A people and country subject to neocolonialism is in a rather more acute situation. Colonized peoples subject to cultural assimilation (as well as economic plunder) are in the process of perishing, which is a much more emphatic outcome than a people facing 'a lost decade'.
This was posted on 1st November but hasn’t so far appeared, so I’m reposting it now in case my first attempt has gone off into cyberspace:
In his response Alf Baird mentions “colonized peoples subject to cultural assimilation (as well as economic plunder) are in the process of perishing, which is a much more emphatic outcome than a people facing 'a lost decade'.
Last Saturday’s Glasgow Herald carried a reader’s letter by Jill Stephenson in which she ridicules the notion that Scotland might effectively be a colony. Clearly semantics are at play in her assertions and we all know that Scotland is supposed to be an equal partner in the Union. However, out of curiosity, I checked definitions of ‘colony’ and ‘colonialism’ in Wikipedia. Just check out a few of these definitions and consider whether they might realistically be applied to Scotland’s status:
Collins English Dictionary: "the practice by which a powerful country directly controls less powerful countries and uses their resources to increase its own power and wealth".
Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary: "the system or policy of a nation seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories".
Jürgen Osterhammel's Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview: “Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonised people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonised population, the colonisers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule”.
Julian Go: "Colonialism refers to the direct political control of a society and its people by a foreign ruling state... The ruling state monopolizes political power and keeps the subordinated society and its people in a legally inferior position.”
Scotland is supposedly an equal partner in a Union which has no legally defined means of secession and no written constitution to define the limits of politicians’ powers. Given that, the Wikipedia definitions all apply.
Additionally Wikipedia makes some telling observations:
“Colonial practices also spur the spread of conquerors' languages, literature and cultural institutions, while endangering or obliterating those of Indigenous peoples”.
“European colonial empires sometimes attempted to channel, restrict and impede trade involving their colonies, funnelling activity through the metropole and taxing accordingly.”
The United Nations Charter clearly states the right of any region or people to secede from any other state which rules over it, regardless of whether the laws of that ruling state expressly prohibit secession. Indeed the then UK Gov’t clearly stated its support of that right to the International Court of Justice when the IJC was discussing Kosovo’s secession from Serbia in 2008.
Clearly there will be no rerun of the 2014 Indy Referendum in the UK. Is there mileage in invoking the United Nations Charter if we can get a pro-Indy majority in a plebiscite, or are we doomed to wait for Irish Unification in the distant hope of getting the same powers for Scotland?
Many times I've written that Scotland is an English colony. Alf has done good work on pulling all the strands - the evidence - of this colonisation together. But the first people that need to be convinced that Scotland is a colonial appendage are not those at the UN but a majority of the People of Scotland. The UN will come back to Salvo to say what level of support do you have amongst the population? What have you done? What can we point to? That's why Respect Scottish Sovereignty (https://respectscottishsovereignty.scot) is trying to do what the Salvo hubs were meant to do - establish a genuine grassroots movement to demand that the sovereignty of the Scottish People be respected. We're pushing the Scottish administration to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into Scots law, and need grassroots support to do so. Article 1 of ICCPR says: All people have the right to self determination. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
What I read some time back was, that the UN for eg, do not consider Scotland a colony of England because, Scotland has representatives, ie MP's sat in the EnglishUK parliament, as voted for by the people of Scotland. The circle needs to be squared somehow.
Ireland became independent when its elected representatives decided to no longer take their seats at Westminster. This is the only thing holding Scots subject to UK legislation, a fundamental condition of which under the Articles of Union is that there has to be Scottish representation there. No representation there means no UK legislation applying any more to Scotland. The SNP has betrayed the people since 2015 and instead opted to become a colonial administration.
The UN regarded Ireland as a former colony, and considers self-determination independence to be decolonization.
A people and country subject to neocolonialism is in a rather more acute situation. Colonized peoples subject to cultural assimilation (as well as economic plunder) are in the process of perishing, which is a much more emphatic outcome than a people facing 'a lost decade'.
https://salvo-cor.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/THEORETICAL+CASE+FOR+SCOTTISH+INDEPENDENCE.pdf
The UK is a lace where nothing works because it has all been sold to people who don't care if it does, they only want profit.
But we are told the solution is to sell more stuff to them and give them more money when they already have far too much.
You once paid your taxes and received Public Services, but now they expect you to pay your taxes and receive nothing.
