The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Tory peer attempts to partition Scotland

Posted on January 24, 2012 by

This blog doesn't share the eagerness of much of the centre-left to either abolish the House of Lords or make it an elected body. Politicians pandering to the public's most primitive prejudices in pursuit of power are responsible for much of the atrocious state of British democracy, and while we're uneasy with the exercise of mostly-unearned privilege, the Lords were responsible for obstructing some of Tony Blair's worst attacks on civil liberties, and have been the only voice speaking up against the coalition's brutal welfare "reforms". We're not so sure we trust them less than MPs, who regularly stand for election promising one thing then do the precise opposite in government.

There's also nothing exclusive to the Lords about ham-fisted attempts to insert ludicrous amendments into new bills. But it so happens that the most recent example has come from that direction. Conservative hereditary peer the Earl Of Caithness (who owes his position to ancestors over 600 years ago) has put forward a series of extraordinary alterations to the unloved Scotland Bill, currently making its weary way towards a likely rejection by the Scottish Parliament. They're unlikely to be passed, but even the attempt reveals a great deal about the mindset of Scottish Unionists.

The bill can be seen here, and we've highlighted the relevant passages in the screenshot below.

The good Lord is endeavouring firstly to ensure that if Scotland votes Yes in the referendum, it will not be allowed to actually withdraw from the Union unless a second, UK-wide, referendum is held and also results in a Yes vote. Quite aside from the fact that any such open breach of the UN Charter on self-determination would turn the UK into an outlaw state and possibly start a civil war, it's hard to imagine the rest of the UK voting to force a Scotland which had chosen independence to remain in the Union.

(Also, since the Treaty was explicitly between Scotland and England, it's difficult to see what business it would be of Wales and Northern Ireland's at all.)

More interesting, though, is the quite astonishingly transparent attempt to break Scotland up for parts should it choose independence. Orkney, Shetland and Rockall are of course by far the most strategically significant parts of Scottish territory, for various reasons. The Earl's desire to subject the first two – and only them – to what would in effect be their own mini-referenda is, to say the least, a difficult one to justify in any rational or democratic way. Why not Edinburgh? Why not Glasgow? Why not Auchtermuchty? Why, come to that, not Newcastle or Carlisle or Liverpool?

Surely if we're asking individual parts of the country whether they want to be part of an independent Scotland or not, in a sort of bizarre constitutional pick'n'mix irrespective of geographical location, we shouldn't restrict it to what's currently considered Scottish? Liverpool might well prefer taking its chances with the SNP rather than entrust itself to the tender mercies of the Tories. If Orkney gets special dispensation just because it happens to be wealthy from oil, why shouldn't Aberdeen or Buncefield? And why should Orkney's only choices be Scotland or the UK? Shouldn't it also get to vote about whether it goes back to Norway?

Even in the senile-old-colonel environment of the Lords, the flat-out stealing of Rockall (which is uninhabited, and therefore unable to express a preference) is even more bonkers. The Rockall Act of 1972 proclaimed the island to be part of Inverness-shire. The notion that the UK can simply help itself to any part of Scotland it feels like if nobody lives there harks back to the days of the Wild West, when the first person to stick a flag into a piece of ground could claim it as their own. Would Inverness itself be safe? We could probably wave goodbye to all of the prettier parts of the Highlands, with any scattered crofters swiftly dispersed by a new round of Clearances.

The Earl's amendment is obviously laughable. But the fact that it should even have been proposed with a straight face exposes the regard in which the Scottish people are held by the UK establishment. We hope they remember that come autumn 2014.

12 to “Tory peer attempts to partition Scotland”

  1. Angus McLellan says:

    The noble Lord is being rather hard on Orkney and Shetland I feel. This paper – link to ejil.org (at p. 100) – briefly considers what the precedents are under international law if Orkney and Shetland remain with the UK. And as for Rockall, the UK claim is based on Rockall being within the 200 mile EEZ limit. It's not clear what the the basis of an rUK claim to Rockall might be.

    Reply
  2. TYRAN says:

    I'm not aware of anything that says England can then help itself to areas of Scotland after the parliament treaty is dissolved. 
    And why didn't "Malky" put down Caithness as being part of his fantasy England state?

    Reply
  3. Morag says:

    I can't see any possible claim to Rockall from England, Wales or Northern Ireland.  If Malkie thinks that "we want to keep it and we're bigger than they are" will get him anywhere, I think he needs to check his delusions in at Black Rod's Entrance.
     
