Rebellious Scots to crush

Scots(left) versus SNP(right)

Individual Scots (left) versus SNP Establishment (right)

In the British National Anthem there is or was a line: “Rebellious Scots to crush”. The fact that it was not only inserted but remained there (possibly even to this day) shows how the establishment in Britain and even Scotland saw the indigenous population of Scotland as a problem. A rebellious population who had to be repressed.

And as someone who has spent a great deal of their life in England, it is perhaps more obvious to me that this is far more than just a line in a song. It is a whole culture of the Scottish political establishment. Not only the civil service, but the police, educational establishments and even the press and media.

The result is that Scotland is a repressed nation – and most of it now done by Scots! I strongly believe that the best way to describe the culture in Scotland is that: Individuality is despised – unless of course it is establishment sanctioned individuality. So, e.g. you can be an artist – so long as its the right kind of “individuality”.

That is why I think that climate sceptics are more hated in Scotland than any other nation. It is because Scotland has a culture of conformity and if anyone dares to step out of line, they are at best totally ignored, at worst ruthless repressed. Quite literally “rebellious Scots to crush”.

It is not the done thing in Scotland to have your own views. It is the done thing, to join one or other of the big political organisations, to dutifully work within that group and then to express those views as part of that group through the “usual channels”. You can be different as part of a big group – but you must not be different by yourself!

This has very profound effects. And these are just a few:

  1. In England I had been used to the DIY culture which meant all houses looked different both inside and out. In contrast, much of Scotland is a uniform grey with uniform housing. When we bought our house in England, no one cared about all the alterations inside least of all the solicitor. So, I was surprised when we bought our house in Scotland that we were told an inside toilet had not had building consent. Investigating, I found that in Scotland almost everything “needed consent”.Astonished by this attitude, I mentioned it to a few Scots and laughingly said: “they would even regulate the colour of our front door if they could”. I was very shocked that many Scots thought regulating the colour of front doors would be a good idea. Unfortunately, ours was plastic otherwise it would have been painted bright yellow years ago!This may seem a fairly small, even irrelevant thing, but what it shows is that Scotland has a culture of allowing officialdom to interfere in even the smallest details of people’s lives. It’s OK for the council to regulate the colour of your front door. It’s OK to tell parents they must apply sun cream (an establishment obsession a few years back before they learnt that the absence of sun in Scotland was already causing rickets and blocking the little sun we got was just mad).
  2. I would say this culture of conformity is probably the single biggest reason for the comparative economic failure of Scotland in recent years – bigger still than the “Westminster bias” favouring the economy toward London.So, in Scotland, people don’t value competition – at least not individual competition. So, e.g. my children all went to a primary where they weren’t allowed to compete. (Obviously, I was secretly teaching them to compete – so they’ve all done much better than other kids at the same schools). So, this culture of repressing individuality and so repressing competition is actually repressing the competitive culture which Scotland needs to thrive economically.
  3. So, just as Scots made great soldiers in the British army – being ideal canon fodder who are so lacking in individual thought that they would blithely charge the canons of the enemy where the more sensible and individualistic English soldiers would not – so Scotland was a place where large multinationals could set up in business, and so long as the workforce didn’t have the gumption to organise, the Scottish workers just got on with the job of making money for foreigners.Unfortunately, that left no lasting affect. Those multinationals came, brought entire production lines and key staff from abroad, and then they left when the government subsidies ran out taking all the key equipment and expertise away.But the real problem was that overall – because Scots were not the individuals you need to create start up companies – the Scottish economy was full of economic numpties who needed outside entrepreneurs. As a result of this culture despising the enterprising individual, the Scottish economy dived after the big industrial “communal”, “conformist”, “canon fodder” type industries of shipbuilding, coal mining, steel etc. ended.
  4. Human rights – strangely for a country where there is not only a human rights bill but it is enshrined in the Scotland Act that set up the Scottish parliament – there isn’t a single non-governmental human rights organisation (at least last time I looked).Indeed, when I heard this I was very surprised, as that lady from Liberty was regularly on Question time in Scotland. But true enough, when I enquired, I found that they didn’t deal with any work in Scotland due to our different laws …
  5. Law
    And what is that difference? To give one example: in England a journalist covering a confrontation between police and the public can only be arrested if they are CAUSING a breach of the peace. In Scotland, a journalist will be arrested if the police believe THEY THINK they might. The wording is something like “if someone is fearful of the actions” – and since that someone can be a police officer – when it is convenient to be so, they can be fearful of anyone they dislike. The effect is that the police in Scotland, can and will arrest anyone they want under the pretence of breach of the peace whereas the police in England have to be able to prove good cause to arrest.And then we have the jury system. In England the test for conviction is that everyone (or almost everyone) is convinced that the person is guilty. In Scotland – it’s a simple majority. The effect: that even substantial minorities can be repressed by the majority because the majority view is always likely to dominate in a jury – and so it is all the much harder for a minority viewpoint to have a fair trial.