This was posted on 1st November but hasn’t so far appeared, so I’m reposting it now in case my first attempt has gone off into cyberspace:
In his response Alf Baird mentions “colonized peoples subject to cultural assimilation (as well as economic plunder) are in the process of perishing, which is a much more emphatic outcome than a people facing 'a lost decade'.
Last Saturday’s Glasgow Herald carried a reader’s letter by Jill Stephenson in which she ridicules the notion that Scotland might effectively be a colony. Clearly semantics are at play in her assertions and we all know that Scotland is supposed to be an equal partner in the Union. However, out of curiosity, I checked definitions of ‘colony’ and ‘colonialism’ in Wikipedia. Just check out a few of these definitions and consider whether they might realistically be applied to Scotland’s status:
Collins English Dictionary: "the practice by which a powerful country directly controls less powerful countries and uses their resources to increase its own power and wealth".
Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary: "the system or policy of a nation seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories".
Jürgen Osterhammel's Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview: “Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonised people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonised population, the colonisers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule”.
Julian Go: "Colonialism refers to the direct political control of a society and its people by a foreign ruling state... The ruling state monopolizes political power and keeps the subordinated society and its people in a legally inferior position.”
Scotland is supposedly an equal partner in a Union which has no legally defined means of secession and no written constitution to define the limits of politicians’ powers. Given that, the Wikipedia definitions all apply.
Additionally Wikipedia makes some telling observations:
“Colonial practices also spur the spread of conquerors' languages, literature and cultural institutions, while endangering or obliterating those of Indigenous peoples”.
“European colonial empires sometimes attempted to channel, restrict and impede trade involving their colonies, funnelling activity through the metropole and taxing accordingly.”
The United Nations Charter clearly states the right of any region or people to secede from any other state which rules over it, regardless of whether the laws of that ruling state expressly prohibit secession. Indeed the then UK Gov’t clearly stated its support of that right to the International Court of Justice when the IJC was discussing Kosovo’s secession from Serbia in 2008.
Clearly there will be no rerun of the 2014 Indy Referendum in the UK. Is there mileage in invoking the United Nations Charter if we can get a pro-Indy majority in a plebiscite, or are we doomed to wait for Irish Unification in the distant hope of getting the same powers for Scotland?
Apologies for the length of this post.
Many times I've written that Scotland is an English colony. Alf has done good work on pulling all the strands - the evidence - of this colonisation together. But the first people that need to be convinced that Scotland is a colonial appendage are not those at the UN but a majority of the People of Scotland. The UN will come back to Salvo to say what level of support do you have amongst the population? What have you done? What can we point to? That's why Respect Scottish Sovereignty (https://respectscottishsovereignty.scot) is trying to do what the Salvo hubs were meant to do - establish a genuine grassroots movement to demand that the sovereignty of the Scottish People be respected. We're pushing the Scottish administration to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into Scots law, and need grassroots support to do so. Article 1 of ICCPR says: All people have the right to self determination. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
Let's start there.
Yes Leah, there is lots of great work ongoing including from you.
As colonialism is based on psychology this means some of the colonized group remain in denial, which presents a challenge:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/03/03/the-colonial-mindset/
What I read some time back was, that the UN for eg, do not consider Scotland a colony of England because, Scotland has representatives, ie MP's sat in the EnglishUK parliament, as voted for by the people of Scotland. The circle needs to be squared somehow.
Ireland became independent when its elected representatives decided to no longer take their seats at Westminster. This is the only thing holding Scots subject to UK legislation, a fundamental condition of which under the Articles of Union is that there has to be Scottish representation there. No representation there means no UK legislation applying any more to Scotland. The SNP has betrayed the people since 2015 and instead opted to become a colonial administration.
The UN regarded Ireland as a former colony, and considers self-determination independence to be decolonization.
Yes Ken, analysis has been undertaken to seek to explain Scotland's colonial status, including:
https://salvo.scot/scotlands-colonial-status/
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Doun-Hauden-Socio-Political-Determinants-Scottish-Independence/dp/B086Y6MMH2
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/wp.towson.edu/dist/b/55/files/2022/05/The-Socio-Political-Determinants-of-Scottish-Independence.pdf
https://salvo-cor.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/THEORETICAL+CASE+FOR+SCOTTISH+INDEPENDENCE.pdf
Liberation.scot was established to approach the UN in regard to Scotland's decolonization:
https://liberation.scot/