- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have a sanitised transcript of the recent video conversation between Craig, Sara and Chris, that Craig was hoping someone could provide. Unfortunately I cannot host it, as I have no website of my own.
I can email it as a text file (less than 50k bytes). Pleas advise.
Salvo youtube podcast 19/10/2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tfZ6al_Ihk
Sanitised Transcript, courtesy of contributors ‘Xaracen’ and ‘sam’Going International: Taking Scotland’s case to the World
hosted by Sara Salyers, with Craig Murray and Chris Dorigné-Thomson
Sara Salyers:
Welcome to the Liberation podcast, with Craig Murray and Chris Dorigné-Thomson, where we are going to be talking about an international campaign that is being advanced by Liberation Scotland and the Liberation Scotland committee, with Craig Murray, a former ambassador (and now ambassador for Liberation Scotland) who actually needs no introduction, and the newest member of the Liberation Secretariat, which is what I call the workhorse of the Liberation Scotland committee, Chris Dorigné-Thomson, who is joining us from France. And I wonder if you would give a bit of your background, Chris, for people.Christophe Dorigné-Thomson:
Okay. So, I’m a Scot: French, born in France, but every summer I went to Scotland, since I was a kid – since I was born actually. And I’ve been living in Indonesia for over, in total, maybe 18 years and 15 years since 2011. I have a background, first in business and now in political science. I did my PhD in Indonesia, at the University of Indonesia, and I’m specialized in, let’s say, Indonesian foreign policy and Indonesia’s links with Africa, and I have extended now to Southeast Asian links to Africa and Asian links to Africa in general. So that’s basically my background.How did I come to this? Actually, to be very honest, now I know about Scotland’s conditions thanks to you Sara, thanks to Craig, thanks to people – all these people I’ve been watching and learning from – because I was a person that didn’t know about this condition maybe just a year ago. I knew about colonial conditions because I’ve been in one of the major former colonies, which is Indonesia. And when I looked at Scotland from my background with the knowledge I learned and from what I knew from Indonesia and from other colonies, I mean, for me it was really very clear – and now it is very clear what Scotland’s condition is. And the last thing I would say is that I can be considered as an overseas Scot, as a diaspora Scot in a way. And I think, modestly, people like me are an important target also for the campaign, because once people like me come to understand what’s been happening in Scotland, I mean I’m shocked – and I’m still shocked. So that’s it basically.
Sara:
Well, thank you. I have to say that’s something we’ve talked about in both Salvo – where we do have a diaspora hub – and in the Liberation Scotland committee. And that’s something that comes back to Professor Baird’s thesis in Doun Hauden where he explains that Scots have lost about 4.2 million people – the highest proportion of outward immigration in Europe – because of the colonization of Scotland, because of the actions that were taken against us, which we’re seeing playing out in the modern world – but people don’t realize they took place in Scotland 250 years ago as well – and before that. It’s wonderful to begin to bring that perspective in, and thank you very much for being here.Chris:
Thank you so much.Sara:
So, Craig, I know you’ve done this many times, but would you mind summing up why it is that we are mounting this international campaign? Why are we bothering to do this? After all, it’s this is the first time – 2025, and I think that’s 100 years of Scottish independence – and this is the first time that there’s been a clear campaign to establish Scotland’s position internationally. And I wondered if you could talk about why that is, and why we’re doing it now, both in terms of what people call soft and hard diplomacy: you know, hard objectives and wider objectives.Craig Murray:
It’s quite a large question, and in fact it gets wider because, as we do it, more and more benefits of it become apparent. It seems more fruitful and like a better idea all the time. The basic motive is that independence is a matter of international law. Independence is a state that you achieve in relation to other states and you are independent if other states recognize you as independent. If those states don’t recognize you as independent. you haven’t actually achieved independence, whatever your domestic situation. And, similarly, if other states do recognize you as independent, it makes no difference whatsoever what Westminster says: you are independent if the United Nations recognizes you as independent, whether Westminster recognizes you or not.And the particular angle we are working on came out of this recognition that there are roots to the United Nations, particularly once you accept that Scotland’s position is as a colony. That is the part which is psychologically difficult for some people in the independence movement.
It’s very strange, because nobody has any difficulty whatsoever in accepting that Ireland was a colony. No, nobody will argue with you if you tell them Ireland was a colony. Ireland’s position was exactly analogous to that of Scotland. It had a Treaty of Union. It had Irish people owning slaves in colonies abroad. It had the Irish elite fully co-opted into the colonial project. It had massive amounts of Irish people serving in the British army. All the things people say make Scotland not a colony, they don’t somehow see Ireland as not being a colony because of exactly the same reasons. And that’s because, of course, Ireland has escaped; and once you’ve escaped, your former position becomes clearer.
