I AM old enough to remember when “Britain” still had vestiges of Empire, the way their aspirations for independence were dealt with and their eventual escape into self-determination, including Ian Smith’s UDI. The current treatment of Scotland is no different from the tactics employed towards colonies in the past.
In colonies, government was brought near enough to the native population to ensure control, by appointing a governor with a team of civil servants to ensure that the colony was run as Westminster decreed. By these means, “Britain” could avail itself of all the resources it wanted, without paying for them.
READ MORE: Michael Gove denies civil service jobs in Scotland are to ‘bribe’ voters
For most, the struggle was long and hard against a government desperate not to lose these resources and strong enough for a long time to crush dissent. Propaganda was also disseminated – witness the statements on Malta, “collapse ... without Treasury subventions” and “ hopelessly impractical”, but now a successful, respected EU member.
Now 400 civil service jobs are to be moved to the UK Government in Scotland hub in Glasgow – under the leadership of our Governor, Alister Jack – to be more visible to the Scottish population. Note, not posts being vacated by the incumbents and thereafter available for Glaswegians, but posts already filled by employees of Westminster. A governor and his minions imposed on a country they cannot afford to lose, so dependent are they on our resources. What is the difference between this and a colony? It seems Westminster has learnt nothing from history.
L McGregor
Falkirk
IN an early scene from the Mel Gibson movie Braveheart, at a meeting of his Cabinet King Edward of England decides that “the trouble with Scotland is that it is full of Scots”. Edward then suggests a novel scheme to encourage his English lords to move north and says “That should fetch just the kind of Lords we want to Scotland”.
The news that the current Cabinet Office is to move at least 500 civil servant jobs to Glasgow by 2024 to work at a new headquarters seems a very interesting parallel.
John Baird
Paisley
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel