Rejoicing in National Humiliation

“I don’t think Scotland is a colony as such, but it’s equally wrong to ignore the basis of that claim. After today, Scotland can be seen as a nation that is unable to achieve statehood without the permission of another state.” – Jonathan Rowson

I didn’t appreciate the extent to which the Unionist tabloids and associated outriders would revel in what has been described as a national humiliation. I should have. Today’s front pages and editorials are gushing with glee at the idea of Scotland/Sturgeon being crushed and an orgy of self-congratulation and back-slapping is under way.

Michael Blackley and Tom Eden in the Scottish Daily Mail rejoice: “Nicola Sturgeon’s bid for another referendum on Scottish independence is in tatters after the UK’s highest court ruled it illegal”

The same is repeated inside by the glorious trio of Euan McColm, Stephen Daisley and Adam Tomkins in full triumphalist raging glory, all declaring “the end of the road for Sturgeon”. Daisley writes of Sturgeon speaking after the verdict: “Change the location and change the flag and it could have been Nigel Farage or Donald Trump speaking.” Alexander Cole-Hamilton has the same line: “This ‘Scotland’s democracy movement’ title is straight out of the Trump playbook and can get in the bin.”

Of course, there is nothing new about the Unionist commentariat trying to frame Sturgeon as a quasi-fascist figure or to characterise the nationalist movement as being far-right. Nor is it surprising that they should revel in the Supreme Court verdict. But they might want to consider the optics of this revelry.

Because although this is not the ‘end of the road’ or a fait accompli as much of the right and left are united in thinking – it is a significant moment of clarity. As Jonathan Rowson has observed about the Supreme Court ruling:

“What we wanted the court to say was that Scotland had the right to leave the UK if it chose to do so. Because that right is totemic for Scotland’s self-esteem as a nation. What the court said is that we have no such right, which calls into question the meaning of nationhood. Those who are sanguine about it say nothing has changed. There was a referendum in 2014. There might be another later. Relax. Scotland is still a nation. Westminster can’t keep Scotland against its will if it’s really (even more) obvious that it wants to leave the UK.”

“But maybe they miss the point. The fact it has happened and could keep happening is a violation of Scotland’s sense of its own nationhood. I do think it makes sense to speak of national humiliation here. There are all sorts of examples of power asymmetries to make sense of this. I’m not sure what happens now. I don’t think anybody wants a general election to be turned into a de-facto referendum on independence, and some might even find it absurd. And yet I find the political logic compelling in the current circumstances ..the UK government is effectively saying: The answer is no now, and will be no for as long as we like for reasons we don’t have to specify, because we have the power, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

I think this is right, and the significance of the moment isn’t yet realised. But there are two consequences of this.

The first is that if this is in a very real sense a ‘national humiliation’ and an attack on the meaning of nationhood, then those commentators rejoicing in these events might want to pause for thought. The reason they don’t is they have reduced the entire constitutional question, and the entire national movement to the frailties and flaws of one woman. But, while Nicola Sturgeon has to take blame for her flawed strategies; her policy failings; and her leadership problems, the entire movement, the entire question isn’t about her alone. It isn’t really about her at all.

For many of the scribes and commentators this process of humiliation is one to relish. It confirms their approved status as people embedded in an identity that, however deeply dysfunctional they will cleave to under all circumstances. They may raise a cheer at Murrayfield or make a toast on Burns Night, but they have no real aspiration or belief in Scotland. That their joy is focused on Sturgeon doesn’t detract from the fact that what they are really celebrating is our national humiliation.

Comments (30)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Finlay Macleoid says:

    Nothing of what is above would be out of place had the Newspapers and lots of Scottish commentators had the subject been about the Gaelic language in Scotland. Knowing that Scotland is a Colony of England both linguistically and politically is nothing new for us.

  2. SleepingDog says:

    Indeed, although newspaper headlines don’t have to conform to philosophical standards of rationality, and may contradict articles on the previous day or elsewhere in that edition. Judges may be enemies of the people one day, heroes the next. Umberto Eco pointed out the many self-contradicting qualities of ur-Fascism.

    But I did find it interesting to compare and contrast the above with a Sun article on Gibraltar from 2019, particularly in the position it gives a short statement by its chief minister (and I suppose Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s direct counterpart) Fabian Picardo at the end:
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3240916/gibraltar-spain-brexit-overseas-territory-veto-rock/
    I am not a great authority on the Sun newspaper, but I don’t recall it ever supporting giving up any piece of British territory. If a pro-separation party gained sway in Gibraltar, might the Sun’s ‘principles’ change?