We still of course suffer the effects of colonial deprivation, not only in our lack of control over our own fiscal policy, monetary policy, defence policy, foreign policy, but also in our massive exploitation and expropriation of our trade – which Alf is very good on. The fact that nearly all our trade has to come in at great cost through England and that nearly all our exports go out at great cost through England. We are controlled, and we are milked: we suffer brain-drain.
So once you have that perception it becomes fairly clear that the UN decolonization committee is a place to take your case. And the advantages of that is that if you can get listed by the Decolonization Committee and then the General Assembly as a non-self-governing territory, then you are automatically on a route to independence which cannot be vetoed at the Security Council. But that’s, if you like, the technical part of the process.
The other part of it is it gives you the opportunity to introduce the idea of Scottish independence to extremely senior diplomats. And I’ve been talking in New York, among many other people, to the actual ambassadors of some permanent five nations. You get to introduce the idea of Scottish independence to extremely senior people who have never thought about it before. It just never crossed their horizon. No one’s ever told them about it. They actually don’t realize how likely it is. I’ve spoken to so many diplomats at the United Nations who had no idea there is now majority SC support for independence in Scotland, consistently, who had no idea that the vast majority of young people in Scotland support independence – who knew nothing whatsoever about Scotland’s economic status, about the history of Scotland and how it became a colony. You’re introducing new concepts into the international community, and whatever the actual route by which we achieve independence, we will need the support of these people at the United Nations ultimately. So, getting started on this is very important.
And finally, I’m sorry this has been a long answer, but just one final point. It also has led us into this question of the diaspora, which we weren’t really thinking about before. And when you think about it, the nationalist movement in Ireland, support for them from the diaspora, including financial support; but political support – in fact essential political support, in places like the United States – was absolutely vital to the nationalist cause in Ireland. And other than shortbread-and-tartan type cultural events with no political angle, there’s been no attempt really to motivate the Scottish diaspora. And in fact that’s what Alf Baird is now doing in America: he’s going on to various diaspora events in different states of the United States, where there are all kinds of events like (I was astonished to discover) at least 20 different Highland Games held in the United States – and that’s only the tip of the iceberg. I think there probably quite a lot more of those. These are all places we can we can carry a message.
And I’m sorry – maybe it’s because it’s my birthday and I’m feeling ebullient – but I keep thinking of more things to say, and I want to tell this story. A great friend of mine and a great nationalist named Donnie Blair (whom some people may know) used to be in charge of Eastern Europe for Diageo. He and I were both based in Warsaw at the same time, and that was at the British embassy there. And Donnie in particular, and me also to some extent (not as much as Donnie) became good personal friends with Donald Tusk. And when Donald Tusk became president of the European Council, Donnie and I approached the SNP – who were the government at the time (and still are, of course) –and said, “Look, we’re great friends of Donald Tusk. Do you want us to go talk to him about Scottish independence?” And they were completely hostile to the idea, totally hostile because it had just never occurred to them that they need to seek allies abroad, and because, of course, it was people they do not control doing something. And the appalling failure: you know, why is it us and Alf Baird and people doing this work? What? Why are the people who are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds into their pocket to represent us not ever doing any of this? Why are we starting from scratch now in speaking to ambassadors and extremely senior people around the world about Scottish independence? Because the door is open. I keep saying it.
This is the final thing I want to say. (I’m not normally this voluble.) The one thing I want to get over to everyone is: I have met resistance from nobody – absolutely not one person –among the scores of foreign diplomats (more than scores) and the even larger number of representatives of foreign NGOs campaigning for the self-determination of people –and not one person has been opposed to Scottish independence. I have not had push back from anybody. There are people who say “We don’t know much about it”, and they have to look at it. But you can feel there’s no hostility behind that. There’s no innate desire to thwart us, and there’s no incredulity. There’s no lack of belief in the Scottish right of self-determination.
You know, the international arena is where we have to win, and it’s extremely fertile ground. We should have been doing this a long while ago. And the people who are paid to represent us should be doing it, and they’re not.
Okay. Thank you. That’s my large piece.
Sara:
That was actually wonderful, Craig. It covered an awful lot that I was going to ask you later on. So, just to pick up on your last point: the question-and-answer session at the end of our event in Geneva on the 18th of September – which is about to go up in the next couple of days, finally – actually reflects exactly what you’re saying because we heard representatives of other communities looking for self-determination and those who have already obtained them – such as from members of the African Union – who talked about having not understood our position or known about our position but, having heard what was said, how they recognized it. “We recognized this”, we heard (I think, more than once) – this position of Scotland being denied self-determination alongside their own people.I’m going to come back to that later, but it does illustrate exactly what you’re saying: that internationally when we set out the evidence, there’s no push back. People say, “Oh, yeah, Scotland was colonized just like us.” And I think it’s very different when you get the responses here from those who are supposedly pro-independence saying, “Oh, but what are you talking about? Scotland was a colonizer, not a colony.” But this isn’t at all what we’re seeing internationally. So, thank you.
