THE UK Government has set its face against “allowing” the Scottish Government to hold a new referendum on independence as long as the Tories remain in office, which, given the state of the so-called opposition, is likely to be for at least a decade. The spurious argument to which they are resorting is that allegedly the SNP promised they wouldn’t ask for a second go for “a generation”. Or “in our lifetimes”. Or somesuch. The UK Government thus entirely avoids examining the actual merits of the case.

The media – with the exception of The National - are letting them get away with adopting this position, with little or no interrogation as to its legal or moral worth. But what really is the basis of the UK Government’s position, and how are they being allowed to get away with it?

READ MORE: FACT CHECK: Claim Scotland has slid down global well-being rankings

It is simply this: most of the UK population, including journalists, believe the relationship between England and Scotland is like that of a master and an indentured servant. The master may choose to indulge the servant if they behave well, or they may choose to discipline their charge if it tries to contradict or challenge them. But importantly, the servant has no right to do anything the master finds objectionable. There is no right of appeal, because servants must know their place. And only the master has the right to change the nature of the contract between them.

With this unexamined mindset, which devolution has done too little to change, the position of the UK Government seems perfectly reasonable to those of a Unionist persuasion. The Scottish Government may get ideas in its silly head about independence, or even just having a vote about independence, but Westminster knows that this is a bad idea, so it must not and will not be allowed to happen. Give the Scots 20 or 50 years to see the error of their ways, and they’ll come around.

READ MORE: Ukip announce 'absurd' new plan for the Scottish Parliament

Although this Unionist perspective of the indentured nature of Scotland’s relationship to England is what seeks to justify their refusal to engage with the issue of independence, it is based on a deep falsehood. Surely neither the Act of Union nor the Scotland Act imply or state that our status is so servile. Scotland has never agreed to be the vassal or the possession of England. The problem is that the British nationalist mindset has been so deeply imbued by the history of colonial conquest, and the sense of entitlement deriving from the archaic class system with its dukes, lords and knights, that the Unionists assume Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) must be in a similar relationship to the government in London as their overseas possessions once were.

After all, there are more than 30 dukes in England who do actually own large tracts of the land of Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland – a proper aristocrat, not a mere peasant like some of those SNP oiks – is therefore just like the Viceroy of India. He’s not there to speak up for Scotland, he’s there to tell Scotland to do what their masters in England want.

We need to assert that such is not the true nature of our relationship. The legal minds on the independence side need to present chapter and verse as forthrightly and as publicly as possible to undermine and explode this British imperialist myth. Scotland is not, and never has been the mere servant of a lordly English master. Accepting this delusional narrative is what has fostered in Scottish minds and hearts the dreadful sense of our own inadequacy known as “The Cringe". 

Away with all that. The people of Scotland have always been, and remain, the sovereign deciders of our fate. The deep problem really is this myth of our servitude. We need to be aware of it, to expose it for the false narrative that it is, and to believe in something better: our right to the ownership of our nation and its future.

Theo Seller
via email