It looks quite likely that Scotland will get a second chance
at voting on the matter of independence from the UK and become a real country
just like all the others in the world. This is because of the recent vote across the UK which decided it wants to leave the EU, and Scotland deciding to remain part of the EU, followed very quickly by the realisation amongst the UK public that the UK political establishment in London don't have a clue what a leave vote actually means.
Complicating this further for the UK as a whole, is the clear vote in favour of remaining in the EU shown in Scotland. Scotland is a constituent nation of the UK that voted 55% to 45% less than 2 years ago to remain a part of the UK with many Scottish voters believing the Better Together claim that the only way to keep Scotland in the EU was to vote NO. Contrary to the confusion and power vacuum at Westminster Nicola Sturgeon current SNP First Minister of Scotland and leader of the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh has shown clear leadership in her desire to allow Scotland to remain a member of the EU.
Read and commit the following to memory
as a cautionary tale before voting to stay within the UK.
In 1979 the people of Scotland were given a chance to decide
their future. But was this one of the cynical episodes of recent times? In my opinion it most definitely was. And the sad thing is it appears to be part of a pattern.
This is
tale of UK Government intrigue and double dealing and how the fallout changed
the course of history.
‘Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat
it’. A quote by George
Santayana (16 December 1863 in
Madrid, Spain – 26 September 1952 in
Rome, Italy) was a philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist.
The Scottish Covenant and the Stone of Destiny
The Scottish Covenant was a petition to the United Kingdom government to create a home rule Scottish parliament. First proposed in 1930, and promoted by the Scots Independent in 1939, the National Covenant movement reached its peak during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Initiated by John MacCormick, the Covenant was written in October 1949 at the Church of Scotland Assembly Halls in Edinburgh, during the Third National Assembly of the Scottish Convention, by a pressure group which evolved into the Scottish Covenant Association.
The petition was "eventually signed by two million people".In the census of 1951, the population of Scotland was 5.1 million meaning the UK Government just ignored the choice of a very significant proportion of the Scottish population.
The
world in the 1960s and 1970s
In 1969 Colonel Gaddafi had seized power in Libya in a
military coup. He now controlled a substantial part of the world’s oil supply.
In 1973 the Yom Kippur war between Israel, Egypt and Syria
erupted. The Americans supplied the Israelis with arms. OPEC responded by
raising the price of oil.
OPEC is the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and
intergovernmental organisation made up of representatives from 14 nations
formed in 1960 to maximise the power of these countries on the world stage. As
of July 2016, OPEC's members are Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Gabon, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait,Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia (the de facto leader), United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.
Two-thirds of OPEC's oil production and reserves are in its six Middle Eastern countries that surround the oil-rich Persian Gulf.
In the 1970s the UK was in serious economic trouble. It had
widespread labour relations problems, workplace strikes, bad management of
industry, and inflation or stagflation as the economy was flat-lining. On top
of that it had the crippling OPEC and
oil supply crisis. The UK was so broke that it had to go to the world’s banker
the IMF for a loan. The IMF loan had its price, spending cuts, and the impact
of those cuts sent shock waves through Britain.
A ray
of hope for the UK and for Scotland
With the discovery of oil in the North Sea in the late 1960s
those people who believed Scotland should be a self governing nation received
an unexpected boost.
The black gold that has poured out of the North Sea has
pumped billions into the UK Treasury’s coffers. In 2005 the amount of money
totalled about 230 Billion pounds sterling in taxes from the oil companies on
the oil they have extracted.
Why was the evidence suggesting that an independent Scotland
could be amongst the richest countries in Europe and stamped SECRET and buried
in the UK’s archives for 30 years? The ‘McCrone’ Report, as it has since been
named, was only released under the Freedom of Information Act 2005.
Large
revenues and balance of payments gains would indeed accrue to a Scottish
Government in the event of independence. The country would tend to be in
chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become
the hardest in Europe. The Scottish Pound would be seen as a good hedge against
inflation and devaluation, and the Scottish banks would expect to see
themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds.