I’m going to come over to Chris – and I’m sorry for hogging that spot for a minute. I was wondering, Chris, if you could talk a little bit about how important it is (which really leads from what I was just saying, actually), how important it is for Scots at home to see themselves as they are – to see the realities of being colonized and what that means in terms of routes to self-determinationm, and also self-identity and our position in the world. And if you’d like to say a little bit about the new blog that is coming to try to help us address that, that would be great as well.
Chris:
Okay. So the first thing: about what Craig said, I think you know in Scotland I’ve seen that some people are calling people who are going internationally “daft” or “ignorant” or “stupid” or well …With what Craig said, we in the international community and abroad … when you’re in Indonesia or in China or in Africa, self-determination is certainly not something that’s daft … it’s something that’s very serious and it’s considered very seriously. So I’ve talked to friends who are scholars, or politicians or people like that, in Africa or in Indonesia or in Asia … when you talk about those subjects they consider it very, very seriously and they tell you: “It is your right to seek your independence, even if we support it or we don’t support it. It is your absolute right to seek independence and self-determination. This is how we got independent ourselves.” So this is the first point.
And then Scottish people must understand that they’re not controlling what belongs to them. So if they’re not controlling what belongs to them, if they’re not controlling their story … I mean, one of the issues that brought me to this – to campaigning for this and being involved in trying to get Scotland independent – is that I was in Indonesia for a long time and I was being called English, officially. The Indonesian embassy is called “Inggris” – and “Inggris” comes from the Portuguese “Inglês”. So it means “English” and this is the official name on the gov.uk website and on all papers in Indonesia … we are called officially “English”. And so I started working on that and I was I asked officially at the embassy etc. … we asked them officially, with a professor from Oxford who is a major figure in Indonesian history … we asked the embassy to change its name and used the proper term to call us, even at the time I was not conscious of everything but at least call us “British” … if we are ‘British’, if ‘Britain’ really exists. And the ambassador campaigned and lobbied to keep calling Scottish people, Welsh people and Irish people, “English”.
So this is this is something that that shocked me and this is a proof, and I can tell you that I talked to representatives in Indonesia of European countries and other countries, and they told me this is appalling. They told me that this is appalling. They know it’s appalling because I took the example as my father’s French and I said, “Okay, can you imagine if you used the term … you called French people abroad “Breton” or from some other part of France and he says, “Yes, I would not last two minutes in my position. I would have to be sacked because I was not respecting my people in their …
So how come we can be called “English” around the world? I made a study: it’s around three billion people. In countries representing three billion people, Scottish people are called “English”. So that’s just one example, to show that this is a … I know Liberation Scotland is doing a lot of things about colonial markers. This is a colonial marker.
So once you understand that, you look at all the other issues. Why is Scotland not controlling its resources? Why, as Craig mentioned, why is there only once a year like a Burns’ night or, you know, something about bagpipes and something about why is the whole Scottish story not told to the world? Why, when I look for books in French – for example on Scottish history or French-Scottish relations – or why is there almost nothing today? Why? Why? And when you go to the tourism section in a French bookstore, or you find a lot of books about Scotland and when you talk to the bookstore they say, “Yeah, people are very interested in Scotland. People want to go to Scotland. Scotland tourism is huge.” And I say, “But why don’t you have anything about Scottish history? Why don’t you have books in … ?
So you see this is all this has all been controlled. So Scottish people … I maybe understand it in a way because I’m based in the former colony in Indonesia. So I’ve been I’ve been sensitive to those issues. I understand those issues. And as Craig said, Scottish people must also understand – when you talk to someone in Indonesia or in Africa or in South America, and you present the facts that Craig has been doing at the UN, like you Sarah have been doing – when you present those facts, when you show them that Scotland has no control of anything basically, that its universities are colonized, that its police force is colonized, that its legal system is there but it still depends on London, etc. You present those facts to people and they understand, they know immediately.
And what we saw in Geneva is that, like Craig said, nobody’s saying you’re daft or you don’t understand, or what you’re saying is stupid. No, people immediately understand when you show them the facts. They say, “Okay, I got it. I understand that this is Scotland’s condition. I understand that Scotland is like we were: Scotland is like Ireland; Scotland is like Kenya; Scotland is like India, like Indonesia.” It’s the same condition: it’s a foreign power that’s controlling everything in another power. And I think, Scots – they will understand. It will come, it will come. I’ve not … why maybe I understood it immediately, although I did not understand it for a long time because I didn’t know about the real Scottish history etc. But why did I understand? Because I knew the facts from other countries I was based in. So I think Scottish people once they once they see the facts, once they understand the facts they will also come to it because you cannot … you cannot … once you know it, it’s finished. You know what’s happening.