  3. Gavinochiltree says:

    There is a BIG dollop of misogyny in much of this anti-Sturgeon commentary.
    Allied to Anglo-British nationalism.
    Scot hating Scots revelling in their hatred.

    And the people who take the “Kings” shilling and do what they are told.

  4. Dennis Smith says:

    This is an excellent article which gets close to the heart of matters. But I think Jonathan Rowson misses a trick when he writes: “What we wanted the court to say was that Scotland had the right to leave the UK if it chose to do so. Because that right is totemic for Scotland’s self-esteem as a nation.”

    Talking of “self-esteem” here risks making it sound like a matter of psychological or social well-being, a kind of feel-good factor. This obscures the fundamental issue of democratic principle here, based on a right to equality of treatment that is recognised in most current ethical theories.

    It is a fundamental tenet of democracy that all citizens are entitled to equality of respect and equality of voice. And the same principle applies at a higher level: states count as equal in international law.

    Scotland’s current position is anomalous: it is (by widespread agreement) a nation but not a state. But it is widely accepted that nations or peoples have a right to self-determination, and Scotland looks like a prime candidate for this right. If unionists wish to deny Scotland that right, it is up to them to explain their reasoning. Do they reject the whole idea of a right to self-determination? Or do they deny that Scotland is a nation?

    Either way, they have a hard fight on their hands.

    1. SleepingDog says:

      @Dennis Smith, good point, self-esteem is hardly relevant, and surely the point of shouldering responsible for governing ourselves is that it will be in our hands whether we make a good or a bad job of it (in our own eyes), and those potentials will always be there when decisions are made. We should never fall into the trap of ‘esteeming’ ourselves in Scotland, look what it did to British imperialists. Let us have no rose-tinted spectacles and blood-stained maps.

    2. BSA says:

      It has been obvious for a long time that they deny that Scotland is a nation. Looking at the media and especially the ‘liberal’ Guardian the last day or two you are reminded also of the hatred and contempt they have for us for being the threat which we undoubtedly are to existence of the British State. It is quite visceral in the Guardian. It is also a reminder of what will happen if the next referendum is lost.

  5. Meg+Macleod says:

    democracy is dead in the water as far as i can tell…..how on earth can it be illegal to ask a question of the people living and working in a changing environment…how was it legal to make the union in the first place ..without asking the people?
    this decision, no matter who the judges who sat to discuss this,is a pointer to the way the establishment believes themselves to be all powerful ..a deeplydisturbing situation…the media frenzy..supports the idea of a nation completely hooked on rhetoric of said establishment ..deeply deeply disturbing….

  6. Squigglypen says:

    Your article excellent. Once again that too wee..too poor nation has been made the laughing stock of the planet by the English government – backed up by a corrupt british( really English) media. And still we have Scots not sure about independence……we’ve been too long under the yoke of Westminister and have forgotten we are a free NATION. Are we just too feart?……too brainwashed?….too stupit?…
    I am fed up listening to Sturgeon tell us we have to do this legally ..WHY?…Take a leaf out of the Ukrainians book….face the bullies. Amusing that the English government supports Ukraine and her rights but denies Scotland the very same.
    UDI…THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.. ( unless someone out there has a brilliant idea on how to rid ourselves of that parasitic little nation south of us…anybody?)
    For Scotland!

    1. dave. says:

      Great points Squigglypen. If you look up at the header of the Daily Express you’ll note a very small box which says ” Nicola Sturgeon’s obsession with independence etc “. That is a deliberate lie. Sturgeon’s obsession is the exact opposite as her record since 2014 proves. She has managed to keep the Yes vote around 50% by her kick the can programme by a blackout of the true wealth of Scotland, along with Westminster and their 97% media ownership up here. Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the word (proven) and is a major part of the Westminster/Sturgeon plan to keep Scots ignorant of that fact. Alex Salmond gave an excellent response to the UKHC’s non-binding verdict earlier on today by saying that all yes groups should get together and work on the move towards our independence. No doubt all Nu-S.N.P.s will not be allowed by Sturgeon to attend that Yes group. Meanwhile British unionist Sturgeon was saying that her de-facto Indy plan would now go ahead in 2024 or 2025 and she was ‘sure’ that would give her the okay to run a referendum around 2030. (no need to laugh).
      Alex Salmond’s interview with S.T.V.s Bernard Ponsonby is available on the Alba website.

