Only the historically illiterate would think this Union is ‘equal'
READ MORE: Here's what's on the agenda at our next independence convention
Opponents of Scottish independence – the grim custodians of imperial nostalgia – cling to their myth of 'British unity' with the tenacity of flat-earthers grasping their ancient maps. They wax lyrical about 'shared history' as though history, in this case, were anything other than a record of coerced assimilation – a process in which Scotland's Parliament dissolved itself under duress, its elites bribed and strong-armed into submission, while its people bore witness to their nation being relegated to a provincial outpost of London's ambitions. To deny this is to inhabit a realm of fantasy where the Highland Clearances were merely an invigorating game of musical chairs, and the exploitation of North Sea oil and gas reserves was an act of benevolent Treasury largesse.
These Unionist apologists – these parochial zealots swaddled in Union Jacks – would have us believe that sovereignty is a fixed, immutable doctrine, akin to the divine right of kings or the literal truth of Genesis. They quiver at the thought of Scottish self-determination as though it were heresy, a rupture in the cosmic order. Their arguments – when not drowned in syrupy sentimentalism about wartime camaraderie or the Queen's Christmas broadcasts – amount to little more than the petulant wails of a child unwilling to part with a favourite toy. 'But we built the Empire together!' they bleat, as if the moral and economic ruin of that enterprise were not already scrawled in blood across the pages of history.
READ MORE: BBC Alba launch search for homegrown talent to play Belladrum festival
And what of their vaunted 'United Kingdom', this patchwork of asymmetrical power? It is as contrived and unsustainable as the Ptolemaic model of the universe, requiring ever more elaborate contortions of denial to uphold its fiction. The Unionist's devotion to it is a form of Stockholm syndrome – bizarre loyalty to the machinery of their own cultural diminishment. They are the political equivalent of those who, confronted with Darwin's On the Origin of Species, retreat into murmuring about 'missing links' and the aesthetic perfection of the banana, as if wishful thinking could erase the fossil record.
Scotland a colony? The question scarcely requires an answer. Only those afflicted with terminal imperial amnesia – or perhaps the careerist urge to ingratiate themselves with the mandarins of Whitehall – could dismiss the evidence. The sun has long since set on the British Empire; it is high time it ceased to set on the intellect of those who confuse subjugation with solidarity.
Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee
PETER Bell lays out an interesting formula to get us to independence (Letters, May 25). One thing that kept entering my thoughts throughout the piece was: as a colony getting independent status, how would we the people of Scotland and the newly reformed Scottish Parliament get our hands on any of 'our dosh' held at Westminster and how, if at all, would that be calculated?
Ken McCartney
Hawick
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Scottish Tories eye Reform electoral pact
Senior Scottish Conservatives have discussed striking an electoral pact with Reform UK for the Holyrood elections next spring. One figure backing a deal told The Telegraph it could help avoid splitting the vote on the Right and kick the SNP out of power in Scotland. The deal, which would not need to be made public, would see the Tories either not stand candidates or go easy in areas where Reform is better placed to win and vice versa. It comes as Nigel Farage 's party sits above the Conservatives in third place in opinion polls for the Scottish Parliament elections next May. A pact does not have the backing of Russell Findlay, the Scottish Tory leader, whose team released a statement ruling out the possibility when approached by The Telegraph. But the fact a deal is being considered at senior levels in the party underscores the scale of Reform's popularity surge north of the border and the concerns it has triggered among Tories. In Scotland, Reform now has 15 councillors, 14 of whom used to be Conservatives. It is in marked contrast to other political parties previously run by Mr Farage, such as the UK Independence Party (Ukip), which struggled to