DETERMINANTS OF INDEPENDENCE DEMOGRAPHICS

GIVEN THE CURRENT DEBATE THIS SEEMS AN EXCELLENT TIME TO REPUBLISH THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE.

This is the third paper in the excellent series by Professor Alf Baird. This week the topic is demographics and as you read this paper you will come to realise what a huge and important issue it is…if we ever want to deliver Independence. I believe it makes the need for a fairer and less biased franchise an absolute necessity and priority. Please read and share this article. It is crucial people understand how important this is if we are ever to be successful.


3. Demographics

‘The colonizer is a privileged being and an illegitimately privileged one; that is, an usurper’

(Albert Memmi)

Over the last two centuries some 3-4 million Scots, mostly working class, were displaced from Scotland due to the chronic lack of economic opportunities provided for them in their own land, and often helped to exit their country of birth by UK state ‘incentives’ (e.g. Empire Settlement Acts). During this period Scotland proportionately ‘lost’ more of its people than any other north-western European country, which suggests the exodus was planned rather than accidental.

Historic census data confirms that, over much of the same period, Scotland imported a significant element of its meritocracy and professional and managerial class from rest-UK, primarily England. Higher level posts in Scotland, even today, and as a matter of course, are advertised primarily in the London metropolitan press and are therefore aimed at the far larger labour market in rest-UK. Hence Professor Michael Hechter’s findings that Scotland (and Wales, as the ‘Celtic periphery’) exhibits ‘an ethnic division of labour’ that reflects a dominant Anglophone meritocracy as a feature of what he termed ‘the UK internal colonialism model’.

During the last thirty years since 1991, an average of around 50,000 people per annum have moved from rest-UK, mainly England, to live in Scotland, according to the census. This is considerably more than the number of people moving to Scotland from all other nations combined. In total, approximately 1.5 million people have therefore moved to Scotland from rest-UK since 1991 alone. The census notes that: ‘migration between Scotland and the rest of the UK is estimated based on GP registrations’… therefore moves which were not registered with a GP may not have been counted’.  This implies that actual migration figures are likely to be even greater than stated. 

In 2001, Scotland’s population was 5.0 million and by 2020 this had increased to a record high of 5.5 million, an increase of 10 per cent. An important change over the two decades is that Scotland’s annual number of deaths (63,100 in 2020) now consistently exceeds the number of births (48,700). Scotland today has the lowest fertility rates in the UK, which means there is no natural population growth and it is therefore migration that is boosting (and replacing) the Scottish population year on year. National Records of Scotland state that: ‘Migration has been adding to Scotland’s population for the last 20 years’.

During the UK union the make-up and identity of Scotland’s population has therefore been substantially altered through in-migration mainly from rest-UK, and by the very substantial historic, and largely incentivised out-migration of Scots. Migration is an important aspect of national governance over which Scotland has no control, nor policy, immigration being reserved entirely to Westminster and the UK Government. In other words, Scotland’s population remains outwith Scotland’s control, much as it has been since the UK union began. This does not mean the population of Scotland is not being ‘managed’, of course.

Significant demographic change brings with it changes in a peoples’ culture, language, politics, beliefs, values and hence also a change in ‘national identity’ and ‘sense of belonging’ of much of the population. For example, the census indicates that ongoing demographic change means there are now only 1.6 million Scots speakers left in Scotland, which implies that most of the remaining 4.0 million of the population today are Anglophone. This is important in the context of independence because we know that ‘peoples’ in self-determination conflict are linguistically divided; it is after all our (Scots) language and culture which gives us our national identity and provides the basis of our (Scottish) national consciousness and the motivation for national independence. It therefore stands to reason that people holding to other cultures, languages and identities will tend not have the same ‘Scottish’ national consciousness nor desire for independence as indigenous Scots.

This was confirmed by post-2014 referendum research findings, as people from rest-UK coming to live in Scotland mostly voted against Scottish independence, reflecting a linguistic and cultural (and hence ethnic) divide between them and the Scots. This evidence suggests independence may therefore be undermined by prevailing uncontrolled immigration from rest-UK to Scotland. In addition, the independence challenge is made more difficult through the use of an irregular local government electoral franchise for national elections and referendums in Scotland which is based on residence, not nationality.

Scotland’s in-migration differs markedly from that occurring in many other countries in that it is predominantly people from Scotland’s ‘administrative Power’ (i.e. England) who consistently comprise the largest single ethnic migrant group to Scotland, and this has been the case for the past century and more. That this movement is also oriented towards theprofessional and managerial classes further reflects a rather colonial reality for Scots. To some people migration is basically about survival, however, this is not the rationale for migration insofar as inflows from England to Scotland are concerned. The import of a largely mobile managerial and professional (middle) class from a single country of origin, the latter also wielding political control over Scotland, cannot be described as migration for survival. Conversely, the loss of 3-4 million mostly working-class Scots over the past two centuries and more, reflecting high and sustained levels of poverty, deprivation, unemployment and lack of opportunity in Scotland (relative to England), coupled with UK state incentives to leave, may more realistically be described as migration for survival. 

There are clearly significant differences between Scotland’s historic out-migration, which has levelled off somewhat since 1980s deindustrialisation and 1990s Devolution (the latter giving Scots some hope for the future), and ongoing in-migration, and through this the major changes that we see in the culture, language, identity and ‘sense of belonging’ of Scotland’s s population today.

Neoliberal attitudes promoted by the SNP leadership maintains that all those living and working in Scotland are ‘Scots’ irrespective of their actual national identity, the argument being that anyone who lives here should have a national vote in a referendum on independence. A national identity, however, cannot be forced upon people who do not want it, as some two million voters, half or more holding to other national identities, demonstrated when they opted to reject and block Scottish independence (and Scottish citizenship) in 2014.  

It is important to understand why such significant numbers of people from rest-UK, primarily England, move to Scotland. Scotland has an attractive natural environment and more affordable property prices than many parts of England. Scotland is also one of few countries with no controls over its immigration, which effectively means Scotland’s population may be fundamentally changed over time, as appears to have occurred, given census data. The advertising of most of Scotland’s professional and top jobs primarily in a far larger populated neighbouring country is another factor, as is the absence of any indigenous language requirement (i.e. Gaelic or Scots) for immigrants taking jobs in Scotland. The absence of any indigenous language requirement differentiates Scotland from other countries such as Iceland, Norway, Finland, Estonia etc. in that an indigenous language requirement explains why elites in these and other nations tend to mostly comprise indigenous people/speakers whereas Scotland’s mainly Anglophone meritocratic elite seems for the most part not to be comprised of indigenous Scots, as reflecting an ‘ethnic division of labour’.

There is increasing research evidence of so-called ‘white flight’ from English cities and towns where middle-class (and now also working-class), mostly white English people have sought to move away from diverse multi-cultural areas. For this group, Scotland appeals as an attractive location given the population here is still predominantly white, mainly English spoken, and with what is perceived to be a broadly similar (i.e. ‘British’) culture, values and identity. Brexit is another factor which, according to property transaction evidence, appears to have led to an acceleration in movement of people from England to Scotland; Brexit (and then Covid) closed off options for UK citizens to easily move to EU countries, notably Spain and France, and Scotland appears to be an attractive alternative. People from England also have a tendency to move to countries which already have a significant English resident population.

Other significant factors include an attractive range of differentiated (from England) public policies introduced by the Devolved Scottish Government such as free care for the elderly, free higher education, free bus travel, free prescriptions, and a general view that public services may be better resourced and maintained in Scotland than in England. Hence there are numerous reasons why a large, mobile, relatively well-off English population move to Scotland. The general motivation for this population movement, however, appears to be that,immigrants from rest-UK coming to Scotland primarily do so in order to acquire personal economic rewards and social advantage for themselves or, as Albert Memmi put it, ‘for an easy life’ that is ‘based on privilege.