Sara:
Yeah. Once you see it you can’t unsee it.Chris:
ExactlySara:
We just have to get people to see it. I have a … I know that people are very keen to understand what is the exact process. It’s interesting to me that they’re looking for a kind of step-by-step, almost prescriptive, route where you take this action and this committee stamps it, and then you take this and then you’re done. Whereas at home here in Scotland, people are quite happy to accept very vague assertions: “Oh, if we get a majority, that will give us a mandate to start negotiations” which amount to asking Westminster for another referendum – and there’s no … there’s nothing at all specific. I see people talking about “This is this will trigger this”. And I will ask people exactly by what mechanism exists that means that this result in a vote would trigger anything – and they can’t answer. But I think probably because of that, people are all the more anxious for us to be very clear about how this works.Now I noted that at the end of the Geneva event, Sharof Azizov – the representative of the JPTI – answered a question by saying that there is no prescribed path to decolonization at the UN. But there is more than one way of achieving that, I think, Craig – and perhaps you would give people an idea of the kinds of things that can produce your very specific result that is our ultimate aim.
Craig:
It’s very important to explain that the United Nations has a secretariat, but the secretariat are not the United Nations. The United Nations consists of its member states, in effect, and it is the member states who make the decisions. And exactly the procedures they are going to follow, and exactly the standing orders that apply – and how they are then applied by the committees that apply them – is somewhat organic. That’s why it’s not as simple as saying, “Well, clearly you go from this committee to that committee to there, and then you’re at the end result.” Because at the end of the day the states find a way to do what the states wish to do.And you learn … you know, we are learning as we go along. In June I attended the Committee of 24 – which is the principal committee, which is the working committee on decolonization, which consists of 24 states with a particular interest, which hears petitioners, which curates the list of non-self-governing territories who are lined up for decolonization, which assesses progress and produces individual reports on the states on the list and how they are progressing, and which conducts fact-finding missions.
We also attended the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, which has just happened. The Fourth Committee receives material from the Committee of 24 and is part of the General Assembly, is a committee of the General Assembly; it’s, if you like, a subset of the General Assembly. In fact, every state in the General Assembly is entitled to attend that committee, just like other committees of the General Assembly, like the example of the Committee on Disarmament. What we learned, in fact, is that the Fourth Committee isn’t really where the work gets done: the work really gets done on the Committee of 24. The Fourth Committee is attended by far less senior representatives than attend the Committee of 24. Certainly, several ambassadors attend the Committee of 24, including for example … the ambassador of France, the ambassador of Nicaragua, the ambassador of Venezuela were all there and others; whereas the Fourth Committee is a very much larger body where missions send along quite junior diplomats who bluntly aren’t paying great deal of attention a lot of the time, and doesn’t actually do much work. So one thing we learned, if you like, is that the Committee of 24 is the best route if you want to get considered as a new nation to potentially add to the list.
And indeed while I was in New York in June, there was a very interesting session on adding Puerto Rico to the list or not. To get Scotland added to the list, to get serious consideration, we really need to get it adopted by the Committee of 24 as a recommendation, which then puts it to the General Assembly. Now, you don’t <em<have to do that: we’ve talked about it being organic and different routes. You can get any member state to try and put it forward to the General Assembly, but that’s almost certainly not going to succeed. A recommendation from the Committee of 24 is much more likely to succeed and is the best route. You probably could go for recommendation from the Fourth Committee instead, but that that’s almost certainly not going to be possible because, as I say, that’s not really a deliberative body.
Now, all of this you can’t really work out until you’re in there. And that’s where we have to ask people for a bit of patience as we clarify how the politics of it work, who the different players are, who you have to get to do what, and how you work within structures. And you can’t do that except by doing it. And I’ve had substantial experience as a British diplomat working within the United Nations – but not on decolonization, not on these particular structures.
So I do understand it can be difficult for people to grasp that it’s not simply a matter of Googling or asking AI, asking ChatGPT, “How do you get listed?” and then coming up with what it says on some standing order somewhere. And to feel your way through the politics of it takes time, and takes a certain amount of expertise and understanding – which we’ve been getting both from my experience and from JPTI, who have very substantial experience of the UN system. But it’s not a simple or instant answer.
