Unionism's intractable strategic impasse

I'm just back from a work drive and caught a swatch of the (30/03/16) John Beatty Show on BBC Radio Scotland. I normally don't mind that, so listened in. Topic of the day was some haivers about boxing, but mostly (following last night's Leaders TV debate on STV), '18 months on since the NO vote, has Scotland "failed to move on" from the referendum.' Hilarity, in soft Unionist hand wringing. Very enjoyable Schadenfreude at the anti-democrats' pain. 'Can't we all just get along, under the Tories, people?' LOL. 

There are two fundamental and catestrophic political problems for Unionists and Loyalists.

Add caption

One; while Unionists remain divided between umpteen political parties who nonetheless all (in Scotland) agree on monetarist economics but are divided by their respective ultra-sectarian voting supporters and by their real differences in actual power blocs in the provincial Establishment, any fragile majority they may, or may not, have cannot hope to convert to governmental power. This leads to the SNP gaining support among people who might actually be considered among their natural supporters, based on other policy offerings and their unity and credibility.

Two; their problems are primarily English. The line about black holes and ra ra ra Kevin Hague-ry - that only works if the ordinary people feel they are getting a better deal than they would with self-rule. You can't square that with an English politics utterly obsessed with financialisation and totally unprepared to buy off rebellious provinces, because it has become insular and xenophobic to the extent of self-harm to its own imperial status/apparatus. The Highlands of Scotland were converted to hydro power under the threat of just such a situation that we now enjoy in Scotland ever developing; this has happened in Scottish history several times, and Whitehall has found some billions down a sofa to quell any provincial distaste for London rule and desire for Home Rule. Now that more than half of Scotland believes its bread is buttered better with democracy than remote control by a foreign government, and that most people who think like that also want independence, bleating about plugging fictional 'black holes' and other such nonsense is essential a shargart and wabbit challenger frame to those people, and actually *weakens* the case for Union by underlining perceived Unionist parsimony towards the ordinary joe. In order to win some of those people back you actually have to spend some real money, and buy some sectional provincial loyalty. English politics essentially prevents this being possible.

A suthfast story? þat be nocht bot fabill: the myth o the Anglo-Scottish Union

"Storyß to rede ar delitabill,
suppoß þat þai be nocht bot fabill,
þan suld storyß þat suthfast wer,
And þai war said on gud maner,
Hawe doubill plesance in heryng.
þe fyrst plesance is þe carpyng,
And þe toþir þe suthfastnes,
þat schawys þe thing rycht as it wes;
And suth thyngis þat ar likand
Tyll mannys heryng ar plesand.
þarfor I wald fayne set my will,
Giff my wyt mycht suffice þartill,
To put in wryt a suthfast story,
þat it lest ay furth in memory,
Swa þat na length of tyme it let,
na ger it haly be forȝet."

[Beuk Ane o John Barbour's The Brus, wrutten in the 1370s]

John Barbour commences the first gret beuk in the Scots leid wi the lines abuin, and while it's no aften quotit, in place o his threip anent freedom, or the bits fae the action, it is dootless ane o the maist thochtie pairts o the epic, an epic that hitsel is written aince errant forderin the Scots national myth wi political ingyne. The stories (or "history" - same word) that we tell wirsels is aye fochen ower acause historicity is an unca political thing, "storys that suthfast wer[...] Have doubill plesance in heryng[...] suthfast story[s ...] lest[s] ay furth in memory / Swa that na tyme of lenth it let / Na ger it haly be foryet." Ane o the important stories we tell wirsels theday concerns the wey we consent, or consentit, tae be ruled, and the creation myth o the UK. Aw states has thir stories and they yoke tae the fang o thaim for tae cleck a guid deal o legitimacy fae thaim. Scotland in Union has ane, and we aw ken it. What tho if soothfast, jonick, richt stories is pleasin tae hear, does it mean gin this important ane turns oot tae be just a swick - a dooble and fenyit, sleekit tale devised for the ettle o keppin fowk fae speirin questions at thaim that's tae benefit?