      1. James Mills says:

        Is this a paid ad for Alba ?

        1. dave. says:

          James Mills: 2 points.
          1) It’s not about Alba it’s about Independence.
          2) Please give us examples of the admitted British F.M. Sturgeon’s actions for independence over the last 9 years. Just start with ONE>

    2. Ann Rayner says:

      Cut off the electricity?

  7. Graeme McCormick says:

    the Supreme Ct did not say Scotland requires Westminster consent. it determine that the Scotland Act required Westminster’s consent to hold a referendum. The Scotland Act is about Devolution. It’s not about Independence.

    the Ct also determined that Scotland could not invoke international norms on the right to self- determination to facilitate independence.

    What it didn’t determine because it wasn’t asked was the pre 1998 law entitling Scotland to leave . the Scotland Act did not abolish the pre 1998 law, it merely created devolution. So the pre 1998 law remains.

    mrs Thatcher put it well: if the Scots vote in a majority of Independence-supporting MPs in Scotland they can secede.

    The practical issue is that for us to obtain support from the electorate if our MPs walk out of Westminster to form a provisional government then people need to know that the Scottish government has the funds to pay state pensions and benefits should Westminster stop these.

    that can be achieved now under the Scotland Act if the SG introduced AGFRR to replace all existing Scottish taxes and provide for a Universal Citizens Income of £200 per week.

  8. Paddy Farrington says:

    This is a moment of clarity, certainly. But national humiliation? The very term evokes the kind of ethnic nationalism that Scotland’s independence movement has long rejected. Thinking of it as such plays into the hands of those who wish it to be so, as this presents an easier target. In truth, this is about power, as it has always been. Like the Vietnamese resistance against US aggression, let’s use our opponents’ power against them. Let’s make full use of the fact that the fiction of the voluntary Union, the so-called partnership of equal nations, now lies in tatters. My Yes group will be out on Saturday in a Unionist heartland, making that very point.

  9. Alvin Vertigo says:

    Excellent article! It seems to me there was a flaw in the Supreme Judges argument when he based his ruling on the assertion that Scotland was neither oppressed nor a colony, because of case law from Canada regarding Quebec.

    The situation with Quebec is not the same, so the determination seems flawed. (Never mind the irony that if he is wrong, it is a case of a citizen of the oppressing nation asserting that the nation it is oppressing is not oppressed).

  10. John Monro says:

    Hello from NZ.

    Goodness me. The rottenness of the media in the UK knows no bounds. These rags are insulting around half of their fellow citizens. I hope these citizens never forgive them, much as the Liverpudlians never forgave the Sun. One wonders when Scotland does gain independence, will you still have to put up with this media nonsense or will an independent Scotland be able to shrug off media stupidity as well as the stupidity of Westminster. The bilious smell of this coverage reeks also of a distinct and unpleasant misogyny directed at Nicola Sturgeon.

    But no-one has been made a laughing stock here. Sturgeon may have been misguided, I don’t know, I don’t live in the UK, but she is entitled to have her say and her actions, guided by others in her administration and she continues, through the SNP vote, to have much support in the citizenry. The fact that the Supreme Court decided Scotland had no “legal” recourse to a referendum on Independence, without the permission of Westminster, was expected, wasn’t it? In what way is this making one a laughing stock? The laugh, if there is one, is the present constitutional arrangement of Scotland / England / the UK, which is making a nonsense of itself. The bigger and sadder laugh is that some Scottish media people think it’s really funny to be kicked in the guts by some claimed higher English authority.

    I would hazard a guess that many nations achieve independence without the permission of a prior ruling authority. This merely confirms this common historical arrangement as a likely future for Scotland.