Sara:
Yeah. Well, I’m going to leave the really big question to finish with – although it’s kind of making itself fairly obvious at this point – but people will just have to watch to hear you answer it right at the end. I’ve only a few questions left, but quite importantly, can I ask you … sorry, Craig, coming back to you … what you felt was the main benefit from this last trip to New York, which is very different obviously from … much softer diplomacy than in June. But what would you say were the main benefits of the … you know …. you and Alf, and Matilda from JPTI, and Sharof from JPTI, all made petitions on behalf of listed colonies including French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Western Sahara. Now, we’ve got meetings on coming up on the back of some of that – but I wondered if you could just let people know here at home what the benefits of that have been.Craig:
Well, I think the most important single benefit is that we have established that we understand the decolonization process, that we are genuinely interested in decolonization, and we are not only people who are only interested in our own case. We’re not there purely from the selfish motive of pushing Scottish independence; we also want to help the other colonies along with us and be part of the general decolonization process. That establishes our bona fides and if we want the Committee of 24 to adopt us, they have to, because they consist primarily of liberation countries, countries with a genuine interest in the decolonization process. They have to see that we have the same interests, that we are not just trying to use them or exploit them to our own purpose. And I think that … well, I don’t think; I’m sure that we achieved that. Certainly the contributions we made on New Caledonia and French Polynesia were very much appreciated, not just by the representatives of New Caledonia and French Polynesia liberation movements, but also by diplomats representing the wider liberation countries. So this is making friends. This is making friends in the places where we need to make friends, and that’s extremely important.And then – on the soft diplomacy side, obviously – it gave me a chance to follow up on the meetings I had in June initially. Because you have to win people’s personal trust: they have to understand you and what you are doing and why you were doing it, and what your motives are and where you are trying to get. Just meeting people once – no matter how good a meeting, no matter what you tell them – and if you then just disappear again, it isn’t going to maintain the kind of sympathy and pressure we need in order eventually to get the decision from the committee. So we have to we have to work towards that. You can’t just suddenly…. Bluntly, if tomorrow we were to bounce the C-24 committee into saying, “Here’s a paper, Scotland. Put it on the list or not, you have to vote now” – we’d probably lose. You have to get to the stage where you know you’re going to win before the paper hits the committee. And this was an essential part in working towards that. And it’s that old adage about, you know, you’ve got a mile to walk and maybe this was a hundred steps towards walking that mile and you might say that didn’t take you very far, but if you don’t walk that first 100 steps, you’ll never get the mile. That’s the way I would look at it.
Sara:
Thank you. I think that puts it very effectively. Can I just ask quickly: Chris, there was a question brought up in Geneva by a representative of the Tamil people by the name of Nisha Peiris, and she noted that while self-determination is a fundamental human right under international law, in practice it tends to be made secondary to political considerations. And her question was, how do we change this?And my question is – and I’ll invite you to come in on this if you if you like, Craig – but my question, Chris, is: The campaign that we’re running includes what I hope is a contribution to the international decolonization movement, which is the restoration of the identity of colonized people based on markers – our languages, our tradition, our history that is always buried our social structures, our values, all that makes a people a people and gives them their identity – that is deliberately suppressed or erased by the colonizer, who looks to assimilate the colonized people under its own identity (English, for instance) so that there is no kickback, that they now are their own identity is now extended over this territory and it’s as if the people there had never existed. So, part of what we’re hoping to do is to persuade … or create a campaign and initiative that says to the international community: “This decolonization is not merely independence; it must include the restoration to the furthest extent possible of the erased identity of peoples.”
Sorry, it’s a long question, but: Do you see that kind of campaigning as assisting Scotland’s international profile and solidarity between other colonies and former colonies in Scotland, and assisting in the establishment of an international identity, and if so how important is that?
Chris:
Yes. You talked, for example, about New Caledonia or French Polynesia. If we look at New Caledonia, the biggest issue has been about Kanak identity, right? So, basically their land was taken, they were parked in communities, they created the concept of tribes, the resources were taken. In French Polynesia, it’s the same: the people were taken out of their islands to do nuclear tests. All these things, you can compare them to Scotland. I mean the [Highland] Clearances, the suppression of kilts, the suppression of everything that was…. And then what they do is that they suppress it and then they bring it back, but they bring it back to use it for themselves. So the colonizer basically suppresses you and then reformats your identity to use it for his own benefits on the international stage. That’s usually what they do. For example, now in what we consider overseas territories in those 17 listed colonies – we can them “colonies” the non-state non-independent, non-autonomous countries – they reuse that identity; they try to show – like England is trying to show – they try to say “Yes, look, we respect them because we’re doing events for them. We’re promoting … we’re creating cultural centres, we’re creating festivals, etc.” Scotland exactly shares those similarities with those countries and when you know those dependencies, the people who want to be independent (like Scotland), you understand that the similarity is really there. And so there is no doubt that … when you look at the Scottish people, I mean the biggest support for Palestine, the biggest support for all the causes of the world, are in Scotland, usually in Scotland. So of course Scottish people understand those things.But why do they still doubt … why is there still doubt on the fact that they also share those conditions? Well, that’s where in the previous question you asked about the blog … so what we’re going to try and do with the blog is to connect … so showing, for example …. I’ve talked to people in Asia or in Africa; you say to some intellectuals, some scholars, or some academics … you tell them “OK, could you show how this connects to Scotland ? Or could you explain your condition?” so that then Scottish people and Scottish scholars and Scottish activists can also explain their own condition.
