Scotland in the 21st Century: 10

In his final paper, his summation, from his book, ‘Doun-Hauden: The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence’, Professor Alfred Baird discusses ways and methods to achieve genuine and full independence.

This has been a hot potato ever since the current purblind first minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon decided there is only one way, her way. She named it the ‘Gold Standard’. This amounts to the flimsy, ask the usurpers of our freedoms for permission for a referendum and thus hand them the authority they do not have to deny us one.

Referenda can be held when we wish, it is what we do with the outcome that is in question, the uncertainty being the reaction of the colonial nation. Having lost the first referendum by a small margin, commonly thouyght to be 10% but actually 6% – enough to swing to a Yes vote, and cheated by a trick perpetrated by quisling Scots, the populace learned a hard lesson: once beaten, the invaders will take to recrimination, dividing tactics and remove rights to ensure their power is not challenged a second time.

Moreover, as far Barbados is concerned, if the people elect a party with a majority, that party can implement the policies on its manifesto. The leaders do not feel obliged to ask for more mandates, as if the first was tentative, or merely a test run. This positive can-do attitude has been applied to Barbados’ intention to become a republic. Unlike Scotland’s independence party, the SNP stopped educating the electorate on the benefits of self-governance – a bewildering unannounced decision by any standard, an abrogation of its duty. The SNP’s entire existence is based on attaining Scotland’s liberty, but unlike her predecessor, the Right Honourable Alex Salmond MP, the first minister is neither wise educator nor statesman. Ms Sturgeon is a play safe and let us wait and see person with no stomach for independence, no matter how often she claims to be dedicated. Opportunity for a definitive referendum or an election as plebiscite slip by, one after the other, leaving the SNP to claim next time will do it.

The SNP has no strategy. This paper lays one out.

Barbados engaged in a long debate about the efficacy of republicanism, discussions in television programmes and cafes held over years; what does it do for people’s well-being, their confidence and self-esteem, down to questions such as, how do we address the old Monarch, no longer our lord and master?

“We have had enough of colonialism”, says the current much respected prime minister, Mia Mottley, “We want to put degredation and humiliation behind us.”

Of Professor Baird’s first rate analysis of Scotland malaise, I draw reader’s attention to the paragraph below entitled ‘Withdrawal Strategy’. I agree wholeheartedly with his advice that we should withdraw from the Treaty of Union immediately, due warning send to London. (I would send a delegation to the United Nations simultaneous to withdrawal to have our right of restoring self-determination endorsed.) That implies we have a new Accord ready to discuss. It has been an option open to us when SNP were given a landslide victory, a mystery why the SNP pushes aside mandates as of no value. One cannot negotiate a new Accord until the old is dismissed as unworkable and unjust. In a phrase: let us do it!




In 2014, ‘No’ voters opted for Scotland to be ruled by what to many Scots seems an alien political ideology from another land. They voted for England’s 533 MP’s (i.e. 82 per cent of UK parliamentary ‘sovereignty) to do as they wish with Scotland and its people. Is this really what most Scottish people want? To be ruled over by another people, another culture and language, another identity and nation and political ideology? Crucially, what is stopping more than 45 per cent of Scots from voting for independence?

Meantime the SNP leadership depend on holding another dubious ‘Section 30’ UK sanctioned referendum based on an irregular (i.e. local government) voting franchise in order to secure Scotland’s independence. Is this a sensible strategy? Is there no other valid, constitutional, legal and democratic route to secure independence? The question of independence is about the right of the ‘Scottish people’ to self-determination, the key word here being ‘self’. Must Scotland’s vote on self-determination include a veto being given to ‘peoples’ of other national identities and national allegiances? Must Scotland’s people depend on the grace and favour of England’s MP’s in granting a ‘Section 30’ order in order to even hold a referendum?

The context in which Scottish independence is often discussed therefore raises many questions, and not least what independence actually means or why it is necessary. Arguably the harder questions have still to be answered. That is the knowledge gap my book ‘Doun-Hauden’ has sought – to identify and analyse the real Determinants of Independence?


In order to answer these and other relevant questions, the methodological approach developed and applied in the context of Scottish independence has involved ‘grounding out’ a theoretical framework from analysis of data collected. The framework and sub-title of the book is collectively considered to represent ‘The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence’. 