get a foothold north of border. One Tory MSP has privately spoken of a defection 'watch list' in Holyrood of those suspected of switching to Reform. Mr Farage also waved away the idea he would agree to any such pact, telling The Telegraph: 'No chance. The Tories are dying in Scotland and I've got no desire to do a deal with them whatsoever.' The idea of some form of agreement, public or private, between the Conservatives and Reform has become a common discussion point in Westminster. Average UK-wide voting polls have Reform in first place on 30 per cent of the vote, with the Tories in a distant third on 17 per cent. Labour is in second place on 22 per cent. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has ruled out a pre-vote deal with Mr Farage, but speculation continues with the next general election not due until 2029. The recent by-election result for the Scottish Parliament seat of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse underscored the challenges of Right-wing parties splitting the vote. Labour won the seat with 32 per cent of the vote, followed by the SNP on 29 per cent. Reform came third on 26 per cent. Had the Tories, who got 6 per cent, not stood a candidate, it is possible Reform would have beaten Labour and taken the seat, though pollsters often caution against hard conclusions when predicting voter behaviour. Mr Farage has agreed to election pacts before. The Brexit Party, the precursor to Reform which Mr Farage led, had criticism of the Tory handling of the issue of Europe as its heart. Yet he still agreed not to stand candidates against sitting Conservatives at the 2019 general election to help Boris Johnson win and get a Brexit deal through the Commons, securing the UK's departure from the European Union. Despite interest in some quarters of the Scottish Conservative Party, other figures strongly played down the possibility of a pact. One Scottish Tory politician who has spent years in influential positions said: 'Churchill's phrase comes to mind, 'You don't negotiate with a tiger when your head's in its mouth'. We're in competition with Reform – we're not in partnership with them.' The source said Scottish Tory supporters had brought up the prospect of a deal with Reform but that there was little chance it would be adopted by the leadership. Another senior Scottish Tory said: 'Why would Reform do a deal? I can see why we might be interested in it, but why would they?' There have long been suspicions on the Right of coordination between Labour and the Liberal Democrats at general elections to maximise the chances of Tory defeats. The Lib Dems surged from winning 11 MPs at the 2019 general election to 72 MPs at the 2024 general election with almost no increase in overall vote share. The party's strategists have talked about how they ruthlessly focused on a small number of winnable seats rather than competing hard everywhere. Labour was likely to have benefited from the decreased campaigning in non-target seats. But there are reasons why striking some form of deal would be less likely in elections for the Scottish Parliament than the UK-wide Parliament in Westminster. The electoral system for the Scottish Parliament has a proportional element, meaning as well as individual constituency races a party wins some MPs for their overall vote totals. Reform, whose strategists hope to get between 10 and 20 MSPs next spring, is expected to get their victories almost entirely via this way, known as 'the list', rather than winning constituencies. That could provide a disincentive to strike a deal with the Tories, given a lower overall vote total would likely mean fewer MSPs thanks to this proportion element of the election. In polling for next spring's Scottish Parliament elections, Reform is on around 17 per cent, above the Tories on around 12 per cent. The SNP is top, followed by Labour. A year ago, it looked likely that Labour could win power in Scotland but a support slump since Sir Keir Starmer took office last summer means the SNP is now well-placed to remain in office. A Scottish Conservative spokesman said: 'Nigel Farage has said he is content with the SNP winning another five years in power and Reform stood multiple pro-independence candidates in the general election, so no, this won't be happening. 'The Scottish Conservatives want to get the SNP out of power, while Reform will gladly help the nationalists.'
