As post-election analysis continues and an increasing number of Scots come to the sorry realisation that the SNP is on some strange form of life-support, many independence supporters are going back to the basics.
Is Scotland a colony or not?
Can that discussion happen in mainstream media? Has it ever been aired via the BBC or STV?
We think not.
And there's no logical reason to suppose that it will happen anytime soon.
All the more reason to have that discussion and use whatever means to ensure that it gets the profile it deserves.
The following two pieces have appeared in recent days. We've provided the links for the original sources.
We've also noticed, via Twitter, that there is increasing use of 'Anglo-state' instead of the the word 'Britain'. This is encouraging and we're happy to play a part in promoting that usage.
The party political framework, right now, cannot or will not accommodate the debate on colonisation and the essence of Scotland's relationship with/to the Anglo-state. So, that debate must be hosted by 'alternative' media. Spaces like this exist to facilitate such discussion and we appeal to all those with a dog in the fight to state their positions clearly. As always, we welcome contributions from unionists who feel they have constructive commentary to offer. They could start by responding to the pieces published below.
by Clem Fandango
An Aspect..
The Decimation of Highland Culture Post-Culloden: A Historical Examination.
On April 16, 1746, the Battle of Culloden marked a pivotal moment in Scottish history. The Jacobite forces, led by Charles Edward Stuart, also known as Bonnie Prince Charlie, faced a crushing defeat at the hands of the British government troops. This battle not only ended the Jacobite Rebellion but also set in motion a series of events that would lead to the systematic dismantling of Highland culture. The subsequent actions taken by the British government and lowland Scottish elites were aimed at eradicating any remnants of Jacobite support, which they equated with the Highland way of life. This essay explores the measures implemented to achieve this goal, the impact on Highland culture, and the subsequent romanticisation of the Highlanders.
The Immediate Aftermath: Legislative Repression
In the wake of the Battle of Culloden, the British government enacted several laws designed to suppress Highland culture and prevent any future rebellions. One of the most significant pieces of legislation was the Disarming Act of 1746. This act banned the wearing of tartan and the Highland dress, including the kilt, which had become symbols of the Jacobite movement. The use of bagpipes, considered instruments of war, was also prohibited. Violating this act resulted in severe punishments: a first offence led to six months in prison, while a second offence could result in transportation to the colonies for seven years. Although enforcement varied, with most convictions occurring near garrisons, the impact on Highland culture was profound.
Another crucial law was the Heritable Jurisdictions Act of 1747, which aimed to dismantle the clan system. This act transferred control of Jacobite lands to the government and effectively destroyed the traditional clan leadership structure. The government believed that by removing the power of clan leaders, who had the ability to mobilise support for the Jacobite cause, they could 'civilize' the Highlanders and integrate them into the broader British society. This anglicisation process sought to replace the Highlanders' political and social structures with those of the English.
Cultural Suppression and Education
The suppression of Highland culture extended beyond legislative measures to include efforts to eradicate the Gaelic language and replace it with English. The Scottish Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge (SSPCK) played a significant role in this endeavour. The SSPCK established schools in the Highlands with the explicit goal of teaching English and promoting Protestant Christianity, thereby undermining the Gaelic language and culture. The methods used by the SSPCK were harsh, with strict punishments for those who resisted the imposition of English culture. However, the success of these efforts is debatable. For instance, rumours circulated that attending a school on the Earl of Lovat’s land would result in transportation to the colonies, leading to low attendance rates.
The Romanticisation of Highland Culture
Ironically, after the systematic repression of Highland culture, the same elites who had sought to destroy it began to romanticise and appropriate it for their own purposes. This shift is exemplified in the art and fashion of the period. Paintings such as Pompeo Batoni’s "Colonel William Gordon of Fyvie" depict wealthy individuals wearing tartan and Highland dress, stripped of their Jacobite connotations and reimagined as symbols of romanticism and fashion. In Batoni’s painting, Colonel William Gordon is portrayed in a British uniform jacket paired with a philibeg, a traditional kilt worn over the shoulder. The classical influences in the painting's background further suggest that Gordon embodies the ideal of the 'civilized' gentleman.
This romanticisation extended to the perception of Highlanders themselves. Once viewed as uncivilized brutes, they began to be seen as noble, antiquarian freedom fighters who lived a primitive but virtuous lifestyle. This transformation in perception was facilitated by the fact that the Jacobites no longer posed a threat to the British government. The romantic image of the Highlander was thus a product of the very colonialism that had sought to eradicate their culture.
Conclusion
The Battle of Culloden and its aftermath marked a turning point in the history of the Scottish Highlands. The British government's efforts to suppress Jacobite support through legislative repression, cultural suppression, and educational indoctrination had a devastating impact on Highland culture. The Disarming Act of 1746 and the Heritable Jurisdictions Act of 1747 were particularly instrumental in dismantling the traditional Highland way of life. At the same time, the SSPCK's efforts to replace Gaelic with English further eroded Highland culture.