SNP
Confidence surges on the back of North Sea Oil
In March 1973 the SNP felt confident enough to take on the UK
Labour Party in their safe Westminster Parliamentary seat of Dundee East. The
by election was caused by the sitting UK Labour member George Thomson being appointed a European Commissioner. Dundee
Harbour had become a base for oil rig supply ships. The SNP candidate Gordon Wilson believed that Scotland should get a share of the profits from the oil.
Although the SNP didn’t win the seat on that occasion they came a close second
to Labour much to the surprise of the UK Labour Party. Details found here.
Labour, George Machin 14411 votes or 32.74%
Conservative, William Fitzgerald 11089 votes or 25.19%
Liberal, Nathaniel Gordon 3653 votes or 8.3%
Independent, John S Thomson 182 votes or 0.41%
Majority 1141 votes or 2.59%
Turnout 44014
The SNP’s growing profile raised the prospect that Scotland
may one day achieve independence and rest control of the oil from London and
the Westminster Parliament.
It was a future scenario that attracted the interest of some
powerful vested interests.
In 1974 the USA State Department appointed one of its most
distinguished diplomats to Edinburgh as Consul, Richard Funkhouser, who was
also an oil industry professional. But the arrival of the senior diplomat and
what he was there for caused some confusion.
'The American Consul General was negotiating in some way; I
never knew the detail of it; with the SNP', according to Tony Benn, UK Secretary
of State for Energy June 1974 to May 1979 and Secretary of State for Industry
March 1974 to June 1975.
According to Gordon Wilson who became leader of the SNP in
September 1979 and held the post until September 1990 ‘There were rumours that
he might have been with the CIA which of course is the natural view of people in
those days when Governments were being brought down by that organisation
throughout the world’.
Whatever Funkhouser’s brief he listened to all sides. During
an earlier visit to Whitehall in 1973 he had a meeting with a high ranking
Foreign Office official who warned him that the Scottish Nationalists were a
very serious threat. But the man from Washington DC was not swayed by Whitehall’s
hard line. He adopted the pragmatic approach that the Nationalists may well
some day be in control of the oil.
Did
Edinburgh Police deliberately encourage young Nationalists to commit bomb
outrages and supply them with dummy explosives?
In the past civil servants, MI5 and Special Branch were used
by Westminster to obstruct and even sabotage the Scottish Nationalist movement.
It seems likely the police force in Edinburgh and everywhere
else in Scotland were given orders from the UK Government to take anything they
saw regarding nationalism or devolution seriously. It was their opinion that a close eye should
be kept on everyone involved as much as possible.
They would encourage the weakest or most wayward of them to
cause trouble. The operative would then inform the police where they could be found.
This would result in the perpetrator being charged and bringing disrepute to
their community or group.
Gavin McCrone states ‘There were those in the civil service who
took a rather different view of this than they would normally do of political
issues because they felt that they had to work for the integrity of the United
Kingdom.’
The
division line between Scottish and English waters in the North Sea
Writing to Prime Minister James Callaghan’s Foreign Secretary
Anthony Crossland claimed that the recognised border due east of Berwick uponTweed would never stand international scrutiny and goes on to suggest ‘seeking
to inspire articles’ with selected public opinion formers’ and briefing back
bench MPs.
Crosland’s civil servants advised the Prime Minister: ‘However
the dividing line was drawn it would give England a considerable area of what
are now Scottish waters. It might also have the effect of putting into English
waters a certain amount, and possibly even a great deal of oil’. ‘Information
Division has sought for a long time in briefing to undermine SNP claims to
North Sea Oil. In the process it has played on the Shetland Orkney uncertainty,
as well as the angle of any dividing line between England and a hypothetically
independent Scotland’.The line ’Indeed it is part of my ‘standard sales patter’’
appeared in the same document.
It is hard to see any conclusion other than to allow Scotland to have that part of the continental shelf which would have been hers if she had been independent all along.