    Come to that, who's "we" in this context?  He sits in the House of Lords as Earl of Caithness.  Claims to be chief of Clan Sinclair.  He uses this position to try to deprive Scotland ot her right to unilateral secession, and if she should secede anyway, to deprive her of territory and assets.
     
    With "representation" like this, who needs enemies?

    Reply
  4. Kevin Breslin (@kevinpbreslin) says:

    <i>I can't see any possible claim to Rockall from England, Wales or Northern Ireland.</i>
    Well since the Republic of Ireland has a territorial claim to Rockhall, surely Northern Ireland would have one by proxy, in the eyes of Irish nationalists anyway.
     
     

    Reply
  5. International law already deals with this,in the division of a union each country shall return to the borders as were prior to the union.So how crazy are these people who seek to make laws?

    Reply
  6. Brian says:

    The reason they are going after Shetland is because the biggest oil and gas developments since the 70's are going up there as we speak. It's BP who are developing the field and they only develop massive fields.

    Reply
  7. Shodan says:

    They tried the same thing years ago last time independance came up a generayion ago. A documentary covered some of their attempts to encourage seperatist movements for parts of Scotland from Scotland itself while at the same time stopping nationalist movements on the mainland. A failsafe. Same as the border change after oil was found.

    Reply
  8. Tim says:

    Speaking as an Orcadian, I can't really see people there being that enamoured with the idea. Given the fact that the ferries are counted as  lifeline services, and are subsidised to the tune of tens of millions, the government might not be that up for it either.

    Reply
  9. Shodan says:

    Amazing how much they care about certain parts of Scotland…but only during independance movements and only ever with the context of oil or gas hanging over it.
     
    They already changed the East sea borders to help themselves to several thousand square miles of Scottish waters in the late 90s, thanks to the collaborators in chief up here. If anything we should be readjusting the borders to include the parts they've been stealing from us, like the aforementioned waters and the land border around Berwick. None of this was ever properly ceded to English, it was only Scottish territory administrated by them post-union at various points. It was never handed to them as their own.

    Reply
  10. chariie says:

    Can Davie Cameron get a question for Castle Greyskull to be part of Engalnd? And Celtic to be an Irish theme park? This could be the best referendum ever

    Reply
  11. cath says:

    I see this was back last year. Did that amendment actually go through?

    If they’re serious about Orkney and Shetland staying “part of the UK” in the event of a Yes vote, they ought to spell out exactly what this would mean for people living there. Given there is no UK legal system, health system or education system,  what ones would the people there be living under? If the’re no longer part of Scotland, but run from Westmisnter, presumably they’ll have to adopt English law and become part of the English NHS (now aka Virgin, Secro et al).

    This should surely be properly spelled out before the referendum by Westminster, as well as properly costed. For example, how much would Serco charge for the air ambulance emergency service to the nearest NHS England facility?

    Reply
  12. redcliffe62 says:

    Gotta love the unelected hereditary peers and their views on democracy.
    This is a campaign ad on its own.

    This is what the Tories want to do, They want Lerwick and the oil, so it must be worth something after all!
    Can you imagine what else these unelected people will do if we are silly enough to vote NO and believe they care about us? 
    A real FEAR campaign. Be afraid of Tories , be very afraid!
    There will be no mo more House of Lords rule from hereditary peers when Scotland is independent. Let’s watch the Yes Together lot justify the benefits of unelected peers telling Scotland what is best for them.
    Thank goodness for everyone who cares about Scotland and its people we can have these people, (pic) rather than these people(pic of ermine robed Etonians…).
    Indy has to be better than posh rich families telling you what is good for you for generations surely? 

    Reply


Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.