It's an unca thing that for hunders o years, efter the end o 'parliament and stateheid', Scotland, and the norrie o sic o place, was aye livin and lifelike on accoont o the institutions that beirt the name, the body o law, the Kirk, the lawvyers and the adaes o regulation and commerce - that the interests o thaim aw (or sindry) didna aye marra wi that o the Wastminster state - and syne evenoo "Scottish" cows the gowan in the identity leagues wi "British" yet. Hooandever while thae institutions, that in sae mony weys comprises wir Estaiblishment (whiles in hiddles, whilies crouse and ruisin), for the maist pairt stuid up tae conter an AY vote in 2014 (wi exceptions, o coorse), the'r this myth at the foonds o Union that the Kirk - that in physical form representit Scotland's castin aff o the colonial cheyns o the Valois, the grallochin o the Lords and lichtifiein o the gentrice tae heeze up the ordnar common people - consentit, if no doucely and smertly, but sweirtly and at the hinderend, tae Union on accoont o the Glorious Revolution and the hainin o the Protestant religion.
This was aye a bruckle tale hitsel, takin pelters fae sic wanchancy events as the sindry risins again the monarchy, that whiles had a nationalist character forby. But thaim that skries the story for uisual mints that thae risins was supportit bi wir historic non-Presbyterians. Sae far sae guid - but whit o thaim that embodies the verra sowel o whit and Knox and Buchanan and that was gettin at?

Gin ye've ever been up ower late at nicht playin at youtube for aw the sentimentality yer creeshy-gingerbreid-snashters couthy heid can tak, ye'll mebbe hae taikit ower far intil the warld o fowk muisic, and been scunnered tae come oot the ither side in some kinna Orange Order fiddle band; aside fae synin the lugs oot, and awa up tae yer bed, ane o the maist starkest things is whit legacies they claim fae Scotland's revolution o the 1560s for their ain far richt Anglo-Irish Ulster-Scotchiefied version o the KKK. The'r a affie popular track, The Covenanter Sodger, that's a wee tale o a Covenanter that somewey didna get murdered in the Killin Time, and endit up fechtin for William o Orange. In mauger o yon Dutchman no haein ower muckle tae dae wi knuckle draggin yoons, that their politics actually comes fae a bosses' ploy tae prevent the workers unitin in Erland in the 1800s, the'r a clair and clamant ettle there tae claim the legacy as contiguous wi Union - Croon and Parliament baith.

Ither fowk has dealt wi the Freends o the People, and hoo that the Auld Licht Calvinism o Thomas Muir at the lang and last gart him caw for a Scots Workers' Republic (in the rhetorical freits and laits o the times, raither nor aw raucle and John MacLean like; fowk was hingit for a lot less) but while the 1800s was the beginnin o the end o Kirk pousty that lichtified the maucht o the state, the tradition o absolute Presbyterianism didna dee wi the Killin Times, and Muir was just ane o the inheritors of thae traditions, that was the foonds o his republicanism.

Gin ye ging back forder til the actual Union, obviously the war the republican traditions that Fletcher o Saltoun pushed.
Again he featurs in maist 'gret man' stories, natheless it's kenspeckle that his "12 limitations"*1 (that catalysed the Act o Security, and the Act Anent Peace and War) was the inheritor o the tradition o contractual ("Covenanted") monarchy, and that was ane o the imperatives o Queen Anne *for* Union, tae caw this doon and stop siccan Republicanism fae the Scots parliamentars. Atweel, she was that fashed wi it (and its revolutionary potential), the English Government applied economic sanctions on Scotland, and the Croon wadna approve the Scots' Act o Security ava, and syne the Scots refused tae raise cesses, and ettled tae exit the Croon's war again Spaigne. This period twa-three year afore Union is aften seen as adae wi Jacobites, and syne Unionists aften dooblie peuthers that it was a proxy for the Protestant-Catholic kemp that caws a thrave o Unionist politics; in fact the Scots was gey and clair - while a Stuart King micht be sochten, they'd maun be a Protestant and they'd maun respect Presbyterian laits - they stipulatit in legislation that ye can google gin ye want! History shaws it had deil a thing tae dae wi yon Yoon obsession hooandever as the Act was aboot pittin in place a Protestant monarch, and de facto pittin an end tae the Union o the Croons, wi a Scots economic focus. That was the defence and security reason ahent the English drive for Union here-efter. They wadna coud tolerate sicna independent action, that coud aye end up wi Scotland bein uphauden fae ane o England's tradin unfreends, like the Netherlands, France or Spaigne.  The Act o Security doesna mess aboot tellin the Croon wha's tae be in chairge:

"And it is hereby expressly provided and declared that it shall be high treason for any person or persons to administer the coronation oath or be witnesses to the administration thereof but by the appointment of the estates of parliament in manner above-mentioned, or to own or acknowledge any person as king or queen of this realm, in the event of her majesty's death leaving heirs of her own body, until they have sworn the coronation oath and accepted the crown in the terms of the Claim of Right, and in the event of her majesty's death without heirs of her body, until they swear the coronation oath and accept on the terms of the Claim of Right, and of such other conditions of government as shall be settled in this or any ensuing parliament or added in the said meeting of estates and be thereupon declared and admitted as above, which crime shall be irremissible without consent of parliament." [http://www.rps.ac.uk/trans/1704/7/68]  But tae retour tae thae Orange Yoons wi their happy tunes - whit o the actual Covenanters that wasna drooned, shot or pit tae daith wi a sword? Weel this week the Scotosphere was proggit wi wittins o a kittle beuk, pitten thegither bi actual Covenanters aroond the time o the Union negotiations.

Whit the Covanters has tae say in the Smoaking Flax Unquenchable is this:-
They were again Union;

 

  They considered the Union no legal, and said they had annulled it;

 And that they cawed insteid for a Republic.
 

Noo it's weel seen that aw thir republicans and republican radicals didna beir the gree, and we're aye livin under this pretend democracy but the key preen that hauds aw thir chiels and their thochts, threips and adaes thegither is that contractual monarchy akin til republicanism gings fit for fit wi Presbyterianism. A body canna sinder the twa for tryin as ane (Scots Presbyterianism) is an intellectual strind comin oot o the tither (a revolution again an absolutist and tyrant monarchy, follaed bi anither ane aboot echty year syne), that ye can probably trace back til the maik o Duns Scotus and the Declaration o the Clergy*2 and syne Declaration o Arbroath. That's whitwey the Union o the Croons was necessar for wir Kings, that's whitwey the Anglo-Scottish Union was wrocht tae, acause it gied wir knabberie an inlat tae wrest the fang o pooer and pousty fae the Kirk, and that's whitwey thaim that contered the Union was aw o ae oo whan it cam tae contractual monarchy and Presbyterianism.

Deil a body in a democracy movement is that keen on howkin up anachronistic Presbyterian evangelism. That's no the pynt, but historicity is a gey and important thing. The stories we tell wirsels justifies and richtifies whit we dae theday. Gin it turns oot that the story sae dotit on bi sae monie o the yoons is waur nor a pawkie myth, but is in fact an utter utter lee, wabbit thegither tae deave the sackless fowk and twist the actions and ettles o fowk fae the bygane, whit than? Weel, it'll come as nae gret surprise for democrats tae ken that wir ill pairtit warld and this ill pairtit Union was wrocht bi thaim that wantit tae caw doon democracy, tae stell up monarchy, tae haud the stick ower the ordnar fowk wi mair cesses wi nae concern for their troke or sonse, and tae kep and crine the fang o political pousty for the institutions that stopped the warld gettin mair ill pairtit. That is the hale story o the Union and onie ettle tae stell it up wi convenient haivers aboot maintainin religion, or workin on some religio-moral mission is just tae claivers tae peuther the lugs of yoons.
-- *1: http://bit.ly/1S7Wu1N

*2: http://www.rps.ac.uk/search.php?a=fcf&fn=roberti_trans&id=284&t=trans