Behavioural Determinism assumes our actions are reflex reactions developed in us through environmental conditioning. In this, it is necessary to identify and analyse the key aspects relating to environmental conditioning and related factors that determine and hence enable or act to block independence.

The main title of the book, ‘Doun-Hauden’, reflects, in the Scots language, the conclusion of the book based on the evidence presented and analysed: that the Scottish people are oppressed within the UK ‘union’, and; that they and their nation are treated as a colony and will continue to suffer oppression and exploitation until independence (i.e. decolonisation) is secured.

The methodology employed resulted in development of a structured framework which can be applied to investigate, analyse and better understand the phenomenon and dynamics of Scottish independence. Here a framework-based analysis helps to: elucidate the reality of Scotland’s socio-political situation and status; highlight the challenges that the Scottish people need to overcome, and; indicate how these challenges may be overcome in order to secure Scotland’s independence.


Culture is our customs and beliefs, transmitted through language. Cultural Imperialism involves promoting the culture and language of one dominant nation in another, which is a common feature in colonialism.

In Scotland case this involves the imposition and domination of a British Anglophone culture. Cultural Imperialism-creates and reinforces an alien cultural hegemony which results in an Anglophone Establishment that is anti-independence. Here the theory of ‘Enculturation’ reflects the domination and prejudice of a supposedly ‘superior’ Anglophone elite culture that is imposed on Scots, and Scots speakers in particular, the latter rendered subordinate and their Scots language considered invalid

This results in the Scottish Cultural Cringe, a feeling of cultural inadequacy extending to self-hatred, which is closely related to the psychological condition known as‘Internalized Racism’. Here there is an illusion of culture, which is a primary tool elites use to retain power, particularly in a colonial environment. 

Culture and (national) identity are closely connected. The independence of a culturally oppressed people is therefore a fight for a national culture (Fanon). 

A peoples’ quest for independence is thus dependent on a national culture and hence on national consciousness, the latter a function of culture and language.


Language and culture intersect to form our identity, who we are, and how we think. Language defines and unites a nation. Linguistic Imperialism seeks to marginalize and destroy indigenous language. The aim of Linguistic Imperialism is linguistic genocide or ‘linguicide’, which is the death of a language, and with that the removal of a minority peoples’ identity. Removal of a language is intentional, and inevitable when it is not taught, as is the case with the Scots language. 

Loss of language therefore undermines our sense of identity and sense of belonging. As language and culture give us our national consciousness, without them a peoples’ motivation for nationhood and hence sovereignty is diminished and eventually lost. Language policy in Scotland within a UK Anglophone dominated society therefore aims to deprive Scots of the Scots language, to kill it off, and to diminish the desire for Scottish nationhood. This also explains why language is the most common rationale for self-determination of ‘a people’.

Culture and language are therefore key factors in the formation of national identity. The divide in the Yes/No independence debate is at root linguistic; that is, it is broadly between Scots speakers who identify as Scottish and who mostly tend to vote ‘Yes’, and the ever-increasing Anglophone population in Scotland who identify as British and who tend mainly to vote ‘No’. Hence the desire for and against Scottish independence is heavily influenced by our culture and language which serve to determine our (ethnic) identity.


Between 3 and 4 million Scots have left Scotland since the UK union, which is more than half the present population. This was the largest loss of people in Western Europe for a country of Scotland’s size. Over the same period the largest ethnic migrant group coming into Scotland comprised of people from England. 

Outbound mainly comprised working-class Scots, whilst inbound flows are historically oriented towards a professional and managerial class mostly from England. This has led to an Ethnic and Cultural Division of Labour in Scotland within the ‘UK Internal Colonialism Model’. Hence a very large portion of the Scottish population has effectively been displaced since the UK union began. 

Scotland today has the lowest birth-rate of all nations in Britain, which may in part be due to a lack of affordable housing, limited access to better paid jobs for indigenous Scots, and dubious educational policies. Economic under-development of a people and nation is also known to parallel linguistic underdevelopment in a colonial environment. 