    But the major problem for independence supporters is the continued failure to motivate that other half of the population. Until this other population is more activated, then further talk of independence seems a bit futile, a bit self-deceiving, to me. I can’t help looking at the many years of SNP rule in Scotland as wasted years. By now, all Scotland should know, in detail, and following widespread informed citizen debate, what a future independent Scotland’s constitution would be, what the arrangements would be in currency and taxation, what military force would be constituted, what payments, in either direction, would be required to tidy up the loose ends, what pension arrangements will work, and the likely future in regard to Europe etc. There should now be available on the internet a preliminary, but detailed, summary of all these practical points which will form the basis of Scotland’s independent state in the family of nations. . Understandably, this is a hugely emotional issue but really it would be nice to see both sides tone down the rhetoric and argue their points on the basis of rational debate and prior study. How else can citizens vote in an informed and rational manner?

  11. Jake Solo says:

    Why is it only now that a helluva lot of supposedly smart people realise what it is we’re up against? People who have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing better only now coming to realise what the British state actually is? None of you – none of you – either charged with walking the walk or self appointed to talk the talk – actually have a clue, do you?

    You thought you could play, mug, quip and snipe your way to freedom. Youz thought democracy meant anything to them. Fools. There’s a reason nobody else ever asked Britain for permission for anything. They weren’t stupid enough.

    If this isn’t the thing that does it, if this can’t be translated into a boost to a permanent Yes majority, and right quick, then forget it. We don’t have it in us as a collective. We don’t deserve independence. We deserve the slap in the face just delivered. They’re laughing at us because they think we’ll take it. They’re probably right. They feel no need to disguise malice and glee with any kind of sense.

    That goes for the Supreme Court as well as the media. Their judgement rules Scotland is and isn’t a country and is and isn’t a colony all at the same time. They don’t care. Because they know nobody who counts will make a fuss. How do we officially feel about being negated, insulted, and slapped in the face? Disappointed. Wow.

  12. Politically Homeless says:

    I guess the headlines were supposed to read:

    “British state in not letting itself be dissolved by act of its own devolved parliament SHOCK!!!”

    The real national humiliation is we’ve got a First Minister who’s had a mandate for a second indyref for 6 years, and yet all she’s done in that time, concretely, towards that end, is obtain a ruling from the English high court.

    (Well: slightly less concretely, but very importantly for her, she’s also split the Yes movement, separating the uncouth “zoomers” from the sensible party-line following hyper-liberals.) She’s started about 5 non-campaign Yes campaigns which mainly served as a pretext to warmly encourage independence enthusiasts to piss off to Alba, or channel their energies into the identity politics cause-du-jour, or failing that, idly berating the Tory party.

    I’m frankly not the most avid student of Scottish history, but I think we’re in a phase much like the Darien Scheme / Act of Union / Declaration of Arbroath period. We have a quasi nationalist culture but a status-quo loving elite, and central to the status quo they love is to have just enough national autonomy to pose as a national bourgeoisie – which includes the occasional bit of rhetoric claymore-waving.

    1. I mean, sure. You say your not the most avid student of Scottish history and that you think we’re in a phase like the “Darien Scheme/ Act of Union/Declaration of Arbroath period”. Given that the Declaration of Arbroath was in 1320 and the Act of Union 1707, that’s a 387-year period. Given this, wtf are you talking about?

      1. Wee Walker says:

        I reckon that the poster is one of Campbell’s trolls.

  13. Ottomanboi says:

    Truly, it is not about Ms Sturgeon but her questionable strategy has for many made it so.
    Scottish freedom is above personalities. Cultism and a species of Führerprinzip may have brought the country to this pretty pass.
    Let the «Orange» media enjoy their vomiting on Scotland, culture, history, nationhood and people.
    May the purveyors drown in it.

    1. SleepingDog says:

      @Ottomanboi, I saw a union flag with Lochgilphead Loyal emblazoned on it at one of the (non-England) matches at the World Cup today. I was wondering, has the Cult of the Queen (a sort of Anglic Pope) transferred to the King yet? What are the totems of this tribe nowadays? When one of the World Cup managers was mentioned as being compared with Churchill, I wondered if it was because his team had lost to Turkey, Norway and Greece and only just managed to hang on against Iceland.

  14. AShall says:

    Take a breath – the court ruled on a point of law not on the merits of independence.

    Both the case for another referendum and the case for independence are and always have been political issues. Winning a majority of pro-indy MSPs or MPs in Scottish Seats in an GE supports the case for another referendum, it does not, in any democratic country, give a mandate for UDI as some loons seem to assert.