The National
29 minutes ago
- The National
Consent for gigantic wind farm is an ironic act of ecocide
The irony is that Holyrood is contemplating the introduction of an ecocide bill – at the very time the [[Scottish Government]] is complicit in ecocide committed by renewable energy companies on an ever-expanding scale. We note 'SSE Renewables will have to provide a plan to counter any impact the wind farm may have on seabirds', but this is thin gruel, especially as SSE is quoted as admitting in its own environmental impact assessment that more than 31,000 bird collisions are estimated during its lifespan. READ MORE: Scottish crew 'excluded from Spider Man 4 filming' What will its proposed 'mitigation' provide? It is to be hoped it will be something better than the farcically inappropriate plans that Equinor has put in place to construct an inappropriately sited nesting habitat for Arctic Terns hundreds of miles from its proposed massive wind farm extension off the coast of Norfolk. Whatever it is, it is difficult to see how it can provide more than a small sticking plaster for an act of ecocide. The Scottish Government may well have shot itself in the foot here. People who would not normally object to a wind farm are sickened by this decision. The sleeping giant of Joe Public has awakened. Aileen Jackson Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor THE story about House of Lords peers warning UK recognition of Palestine may 'breach international law' (Jul 31) is revealing, not just for what it says about Westminster, but for what it exposes about Scotland's position. The peers cite the Montevideo Convention, claiming Palestine doesn't qualify as a state because it lacks a defined territory, unified government and full diplomatic capacity. This argument is flawed because the UK never signed the convention — it's a regional treaty drafted in 1933 by US states, not global law – and even if you accept it as a standard, it backfires spectacularly when applied to Scotland. Let's test the same criteria: Permanent population? Scotland has that; Defined territory? Clearly; Functioning government? We've had one for over 20 years, with its own legal system, civil service, and tax powers. Capacity for foreign relations? Scotland already hosts consulates and conducts international outreach, and could expand that overnight. By any serious standard, Scotland meets the Montevideo criteria more fully than [[Palestine]], Kosovo at the time of recognition, or even Israel in 1948. So why are we still being told we must wait for a Section 30 order from [[Westminster]] to hold an independence referendum — and why are the SNP still building their entire strategy around asking for one? John Swinney says a vote for the [[SNP]] in 2026 will be a vote for independence. But what comes after that? Nothing. Because the leadership still refuses to act without permission. The Supreme Court didn't say independence is illegal – it said [[Holyrood]] doesn't have the power under UK law to legislate for a referendum. That's a political dead end, not a legal one. Recognition doesn't begin with external approval, it begins with internal control. That's how Estonia, Ireland, Kosovo, and countless others did it. They asserted the fact of statehood, governed as such, and forced recognition by acting like a state. That's how international law actually works. The real reason Scotland isn't independent isn't legal, it's psychological. Our leaders won't cross the line. They keep asking Westminster to validate our democracy instead of enforcing it. They quote laws they never intend to test. And they call that strategy. So yes, the peers' letter is cynical and legally thin. But it also hands us a mirror. Because if the UK can consider recognising Palestine under the Montevideo Convention, then the only thing stopping Scotland is the lack of a leadership willing to act on what we already are. James Murphy Bute THE claims by a group of peers in the House of Lords that UK recognition of Palestine could 'breach international law' warrant scrutiny. These assertions are based on a rigid interpretation of the Montevideo Convention and a selective reading of legal principles and risk politicising law rather than defending it. A clear-eyed examination reveals that such recognition remains well within the bounds of international legality and reflects long-standing norms of state practice. The UK is not a signatory to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 and state recognition in international law has always been as much a political act as a legal one. Numerous recognitions have occurred over the years, including Kosovo and South Sudan, despite contested claims to defined territory or unified governance. Recognition of states remains a sovereign prerogative. As confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo, international law does not prohibit declarations of independence or third-party recognition, even in complex or disputed circumstances. Recognition by the UK would not constitute a breach of international law but rather an exercise of lawful foreign policy discretion. (Image: Jonathan Brady) More than 135 UN member states have recognised Palestine and in 2012 the UN General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status. These actions underscore the fact that recognition of Palestinian statehood is neither novel nor legally exceptional. If such recognition were truly contrary to international law, it would have triggered challenges in international courts – none have materialised. It is time to move beyond legal obfuscation and act in pursuit of a just and lasting peace. Peter Macari Aberdeen
North Wales Chronicle
37 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Fact check: Recognising a Palestinian state, misleading tsunami video and deportations vs returns