Population displacement has significant consequences for independence primarily because people of rest-UK heritage are the least likely ethnic group to vote for Scottish independence. The colonial nature of ongoing demographic change coupled with ‘national’ voting rights given to an ever-growing population of people now living in Scotland who do not primarily identify as Scots, therefore serves to hinder the prospect of Scottish independence. Uncontrolled demographic change in Scotland and a national voting franchise based on residence prevented independence in 2014 and acts to diminish the likelihood of a ‘Yes’ vote in any future referendum. 


Scotland’s enforced EU exit by the UK Government and the blocking of an electorally mandated Indyref2 demonstrate a colonial status. Colonialism is defined as a people who are subject to: external political control; economic exploitation and plundering, and; settler occupation. Scotland’s present reality reflects all three features. 

Scotland is also subject to what is known as Internal Colonialism which involves: an Ethnic and Cultural Division of Labour favouring the oppressor group, and; continued economic underdevelopment. The rise of an independence movement reflects theethnic solidarity of indigenous Scots speakers and is viewed as a consequence of Internal Colonialism and its oppressions.

Colonial domination involves racism and prejudice and may develop into fascism. The UN regards colonialism as a ‘scourge’ (a form of punishment) on a people, which should be ended through self-determination. Postcolonial theory defines colonialism as a ‘disease of the mind’ which adversely affects both the colonised group (through development of a subordinate ‘colonial mentality’) and the coloniser (racism, prejudice, and fascism). 

Devolution may be viewed as a colonial ‘bone’ thrown to natives to chew on. The UK devolved regime is now administered by a dominant National Party (SNP) which has made its own ‘accommodation with colonialism’; such political stasis represents a common theme in the decolonisation process leading to an unnecessary delay in independence and permitting state oppression and persecution of independence campaigners to intensify. This leads to conflict, and the creation of new National Parties seeking independence with greater urgency. 

In this regard independence may also be defined as decolonisation involving the liberation of a people from colonial oppression.


The motivation for independence depends on a peoples’ national consciousness, which is not nationalism. Many Scots have a confused sense of identity due to the long-term effects of Cultural and Linguistic Imperialism and Colonialism which serves to limit national consciousness or desire for independence. 

The UK/England exerting political control over Scotland involves an oppressiveTrans-national nationalism which: imposes a British ‘One Nation’ political ideology, and; inflicts Cultural and Linguistic Imperialism and an Anglophone Cultural Hegemony on  Scotland. It is primarily these features of imperialism and colonialism which enable external political control and power over a people and territory in order to facilitate their economic exploitation. 

Scottish independence is therefore arguably less about nationalism per se; rather, it is primarily about self-determination. Self-determination is about liberation, freedom and, for oppressed and colonised peoples’ independence is also about decolonization. 

Conversely, the UK is an Imperial construct and in terms of political ideology represents ‘Trans-national nationalism’ which is an aggressive form of nationalism involving: occupation and assuming political control over neighbouring countries;domination of other peoples through imposing on them another culture and language, and; economic exploitation. The inevitable outcome of Trans-national nationalism is oppression and exploitation of a people through colonialism, which in turn gives rise to the motivation for independence of an oppressed group.


As Scotland is controlled by an Anglophone unionist Establishment, the meritocratic elite reflects an Ethnic and Cultural Division of Labour. This depends on and perpetuates socio-linguistic prejudice, reflecting an Anglophone elite Cultural Hegemony. It results in social exclusion primarily of ethnic Scots speakers. In this way ethnic discrimination becomes institutionalised in society. 

Segregation and protection of a Cultural Hegemony (and its values and symbols) is ensured via an educational divide maintained through private/independent (i.e. colonial) schools and elite universities aimed mainly at the privileged (Anglophone) group. Top positions in Scotland’s social institutions and commerce are advertised primarily in the metropolitan centre of the dominant core nation (England) and are mainly targeted at (Anglophone) elites there.

A range of negative outcomes reflect this institutionalised Cultural Dislocation. This includes continued economic underdevelopment of the peripheral nation and its people, social inequalities and poverty. Health impacts for the oppressed group include a schizoid personality, mental health issues, depression and anxiety, in addition to various other aspects commonly associated with oppression of indigenous or aborigine peoples.

Oppression also comes in the form of what passes for justice, which is rather a misnomer in a colonial system at least insofar as the indigenous native is concerned. This is reflected in Scotland having the largest prison population per head in Western Europe, in the ongoing state persecution of leading independence campaigners, and in the immunity automatically afforded to those on the colonial side. Meanwhile the ‘theft’ of the territories extensive resources and assets is permitted to continue.


