Wee Ginger Dug: Scotland can't allow itself to be 'love-bombed' again

The letter was part of a campaign organised by opponents of independence to “love bomb” Scotland. It was loosely based on a similar campaign organised by opponents of Quebec’s independence, when the majority French speaking Canadian province held an independence referendum in 1995 which returned the narrowest of majorities in favour of remaining a part of Canada.

Love-bombing is an attempt to influence a person’s behaviour by making grand and overt displays of attention and affection. Psychologists have identified love-bombing as being part of a possible cycle of abuse. This is particularly the case if the moment that the desired behaviour or action has been produced, the love-bomber returns to previous patterns of neglect or controlling behaviour. That is precisely what happened to Scotland as soon as the result of the independence referendum was in the bag for opponents of independence.

READ MORE: Professor AC Grayling says Scotland only seen as a ‘useful appendage’ to England

The attention which had been paid to Scotland and its concerns immediately evaporated, the solemn promises and vows which had been made to Scotland were soon found to be hollow as the anti-independence parties competed with one another in the Smith Commission to remove as many items as possible from the list of powers which they had, during the height of their love-bombing ardour, promised to devolve to Holyrood.

Instead of the “closest thing possible to federalism” which Scotland had been promised, we ended up with control over road signs and a set of narrowly circumscribed tax powers which the then secretary of state for Scotland David Mundell openly boasted had been designed as a political trap for the SNP.

The key political promise that the Westminster parties had made to Scotland – that no Westminster government would ever seek to alter the powers of the Scottish Parliament without the express consent of a majority of MSPs – was hedged about with the weasel word “normally” and the relevant provision in the Scotland Act was soon ruled by the UK Supreme Court to have no legal effect, so the promise was meaningless.

That was enough of a slap in the teeth, but it has been compounded by the decision of the Conservatives at Westminster to use Brexit, which Scotland rejected by a far larger majority than had voted to remain a part of the UK, as an excuse to undermine that devolution settlement which the love-bombers had promised to strengthen and entrench.

Grayling has now changed his mind on the topic of Scottish independence. He sees Brexit as a great betrayal of the promises to Scotland by the British State, promises which he had signed up to. Brexit has played a major part in his decision to change his mind and to embrace the prospect of independence as a positive development. He has come to this view because “it is unconscionable that Scotland, which voted to be in the EU, should be dragged out by England which pays so little attention, has so little interest and care really for Scotland”.

READ MORE: Wanted: 100 Scots to sign a declaration to United Nations as UK refuses S30 Order

Grayling pointed out the fundamental flaw in Gordon Brown’s repeated promises of a federal UK. It will not happen because the English Conservatives will not be willing to give up their grip on power and their ability to use the numerical superiority of MPs representing English constituencies to enforce their will on a Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland where public opinion could potentially be very different.

He said: “A federal Britain would be one in which a very definite, explicit set of constitutional arrangements existed in which something like Brexit would not have been able to happen if Northern Ireland and Scotland voted against it, it is that kind of thing Gordon Brown has in mind.”

However, he added that this was extremely unlikely to happen: “Because the English Conservatives are going to be extremely reluctant to give up their grip on power.”

He pointed out that under the current arrangements, Conservative MPs representing English constituencies can run everything and can deny Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland a bigger voice. There is no way in which they are going to agree to give Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland the effective power of veto over them, but that is exactly what Brown’s proposals for federalism require in order to have any political substance.

READ MORE: Michael Russell: Proof Boris Johnson wants to scrap Holyrood is in his actions

If this were indeed a true Union, the British State would pay attention to Scotland’s needs and concerns all the time. Instead, we only see it happening when they fear that they’re about to lose us. Scotland is the useful appendage which provides a convenient parking place for the UK’s nuclear Viagra and a supplier of natural resources and skilled labour to pour into the bottomless maw that is the economy of London and the south east of England. It’s only when the British State fears losing Scotland that it pays Scotland any heed. Most of the time Scotland is simply ignored and taken for granted.

Above all, Scotland plays a vital role in the self-serving mythology of the UK. The existence of Scotland as a part of the UK allows proponents of British nationalism to tell themselves that British nationalism encompasses several nations and so it transcends the lesser nationalisms of other countries. Scotland provides the tartan window dressing which disguises the uncomfortable truth that modern British nationalism is simply English nationalism writ large. In that key respect Scotland is essential to the delusion of British exceptionalism.

Now that the prospect of a second referendum is rearing its head again, we are back to the love-bombing. The cycle of abuse is repeating itself. We can have no doubt at all that the second the threat of independence is neutralised, Scotland will once again return to being ignored, exploited and taken for granted. We should see the current outbreak of love-bombing for what it really is: part of a cycle of abuse and manipulation by a British State which has no intention of keeping any promises it might make. We’ve seen all this before.