  • About

    Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)

    Stats: 6,718 Posts, 1,214,083 Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • Ian Brotherhood on Signal and noise: “Sorry Sarah, didn’t see your reply until now. I suppose we could ask it about what it does know about…Mar 14, 23:42
    • Alf Baird on Signal and noise: “And with a decent franchise.Mar 14, 23:39
    • Anthem on Signal and noise: “GF. On the SNP, aye. On Independence naw. Events dear friend, Events.Mar 14, 22:11
    • Anthem on Signal and noise: “Sorry, but I think you are wrong. Scotland, as a nation, is older and has more independent history than England.…Mar 14, 21:44
    • Anthem on Signal and noise: “Yoon Scum. That’s your belief and you’re welcome to it. Almost 50% of the country don’t.Mar 14, 21:31
    • George Ferguson on Signal and noise: “@Sarah 6:47pm I know nobody wants to admit the ba is burst on Scottish Independence and the SNP.Mar 14, 20:11
    • sarah on Signal and noise: “This is extraordinary, IB. It comes across as rational, reasonable and informed – some MSP/MPs could do with Grok’s assistance.…Mar 14, 19:40
    • sarah on Signal and noise: “O/T and funny! Jim Sillars says that Sturgeon once said [in her usual charming and polite manner] to Margot Macdonald…Mar 14, 18:47
    • william campbell on Signal and noise: “It was pathetic to watch FM question time a couple of days ago. There she sat gurning behind Mr continuity…Mar 14, 18:46
    • Mia on The tint of rose: ““You’re (I feel deliberately now) misunderstanding Clause XXV” Now you are using the strategy of dishonesty to get around this,…Mar 14, 18:14
    • George Ferguson on Signal and noise: “After decades of Irish Republic strategy and many people dead. The Irish after all their Britnat hatred have handed over…Mar 14, 18:05
    • Xaracen on The tint of rose: “Aidan said; “@Xaracen – there is no distinction between constitutional law and domestic law, constitutional law is domestic law by…Mar 14, 16:40
    • George Ferguson on Signal and noise: “@Sarah 4:02pm Sure a 25% turnout but you can’t argue with the consistency of the SNP. Freebies that other people…Mar 14, 16:37
    • sarah on Signal and noise: “25% turnout. It’s not apathy, it is frustrated fury – a 75% vote for None of the Above.Mar 14, 16:02
    • Aidan on The tint of rose: “@Mia – again you’re (I feel deliberately now) misunderstanding Clause XXV. At the point at which the Treaty of Union…Mar 14, 15:57
    • George Ferguson on Signal and noise: “So my latest by election results are in, a wee council by election. An SNP win. Labour second and Reform…Mar 14, 15:32
    • Mia on The tint of rose: “@Aidan You said: “The treaty explicitly provides for the new parliament of Great Britain as the national legislative body” Nope.…Mar 14, 15:22
    • Young Lochinvar on Signal and noise: “Yes indeed. One to add to the risks section though; All the paid grifters who have made a cosy career…Mar 14, 15:19
    • Mia on The tint of rose: “@ Aidan You say: “It does not say anything about limiting the powers of the new parliament” And it does…Mar 14, 15:15
    • Mia on The tint of rose: “@ Aidan you say: It’s 180 degrees the other way” I disagree. It is as it is. You say: “The…Mar 14, 15:13
    • Mia on The tint of rose: “@ Aidan I have tried to reply to your comment several times now, but it comes back as being in…Mar 14, 15:06
    • Ian Brotherhood on Signal and noise: “Wow, yon ‘Grok’ is impressive. It answered this question in approximately 3 seconds. If you were a supporter of Scottish…Mar 14, 14:44
    • Aidan on The tint of rose: “No Mia, it’s 180 degrees the other way. The treaty required the two separate parliaments each to dispose of incompatible…Mar 14, 13:49
    • Mia on The tint of rose: ““If the authors of the ToU intended to impose that significant restriction, they would have done so explicitly” And they…Mar 14, 13:17
    • Young Lochinvar on Signal and noise: “Aha! Press reporting that SHE whose name shall not be uttered is still under investigation in Branchform. “Timing” again anyone?Mar 14, 13:09
    • Aidan on Signal and noise: “A combination of very little going on in the pro-Indy front, and the deluge of cranks and trolls who, like…Mar 14, 12:38
    • Aidan on The tint of rose: “@Mia – no it doesn’t stand to reason at all, that implication would have an enormous impact on future union…Mar 14, 12:31
    • Chas on Signal and noise: “Very few comments being posted on Wings nowadays. Even the nutters and cranks who posted umpteen times, every day, now…Mar 14, 11:36
    • agent x on Signal and noise: “I saw reports that Sturgeon had put her name forward for re-election in 2026. Was it published anywhere that she…Mar 14, 11:35
    • willie on Signal and noise: “So Swinney has had tea and biscuits with Eric Trump. Not bad for a man who only a few weeks…Mar 14, 11:25
  • A tall tale



↑ Top