The wishes of the Scottish people are not being honored by the British head of state

Predictions about the future of Scotland after independence abound. It is constructive and necessary to predict the future on the basis of the status quo as well, and in doing so constantly to remember that in 1707 our nation did not, unlike some commentators, disappear.

In 1603, Scotland and England joined together intellectually through the Union of Crowns. Currently, our Head of State is the Queen, who therefore has a unique role in her current position as constitutional monarch. This role is determined by the market between the monarchy and the people; the monarch is entitled to the respect and loyalty of the people, who in turn have the right to have their welfare and wishes respected and protected by the monarch. The political and voluntary agreement of Scotland and England in 1707 did not compromise the market of 1603, the terms, obligations and rights of which survive.

Since Scotland’s desire for political independence began, there have been no reported instances of interference with the constitutional monarchy, so there is no doubt that Scotland has kept this obligation intact.

In addition to the fact that suffrage was only available to men and women respectively until the second and third decades of the 20th century, resulting in the corresponding non-representation of the Scottish people, there has been a democratic deficit in Parliament since 1707, of which the effect is to refuse the passage of any law if the House as a whole is not appreciated.

There are currently 650 members in total and 59 representing the Scottish people. This deficit will, due to new electoral legislative measures, increase by 30% in favor of the current party in power. For all time, the Scottish contribution to the affairs of the House, including those relating to Scotland, will be subordinate to those of England. There are many examples of these, but it suffices to describe one, illustrating the resulting imbalance. Scotland’s preference in the 2016 referendum was for the UK to stay in the EU. His vote was huge, beyond any misunderstanding, but also deemed irrelevant, as were his numerous attempts to mitigate the serious damage expected to its economy through negotiation.

The ensuing European negotiations and Westminster’s less than minimal consultation with Holyrood were hallmarks of the final compromise with Brussels. Examples of the latter need not be expressed here, it suffices to set out the fact that a Scottish government proposal was rejected by Westminster and then passed it to appease Northern Ireland. The damage to the Scottish economy predicted graphically is now factual.

The people of Scotland are aware that their well-being in all vital respects and their democratically expressed wishes have not been, and probably will not be, respected and protected by the Monarch, the Head of State. The merging of the monarchy with the recognized Unionist parties has now been confirmed, in contradiction with the old British convention or protocol that it should not participate in political matters. The Scottish people recall the departure of this understanding by the monarch in 2014, harshly and openly maintaining his adopted policy.

The wish for Scotland to return to an autonomous state was confirmed by the last elections in Holyrood, the economic record was demonstrated, as was the wish of its government to proceed in an orderly and legal manner. The all-powerful weapon at his disposal, more powerful than that of the deployed opposition, is his right to vote to make the case succeed. This is precisely what the British government will try to avoid.

Scotland has witnessed, and continues to witness, the demise of democracy in Britain. The evils affecting Scotland have been sufficiently documented and it was expected that after 1999 its capacity to gradually deviate from it would be enhanced. The reverse is demonstrated by the gradual erosion of the powers vested in Holyrood for the benefit of Westminster, in particular after leaving the European Union.

There was a time when the head of state, a unique function in world affairs, possessed the moral and constitutional capacity to intervene to correct the effects of unacceptable and unprofitable imbalances caused by Westminster’s enduring democratic deficit.

John hamilton
Bearsden