@indyscotnews · England’s Vassal State Part 1 by Sandy McIntosh
From England’s Vassal State by Sandy McIntosh, author of “100 Home Rule Questions Answered”. First Published, April 1964.
Speaking to a Glasgow audience in November, 1963, Mr Noble, Secretary of State for Scotland, said, “I sometimes feel that we at home are too near to see the picture of our country in true perspective. Sometimes I think we are just too damned stupid to take the trouble to look at it.”
I heartily agree with these words, but not with the conclusion Mr Noble wanted his hearers to draw. Some years ago, I did take the trouble to have a good look at Scotland, her history, politics, finance, economy, outlook, and prospects. I got a shock. This booklet is the result, written in plain, straightforward language that all will understand.
Some may think I am too anti-English. It would be difficult, for any thinking Scot, to study the political, financial, and economic relationship existing between Scotland and England, without feeling some resentment. Any bitterness felt, however, is not against the average Englishman, who has many admirable qualities, but against England’s political, financial and military masters, the rulers of Scotland. Even that calm, learned legal authority and historian, Professor Andrew Dewar Gibb, when writing about England’s part in United Kingdom politics, uses words like “arrogant” and “over-bearing”, but ends his book, Scotland Resurgent, with: “have not the least bitterness against the English, their politicians and leaders always excepted”.
While some of the most ardent advocates of self-government for Scotland, are Englishmen, now resident in Scotland, the average Englishman seldom gives the subject a thought.
Why should he, when the subject is played down by the BBC, and the Press, and the average Scot, who “believes in Home Rule”, does not support his belief by political action at the polling station?
I do not hold office of any kind in the Scottish National Party, but take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the great fight being put up by SNP members, often at great sacrifice of time and money, in their endeavour to win independence, for my native land, Scotland.
To them and all other Freedom Fighters this booklet is dedicated.
Sandy McIntosh.
The Treaty of the Union of the Scottish and English Parliaments, was signed in 1707, by a handful of Scottish Quislings, against the wishes of the Scottish people.
The Scots were betrayed, threatened, bribed, and bludgeoned into the Union. There was not even a general election permitted, on the question of Union, because the Estates, elected over twenty years previously, were considered easier to deal with, than a newly elected Parliament that would express the wish of the people. Riots broke out in the principal Scottish cities, and a copy of the Treaty was burned at the Mercat Cross in Dumfries.
The Treaty was signed in an underground cellar, with the mob howling outside.
The Duke of Queensberry, the arch betrayer, who left Edinburgh with the Treaty in his pocket, was pelted with fish-guts, and house refuse, and had to be protected by the English soldiery. Contrast that, with his reception in London, by Queen Anne, and the English army.
He was received with all the honours, as if he had procured a victory for England, which he had!
What England had failed to do, by centuries of attempted military conquest of Scotland, she had now accomplished by a stroke of the pen. And she soon let Scotland know who was master, in the new “Greater England”. The ink was barely dry on the Treaty, before she began making excuses for breaking it. Indeed, so outrageous was her behaviour towards Scotland, that in 1713, the very Scots who had signed the Treaty, moved its repeal in the House of Lords, and failed to get the Motion passed by only four votes.
For England, everything remained the same. Her Members sat in Westminster, as formerly, and business was conducted on the same lines, as it had been for centuries, with just a handful of Scots, who were accepted with no good grace. The Scots were regarded as a necessary nuisance, to give some semblance to the new name “Great Britain”, and that is the Scots status in Westminster today. According to the Treaty, the names “Scotland” and “England” were no longer to be used, but only the term “Great Britain”. From the moment of Union, however, it seems England was bent on the glorification of England, and the obliteration of Scotland as a nation.
And who can say she has failed? That the new title “has been blatantly and uniformly refused currency in England and throughout the civilised world”, is the opinion of Professor A. Gibb. In flagrant violation of the Treaty of Union, the “British” Government today, designate their Treaties with foreign countries, as Anglo-this and Anglo-that, though they always refer to the British National Debt. Scotland is allowed her share of that !
Most Scots know Daniel Defoe as the author of Robinson Crusoe. How many know he was a keen political observer and commentator, and an English spy or fifth columnist, sent to Scotland to foster by voice and bribes, the idea of Parliamentary Union? Having accomplished his task successfully, he wrote, “The Scots will be allowed to send to Westminster, a handful of men who will make no weight whatever. They will be allowed to sit there for form’s sake to be laughed at.”
No doubt, England’s political masters are still laughing at the docility and gullibility of the Scots, who today vote for English-controlled political parties, Tory, Labour, or Liberal), thus ensuring, that whichever party is returned to power, Scotland will continue to be ruled by London, for the benefit of England in the first place. Another quote from Defoe, “The Union has brought the English Court, to be the centre of all the wealth and ready money of Scotland, which should otherwise have circulated in a home consumption, to the encouragement of trade and enrichment of their own people.” A Scottish Nationalist could hardly put the case for Scottish self-government in more striking words.
