I have been thinking recently of the difficulties facing the UK in terms of the upcoming referendum on Scottish Independence. I attended an open meeting at Stirling University and was thinking of what was said today. I thought I would clarify a few things by expressing the position, then I can get back to my art and forget all about this! Here goes.
There was nothing in the North. No entity that could be called a country. At some point around the late 13th century there was a conflagration. A tribal, a racial war. Call it what you will. At the end of this, Bruce, King of Scots was left standing. A survivor. In feudal terms there then existed an entity called Scotland with the King at the head. This is not in doubt and short of a further conflagration one can reasonably surmise that a being called Scotland remains. The Treaty of Union can only be seen therefore as a joining of (at least two) entities.
To talk of the non existence of the northern kingdom, the drip loss of sovereignty is a non- starter and perhaps scurrilous. It is to talk at cross purposes with a people tasked with the protection of an entity existing at least from the lead of Bruce. In fact, it leades to a wish and a desire for separation, which is what we have at present.
However, given the fact that if the above is accepted, there must continue to exist such a thing, to talk of a break off, another existence because of a petty squabble is, it appears, folly.
The British Empire has always and always will recognise the sovereignty of Scotland. Anyone attempting to imply otherwise is misleading.
Don’t know if this will affect your decision on the vote.