mainly on his time as British Ambassador and his subsequent whistleblowing etc.
Since then, we have, on occasion, interact on social media.
Unless he states otherwise openly, his position on Scotland as a colony seems fairly clear.
In the 1980s Gordon Wilson the then SNP leader stated at a party conference that Scotland was, in his opinion, a colony.
I’ve run out of responses at the other end of the chat, I think.
I am indeed playing with words – nothing terribly wrong in that. I am aware that ‘colonial’ derives from ‘colony’. My point was that the former (which is the only one I’ve personally seen or heard Murray use, including in the tweet you’ve posted) is an adjective; the latter a noun. To describe something as ‘farcical’ does not mean that the subject is literally of or from that dramatic form. To describe a sound or fabric as ‘metallic’ doesn’t mean the speaker considers it to be made of metal. Indeed, if you were to describe the decor of a building as ‘colonial’, it would generally be taken as an aesthetic judgement and not necessarily a comment on the source of the materials involved.
What I’ve heard Craig Murray say is that the current UK sovereign government’s relationship to Scotland is ‘colonial’. A passable reading of that may be as I’ve described – that it is openly disregarding continuing mandates for independence from within a nation over which it holds absolute sovereignty. It’s not a word I’d use myself, but it’s only the adjective rather than the noun I’ve seen or read used.
It did occur to me just after my last post that I might well have been better conceding then that you may simply know more people from the Scottish nationalist community than I do. I have no doubt that you do. And so this language may well be commonly used. I take your point that it may well have been used by SNP front-liners, in the 1980s.
My point is that the opposite has been explicitly stated by the current First Minister and her predecessor, and the position that Scotland is a colony is not held by any credible player in the contemporary debate. Indeed, when you’re making the point to Scottish independence supporters who may be labouring under the misapprehension that Scotland is a colony, you might be as well to refer to them to the instances where Sturgeon and Salmond have said that it is not.
And it’s good that all current pro-independence heavyweights don’t hold the position that Scotland is a colony, because it isn’t. It’s a nation where sovereignty lies outwith its borders. We are somewhat led to believe that reclaiming that sovereignty is within our own gift as it was in 2014 (as a result of the Edinburgh Agreement, granted by the sovereign UK government). That is, except by the current UK government who only reconfirm that the power to make such a decision lies outwith our borders.
I have not heard NS or any other current senior SNP politicians describe Scotland as being a colony. I am sure some SNP members probably used this in past when their nationalism was more blood & soil and I would imagine this thinking is more prevelant but amongst Alba party members than SNP ones now.
The UK is supposed to be a voluntary union which politically operates under a parliamentary system.
The question that will arise is if Westminster (elected viaFPTP) tries to block another independence referendum after majority in Holyrood (elected via PR) have voted for one is whether the UKcan still be described as a voluntary union?