The “British” Parliament at Westminster, has proceeded as though it were merely the Parliament of England continuing. “Is not Scotland subject to the sovereignty of England, and henceforward to be governed according to English maxims ?”, thundered an English Member in the Commons just eight years after Union. England wanted the Union of Parliaments, but did not like the idea of Scots taking part. Horace Walpole, went so far as to say, no Scot should be leader of the Commons, and the Duke of Bedford declared there was an end of England for evermore, if a Scot should be appointed as the Speaker! Even in our own day we find another English Member, Commander Locker-Lampson, asking, “Is not Scotland England?”
With the passing of the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh became a “dead” Capital, with its glory departed to London, Scotland’s new Capital. No longer did Courtiers, Members of Parliament, Privy Councillors and Ministers, as well as ambassadors and plenipotentiaries from a’ the airts, tread the city’s streets. Anything emanating from Edinburgh became provincial or parochial, in keeping with the relegated status of Scotland herself. To be “with it”, we were even expected to talk “pan loafie” or Oxtord English. Thanks to the world’s knowledge of Scotland’s pre-Union history, it is still a passport to friendship the world over to speak with a Scottish accent.
Without a government of her own, Scotland is not now a “recognised” country in the eyes of the world. When we think of the Scots who have lost their sense of pride in real nationhood, and who walk the streets of Edinburgh so deadly unconscious they are walking the streets of a dead Capital, we are not surprised it was an Edinburgh professor who pioneered the use of chloroform.
Self-government for Scotland now, say our critics, would be putting the clock back. Does not stagnation, or being willing to thole a bad bargain, that can be rectified, show a decided lack of progress, wisdom, and a courage?
In the new Parliament, the Scots seem to have given up the unequal battle, and instead of fighting as a “National” Party in Scotland’s interests, they divided on English political party lines, much to the relief of England. So long as England had political control of Scotland, by her majority, could collect Scotland’s share of taxation, and recruit, or press-gang, Scottish soldiers and sailors to fight her battles, according to school history books they were her battles, she had every reason to be satisfied with the Union.
Although there were only two major armed revolts, 1715 and 1745, against the loss of Scottish independence, resentment continued to smoulder in the breasts of Scots till near the end of the century. This resentment, or lament, inspired Burns to write “Scots Wha Hae”, and “Sic a Parcel o’ Rogues in a Nation”.
What effect had the Union on Scottish business? Agriculture, the manufacture of fine linens and woollens, and beautiful silks, were among Scotland’s most important industries at the time of Union. The government tried to cripple the linen trade, by a5 special tax, and the declaration of war against American colonists obliterated Scotlands prosperous tobacco trade, but possibly gave a boost to the Carron Iron Works, founded in 1760. Scotland began to prosper, not because of any encouragement from the London government, but because, freed from the constant threat of aggression by powerful and jealous neighbour, she was able to devote her native genius and enterprise to more peaceful, and profitable pursuits.
It is a matter of common knowledge that modern roads, the steam engine, and steamships, were all invented by Scots living in Scotland, and the steam railway by a Scot in England. They all contributed to Scotland’s phenomenal progress in the 18th century. By 1770, the Clyde, which had been little more than a glorified, shallow burn at the approaches to Glasgow, was well on its way to becoming one of the world’s greatest shipping rivers, and the cradle or modern steam navigation.
Governments in those days, did not have such controlling powers over a country’s industries and economy, or such a grabbing hand for its wealth, as they have today, and the enterprise of the Scots gradually made their country one of the richest in the world, richer even than England. To many present day Scots, this may seem incredible, so I hope they will not skip, but read carefully the following two lengthy quotations describing Scotland’s unique position in the world, near the end of the last century.
Extract from Mulhall’s Dictionary of Statistics, 1882. “It is remarkable that Scotland possesses more wealth for her population, and has become the richest country in the world. Her fortune has quintupled since 1840,”, not since 1707, “being now double that of Ireland. We may search European annals since the time of Alexander of Macedon, and we shall find nothing to equal the rise of Scotland in the above period. But it is a fact of which Scotland seems unaware, at least they never mention it. The increase of wealth, per inhabitant, is much less striking in England than in the sister kingdom, the condition of the latter having undergone a wonderful change. Such is the prosperity of the bulk of the people, that Scotland has now an average of £277 per head of population, as against England’s £262, being £15 per head greater.”
Mr Alex. Wylie, in a lecture on Progress, on the inauguration of the Renton Mechanics’ Institution, 1882, commented on the foregoing as follows. “Now I wish to point out to you, some of the principal causes which have led to these very extraordinary and happy results. There are many economists who wish simply to tell you, that it is owing to the introduction of steam power, and the general mineral wealth of Scotland”, not to the Act of Union, “which enabled her to turn it to good account, but this is a very near-sighted and materialistic view of the subject. Other countries are far more richly endowed with the elements of material prosperity, even with minerals, than Scotland. It is to the superior physical power, to the industry, to the intelligence, and, above all, to the morality of her people that Scotland stands in her present proud position.”