On the other side of what increasingly appears a colonial-like ‘balance sheet’, a number of concerns may be highlighted. Excessive demand for property and buyers bidding well over asking prices leads to inflated house prices and limited housing availability in Scotland. This means buying a house is beyond the means of many Scots, especially younger generations seeking to get on the property ladder, in addition to creating a shortage of housing. Significant inflows of older people/retirees increase pressure on public services, notably healthcare provision. The movement of a largely professional and managerial (middle) class from rest-UK to Scotland brings with it a desire for its offspring to partake in (free) higher education studies and this may serve to ‘crowd-out’ Scottish students from certain courses and institutions. And significant numbers of people from England taking many (perhaps most) of the best paid jobs in Scotland, and with no indigenous language requirement, means fewer higher level employment opportunities will exist for Scots.

A large and ever-increasing English population appears concentrated in specific areas of Scotland, creating ‘unionist’ enclaves as is reflected in tactical voting in favour of unionist MP’s and MSP’s. These are also the specific areas from which recent calls for ‘partition’ tend to emanate; partition is a continuing destabilising feature of British colonialism in numerous territories around the world, and in this context we know that an imperial power moving defined ethnic peoples around can create conditions for partition. In this regard the national integrity of the Scottish nation itself may be at serious risk through uncontrolled demographic change.

Limited availability of housing and restricted access to better paid jobs may also discourage and indeed prevent many young Scots from raising families. We now see a dwindling birth rate in Scotland and a population maintained and boosted primarily through immigration from rest-UK. Holyrood’s unwarranted ‘mystification’ policies in respect of GRA and school education more generally, it may be argued, also serve to confuse and in turn limit the number of young people having or intending to have families, as reflected in the reducing birth rate.

Ongoing population change clearly serves to alter the balance of indigenous peoples and their national cultures and identities, more especially when immigrants do not make an effort, or are not required to properly integrate into a community, such as learning the indigenous (Scots) language; in this instance the immigrant group is also imposing its culture and language (and hence its identity) on the indigenous community, which demonstrates a colonial reality. Communities may be fundamentally altered and indigenous peoples uprooted, eventually becoming a marginalised minority, as has now occurred in many of Scotland’s rural areas, islands, towns and in certain urban areas as well. Large scale uncontrolled migration from a much larger populated country into a smaller neighbouring country coupled with long-established Cultural/Linguistic Imperialism and Colonial domination policies runs the risk of totally altering and ultimately subsuming and even entirely removing the smaller nation and its main indigenous ethnic group. (Such an outcome may even perhaps be defined as a form of genocide, as arguably previously occurred with the Gaelic community, see: United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect).

The British State is ‘responsible’ for immigration in the UK but has no specific policy for Scotland, at least not overtly. However, it might be expected that a vehemently anti-Scottish Independence British State is more than happy to see a large and sustained influx of mostly ‘No’ voting Anglophone ‘unionists’ from rest-UK coming to live in Scotland. Whether or not there are covert policies in play to help facilitate such an influx, who knows, though some have suggested how this may be achieved (e.g. Andrew Scott’s book ‘Scotched Nation’), and there are clearly no efforts to limit movement and/or continued cultural and linguistic domination.

Given recent census trends as well as historic demographic data, it should not therefore be surprising that more than half of voters in Scotland today reject the offer of Scottish citizenship, Scottish nationality, and Scottish independence. National identity, as we have found, reflects and is determined by our culture and language and the clear evidence is that the large and increasing numbers of people moving from rest-UK (and their ‘extraction’) to live in Scotland will mostly tend to reject and vote to block Scottish independence; census and post referendum data suggests that half or more of the two million ‘No’ voters in 2014 was made up of people who do not primarily hold to a Scottish identity. This group reject Scottish identity (and hence any offer of Scottish citizenship through independence) primarily because it is not who they are or what they identify as, or wish to be, in terms of their own ethnicity; this further suggests that much of the anti-independence ‘No’ vote may be largely ethnically driven.

Independence is ultimately about a people having the power to deal with the fundamentals of their own country and this includes protecting its population, its culture and its sovereignty. No (sovereign) country would allow its population to be removed and/or boosted and replaced in such a blasé way as to threaten the existence of its own people, and their national identity, or ‘dilute’ their national sovereignty. Unrestricted colonial-driven demographic change coupled with Cultural and Linguistic Imperialism policies are well-established colonial techniques intended to undermine a people and thwart their desire for national sovereignty. Such factors inevitably influence a peoples’ culture, language, and identity and eventually call into question the very existence of their nation. In Scotland’s case, ongoing population change at current levels can only serve to seriously hinder prospects for self-determination and independence. 