This shows how the lack of a culture of opposition (e.g. any non-governmental human rights organisations to stand up for us) leads to a culture of repression by the police, which in turn leads to a culture of repressing “rebellious Scots” as a general principle of governance in Scotland. It also means that Scots have a much more tolerant attitude to establishment repression in the courts, in Schools.

This shows itself in the strangest ways: motorway signs are about as patronising as one can get. The classic one was the sign saying “beware cold conditions”. I looked at the car thermometer and it read 12C. I just know, that in England, such official incompetence would not be tolerated. but in Scotland – it isn’t the done thing to complain – and the few of us that do – are usually treated with contempt by officialdom.

This explains why for example, of all nations of earth Scotland is the most extreme in terms of global warming zealotry. Global warming is in effect a state religion. Scepticism is in effect an expression of individual doubt. But in Scotland the state is far more powerful because of the social pressure to conform and the individual expressing their own views is just a “rebellious Scot to crush”.

Kim Il Salmond

And by far the worst culprit recently of this “crushing” anyone who dares to object to the establishment’s dead hand in Scotland … is our dear lead Kim Il Salmond who very ironically is just carrying on a long tradition of London-puppet tyrants in Scotland and doing the English establishment’s bidding and repressing rebellious Scots.



Filed under Scottish Politics

2 responses to “Rebellious Scots to crush

  1. neilfutureboy

    Is this simply the dead hand of socialism combined with a state apparatus where all the decision making was done 500 miles away in London? Perhaps, but if so 17 years of devolution should have done something.

    Certainly this is not an age old Scottish problem – on the contrary the Enlightenment was not an era of obedience and even as late as the 1960 we have Sir John Couperthwaite protecting the people from government busybodies, albeit the people of Hong Kong not Scotland.

    And we Scots have, coequal with Switzerland, the highest rate of scientific citations per capita, in the world, so not so conformist.

    I tend to put it down to us having the most useless political elite of an country – but why that is and why we don’t string them up I don’t know.

    However I think you are conflating something else with the anthem issue. It was only rebellious Scots who were to be crushed, that is the Jacobites. While romantic, in retrospect, crushing broadsword wielding savages was understandably popular with most Scots. That culture was crushed and is not the influence on Scotland the Enlightenment was (at least in Scotland though the influence in the USA is underestimated).


    • A lot of it could as you say, be due to having leaders 500 miles away who have very little idea what is happening in Scotland. That ferments rebellion – and rather than dealing with the problems, such leaders tend to “crush” the rebellion. It also means that people who “crush” get promoted.

      The other thing, is that 1970s emigration must have had an enormous impact on Scotland as anyone with the “get and go” – got up and went. Whether their character was nature or nurture, that would have changed the character of Scots left behind.

      Otherwise I’m at a loss to know why Scots are so “conformist” and I’ve many times noticed that in many areas of life that foreigners dominate in “breaking the mould”. One example was the “wind party” formed a year ago. It turned out none of the leading people were Scottish and one of their big problems had been getting indigenous people to join.

      In other words, many Scots seem to have a very high threshold to be “shat on” by the state apparatus in Scotland and so that may be why it is often incomers who are the first to complain. Hopefully, that will change – but it may not.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s