A couple of weeks ago I discussed the SNP seeking to persuade its membership that having a rammy with died in the wool Unionists was not going to help in re-framing the context within which far too many Scots still believe Scotland is too small, weak and poor to be an independent nation.
Recently there have been letters in the National by independence supporters talking about the averred "Union of the Crowns". In giving credence to an event that has never happened in any constitutional shape or form, they are using the words of the British Establishment, giving power to the idea that any split of Scotland from the "Union" will be next to impossible.
The basic case is there has never been a "Union of the Crowns". The reality is two separate crowns, presented in two separate legal and constitutional ways, sit on the one head.
This is where the power of words is vital. Under Scots Law and constitutional practise a head of state is made head of state by the will of the sovereign people of Scotland. This was traditionally the role of the Scots Parliament of the "Thrie Estaites". This power, which had long been the case in Scotland, was put into law by an act of the Scottish Parliament in 1689 called the "Claim of Rights" in the aftermath of James 7th attempts to force English constitutional practises on the Scots, an attempt which saw him being kicked off the Scottish throne and eventually bought off the English Throne when his "High Catholic" tastes and presumptions could no longer be stomached in England. The "Claim of Rights" Act remains "in Law" to this day and the night before her English coronation she was "made" Queen of Scots, under the powers given in the Act, in the presence of "representatives of the Thrie Estaites"; the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, the Lord Lyon and the Lord Provosts of Edinburgh and Glasgow.
The following day, in Westminster Cathedral she was "anointed" Queen of England, her commonwealth and colonies. By the use of blessed oil, she was given God's commission to be Queen of England, by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This was sold to the nation by, that arch manipulator, Winston Churchill as her being crowned Queen of all Britain at Westminster. A lie that far too many Scottish folk still believe is true.
Note the clear difference between being made Queen of Scots and anointed Queen of England, her commonwealth and colonies. The first is a pragmatic relationship with the crown and is reversible while the second is a mystical, pseudo religious relationship with the crown. In truth, the anointing is meant to demonstrate it is by "God's will" that she is Queen of England and is therefore irreversible.
The point, I have made over the implications of these two words, may be esoteric too some or history to others, yet it is vital to understand how the British Establishment have long used words and statements such as "The Queen of all Britain" to control the context of how Scotland sees herself.
Scotland is only subject to its crown for as long as the sovereign people agrees to be. The Claim of Rights of 1689 makes clear to those holding the Crown of Scotland, they do so under the sufferance of the people of Scotland and can be unmade if they do not follow the constraints placed on them by this act.
If this is true for the crown then it is also true for the UK Parliament which holds our access to our sovereignty only through our consent which has been, up until now, represented by Scotland's MPs at Westminster.
In the current situation where the sovereign will of the people of Scotland is being ignored and denigrated by the UK Parliament on a daily basis, there is an increasing need to remove that sovereignty and place it wholly at Holyrood, a parliament which is better suited to represent the people of Scotland's sovereignty within these islands and to the world at large.
The only effective way to do this is to declare Scotland's independence.
If England wishes to get nasty at the point of Scottish independence we simply switch off the energy (electricity, gas, oil) they require on a daily basis from Scotland, currently fed in at heavily subsidised rates. Maybe the other EU states interconnecters which supply electricity and gas to England, could also be switched off in empathy with Scotland.
Where will little England be then?
The last time Scotland was unable to meet a sudden rise in electricity demand in England the voltage surge which resulted caused nuclear power plants to trip out, electric trains around the SE of England to stop, power transformers to catch fire and computers across the City of London and in Canary Wharf to crash - paralysing finance and banking companies. Imagine that happening in a much bigger way and its impact on England's finance and services based economic model. All on top of the £200+ billion hit on England's GDP without Scotland and a further £200+ billion hit from Brexit.
See how the context of poor wee Scotland, on independence, turns around and becomes the context of poor wee England, simply by reframing the argument.
That, folks, is the power of words.
Recently there have been letters in the National by independence supporters talking about the averred "Union of the Crowns". In giving credence to an event that has never happened in any constitutional shape or form, they are using the words of the British Establishment, giving power to the idea that any split of Scotland from the "Union" will be next to impossible.
The basic case is there has never been a "Union of the Crowns". The reality is two separate crowns, presented in two separate legal and constitutional ways, sit on the one head.
This is where the power of words is vital. Under Scots Law and constitutional practise a head of state is made head of state by the will of the sovereign people of Scotland. This was traditionally the role of the Scots Parliament of the "Thrie Estaites". This power, which had long been the case in Scotland, was put into law by an act of the Scottish Parliament in 1689 called the "Claim of Rights" in the aftermath of James 7th attempts to force English constitutional practises on the Scots, an attempt which saw him being kicked off the Scottish throne and eventually bought off the English Throne when his "High Catholic" tastes and presumptions could no longer be stomached in England. The "Claim of Rights" Act remains "in Law" to this day and the night before her English coronation she was "made" Queen of Scots, under the powers given in the Act, in the presence of "representatives of the Thrie Estaites"; the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, the Lord Lyon and the Lord Provosts of Edinburgh and Glasgow.
The following day, in Westminster Cathedral she was "anointed" Queen of England, her commonwealth and colonies. By the use of blessed oil, she was given God's commission to be Queen of England, by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This was sold to the nation by, that arch manipulator, Winston Churchill as her being crowned Queen of all Britain at Westminster. A lie that far too many Scottish folk still believe is true.
Note the clear difference between being made Queen of Scots and anointed Queen of England, her commonwealth and colonies. The first is a pragmatic relationship with the crown and is reversible while the second is a mystical, pseudo religious relationship with the crown. In truth, the anointing is meant to demonstrate it is by "God's will" that she is Queen of England and is therefore irreversible.
The point, I have made over the implications of these two words, may be esoteric too some or history to others, yet it is vital to understand how the British Establishment have long used words and statements such as "The Queen of all Britain" to control the context of how Scotland sees herself.
Scotland is only subject to its crown for as long as the sovereign people agrees to be. The Claim of Rights of 1689 makes clear to those holding the Crown of Scotland, they do so under the sufferance of the people of Scotland and can be unmade if they do not follow the constraints placed on them by this act.
If this is true for the crown then it is also true for the UK Parliament which holds our access to our sovereignty only through our consent which has been, up until now, represented by Scotland's MPs at Westminster.
In the current situation where the sovereign will of the people of Scotland is being ignored and denigrated by the UK Parliament on a daily basis, there is an increasing need to remove that sovereignty and place it wholly at Holyrood, a parliament which is better suited to represent the people of Scotland's sovereignty within these islands and to the world at large.
The only effective way to do this is to declare Scotland's independence.
If England wishes to get nasty at the point of Scottish independence we simply switch off the energy (electricity, gas, oil) they require on a daily basis from Scotland, currently fed in at heavily subsidised rates. Maybe the other EU states interconnecters which supply electricity and gas to England, could also be switched off in empathy with Scotland.
Where will little England be then?
The last time Scotland was unable to meet a sudden rise in electricity demand in England the voltage surge which resulted caused nuclear power plants to trip out, electric trains around the SE of England to stop, power transformers to catch fire and computers across the City of London and in Canary Wharf to crash - paralysing finance and banking companies. Imagine that happening in a much bigger way and its impact on England's finance and services based economic model. All on top of the £200+ billion hit on England's GDP without Scotland and a further £200+ billion hit from Brexit.
See how the context of poor wee Scotland, on independence, turns around and becomes the context of poor wee England, simply by reframing the argument.
That, folks, is the power of words.
No comments:
Post a Comment