March 1st
1979 Scottish Devolution Referendum Day.
Polling day opened. Both UK Labour and the Scottish
Nationalists were supposed to be campaigning for the same goal i.e. a Scottish
Assembly to be based in the Royal High School building in Edinburgh to deal
with Scottish internal affairs.
According to Gordon Wilson, future SNP leader ‘The Labour
Party in Dundee made no attempt to get out their vote and the same was true of
many other parts of the country. They didn’t fight for it. They didn’t believe
in it. They didn’t want it.’
There was also still the issue of the George Cunningham
amendment to the Scotland Act 1978. He was a UK Labour politician from Scotland
representing an English seat at the time. His amendment meant that 40% of the
registered electorate had to vote in favour of a Scottish Assembly.
This important referendum was conducted on an electoral role
that was substantially out of date.
According to Jim Sillars ‘When you actually looked at that in
detail the dead voted NO, because every electoral register dies about 1% a
month. So the dead counted NO; anyone who had been placed on the electoral
register like some of the American students in Edinburgh for example in the halls
of residence; they counted NO’.
James or Jim Sillars (born 4
October 1937) is a Scottish politician. He was married to Margo MacDonald until her death in 2014 who was another very famous Scottish Nationalist politician. He is a leading figure
in the campaign for Scottish independence and generally regarded as among the
best orators in politics. He founded and led the Scottish Labour Party in the
1970s, and was Deputy Leader of the Scottish National Party.
The actual results of this referendum were as follows…
Western Isles 6218 Yes, 4933 No
Dumfries and Galloway 27162 Yes, 40239 No
Shetland Islands 2020 Yes, 5466 No
Central 71296 Yes, 59105 No
Fife 86252 Yes, 74436 No
Orkney Islands 2104 Yes, 5439 No
Border 20746 Yes, 30780 No
Tayside 91482 Yes, 93325 No
Grampian 94944 Yes, 101485 No
Lothian 187221 Yes 186421 No
Strathclyde 596519 Yes 508599 No
Highland 44973 Yes 73274 No
TOTALS 1230937 Yes 1153502
Therefore in spite of the majority in favour of a Scottish
Assembly the terms of George Cunningham’s 40% amendment meant not enough had
voted in favour.
It was therefore fundamentally undemocratic. Why the
people asked at the time is First Past the Post good enough for Westminster
elections? Why was a good enough for the referendum on the EEC? Why was it good
enough for those measures but not good enough for Scotland?’
Why was
the evidence suggesting Scotland could be amongst the richest countries in
Europe stamped SECRET and buried in the UK archives for 30 years?
Margaret Thatcher swept to power in the UK General Election
of May 1979. For the next 11 years a committed unionist Prime Minister would be
in power. There was no longer any doubt as to who had control of the oil revenues from the Scottish North Sea. She was.
The money from the oil off Scotland’s coast bank rolled
Thatcherism. The revenue from the North Sea allowed Margaret Thatcher to
reverse the policies of the 1970s. She believed in the free market or ‘laissez
faire’ economics. She even sold off Britain’s national oil company.
North Sea Oil increased the value of the pound and increased
the exchange rate. The City rejoiced as foreign capital flooded in and boosted
the financial services sector.
But there was a down side. Margaret Thatcher used that money
to restructure the economy of the UK as a whole. But in Scotland few
agreed with how she spent the North Sea Oil revenues.
Throughout the 1980s there was escalating industrial unrest
in Scotland as unions fought to keep jobs. Massive unemployment followed. Money
that was at one time earmarked to boost industry was used to deal with the
consequences of its disappearance.
Gavin McCrone states ‘Looking back on it now you can say that
a large part of the oil revenues were used to pay for the unemployment that was
created in the early 1980s. That is not really what one would have liked to see
if you look at it objectively. If there had been a special fund for North Sea
Oil it could have financed all sorts of important things in Britain’s
infrastructuren which could have been important for economic develiopment’.