The constitutional status of Scotland, taking account of the Brexit related court case outcomes, serves to demonstrate the legal simplicity of a signatory state party withdrawing from a treaty-based union. So, what is stopping Scotland doing likewise? Is Scotland a sovereign people and nation, or not? Who represents this sovereignty? Is it Scotland’s elected national representatives, or is it MPs in Westminster who represent other (i.e. foreign) countries and their peoples outside Scotland?

The 1707 Treaty of Union created the present UK alliance and Scotland is a signatory party to that Treaty. Unilateral withdrawal from a treaty under international law is a matter for each signatory party (ECJ). Treaties are upheld only if they remain in the national interest of a sovereign people. When they are no longer in the national interest they are ended.

The sovereignty of the Scottish people is acknowledged by both UK and Scottish parliaments, as is the Claim of Right. Scotland’s elected national representatives therefore hold Scotland’s political sovereignty and have the right to exercise it on behalf of the people.

A referendum is not required for independence ‘as a matter of law’. As Scotland’s national representatives hold political sovereignty it is they who must exercise this sovereign power in order to secure independence. As the ALBA Party proposed, a majority of Scotland’s elected national representatives may negotiate Scotland’s independence and withdrawal from the UK Treaty-based alliance. This would respect the sovereignty of Scotland’s people and the fact of the Treaty.


The Scots represent an ethnic minority group in the UK. Within a colonial environment, which involves racism and prejudice, there exists ethnic discrimination of native Scots speakers and culture. Colonialism and Anglophone cultural and linguistic domination has created the Scottish Cultural Cringe which has serious health impacts for the people. Ethnic discrimination has become normalised in Scotland, which limits personal and intellectual freedoms of indigenous Scots, and is the root of inequality in a colonial environment. 

Ethnic discrimination also results in Internalized Racism (or Appropriated Racial Oppression) which involves: the appropriation of negative stereotypes by an oppressed people; their subordination and deprivation is considered (by the oppressed group) to be deserved; the ready devaluation of one’s own group; patterns of thinking that support maintaining the status quo, and; oppressed group members seeking conformity with oppressor group culture, which makes them discard their own culture and language. 

Ethnic culture and language, and hence national identity, is marginalised and ultimately destroyed through colonialism and Cultural and Linguistic Imperialism, which is its intention. Higher levels of Appropriated Racial Oppression explain why many ethnic Scots oppose even their own independence. Ethnic oppression is therefore a significant contributory factor in Scotland’s anti-independence ‘No’ vote. 

Moreover, the blocking of Scottish independence and hence rejection of Scottish citizenship by non-Scottish voters may also be considered as ethnic discrimination, for they are blocking the inalienable right to self-determination of another ethnic people.

The development of ‘Appropriated Racial Oppression’ as a consequence of colonialism therefore explains Scotland’s constitutional dilemma whereby many ethnic Scots vote against their own nationhood and hence reject their own national identity and citizenship, and refuse their own liberty, whilst accepting continued cultural domination and oppression by another ethnic people as somehow deserved.


Self-determination of ‘a people’ is a cardinal principle of the UN Charter. Here, the definition of ‘a people’ is based on their holding the same specific and identifiable traditions, culture, ethnicity, history and heritage, language, religion, sense of identity, the will to constitute a people, and common suffering. Self-determination independence is regarded as decolonisation by the United Nations. 

In the process of self-determination there should be no external interference: other countries or peoples should not be involved; no external media influence; and the voter franchise should include primarily the ‘people’ seeking self-determination. Few if any of these requirements have been respected by the UK administration in the case of Scottish self-determination.

The self-determination process is mainly considered relevant for colonies. Despite the socio-political reality of Scotland’s colonial subjugation, constitutionally the Scots are a sovereign people and Scotland remains a signatory party to an international treaty-based alliance. A sovereign people must retain the right to withdraw from a treaty-based agreement. Scots therefore have the right to independence and self-governance however this may be determined: either by unilateral withdrawal from the Treaty, or via self-determination decolonisation.