What a different picture Scotland presents today! The Scots still have the inventive genius and the enterprise. What has gone wrong?
Scotland is ruled by a decrepit, and confused machinery of government, the like of which would not be tolerated anywhere, outside a Colony. Her representatives, if they merit that description, sit in permanent minority of one to eight in an alien Parliament, outside their country’s borders, with the result, that any piece of legislation for the benefit of Scotland can be, and often has been, rejected by a majority of non-Scottish votes. These representatives do not work for Scotland, as a National team, but are divided among themselves, owing their allegiance to one or other of the major English Parties. By playing one set of Scots against the other, England can bluff and encourage the Scottish electorate to cut each other’s political throats, and so ensure, that every election means a predominantly English Parliament, subtly ruling Scotland, primarily for the benefit of England. This farce is camouflaged by speaking of, “the nation as a whole”, rather than “England”. With England having about ninety per cent of the UK population, the two terms are almost synonymous.
The welfare of Scotland is not, never has been, and never can be the chief concern of an English-controlled political party, whether Tory, Labour, or Liberal. Naturally, at elections each party’s programme promises Scotland something as a vote-catching device. In Parliament, however, it is only the party in Opposition (the party not in power) that occasionally complains about neglect of Scotland, perhaps in the hope their protests will be reported, and catch the eye of the Scottish voters. But we must never forget, that each member of an English-based party must vote as his political masters desire, or end his career as a politician. His vote may be in favour of legislation detrimental to Scotland. That doesn’t matter. He can always be briefed, by his London Central Office, how to inform the Scots the legislation is for their good!
Volumes could be filled, quoting the complaints of Scottish MPs, about neglect of Scottish affairs, and the meagre time allowed for their discussion, in the House of Commons.
Let us quote just two, one by a Labour Member and one by a Conservative. Mr John Wheatle, “If we are not going to get any better treatment, on the consideration of the other measures affecting Scotland, then there is no purpose in our continuing. Indeed there is not, but when will our Scottish MPs begin acting on their convictions? Sir W. Y. Darling, on 30 July 1949, quote,
“The opportunities for speaking for Scotland here, are extremely few. Scottish business is relegated to an ante-room, and is rarely discussed on the Floor of the House, so I welcome the opportunity of adding my protest to those which we have already heard”. Too little time to discuss Scottish affairs, or too much time as some English Members claim, the logical answer is to set up a Parliament in Scotland.
Hundreds of Bills, affecting the welfare of Scotland, are simply adaptations of Bills drafted to meet English conditions. Because Scots law and conditions are different, an “application clause” is inserted at the end of these Bills, making them applicable to Scotland. The great Scottish nation is thus, frequently compelled to submit to legislation by a postscript or appendix !
If Scottish Members get little time to discuss Scottish matters, they apparently get even fewer opportunities to take part in “British or Imperial debates, which are too often regarded as the exclusive affairs of England. During one such debate, a Labour Member, Mrs Jean Mann, walked out of the Commons, as a protest against Scottish Members not being given a chance to take part. And opponents of self-government tell us how much Scotland would lose, in world status and world influence, if our MPs were withdrawn from Westminster! A self-governing Scotland, with an independent Scottish voice, would make a worthwhile contribution to Commonwealth and world affairs. Indeed, a distracted world would be nane the waur o’ some Scottish democratic common-sense. The same Mrs Mann, in a booklet The New Scotland, wrote of Scottish problems thus. “They cannot be settled in London. it is vain to hope for an appreciation, let alone a solution, of them there. We must have our own MPs, under our own control, not rationalised and amalgamated, and lost in the Metropolis, a good hide hole. Bring them home”.
She then exhorts her readers to work for a Scottish Government, “under our own control, and forgetting our differences, pull together for Scotland. The alternative will be emigration, or starvation, in the crowded cities. There can be no half-way house. Our future will be determined by the size of our minds, and our hearts”.
She became a Labour Member of Parliament, but never forced the question of Home Rule for Scotland. Did her English masters tell her where she had to draw the line, in speaking up for Scotland ? It looks like it.
As a Welshman and member of Plaid Cymru, I support independence for both our nations without issue. But as a history fan, I need to be clear about something.
There’s a problem here, in that Daniel Defoe never wrote: “The Scots will be allowed to send to Westminster, a handful of men who will make no weight whatever. They will be allowed to sit there for form’s sake to be laughed at.”
If he ever did, please provide a legitimate primary source. But don’t listen to a proven revisionist like Sandy McIntosh. The man does more harm than good to the cause of Scottish independence.
No spam or ads, just the latest posts and updates from Scotland's newest pro-independence blog.
.png)