All independent countries have an immigration policy for good reason and Scotland within the UK union is clearly lacking in this regard, resulting in what we see: a failure to secure self-government due to the constant dilution of sovereignty (through immigration) facilitating subsumption, cultural assimilation and continued marginalisation of the Scots as an ethnic group in their own nation. A second referendum by perhaps 2024 may therefore already be a lost cause due to the inflow of another half a million mainly ‘No’ voters since 2014, as reflected in recent opinion polls showing a fall in support for independence; this suggests independence minded Scots require a different strategy.

To believe that the historic mass displacement of indigenous Scots combined with ongoing selective replacement of Scotland’s population was not somehow ‘managed’ or intended would seem a rather naïve hypothesis; countries do not displace by accident 3-4 million of their people, half or more the population, and then partially replace them through importing a meritocracy reflecting the culture, language and identity of the colonial Power itself. This ‘process’ appears to still be in full flow much as it has been over the last 150 years or more, and now seems to be accelerating, perhaps reflecting renewed efforts by the British State to finally put an end to any possibility of Scottish independence via a covert plantation policy. National Governments naturally pay close attention to population change and there can be little doubt that the British State continues to monitor, control and indeed manipulate Scotland’s demographics, though not in the interests of Scots or Scotland, and certainly not in the interests of Scottish independence.

Demographics is therefore a key determinant of Scottish independence.

BEAT THE CENSORS

Unfortunately a number of pro Indy sites have turned out to be merely pro SNP sites and have blocked a number of bloggers, including myself. We have managed to frustrate these efforts to close us down through our readers sharing our articles and building our audience. In addition many have taken out free direct subscriptions. I very much appreciate this support.

Free Subscriptions

Are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. By taking out a subscription you will receive notification of all future posts. You will be most welcome.

EXTRA READING

Readers who may not have previously read this article below arguing for a new franchise may be interested in it after reading Professor Baird’s explanation of how the existing franchise is fraught with problems if we ever want to be successful in delivering Independence.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland.

22 thoughts on “DETERMINANTS OF INDEPENDENCE DEMOGRAPHICS

  1. Sturgeon claims “time is on her side” as if delay poses no hindrance to a successful independence referendum.
    Many beg to differ and this article and similar clearly explains why.
    Maybe in a twisted way she is being honest regarding her true hopes for independence as she must know the tipping point against independence will ultimately arrive as a direct result of delay.
    Hope ALBA/Alex Salmond can make enough headway to get into the fight.
    I much appreciate the great posts/articles.

    Liked by 12 people

  2. Why have the the usual media suspects failed thus far, to pounce on Alf Baird’s Doun-Hauden and rip its assertions vis-a-vis the determinants of Scottish independence to shreds with their rust caked ‘critical’ chibs?… I’m sure many of us will know the answer to that question; those less sure would do well to invest in a copy of the book.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. So you argue that having a fair franchise in line with the rest of Europe destroys civic nationalism? You are in a very weird place Peter. Cut the obscurity and disguise do you support a change in the franchise or not? To bring it into line with normal countries.

      Liked by 8 people

    2. Point taken, Peter, but the ethnic component comes with the very fabric of British/English rejection of independence. It masquerades as a reasonable response, but is actually me-ism clothed in a type of ethnic nationalism that is anything but civic in its aggressive Anglo-centric stance. In any case, why does civic nationalism have to mean oppression of any minority ethnic group within Scotland?

      The adjustment of the franchise, if it is to happen, must be done in accordance with international rules. Personally, I would never be in agreement with a wholesale removal of anyone’s right to vote or to anyone being excluded from any aspect of Scottish life that would disadvantage him or her. Every other country has strict rules for property purchase, land purchase, voting franchise and so on. Independence for Scotland and an adjustment of the franchise is seen as oppressive and alien only because the right to qualify the vote, etc. rests in Westminster, which retains all the powers that actually achieve anything. If a referendum has a built-in advantage for the NO lobby, what point is there in having another that will end in failure as the first did? May as well just walk away or change the route and means to independence, as every other country has had to do.

      The Baltic States all had sizeable Russian minorities, yet they are all independent today from a far more outwardly aggressive neighbour than even we have – and I stress, outwardly, because the UK is extremely aggressive in subtle and nuanced ways. The difference is that they developed a spine and stood up to Russia as it Communism collapsed, and which we should have done over Brexit, giving their minorities the right to vote for or against independence, with the proviso that they could return to Russia if independence bothered them too much, or remain as citizens of the new states. All three Russian minorities voted to remain, but only because they knew that Russia would and could not help them by invading, that the three states were not going to allow them to scupper their independence and because they had more to gain by remaining.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. ” If a referendum has a built-in advantage for the NO lobby, what point is there in having another that will end in failure as the first did? ”

        This is the unanswerable crux of the matter Lorna .

        It feels like Scotland is walking around unconscious of the fact it has a sign saying ” Kick Me * pinned to it’s back .

        By * bending over * backwards to appease some entirely spurious concept of * Fair play * ( fair to whom ? ) and those that , loudly , espouse it we are rejecting the most fundamental aspect of our nationhood : our Sovereignty .

        To do so would be to put in acute jeopardy the very existence of Scots and Scotland as distinct entities .

        Liked by 6 people

      2. Indeed, Iain. I’m not 100% sure, but I think it was the same for all three Baltic States. The USSR was composed of states, not nations. The problem for us with that approach, though, would be that all UK citizens are also Scottish citizens, and vice versa. We are all citizens of the UK/Britain. Scotland would have to establish citizenship prior to any independence vote. The state in our case is the UK/Britain. Again, this is why I have always backed the election + Treaty route because it avoids so many potholes along the way. From what I have read, although I might be wrong here and I am happy to be corrected, was that the vast majority of those who were citizens of each Baltic State voted for independence and to remain. Those who did not have the vote were offered the choice of remaining or leaving the Baltic States, and, again, most opted to remain. I’m not sure, but I think many ethnic Russians who were not pre independence citizens were offered partial citizenship. I may be remembering wrongly, but I think Alec Salmond did offer post independence citizenship to those who had been born furth of Scotland but who wished to remain, regardless of how they voted.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. ” We hold these truths to be self-evident …..” .

    Aye , unless yr wearing those rose-tinted Civ Nat goggles n terrified Mr n Mrs International Community ( who they again ? , they keep changing ) will consider you – AAARGGHH !! CALL-IN THE PROGRESSIVENESS POLIS !! a Nationalist ( shudder ) , wae blood oan yir skean dhu n soil oan the soul ( sic ) a yir tackety boots

    If only rather than ” 5000 Shades Of Gender ” , Doun Hauden was curricula Required Reading there would be a much greater awareness of our situation and the existential peril we face , from within and without our country .

    Liked by 10 people

  4. Another exceptional piece of writing from Alf. As he has studied and considered our “problem” in depth it is imperative that this article is widely circulated. All Scots should be made aware and thoroughly educated in the secretive and underhand methods employed by the English/British Government.

    Liked by 7 people

  5. Alf B. has without doubt a very good grip on what Colonialism is and means, in particular regarding Scotland.

    Yes I’m all for a franchise which stops or reduces the “flooding” via migration of people to Scotland who quite simply move to here and regard Scotland as an extension of England but with better scenery and cheaper.

    Assimilation of the “aboriginal” population is well under way with the certainty that the threshold for YES is rapidly declining.

    Planning or hoping for a new referendum is utter madness under these circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that a ref. would be an open invitation for WM to manipulate it to their required result.

    However, that is not the crux of the problem, it is just an important symptom among many others that has come to be understood.

    The real heart of the problem is that we do NOT have a Scottish Government or political party which truly believes in Scottish independence, understands that we have the power of Sovereignty and the absolute will to stand up against WM and fight with teeth bared to get that independence.

