There is a rather odd idea that the cause of Scottish
nationalism would have been helped if First Minister Humza Yousaf had commanded
Police Scotland to surround the place where the Stone of Scone is kept and
prevented it being taken to London for the coronation of Charles III.
Given the situation he arrived with Humza Yousaf has
actually exceeded my expectations in his performance as First Minister. He has no
doubt been involved in the SNP appointing an auditor and it must be still possible
that this auditor will save the SNP from losing one million pounds. He has
delayed Lorna Slater’s Deposit Return Scheme and it may be hoped that it will
be delayed still further.
Despite a few odd statements such as that he doesn’t
believe the SNP to be a criminal organisation and that he is surprised when
colleagues are arrested, there is no danger that Mr Yousaf himself will be arrested.
This is quite an achievement in itself even if it is primarily due to Mr Yousaf
knowing nothing about anything including the inner workings of the SNP. So well
done Humza. Keep up the good work.
The worst possible thing that Mr Yousaf could have
done would have been to follow the advice of Alex Salmond and his consiglieri
Wings over Scotland. It would merely have shown still more the authoritarian
nature of the Scottish Government in ordering the police to waste resources on
preventing something that was not a crime.
When the Stone of Scone was returned to Scotland, if
indeed it actually is the original Stone of Scone, it was done so on the basis
that it would be returned to London when there was a coronation. Everyone
involved at the time knew this including presumably Alex Salmond. Humza Yousaf
was probably at school and may not yet have learned about the Stone of Scone,
but he still shows more judgement than Alex Salmond.
So, it is perfectly legal for the Stone of Scone to be
taken from Edinburgh Castle. It isn’t being stolen. The principle that museums and
art galleries lend important artifacts to each other on the basis that they
will be returned is well established. The police do not get involved if a
painting from the National Gallery is sent to the Louvre for an exhibition. It
would be a waste of police time if a Prime Minister sought to tell the Met to
stop the National Gallery lending the painting. It would be seen as
authoritarian. The Prime Minister ought not to tell the police what to do even
if he can. It would also be pointless and futile.
What would have been the result if Humza Yousaf had
followed Alex Salmond’s advice? Would it have led to an armed stand off with
members of the SAS trying to rescue the Stone of Scone from Scotland’s finest?
Would it have led to the British Government caving into Alex Salmond’s demand
for a second referendum on Scottish independence? The answer is obviously no.
It is mere tradition that the Stone of Scone sits
under the throne when the monarch is crowned. The Stone of Scone was stolen by
Scottish nationalists in the 1950s, but no one was prosecuted because the escapade
was treated by everyone as a joke. If the Stone of Scone (or a stone that looks
similar) had not been returned by the nationalist pranksters/thieves, it would
have made no difference whatsoever to subsequent coronations. We would just
have a new tradition that coronations don’t take place with the Stone of Scone
under the throne.
Would this have affected the United Kingdom? No. The
sovereignty of the United Kingdom extending over all of its territory has
nothing whatsoever to do with the Stone of Scone. It is merely a rock that is
approximately 145 million years old which makes it part of Gondwana as much as
Scotland. If the Gondwanians wished to secede from Laurasia we are unaware of
it because unfortunately writing by human beings and indeed human beings at all
arrived rather later.
Scotland does not have sovereignty no matter how much
Scottish nationalists wish that it does. It does not have sovereignty because
it is not an independent sovereign nation state. The existence of a rock that
was once claimed to be from the Holy Land but in fact is not and its location
under a chair signifies nothing whatsoever. You don’t become independent
because you own a rock. You become so either by means of a legal referendum or
if you prefer a rebellion.
Mr Salmond now that he is out of office and also
perhaps because of his experience with the law is more rebellious. This is why
he wants to Humza Yousaf to surround Edinburgh Castle with the police.
But what would have been the result of this circling
of the Scottish wagons. Nothing at all. The King and the British Government
would have merely said, OK sorry you don’t want us to borrow the rock, we’ll do
with out it. By the way we note that you haven’t kept your side of the bargain.
Humza Yousaf more sensibly will turn up at the coronation
and might even enjoy himself there. He almost certainly does not want a second
independence referendum this year or indeed any time soon, for the simple
reason that his party is in disarray, and it would be awkward if during a
campaign this summer its former leader was arrested like another former leader.
Humza Yousaf does not equally sensibly want to stage
any sort of rebellion. He could do so by commanding the police to surround the Stone
of Scone. He could equally do so by asking the Scottish Parliament to declare
independence unilaterally.
But he has wisely rejected the unilateralism which
some of the more extremist Scottish nationalists favour, because the British
Government could respond equally unilaterally by instantly failing to supply Scotland
with any money from the Treasury and by refusing to negotiate. The result might
or might not lead to Scottish independence. My guess is that whoever ordered
the rebellion would discover the consequences in approximately one or two days
and would immediately afterwards be rather less rebellious.
So well done Humza Yousaf for not following Alex
Salmond into the weirder regions of Scottish nationalism. Well done for keeping
an agreement and realising that whatever the Stone of Scone is, it is merely a
symbol and can equally easily be replaced by another symbol or another stone. It
has nothing whatsoever to do with sovereignty for the simple reason that Scotland
does not have sovereignty.
Dear Scottish nationalists if you had sovereignty, you
would have independence, but this is what you want. You can’t want what you
already have. It matters not one little bit if a stone is stolen from
Westminster and perhaps swapped for another one and eventually gets returned to
Scotland only for a little while to return to Westminster.
Humza Yousaf to his credit realises that it’s not
about stones.