So you can see how there is commonality there. For me it’s clear, but of course we have to make it clear to people in Scotland. Also, people must really see … and we must show it, we must showcase it. And also – last point, maybe (we were talking about that, Sarah, actually). So, James Cook was an English sailor, right; so he gave the name “New Caledonia” to New Caledonia – which is basically “New Scotland”. But the Darien Scheme, which was not a colonial project, which was a trading project, because Scotland used to create trading … so there was a deal with the indigenous people also in the Darien project, and this project was supposed to be called “New Caledonia”. And so my theory – I don’t know we have to prove it – but my theory is that this English colonizer gives the name “New Caledonia” to, basically, Kanaki, to show that England has suppressed Scotland. The link is very clear – why does this English person who colonizes New Kanaki … why does he give it the name “New Caledonia”, which was Scotland’s project in South America. ]
So you see there are links there that are very, very clear between Scotland and those colonized territories. And also, what we must understand also, there are a lot of similarities, but we must also understand that the Scottish case is very, very strong because it was already a state also. And the problem that sometimes those colonies have is that they were never recognized officially as a state or they were in what we consider in the Westphalian concept maybe. But Scotland was, and it was recognized all over Europe. It was a country: it was a very recognized country. People knew about Scotland. So that is also one advantage that Scotland has.
And you can maybe use that advantage to help also those countries to achieve their independence too.
Sara:
Thank you. Well, that comes right back to you, Craig, with this question – coming back to what Miss Perez raised in Geneva – this business of how this fundamental human right, which is a norm in international law, is actually in practice made subject to political considerations: that they tend to come above this very … and we’re seeing that play out, of course, in a horrible way right now in Palestine. So my question again is: Is there some movement, do you think, on recognizing that this fundamental right needs to be a reality and do you think that we can contribute something, if so, in our own campaign.Craig:
I think it’s … first of all it’s worth saying that you raised a very important and a very well-received point at that African Union meeting in Geneva, when you stated that colonization has not ended and there is a need for countries which are officially decolonized to become actually decolonized. But they still are controlled by multinational corporations, by (in the case of former French colonies) the CFA currency, by exploitation of their mineral resources. But gaining genuine autonomy and, as you say, regaining national identity properly is a very important process after what’s supposed to formally be decolonization – and France of course still maintains garrisons across many of its former colonies in Africa – and we now see a very, very important movement along those lines, in Africa, which is very welcome.Yes, we have to acknowledge I think that there has been a setback for international law from the genocide in Gaza and the fact that so many states have been willing to support it in effect, or at the very best to overlook it. And that, finally, there’s an attempt to cobble back together the notion of some kind of international law by countries – even countries we might not expect, like Russia – falling in behind this regularization of the process through the Trump peace process which is trying, if you like, to paper over the genocide. And that is a good example of the way that states act.
And the truth is that states very much favour their self-interest, and being able to overcome the self-interest of states using international law is very difficult. That’s why one of the things … and you need a combination of the two: you need international law on your side and you need states – and when I say states of course I mean the elites, the billionaires and others who control the states, not the ordinary people of the state – to see it as in their own self-interest to back you; and unfortunately without that you are unlikely to succeed. And that’s why, for example, I’ve been concentrating on arguments about the advantages of Scottish independence for other states, and one of the key advantages is that the vast majority of states in this world want reform of the United Nations.
Having the UK and France as permanent members with a permanent veto is ludicrous given their relative status in the world, when countries like Japan and Germany don’t have that status. India doesn’t have that status. And no African country has that status. So the desire to reform the United Nations is enormous, and we can feed into that by saying: “If you split up the UK, then it has to call the system into question because it is by no means clear that England would become the successor state and would automatically inherit the United Kingdom state on the Security. Council”. Nobody in their right mind would put England as a permanent five member with a veto on the Security Council. Why? It makes no sense.
And there are hundreds of ways to attack any claim of England to be the sole successor state of all the rights of the UK. So, that makes people’s eyes light up! When I was putting that argument to diplomats at the United Nations, they became furiously interested in the possibility of splitting up the UK.