Independence of a people and nation is never primarily dependent upon general policy matters far less on any political promise for a people to be better or worse off;rather, the motivation for independence is dependent on national identity and national consciousness. The basis of Scottish national identity and national consciousness is the indigenous (i.e. Scots) language and culture. 

Scotland’s population today retains a mixed and confused identity reflecting a linguistic and cultural divide that is colonially determined; this is no accident given over three centuries of colonial and cultural domination resulting in ‘a moribund culture and a rusted tongue’.

The Scots’ choice here and options for any colonised people is between independence (liberation) and assimilation (oppression). Independence is first and foremost, therefore, a fight for a peoples’ national culture. This realisation forms an essential basis and foundation of any subsequent quest for ‘a peoples’ economic and political independence, and holds regardless of political ideology a people may adopt thereafter. 

The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence framework outline critical aspects of societal power and control which are presently inhibiting Scottish independence. The ‘grounded theory’ framework criteria reflect a predominantly colonial and hence oppressive and exploitative environment for indigenous Scottish people which forms the main rationale for independence. 

Scots striving to secure national independence should be able to use the framework to their advantage, by focusing on each of the determinants and developing appropriate strategies, and; by truly understanding what independence is about (decolonisation) and why it is essential (liberation). Hence the framework may be used to develop understanding, and as a strategic analytical tool and aid to secure Scotland’s independence and liberation from oppression.


Withdrawal Strategy

A majority of Scotland’s national representatives may exercise and assert Scottish sovereignty by revoking the Treaty of Union, as it began. A democratically elected majority of Scotland’s national representatives should initiate Scotland’s withdrawal from the UK union as soon as possible. 

The British State may or may not wish to contest Scotland’s national representatives’ right, as representing a signatory party to the Treaty of Union, to withdraw the sovereign nation and people of Scotland from the UK union. Should this be contested, the courts may be asked to opine on the matter.

If there remains a dispute, then the matter may be taken to the International Court of Justice. The ICJ would then seek to settle the matter in accordance with international law by giving advisory opinion.

Decolonisation Strategy

If the sovereign Scottish people via a majority of the nation’s national representativesare for some reason deemed unable to lawfully (or otherwise) withdraw from the UK union, this would mean that Scotland and its people do not have full sovereign or political control and are therefore considered by law (or otherwise) to be a territory or colony of the British State.

Scotland’s democratically elected representatives may then approach the United Nations (C-24) with a view to having Scotland ‘Listed’ as a colony to be decolonized. With UN support, Scotland may then, if required, undertake to hold a referendum on independence and ending ‘the scourge’ of colonisation.

Any referendum voting franchise would need to first, using established criteria, define the Scottish ‘people’ seeking self-determination, and to ensure there is no external interference and influence of the process, as was arguably the case in 2014.Similarly, there should be no external interference or influence permitted from any actors or organisations (e.g. MSM, UK government, politicians, agencies, corporations etc.) from outside Scotland in any Scottish self-determination referendum process. In this regard the voter franchise should be adjusted in line with the recent UN-sanctioned referendum in New Caledonia which employed a range of secondary criteria including a required period of residence in the territory before qualifying for a vote.

Scots Language Strategy

A peoples’ naitural language or mither tongue is clearly far more important than a mere means of communication. A peoples’ language defines who they are and gives them their national identity and culture which forms the basis of national consciousness. Scotland’s cultural liberation, the protection of Scottish National identity, and the objective of equality in society, depends on a comprehensive Scots Language strategy. This strategy requires a Scots Language Act as an urgent priority.

The Scots language should be made the national language of Scots and given authority as such. English should be seen as an ‘administrative’ language, not as a ‘superior’ language which facilitates the cultural domination of the Scottish people and enables their economic exploitation. A key requirement is to teach the Scots language in schools at all levels, and at universities, in addition to English. All peoples from other nations seeking to work in Scotland (or apply for citizenship post-independence) should be required to have an acceptable level of knowledge of the Scots language. This is especially important in education, in social institutions, and at higher managerial levels generally.

A national Scots language strategy is fundamental for equality and raising a downtrodden, under-developed people and nation, to prevent their continued or future domination by another culture, and to protect and maintain the sovereignty of the Scottish people.