    By using Scottish Sovereignty, the constitutional path, we don’t need to worry about the migrants. We take decisions on what is good for us not (only) them.

    Nicola Sturgeon has proved to be a complete failure, incompetent, a bare-faced liar and nothing more than a house-jock.

    Liked by 6 people

  6. Being of an ethnicity which has experienced systematic plantation in its ancient homeland I applaud this article.
    The process is incursion by stealth. Administrators first followed by functionaries and their families. Higher education becomes monolingual the indigenous tongue relegated to the folkloric. Induced cultural inferiority follows backed by official talk of one nation and national unity.
    The spread of global entertainment media and its message of a superior America, its cool language and simplistic values is steadily undermining even major languages and cultures. The young being the principle target, get them culturally confused and alienated from their roots and they are playdoh in the hand.
    The hallo, the high five and the American slogan bearing T are all colonial markers, like the predatory animal scenting its track. The reek of such markers nauseates.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. How can anyone reading this come to any other conclusion than that – whatever it’s provenance – the Viral Spiral has been hijacked by bad actors ( in every sense ) , financial , sociological and above all political ?

      Liked by 3 people

  7. Brilliant article Alf, but somewhat depressing for us.

    Meanwhile.

    And so it begins as Westminster bypasses Holyrood and directly funds projects that Holyrood is meant to deal with.

    Time isn’t on our side.

    https://archive.md/boHRW

    Liked by 3 people

  8. This whole scenario is an extremely contentious issue but let’s be honest it was designed to be , it’s just that Salmond and Sturgeon were too shortsighted to realise the ramifications and destruction it would have to independence supporters who just wanted their country back , that is why WM is infamous around the world as PERFIDIOUS ALBION they are EXPERTS in creating division and manipulation , do we for one moment NOT consider this was done deliberately by Cameron and WM to gerrymander the vote , the only thing that panicked them was the increase in indy votes nearer the date which resulted in the broontervention aka “the vow”

    I noticed that Denise Findlay on twatter is AGAINST altering the franchise as she worries that it would interfere with worldwide state recognition , I am NOT on twatter or faceplook but if anyone would ask Denise a question on my behalf
    I have asked this numerous times on blogs and NEVER had an answer , ( If Sturgeon opened up a vote on the GRA bill to a worldwide franchise where any trans person OR supporter from anywhere in the world who had a vested interest in Scotland becoming the trans capital of the world would be entitled to vote acceptance of the bill , would you consider that to be fair to females and children in Scotland as it would appear to be embracing the concept of civic mindidness , OR would you consider doing that negates and undermines the VALUE of being a real female in Scotland”
    I vehemently object to the GRA bill and STRONGLY SUPPORT females in OUR quest to get it quashed , but I also vehemently object to MY SOVEREIGNTY being undervalued and given away freely to anyone who wants it or thinks it should be theirs

    Liked by 1 person

    1. twathater: if ALBA don’t change their whole approach to independence, they are going nowhere either. The whole thing needs to be scrapped and started from scratch or it will simply founder on the rocks of reality, as, of course, will the GRA reform delusion. In both cases, it will require the put-upon to face down the approbrium that will assuredly follow any statement of fact and truth. A very firm, “no, sorry, having lived here for a few weeks does not entitle you to a vote on our constitutional future” and “no, sorry, you are an AGP male and not a trans person” are what are required. It remains to be seen whether the fear of telling the truth and ‘hurting’ a few feelings, which is about a theatrical performance rather than any real ‘hurt’, is of greater import than explaining reality and why you will not be swayed from it. People who are so entirely invested in their own narcissistic delusions of superiority or of cultural appropriation are really not worth agonizing over. Anyone with a brain can see perfectly well that Scotland deserves to decide its own future, which it is entitled to do quite legally and democratically, and women deserve to not be grossly insulted by men pretending to be them by performing the most stereotypical, blousy ‘harlet’ persona . If they try to deny these facts, you know immediately that they are chancers and con artists. No sensible person denies what is undeniable: they have an agenda that bodes no good for you.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. BTW I have respect for Denise and enjoy viewing her on Prism and her direct outspoken defence of women’s safety and rights

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.