So, unfortunately, I wish I could say the answer is, “Well, if you keep hammering away with proper appeals to international law and going through the international court of justice you will eventually succeed”.
That’s sadly not true. You have to back that with finding a way for states to see it as in their own interests to back you, and that’s something we’ve also been doing.
Sara:
Yeah. Yeah. So, just to round up, do you feel that we – as Liberation Scotland’s campaign – have something to contribute to this action, which now is part of the restoration of international law; but this is actually bringing forward the fundamental right to self-determination, the rights of peoples as a norm in international law. Also it has a contribution to make to cobbling back together the international law that we all believed in, as well as assisting the decolonization of other countries. So the question is, I suppose, it’s a yes or no: “Do you think we have a significant role to play in this?”Craig:
I think we do. And people are listening to us; people really are listening to us. And I would say I think progress has been better than I expected when I started. Remember, we only started four or five months ago doing this. Seriously, it’s been four or five months. This isn’t a campaign that’s been going on for years and years and years, and actually what we’ve achieved in four or five months is pretty incredible, and I think the people – the members of Liberation Scotland, and the members of Salvo – should be extremely proud of themselves, because they did all the work. And as I constantly say, I actually didn’t do any of the work. I’m just doing the salesman bit selling the work if you like. But we have made fantastic progress, we really have, and people accept we have a contribution to make; people are very interested in the stuff Alf brings to the table on decolonization.I really thought that we would get diplomats, especially from countries like say Nigeria or Indonesia, some of the countries which are strong anti-imperialist countries. I thought, with some legitimate motivation they may turn around to us and say: “Oh no, you’re a colonizer, not a colony”. And I haven’t received that at all, once from any of the strong liberation states. I really haven’t. There seems no difficulty for them in accepting that we were also colonized, like them. But that puts us way ahead of where I thought we would be. I thought our first 18 months was going to be spent in convincing former colonies that we are in the same boat as them, whereas in fact they understand and accept that immediately. That turns out not to be a difficult part of a task at all. So, bluntly, we are doing much, much better than I expected. And, as I say, I think the members of Liberation and of Salvo who have put in all the work – and also, let’s be frank, who have funded the expense of all this (which is not inconsiderable at all) – I think they should be massively, massively proud of themselves. I really do.
Sara:
Well, thank you. I’m delighted that you have said that, because I’m sure that will bring a smile to many faces when they see this. And I absolutely back that. I think we’ve had incredible help and support and activity from people, including people who were absolutely terrified of heights, jumping out of planes – people who were sitting there rigid, I mean paralyzed with fear, going up to jump from 10,000ft to raise money to do this … and thinking of all kinds of things to support, and going out in all weathers to get people signed up to the Edinburgh Proclamation and to show membership and support for Liberation. There’s a lot of people whose names will never be known but they’re part of this.So I guess we better wrap up. I still have so much I’d like to ask you both, but we’re running quite long. So, I’m just going to ask two questions from both of you, just for a quick answer if you can.
At this point, what should the Scottish Executive – what people refer to as the “Scottish Government”, though of course it’s the executive arm of Westminster in Scotland – what should the Scottish Executive (or Scottish Government) be doing now at this point?
Chris:
Okay.Sara:
… in your opinion. I’ll start with you, Chris, just very quickly. What would you – with your experience of intergovernmental politics – what would you say that the Scottish Government should be doing?Chris:
Well, the first thing is that I think a lot of people in Liberation Scotland are saying that (and I think this is the case) independence means decolonization.
So, I think this is the first point. So, if you want to be independent, you have to be decolonized. And decolonization happens at the UN.And the second thing is: look at how other countries became independent. So other countries became independent by mostly going to the UN. And so I don’t think the Scottish Executive should reinvent the wheel, you just have to follow and respect what other countries have done to gain independence.
And for me, my opinion is that the way they’re doing things is not engaging with the international community, and saying at the same time that they want to be independent, is not respecting the peoples of the world. Because respecting the peoples of the world means respecting the way they became independent and the way they liberated themselves. And so Scotland today is saying, basically, we will become independent but we’re not engaging with the international community.
So this is an insult. This is an insult to the people who liberated themselves. And so if you are serious about independence, you engage with the international community. You learn from the international community – like Craig is doing; like you are doing, Sarah; like Liberation Scotland is doing – and you talk to other peoples, other countries, other nations, and you learn from them. You respect the way they liberated themselves.
This is how it’s done. And so I do not understand why they are saying they’re supporting independence but they’re not engaging seriously with the international community, with the UN – because this is basically disrespectful. It’s saying: “You don’t matter; we are going to be independent by ourselves”. We’re not respecting other countries, and this is insulting, basically. So this is my point.
