I have been thinking recently of the difficulties facing the UK in terms of the upcoming referendum on Scottish Independence and the debate on the constitution. I attended an open meeting at Stirling University today. I thought I would clarify a few things by way of expressing my 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 an entity 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, therefore, and the ‘drip loss’ of sovereignty is a non-starter and perhaps scurrilous. It is to talk at cross purposes with a class of people tasked with the protection of an entity existing at least from the time of Bruce. It is to contradict a nation. Perhaps, it even leads to a wish or desire for separation, which is what we have at present.
In addition, however, and conceding the above, to talk of a break off and another existence because of a petty disagreement or power struggle is obvious and obviously folly?
Then there’s the Trident base…
Then there’s the oil………
Then there’s illegal foreign wars or at least the usurping of our parliamentary sovereignty by rogues in power
The there’s international standing or lack of it
Then there’s ‘aw that’
Hope you like.