Is the Government on track with its pledge to recognise a Palestinian state? On July 29, the Prime Minister announced that the UK would recognise Palestine as a state in September, ahead of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, unless Israel meets certain conditions. Labour's manifesto committed to formally recognising a Palestinian state 'as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution'. A 'two-state solution' refers to a proposed framework to resolve the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which a sovereign Palestinian state is established alongside Israel. Previous efforts at a peace process did not result in a sovereign Palestinian state. UK governments have long been in favour of a two-state solution, as well as recognising a Palestinian state as part of a process towards that goal. All members of the G7 group of countries have pledged support for a two-state solution, as has the EU and China. Palestine is currently designated by the UN as a 'permanent observer state', a form of non-member state, meaning it cannot vote on decisions made by the UN's main organs and bodies, such as the General Assembly. However, the majority of UN member states have formally recognised Palestine. According to media reports, as of July 2025, some 147 UN member states formally recognised Palestinian statehood, not including France, which in the same month committed to recognising Palestine at the General Assembly in September. The UK is not included in this figure, although it does have a Consulate General in Jerusalem to assist British nationals in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It has been reported that a number of UK peers have questioned the legal basis for any recognition of a Palestinian state. Full Fact has contacted the Government for comment on this. How fact checkers helped set the record straight on PM's viral video When 31-year-old Abby Raworth first realised her photo and name were being shared online – falsely linked to a viral video involving the Prime Minister – she assumed it was a mix-up. Posts on social media claimed that the woman in the video was not mum-of-three Nicola but was really a 'paid actress' or 'actress and agent' named Abby Raworth. Full Fact's investigation brought to light how much was being written about her online 'without any regard for if it was correct or not.' Abby has spoken to Full Fact about her experience, telling us: 'What shocks me is how little people bothered to do regarding checks before they used someone's name and accused them of something. There is a lack of accountability for what comes out of peoples' mouths and if it had happened to any of those people they would have a different opinion on it.' We're grateful to Abby for sharing her story to help show exactly why Full Fact exists to counter the harm caused by misinformation. Old tsunami video circulates amid Pacific evacuations A video circulating online amid major evacuations across the Pacific is claimed to show a tsunami which has taken 'thousands of lives'. But this is misleading. The footage shows three people, including the person filming, narrowly escape huge waves that crash into some small boats on a shore. It was shared online following news of an 8.8 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Russia, which triggered the evacuation of almost two million people across Japan. Warnings were also put in place in other locations including Hawaii, Ecuador, Indonesia, Peru and China. A caption shared with the video said: 'Massive Earthquake triggers Tsunami taking thousands of lives in seconds with little to no warning.' But this footage is not current, or related to the earthquake in Russia or the subsequent tsunami warnings. It actually showed a tsunami which occurred on the west coast of Greenland in 2017, triggered by a landslide. That tsunami did not kill 'thousands', as stated in the social media posts. Four people were killed, and nine others were injured. The same footage has been wrongly shared in the wake of other earthquakes before. Has Labour carried out 'record deportations'? Labour MP Mike Tapp recently claimed that the Government has carried out 'record deportations'. We've frequently seen MPs and ministers using the word 'deportations' when referring to all immigration returns. Not all immigration returns are 'deportations'. We don't actually know how many meet the official definition of a deportation, which the Home Office defines as 'a specific subset of returns which are enforced either following a criminal conviction or when it is judged that a person's removal from the UK is conducive to the public good'. We do know, however, that enforced returns – the category of returns which includes deportations – account for a minority (26%) of all returns carried out under Labour during its first year in office. According to ad-hoc figures published by the Home Office, during Labour's first year in office a total of 35,052 returns were recorded. We don't have the data to compare this exact period to the same period in previous years, but official immigration statistics show that this figure is not a record for the number of immigration returns over a 12-month period, going back to 2004 when this data series began. These figures show that immigration returns over a 12-month period were consistently above 40,000 between 2010 and 2016, for example. It does appear, however, that the 35,052 returns in the first year of this Labour government represents the highest 12-month figure since 2017. While we don't know how many of these returns were official 'deportations', the figures show that the 9,115 enforced returns carried out between 5 July 2024 and 4 July 2025 also do not represent a record. While this figure is the highest number of enforced returns carried out over a 12-month period since 2018, prior to 2018 enforced returns were consistently above 10,000 over a 12-month period. MPs should use statistics transparently and with all relevant context and caveats, and quickly rectify oversights when they occur.