Sara:
Okay. Craig?Craig:
Yeah, I would absolutely endorse those points. And the second one was a very, very good one, and not one that I’d really thought through properly before. And I would just add to it: Forget domestic law. Independence is nothing to do with domestic law. It is nothing to do with what Westminster says. It is nothing to do with what the Supreme Court of the UK says. Independence is a matter of international law and recognition by other states. Full stop! Domestic law is irrelevant. And the Scottish Executive’s – or Scottish Government’s – line that “I wish to free myself of these shackles, but I refuse to take them off myself; I’m just going to beg my master to take the shackles off me’ is pathetic. Absolutely pathetic!And my second point is, they should get behind us. They should openly and publicly support what we are doing. They should not take notice of what Westminster says they are and are not allowed to do. They should put their own weight behind joining the effort, and at the very least they should now endorse us in public, immediately.
Sara:
Thank you. Well – hear, hear!Last question to both of you: How confident are you that we will win this? That we will get Scotland listed for decolonization, thus opening the door to have any referendum we choose, under international standards or a plebiscite vote which we will win.
If you were betting, what would you say?
Chris:
Well, me personally, I’m 100%. Because I think you have to have the mindset that it’s going to happen. So, there’s no way it’s not going to happen. And then I think, as Craig explained, it’s a process. And I think it’s a very serious process. And it’s actually a process with … of course there are geopolitical powers etc., but there is also not 100% certainty but the process is a very serious process that you go through, and if you can pass the steps, well your chances increase every time you pass one step. And I think, as Craig explained, I mean it’s only been since I think the petition was sent to the UN in March . And so the progress that has been made is tremendous. That’s true because some nations … I mean they took decades to only achieve this and so I think, yeah, I’m very confident. And I’m very confident also because everybody in the world – and I think it was when Craig was wearing his kilt in Geneva, and everything –everybody in the world knows about Scotland. I mean, there’s no doubt that everybody knows about Scotland. You just say the word and people know, they identify, they know what it is – and that’s a big advantage too. I mean, you just have to show up with your culture, with your … and you explain.And also the other thing I think that Scotland shares with colonized countries, and former colonized countries: you know, for example, in the world, the English are … of course, English people have qualities too – but, you know, there is this thing of saying “English people are snobbish”, or “French people are arrogant”. You know, there’s this saying – which is not entirely true, but is there still – that the reputation of Scottish people is to be friendly, is to be nice. And this is shared with a lot of colonized people too –when I say “people”, for example, I’m talking about Indonesia or Africa – when you talk to people, they say: “Oh, they’re friendly! Oh, they’re nice people!” And I think that’s a characteristic of countries also who have been colonized. They have this friendliness, you know, and I think you find that in Scotland too.
Sara:
Craig?Craig:
Well, ultimately I’m sure we would succeed eventually. My only question is whether … and we will succeed. The only question is whether the UK falls apart completely before we can. Because at the moment there’s such political turmoil in the UK: the government is at 15% in the opinion polls; Nigel Farage looks to become the leader of England very shortly; the Green Party has overtaken the Labour Party; the Conservative Party has, in political terms, ceased to exist. The United Kingdom is kind of falling apart politically before our very eyes.I think what we are doing is the vital international part of the process of getting there. We may be overtaken by events. It could be that the UK simply disintegrates in the next 12 months, before we’ve actually even got everything in line yet at the UN. So that’s the only thing that can stop us. We will ultimately succeed at the UN. But as I say, whether we succeed in the UN before the UK falls apart of its own volition, is my only doubt.
Sara:
Well, now, there’s a thought! So, keep one eye on the UN and the other eye on what’s happening here at home, and the UK falling apart; we just have to hope we get there first. So we’ve kind of got a deadline here really.Listen, thank you both very much indeed. It was really helpful. I’m sorry we couldn’t do this live so that we could have had questions we could answer at the end. But I hope we’ve covered most of what people really are interested in. And thank you very much for taking the time and being so extremely informative and interesting.
And I will repeat, Craig – apart from the birthday messages that I’ve had, to wish you a happy birthday – that, while we may have designed the racing car to get to the UN between us, none of us are really Formula 1 drivers. But you are. So we couldn’t be doing this without you. Thank you.
Craig:
That’s very kind. And can I just suggest that we might want to do a follow-up if people want to send in questions or put questions in reply to this, if they can, when it’s broadcast: we could maybe do a follow-up next week and answer any further questions people have.Sara:
That would be great! Yes, let’s do that. And I’m not sure when Alf is going to be back, but if he’s back from doing the circuit of the Celtic societies in the USA, then possibly we can get hold of him as well.