The aim of these articles – published by kind permission of the author and ‘Yours for Scotland’ website – is to help broaden the case for independence, and also to give the curious and the already convinced information generally denied them by the agencies of the British state, the same trying to sell ‘Britishness’ as they once tried to sell ‘Buy British’.

Article 1 on Culture can be found here:

Article 2 on Language can be found here:

Article 3 on Demographics can be found here:

Article 4 on Colonialism can be found here:

Article 5 on Nationalism can be found here:

Article 6 on Institutions can be found here:

Articles 7 on a Constitution can be found here:

Article 8 on Ethnicity can be found here:

Article 9 on Self-Determination can be found here:

Grouse Beater – Colonialism is a Crime:

Grouse Beater – The Republic of Barbados:

BOOK: ‘Doun-Hauden: The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence’, available from

This entry was posted in Scottish Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Scotland in the 21st Century: 10

  1. Grouse Beater says:

    Lifted from my Twitter site: “Probably the best summation of Scotland’s issues as a colonised nation yet produced.” Jack McAndrew

  2. lorncal says:

    It is getting people to see what has been going on that is the real stumbling block to inependence. Once people realize the truth, they cannot unrealize it. Same with the trans issue. Once you see the holes in the ideology, you can’t block them up again. We are being fed liquid dung on both issues and some folk lap it up like Mother’s Milk.


[…] We come now to the Parliament itself on which all men’s eyes were fixed, expecting to learn the fate of the nation; whether it were to remain free and independent, or under the colour and pretext of an Union be altogether at the discretion of another stronger and richer people, its avowed enemies, and be render’d altogether incapable to exert itself and defend its liberties as became a free people. These considerations brought together an unprecedented number of people of all ranks, sexes, ages, and persuasions, from all corners of the land to Edinburgh, and every one now pretended to understand the politicks and give their opinions freely and avowedly of the state of affairs.

    The Parliament met the third of October 1706, to which the Duke of Queensberry was appointed commissioner. The Queen’s letter and the Commissioner’s and Chancellor’s speeches consisted chiefly in setting forth the advantages that would accrue to the nation by being united with England, and therefore recommended the Treaty as agreed to by the commissioners, and crav’d subsidies.

    […] On the fifteenth the Court mov’d, that in the terms of the resolve past the twelfth, the House should proceed to the consideration of the articles of Union. There were many oppos’d this as too hasty a procedure Motion that in so momentous an affair, and crav’d liberty, now they had seen the articles, to consider and advise with their constituents concerning them; from whence arose a hot debate, whether or not the Parliament, without particular instructions from their constituents, could alter the constitution of the government.

    […] every body knew the nation had nothing of the Union in their view at the time this Parliament was chosen; besides, it was so long ago, that it was not strange the barons, freeholders, and burghs expected their representatives should advise with them; and since they were not allow’d to have a new election, that thus their sense of this weighty affair might be known in Parliament, that it would tend much more to the honour of the commissioners of the Treaty, if it was approv’d of in a Parliament called for that purpose, or by members who had receiv’d the fresh instructions and opinions of the nation, than by a Parliament which had continued so long, and thereby so many of its members corrupted by bribes, pensions, places, and preferments.


    A great deal more to this purpose was urg’d and insisted upon; but at length a vote was stated in these words, “Proceed to consider the articles of the Treaty, or delay.” But it carried in the affirmative by a plurality of sixty-four voices, and all that the Country party could obtain, was that the House should not proceed to vote and approve any of the articles until they were all once read and discours’d on by the members; after which the House proceeded to, and in few days finish’d the reading of them. The Country party, particularly the Dukes of Hamilton and Athol, the Marquis of Annandale, the Lords Belhaven and Balmerino, Mr. Fletcher of Salton, and Sir David Cunningham of Milncraig, took a great deal of pains to expose the unreasonableness of the several articles as they went thro’ them; but the Courtiers very seldom made any reply, having resolv’d to trust to their number of led-horses, and not to trouble themselves with reasoning.

During this time, the nation’s aversion to the Union increased; the Parliament Close, and the outer Parliament House, were crowded every day when the Parliament was met, with an infinite number of people, all exclaiming against the Union, and proceeds to consider the Treaty, and speaking very free language concerning the promoters of it. The Commissioner, as he passed along the street, was cursed and reviled to his face, and the Duke of Hamilton huzza’d and convey’d every night, with a great number of apprentices and younger sort of people, from the Parliament House to the Abbey, exhorting him to stand by the Country, and assuring him of his being supported.