Yet, in a twist of historical irony, the very culture that was suppressed began to be romanticised by the elites who had sought its destruction. The appropriation of Highland symbols and the idealisation of the Highlander as a noble freedom fighter reveal the complexities of cultural suppression and appropriation. The story of the Highlanders post-Culloden is thus a testament to the enduring resilience of a culture in the face of systematic repression and the paradoxical nature of cultural memory and identity.
I know I've been talking about the impact of one historical event in our society, but the truth is, I fear it's too late to change the course.
Colonisation was the ultimate goal and unfortunately, they succeeded. We're now in a system that's been designed to keep us under their control, and the worst part is, we're all too aware of it.
‘Several commentators last week insisted that “Scotland is not a colony”, and that British rule over Scotland cannot be seen as colonial in nature. This bears some clearing up. On the most trivial level, “Scotland is not a colony” because “colony” was one particular form of governance within the British Empire, which never applied to Scotland.
But many other parts of the British Empire were not officially “colonies” either. Some, like Malaya and the Trucial States, were protectorates. Some, like Canada after 1867 and South Africa after 1910, were “dominions”. Some, like Gibraltar and Bermuda, are now called “overseas territories”.
“Scotland is not a colony” because imperial rule over Scotland was established by treaty, not conquest. But that also applies to much of the British Empire. Imperialism-by-treaty was a common mode of expansion.
The imperial power just needs to apply the right pressure to the right people. Find the parcel of rogues and pay them off. When that fails to pacify people, then send the redcoats in to uphold the treaty – there is a clear line between 1707 and 1746.
“Scotland is not a colony” because the Scottish elite actively cooperated with and benefitted from imperial rule. Of course they did. Every successful empire brings native elites on board – and has done since the first Gaul, seeing what side his bread was buttered, donned a toga and learnt Latin.
Being absorbed into an empire can be beneficial for these assimilated elites. They have economic opportunities that would otherwise be denied to them. Above all, they gain protection against their own people.
There might even be a “sahib” class of elite natives who have been so socialised into the imperial ruling system that they are trusted to manage things, so long as they do so in the ultimate interests of the Empire and not in the interests of their fellow countrymen. There are still a lot of these Scottish sahibs about, quietly running Scotland and keeping a lid on things.
“Scotland is not a colony” because we have self-government. So did most colonies. Colonialism entails the subordination of high politics to imperial ends – a colony loses the power to determine its own destiny on the world stage, to make war and peace, to conduct international affairs. Low politics may be left in local hands. Indeed, general patterns of rule across the British Empire were hands-off. Most colonies had devolved legislatures, with broad powers over their own affairs, but subject to London’s ultimate veto. Does that sound familiar?
“Scotland is not a colony” because Scotland has seats in Westminster. So did Ireland. But somehow the same people who deny Scotland’s colonial status are happy to acknowledge the colonial nature of British rule in Ireland.
“Scotland is not a colony” because Scotland was a coloniser – as if the two were mutually incompatible. Unfortunately for those who like their historical narratives clear and simple, the world is not divided into goodies and baddies. Some, looking at their grim opportunities in Scotland, willingly took the boat. Others, looking at their burning clachans, were rounded up and forced to the quayside. That is how easily the colonised become colonisers.
“Scotland is not a colony” because Scots fought proudly and bravery in the British Empire’s wars. That’s also a common feature of empires. A colonially governed country is a useful source of canon fodder, to be sure; colonised people with “martial traditions” like Punjabi Sikhs or Scottish Highlanders can be put to work on behalf of the imperial scheme.
“Scotland is not a colony” because there was no cultural oppression. That must be why this article is being written in English, while the native languages of Scotland are preserved like curios on signposts.
“Scotland is not a colony” because colonialism is all about racism, and therefore it cannot happen to white people. This is the most ridiculous argument of all. Go tell it to the Ukrainians.
“Scotland is not a colony” because others had it worse. Aye, and some had it better. Most were given independence when they asked for it. Scotland is denied that opportunity.
Denying the nature of imperialism
In short, to deny the colonial nature of the British Empire’s rule over Scotland is either to misunderstand the complexity and ambiguity of the British Empire or else to downplay the reality of Scotland’s subjection to British imperial rule.
The good news is that all empires die. They get to a pinnacle where all lies at their feet, and end as a ruin in the desert with the inscription: “Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.”
The final death throes of the British Empire can be easy or hard. The easy way is to allow the peaceful, democratic, transition to independence, as it was done across much of the world by post-war British governments. The hard way is to fight it and lose.
Which is Sir Keir Starmer to emulate: Harold Macmillan or Lord North?’
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2024/07/15/the-colony-deniers/
No spam or ads, just the latest posts and updates from Scotland's newest pro-independence blog.
.png)