  15. JP58 says:

    If Lord Reed had restricted himself to the legality of the provisions of the Scotland Act he would have done the job requested of him. However Reed presented this especially the explanation about colony status and Quebec was more political than legal and smacked of the full power of the British establishment being brought to bear upon anyone wishing to disrupt the status quo. It left a bad taste in the mouth.
    As regards the actual ruling I cannot think that anyone who follows this debate closely can be surprised by it. I also think that a 2013 Referendum would be difficult for Yes to win and any majority would have been wafer thin.
    However the stark reality that voters in Scotland essentially require consent of voters in England primarily before they can decide whether they wish to be independent will be an eye opener for many soft No’s (& soft Yes’s.)
    It is another point along with getting Tory (& potentially Labour) governments that we haven’t voted for, a hard Brexit imposed upon us without consent or negotiation to expose the democratic deficit of the Union and hopefully (along with demographics) help bump up support for independence to a point where Westminster cannot ignore it and a Referendum can deliver a decisive Yes majority.

  16. WT says:

    Hello Mike
    What did people expect? We have to ask ourselves some serious questions. For a start, what kind of nation allows its nationhood to be decided by twelve people? Twelve people in an institution that the population of the UK never mind Scotland had no say in its creation. Such a major constitutional change probably should have been put to the people. Have we any fight in us? Did we really think they were ever going to let us go?

    Bizarrely, the limits on our democracy have been put in place, not by Westminster, but by statements from our first minister – statements that have been unnecessary. I’m glad you mentioned in your article “…her flawed strategies; her policy failings; and her leadership problems.” to put it simply, in my opinion, it is time for her to go. Perhaps her worst contribution is to have moved the focus of our efforts from gaining independence to gaining permission for a referendum.

    I don’t agree with you that this is a national humiliation, it might be for the UK itself, but not for Scotland. The UK’s idea of it being fair, democratic and a voluntary union has certainly been damaged. I also don’t agree that ” ..the UK government is effectively saying: The answer is no now, and will be no for as long as we like for reasons we don’t have to specify, because we have the power, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
    1 The supreme court is not the UK government.
    2 The UK are still saying it’s a voluntary union.

    For me, it’s not what they are saying – it’s what are we hearing?
    What we are hearing is that Independence is up to us – it’s not their job to tell us how to get it. It has always been up to us – us alone – it’s just that many of us have not realised that.

    In a state where there is no written constitution, you have to write the rules. It is done all the time in the UK and sometimes things are tested in court and sometimes they are not. Yes, the Westminster government might not accept our version of rules that we write, but a nation should not accept any counter to rules that they themselves have written. The Irish found this out a long time ago. They used the GE to set up their own state parliament – we might not follow exactly the same route, but the British State still holds a book of rules that none of us can see inside until they want to reveal them – along with their interpretation of them. we don’t even know if the rules are there or not, but we seem to accept them when they are revealed to us. It is time for us to take control of our destiny, we do not ask for permission, we act like a nation. If we don’t believe we have the power, why should they? The way forward should be winning a general election in a first past the post system – that was always the way it had to be. No need for referenda.

    It’s a difficult time for us all in the yes movement, but surely, we can finally hear what they are telling us?

    1. Meg Macleod says:

      Well said

    2. dave. says:

      WT: Have you forgotten that it was F.M. Sturgeon who went to the English Supreme Court for a foreign ‘opinion’? That after begging the English PM for permission. Blame the right person, the admittedly British Sturgeon. Any thinking Scot knew the verdict when this cringe move was made.
      All yes groups must be together to declare our independence and we are except Sturgeon who deliberately refuses to even acknowledge or work with any true Indy party or group. Sturgeon does however acknowledge all three English Branch parties at Holyrood. That should tell all true independistas where the problem is.

      1. WT says:

        That’s what I’m saying Dave, the solution lies with us.

        1. dave. says:

          WT: I agree with you 100%. I’m working to get through to the undecided and NO supporters who just don’t realize how wealthy their country really is.

  17. James Dow says:

    If Scotland had actually had a MSM of its own instead of UK establishment publications sporting Scottish mastheads to fool Scots into thinking they are actually Scottish, Scotland would have been a Sovereign Nation a long time ago.
    Never forget Rupert Murdoch has decided who governs all around the world where it is to his advantage, such is the power of the press.
    He was once asked what was his personal political point of view? His answer “ read my newspapers” which would confirm whichever party provided his best zone of influence and consequently the best financial benefits

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.