    And upon the twenty-third of October, above three or four hundred of them being thus employ’d, did, as soon as they left His Grace, hasten in a body to the house of Sir Patrick Johnston (their late darling provost, one of the commissioners of the Treaty, a great promoter of the Union, in Parliament, where he sat as one of the representatives of the town of Edinburgh) threw stones at his windows, broke open his doors, and search’d his house for him, but he having narrowly made his escape, prevented his being torn in a thousand pieces.

    From thence the mob, which was increas’d to a great number, went thro’ the streets, threatning destruction to all the promoters of the Union, and continu’d for four or five hours in this temper; till about three next morning, a strong detachment of the Foot-guards was sent to secure the gate call’d the Netherbow Port, and keep guard in the Parliament Close. ‘Tis not to be express’d how great the consternation was that seiz’d the Courtiers on this occasion: formerly they did, or pretended not to believe the disposition of the people against the Union, but now they were throughly convinc’d of it, and terribly affraid of their lives; this passage making it evident that the Union was cramm’d down Scotland’s throat.

    For not only were the inclinations of the elder and wiser known by the actions of the rasher and younger, but even the very soldiers, as they march’d to seize the Port, were overheard saying to one another, ‘Tis hard we should oppose those that are standing up for the Country, ’tis what we can’t help just now, but what we won’t continue at.

    The mob being once dispatch’d, guards of regular forces were placed in the Parliament Close, Weigh-House, and Netherbow Port, and the whole army, both horse and foot, was drawn together near Edinburgh, and continu’d so all the session of Parliament: nay the Commissioner (as if he had been led to the gallows) made his parade every day after this, from the Parliament House to the Cross, (where his coaches waited for him, no coaches, nor no persons that were not members of Parliament being suffer’d to enter the Parliament Close towards the evening of such days as the Parliament was sitting) thro’ two lanes of musqueteers, and went from thence to the Abbey, the Horse-guards surrounding his coach, and if it was dark, for the greater security, a part of the Foot-guards likewise.

[…] Tho’ it was plain to all unbyass’d people that this mob had its rise very accidentally, yet the Government was not fond of any such amusements, and therefore the next day after it happen’d, the Privy Council met and ordained these guards to be continu’d, and emitted a proclamation against tumultuous meetings, wherein they commanded all persons to retire off the streets whenever the drum should beat and give warning, order’d the guards to fire upon such as would not obey, and granted an indemnity to such as should on that occasion kill any of the leidges; and next day the Chancellor acquainted the Parliament with what had happen’d, and what the Council had done on that occasion, and then the proclamation being read, a motion was made that the Council should have the thanks of the House for providing the safety of the Parliament, and that it be recommended to them to continue their care therein.

    […] Notwithstanding this precaution of the Government, and that several boys were incarcerated, as being accessary to the late mob, and a Committee of Parliament appointed to make enquiry after such as had, or should be guilty of such tumultuous meetings, or of shewing any disrespect towards my Lord Commissioner, yet His Grace was constantly saluted with curses and imprecations, as he pass’d through the streets; and if the Parliament sat till towards evening, then to be sure he and his guards were well pelted with stones, some whereof even enter’d his coach and often wounded his guards and servants ; so that often he and his retinue were oblig’d to go off at a top gallop and in great disorder.

  4. Grouse Beater says:

    You must be one of the few who know about the Lockhart papers, Fearghas. I’m impressed. Are you a scholar, or an amateur historian?

  5. Just an aging veteran of the cause. Though hopefully not yet entirely at the stage of the following poignant Irish poem:

    Ró-bheag orm an chríne chrom,
    ‘s an tráthnóna ag druidim liom,
    iall mo bhróige im dhá láimh,
    ciall is óige dom fhágáil.
    (Dánfhocal Gaeilge – ní fios cé a chum)

    So frail the stoop that gets me down,
    And late the day that closes in.
    I grasp my shoelace in both hands,
    As wit and youth walk out on me.
    (Anonymous Irish epigram from a manuscript margin.)

  6. Queen Nic’s attempts to retain the Union appear to be a lame copy of the above historical events.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s