Gordon Wilson says ‘Not only did we have an unsympathetic
Prime Minister who was wiping out our industry but she was using money from
Scotland’s oil’.
Extract from the UK Government documents…North
Sea Oil revenues could be used for the improvement of the North and South
circular roads to motorway standards and to build an outer ring road. Building
of the proposed Channel tunnel might be reconsidered.
Further extract from UK Government documents…The
notion that North Sea Oil revenues could used for the improvement of the north
and south circular roads may very well appeal to the commuting civil servant,
but it is impossible to present it as a measure to strengthen the UK economy as
a whole and it would therefore be political suicide for any Government that was
anxious to retain seats in Scotland.
Jim Sillars states that ‘What it brought home to us was that
no matter what political decision was taken north of the border it didn’t
matter unless it coincided with the decision taken south of the border. ‘
In this article I have sought to reveal how successive UK
Governents have used, and at time abused their power to keep Scotland in the
Union and sabotage the causes of devolution and independence. I have also
looked at UK Government files that show…
- How the Police were diverted from catching
criminals to spy on legal and peaceful SNP demonstrations.
- How the will of 2 million Scots was defied by
simply ignoring their demand for devolution.
- How the Edinburgh Police encouraged young
nationalists to commit bomb outrages and supplied them with dummy explosives.
- And how evidence that an independent Scotland
could be among the richest countries in Europe was stamped SECRET and buried in
the archives.
For anyone that cares about democracy such behind the scenes
attempts to undermine legitimate political movements are a cause for concern at
the very least. At least we are now able to access these confidential files and documents that some
politicians might have preferred to remain secret forever, so Scotland does never make the same mistake again.
North
Sea Oil could have far reaching consequences for Scottish membership of the EEC
because of the tremendously increased political power it would confer. As the
major producer of oil in Western Europe Scotland would be in a key position,
and other countries would be extremely foolish if they did not seek to do all
they could to accommodate Scottish interests. This paper has shown that the
advent of North Sea oil has completely overturned the traditional economic
arguments against Scottish nationalism. For the first time since the Act of
Union was passed it can now be credibly argued that Scotland’s economic
advantage lies in its repeal.
Nick Robinson, BBC Political Editor and ex member of the Conservative Party in England states ‘North Sea
Oil runs out very slowly whereas the flow of cash from the City can run out
just like that’.
The SNP and subsequently the Scottish Government now that the SNP is in power in the devolved Scottish Parliament, would very much like to have control over the oil revenues and has as a party consistently argued that there should be an oil fund.
He argues that the Scottish Government are absolutely right
on the matter of an oil fund. To him it is so upsetting and striking, and it
must be particularly for the citizens of the UK, that in a sense the UK
squandered that wealth and you mistook the success of the Thatcher era as a
success based on good economic policy when it was really a success based on
living off of your wealth and leaving future generations impoverished.
This article explains exactly why I became a believer in
Scottish self determination i.e. the incompetence of UK Governments to manage
Scottish resources, and their ability to lie and cheat and use underhand
methods to maintain the integrity of the UK at all costs no matter what the
cost to the inhabitants of the whole of the UK or indeed in this case one part
of it i.e. Scotland.
I was a child in 1979 and could not understand why nothing was going to happen about a Scottish Assembly when a majority of people in Scotland voted for it. I was also aware in the 1970s that the UK was in deep trouble as we used to get power cuts. In the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher was in power I could never work out why the UK Government was reducing public spending when I thought they must be awash with money, with the oil money but also from all the public assets they were selling off, whilst industry was being wiped off the map. The other things I have found out subsequently.
Scotland is a nation subsumed within the UK nation state. I am yet to
hear a reason why it cannot be a valuable but equal player in the modern world
in its own right. Why anyone would want to maintain the UK after the above, no
matter what the starting conditions for an independent Scotland is beyond me. I
cannot comprehend it.
And that is before we start to create a different Scotland once Scotland's future is in Scotland's hands.
