Skip to content

I’m not wholly sure this is quite correct

An SNP leadership candidate has referred to the American War of Independence as she argued referendums were not the only way to secede from the UK.

Ash Regan brought up the 250-year-old conflict with what is now the US as she argued that the majority of countries to have left the UK or the British Empire have not held a referendum.

Didn’t most of the colonies get a vote on the method of their leaving?

And if she’s seriously arguing that a war is a useful alternative then bring it on. It’ll be an absolute walkover given that all the English will be fighting on the pro-independence side.

11 thoughts on “I’m not wholly sure this is quite correct”

  1. Just so long as the first act of Westmonster after Scottish secession is to stop the Barnett Formula payments. Immediately.

  2. More accurately, all those English who have not yet worked out that breaking up the UK into either a subservient “Europe of the Regions” component or a more easily manipulated set of subunits has been a core objective of both the EU since inception & the Davos / WEF agenda pushers.

    Of course the UK divesting itself of its component regions that are net energy & food exporters at a time of EU/WEF created food & energy shortages couldn’t possibly be serving someone else’s agenda could it?

  3. Would different regiments take different sides? I don’t think so.
    I look forward to the success of the general mobilisation of civilians to drive the beastly English out of Berwick on Tweed.

  4. No. I’ve read what she’s actually said. She most definitely didn’t refer to the American War of Independence. Just that the colonists didn’t hold a referendum. (Would one have succeeded? Independence was far from being a popular move. For the majority of colonists it made no difference.) The absence of mentioning the war was rather conspicuous, considering her argument.

  5. The American War of Independence should be more properly be the British Civil War. Since the participants on both sides were Brits. And as is usual in these things, was a dispute between putative ruling classes that the ordinary people end dying in.

  6. “Would one have succeeded? ” BiS, the last estimate I saw was that 25% were pro-independence, 25% agin, and 50% were waiting to see which way the wind blew.

  7. I’m surprised the windblowers were that few. It was dispute over excise duties not taxes. There wasn’t an income tax then. And it was hardly a dispute over governance. Most people had very little interaction with government. Colony courts had locally appointed justices & juries & largely local law enforcement. It was pretty well all about transatlantic commerce wasn’t it? How many people did that affect?

  8. As I’ve always understood it, the problem was the British supported their colonial government with excise taxes, as BiS points out. The new US government put a tax on booze instead.

    Naturally the grog producing hillbillies revolted. But they lost.

  9. There’s many things about the war of independence, but the fact that the brit army had to be shipped in over considerable distances and ditto costs may have had a thing or two to with it.

    The bit where the whole “capture point” ( the peasants will behave once we got those ) strategy of the time up until then didn’t work for the first time. Too big an area, not near enough military presence to enforce things, and the Peasants most definitely had stopped playing by the european Gentlemanly Rules of Warfare..

    Honestly… If the Scots would Rise Up and Throw the Yoke.. A referendum would work just as well without all the bloodshed. After all… There’d be a majority result for secession, whether Westminster liked it or not. And you’d still have to go through all the bureaucracy and papersigning and reluctant handshaking regardless of how you’d manage it….

  10. One view I’d seen was that when the colonists were setting the U.K. was very hands off as they didn’t want to financially support them, this led to an unusual level of self governance for the time, once the U.K. saw there was money to be made those doing the self governance asked themselves why do we need the U.K. anyway and once the question was being asked it led to action.

  11. “It was pretty well all about transatlantic commerce wasn’t it?”

    I’ve never seen a single explanation that makes sense. In New England it was partly a jihad, with the ministers alleging – entirely falsely – that The King was about to impose the Church of England on them. In the South it might have been worries about the rise of Abolitionism in Britain (the Somerset case was in 1772). Geo. Washington and others were pissed off that the British government intended to honour its treaties with the Indians and stop white colonising extending over the watershed into the Ohio valley. (The good George had a large land claim there.)

    The excise tax argument doesn’t make much sense. After all the Boston Tea Party was a protest by gangsters – smugglers – who feared ruin because the import duty on tea had been cut so far that they couldn’t compete with the legitimate importers. In other words, Parliament had listened to the colonists’ complaints about excise duty and cut it.

    I’m driven to conclude (i) Different people had different motives; I must find a decent history and learn more, (ii) The “history” taught to American school children is obviously false – not too surprising really. Lots of history is false and there is a particular incentive to lie in a country where you are trying to indoctrinate lots of the children of immigrants into the same civic religion.

    After all if there were a decent, single, coherent case for independence you’d expect to find it in the Declaration of Independence. But it’s not to be found in that dismal, mendacious advertising flyer. Yet there were able and thoughtful people involved – just look at the high calibre of the Constitution. So why is the Declaration so lame? Partly it was simply the author, no doubt, but there must have been more to it than that. Maybe it’s hard to dress up the main motive which was (I conjecture) a feeling among the gentry, and the legal and mercantile elite, that “Why should those people in parliament in London be the supreme rulers when we could be supreme?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *