Kill the Language, Kill the Case. Said, Ngũgĩ & the Theory of Colonial Language War, Read against Scotland & other Colonies. Engaging with Liberation Scotland's Colonial Markers [Ref: SCM–CM0b]
Abstract. Colonial Marker 0, Postcolonial Theory Applying to the Scottish Situation, supplies the lens through which the other seven Liberation Scotland colonial markers become legible. The first post in this trilogy took Fanon, Memmi and Césaire on the structure of the colonial relationship, then moved beyond them to the Latin American decolonial school (Quijano, Dussel, Mignolo and their colleagues) whose concept of coloniality explains why that structure survives every constitutional rearrangement designed to end it. This post takes the two famous writers who established that culture and language are not the soft edge of colonial rule but its operating core; Edward Said, formed in a colonial school built to manufacture anglicised Arabs, and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, punished as a child for speaking Gikuyu and imprisoned as an adult for writing in it. It then opens onto two archipelagic worlds that have thought harder about this than Europe has; the Caribbean of Kamau Brathwaite and Édouard Glissant, and the Oceania of Epeli Hau'ofa and Linda Tuhiwai Smith. The argument advanced is that Scotland's two languages were not destroyed by the same method since the same method was not needed twice. It begins with a fact that has largely been lost. Gaelic was the national language of Scotland, the tongue of the kingdom of Alba, and the source of the country's own name. Into the fifteenth century it was called Scottis, Scottish, while the Germanic vernacular of the Lowlands was called Inglis, English, by the people who spoke it. Then the names changed hands. The Lowland tongue took the name Scottis; Gaelic was relabelled Erse, Irish, and made foreign in the country named after those who spoke it. By the time the Privy Council ordained schools in 1616 so that "the Irishe language" might be abolished and removed, the expulsion had already been carried out in the vocabulary. What followed was the classic method the anticolonial literature knows well with statutory abolition, an inheritance bar, a school system, and a punishment instrument hung round a child's neck. The maide-crochaidh was identical in design and purpose to the button Ngũgĩ was made to wear in Kenya, to the Welsh Not, to Ireland's bata scóir, and to the "no Chamorro" rule the United States Navy imposed on Guam, where dictionaries were burned by government order. It worked. In 2022, for the first time in recorded history, Gaelic was a majority language in no local authority area of Scotland. Scots was attacked by the earlier method, applied a second time. It was never banned. It was simply reclassified, redefined as bad English, abolished as a category while a million and a half people went on speaking it. Reclassification is an efficient weapon. A banned language retains the status the ban confers while a language reduced to error leaves nothing to revive, no statute to repeal. Its speakers finish the work on themselves. Brathwaite refused the same manoeuvre in the Caribbean with the term “nation language”. It’s the term Scots could or should take. Haiti, whose Kreyòl waited until 1987 for official status, and Jamaica, whose Patwa still has none, are the comparators. Neither language is served by being set against the other. That argument is the oldest asset the coloniser holds in this field. This post declines it. Gaelic is the older national language whose restoration is central rather than decorative. Scots is the majority spoken national language in which most Scots actually reason and remember. Underneath all of it lies a legal fact that turns the cultural question into a jurisdictional one. Resolution 1541 (XV) makes ethnic and cultural distinctness from the administering power the operative test of a colonial situation; so a state that destroys a nation's languages is consuming the evidence on which that nation's claim would rest. To the objection that Scotland does not appear on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, we answer with two cases. Algeria, constituted by France as three départements of the Republic, was never on that list, and the General Assembly recognised its people's right of self-determination regardless. Oman was never on it either and in 1965 the Assembly found a colonial presence there and called on the “United Kingdom” (colonial England) to withdraw, over London's insistence that no such relationship existed. Scotland is not on that list. Placing it there is notably what the case now being built at the United Nations is for. The evidence set out here; of two national languages, of what was done to each of them and by whom; belongs in that file.
"To speak a language is to take on a world, a culture." - Frantz Fanon, Peau noire, masques blancs (1952)
Why the Theory Marker Comes First. Why Language Is Where It Earns Its Keep
Liberation Scotland numbered theory at zero; ahead of the garrisons, the clearances, the reserved powers and ahead of the extraction. The reason, set out in the first post of this trilogy engaging Colonial Marker 0 (Postcolonial Theory Applying to the Scottish Situation), is that colonialism's opening move against a people is to remove the words in which its condition could be recognised and therefore contested. A people without the analytical term does not escape the experience but undergoes it as its own failure.
Nowhere is that more literal than in the domain this post examines, as here the words being removed are not metaphorical. They are the actual words.
Here Scottish public life has a habit that deserves naming, itself a colonial product. Language and culture get filed under a softer heading than the constitutional and fiscal questions. Language is heritage. Culture is identity. These belong to festivals, optional modules, the tourist economy, and the wistful newspaper column. Even committed independence supporters routinely concede the ground before the argument starts, running the case on revenues and defence and treating Gaelic and Scots as sentimental attachments the serious case can manage without.
That instinct is exactly backwards. The rest of this post is an argument for why.
How a language is killed
Ask how a language dies and the ordinary answer arrives already contaminated. Languages fade and give way; outcompeted by larger neighbours in a contest nobody organised and nobody won. The vocabulary is meteorological (decline, erosion, attrition, loss). Every term describes a process without an agent. That’s the achievement the process was designed to produce. A death with no author requires no reckoning.
Four bodies of work, taken as a sequence rather than as a roll of authorities, replace that account with a causal chain that has a justification, a policy, an instrument and a terminal phase.
It starts with the justification. Johannes Fabian named the manoeuvre that supplies one. He called it the denial of coevalness. This is the placing of a subject people not in another country but in an earlier century, so that difference registers as developmental lag rather than as difference. Once a people has been relocated into the past, everything belonging to them (their law, their dress, their music, their tongue) becomes not foreign but residual, the survival of a stage already superseded. Suppression can then present itself as improvement. Nothing is being destroyed; a backwardness is merely being cleared. This is why colonial language policy so reliably arrives dressed in the vocabulary of civility rather than the vocabulary of administration. The Scottish case states it about as plainly as any in the record. When the Privy Council of Scotland ordained a school in every parish in 1616 and directed that Gaelic be abolished and removed, it did not describe the language as an obstacle to government business, or as awkward for the courts, or as expensive to accommodate. It named it as one of the chief causes of the barbaritie and incivilitie of the people of the Highlands and Islands.
Hold the difference between those two descriptions because it is the whole of Fabian's point. An inconvenient language is a practical problem. Practical problems can be met with practical arrangements like an interpreter, a bilingual clerk, a second column on the form. A barbarous language is a diagnosis. Diagnoses do not call for accommodation but for treatment. The treatment is removal. The people are not different, they are behind. The tongue is what is holding them there. Once that has been established in a statute, everything that follows (the schools, the inheritance bar, the punishment in the classroom) presents itself not as suppression but as rescue.
One thing has to be said now. Without it the act is easily misread. The pen was in Edinburgh. The direction was not. The crown had removed to London in 1603. In the very years it was ordering Gaelic abolished in the Highlands it was planting Ulster with settlers; one programme against Gaelic society, run on both sides of the water, by a court that had left Scotland and would, ninety-one years later, take it.
The section on Gaelic below returns to that act, to the century of renaming that preceded it, and to the question of who was holding the pen.
With the justification in place, the policy follows. Robert Phillipson supplied the category the whole field now works with. Linguistic imperialism names the structural and ideological arrangements by which one language is installed and maintained at the expense of others through the deliberate allocation of institutional resources; the schools, the courts, the offices of state, the routes to advancement. Phillipson's contribution was to insist that this is a matter of policy rather than prestige. Languages do not acquire dominance the way rivers find the sea. Somebody decides where the resources go and the decision is usually recorded. Liberation Scotland's compendium adopts the framework under its own name. The Scottish record is unusually candid about the decisions because they were written down as statutes.
Then the instrument, which is almost always the classroom. Tove Skutnabb-Kangas has been an exacting analyst of what happens there. Her concept of linguistic genocide describes the killing of a language by the systematic denial of the conditions of its own reproduction, not by prohibiting its use among adults, which is difficult and conspicuous, but by removing it from the one institution through which a language passes to the next generation. Her further argument is the one that gives the field its legal edge. Subtractive education, conducted through a dominant medium against the child's mother tongue and making no provision for that mother tongue, meets the definition of genocide under Article II(e) of the 1948 Convention, which concerns the forcible transfer of children of one group to another group. The practice she describes is the practice the Scottish evidence records.
Then comes the phase in which the coercion no longer needs to be fully visible (where Scotland stands now). The distinction matters. The machinery was never dismantled in Scotland.
As we saw in the previous post, a state, Bourdieu argued, does not merely favour a language. It produces a langue légitime, a legitimate language and with it a market in which every other variety is quoted at a discount; a set of institutions (school, court, broadcast, profession) that price speech, so that some ways of talking convert into advancement and others into a ceiling. Once that market is running, the state can stop announcing itself. The speakers of the devalued varieties take over the enforcement, correcting their own children, flattening their own vowels before an interview, hearing their own grandparents as having spoken badly. Bourdieu called the result violence symbolique, symbolic violence; domination operating through the complicity of the dominated, successfully for the precise reason that nobody involved recognises it as violence at all.
What has gone in Scotland is the stick, not the structure. Nobody now hangs anything round a child's neck. The machinery that made the market has simply stopped needing to be conspicuous. School is still conducted in English by default, with Gaelic-medium education a minority provision fought for community by community and Scots-medium essentially nonexistent. Broadcasting, the single institution that most determines which voices a nation hears as authoritative, remains reserved to Westminster. Advancement into the bench, the boardroom and the newsroom still runs through a register that is not the register of most of the country. Nor is the classroom evidence antique. A set of teaching guidelines from 1983 warns staff that the Doric (the Scots of the north-east) is quite often used as a form of insolence and that they should watch for attempts to abuse it. A national language, reclassified in a professional instruction to teachers as a disciplinary problem. Two years later a teacher's report records five former pupils losing their places on a youth training scheme because they either could not or would not speak standard English on the telephone.
That is not a language dying. That’s a language costing young people their work, in 1985, in Scotland.
The statutes are now historical curiosities; the 1616 order that Gaelic be abolished and removed and the Act of Proscription of 1746, which after Culloden banned Highland dress, disarmed the Gael, and reached beyond speech into the clothing and the music of a defeated people. Nobody enforces either. But the institutional settlement they built is the one Scots are living in this morning.
The apparatus was never withdrawn from Scotland. Fort George still stands and is still occupied. So does the linguistic apparatus. It simply became so ordinary that it ceased to be noticed, which is the condition Bourdieu was describing and the condition in which the last stage of a language war is won.
Set the four together and the sequence is complete. A people is placed in the past; the resources are moved accordingly; the children are separated from the tongue at school; the survivors are left to finish the job on themselves, at no further cost to anyone. What remains to be shown is that Scotland was subjected to this sequence twice over, in an order that repays attention; reclassification first, against Gaelic, a century before any statute; then the full statutory apparatus against Gaelic once the relabelling had made it foreign; then reclassification again, against Scots, and this time nothing further was required at all.
The argument
Now the point that converts all of the above from cultural commentary into something with legal teeth.
The decolonisation system does not identify a colony by looking for a governor or a flag. General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), adopted on 15 December 1960, the day after Resolution 1514, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, sets out the principles by which member states determine whether an obligation exists to transmit information on a territory under Article 73(e) of the Charter. Principle IV reads, in full:
Prima facie there is an obligation to transmit information in respect of a territory which is geographically separate and is distinct ethnically and/or culturally from the country administering it.
A state that spends centuries abolishing one of a nation's languages by statute, reclassifying the other as a defect of speech, prohibiting its dress and its music, transcribing its landscape into another orthography, and rebranding the country itself as a compass bearing of the coloniser is doing something more than being cruel and more than being administratively tidy. It’s consuming the evidentiary basis of a decolonisation claim in advance of that claim being made. Cultural distinctness is not an ornament on Scotland's case. Under the operative instrument of international decolonisation law it is an element of the test. Every child made to carry the stick was a small withdrawal from an account that would be examined three centuries later. What that account actually contains and what the state administering Scotland has to say for itself is the subject of the final section of this post.
Said: A Nation Rewritten as a Compass Bearing
Where he was standing
Edward Said was born in Jerusalem in 1935, in Mandatory Palestine, into a Palestinian Arab Christian family whose world was dispossessed in 1948. He was schooled at Victoria College in Cairo, an institution modelled explicitly on the English public school and built to produce an anglicised Arab elite, its alumni including a future King of Jordan, then sent to Massachusetts, then Princeton, Harvard, and a professorship at Columbia held for four decades. He served on the Palestinian National Council. He was also a serious pianist and music critic, which matters more than it appears. The contrapuntal reading he brought to the literature of empire is a musical idea before a critical one. It means reading the imperial text and the colonised experience together, as two lines of a single score, neither audible alone.
That standpoint is the one this series claims for Scotland. Said was the deliberate output of a colonial education designed to manufacture a particular kind of subject, who then turned the instruments that education had handed him back onto the system that handed them over. Orientalism (1978) and Culture and Imperialism (1993) are, among much else, the revenge of Victoria College. The colonised intellectual, formed inside the coloniser's institutions and using that formation to dismantle them, is a figure Scotland has produced in quantity and has almost never permitted itself to recognise under that description.
The framework
Said's governing claim is that culture is not incidental to imperialism and colonialism but constitutive of them. The novel, the survey, the syllabus, the museum, the map, the renamed street (like all the colonial “union” streets in Scotland), the revamped national history, the statues of the colonisers are part of the working mechanism of conquest. They make conquest inhabitable; what converts an act of force into an order of things that looks natural first to the conqueror and, in time, to the conquered.
Colonial power, on Said's account, never merely seizes a territory. It manufactures knowledge about that territory, dividing the world into a familiar space and a barbarous one; installing in the second whatever attributes the seizure requires such as backwardness, primitiveness, unreason, an incapacity for self-rule that conveniently explains why someone else must govern. He called this imaginative geography. Its work is retrospective. The justification arrives after the taking and then reads as though it had been there first.
What follows is what he named geographical violence. The colonised people's founding loss is the loss of the place itself to the outsider, after which, in Said's phrase, its geographical identity has to be searched for and somehow restored. Colonial space is not simply occupied. It’s fully worked on, renamed, redesigned and resurveyed until it no longer appears foreign to the colonial eye, at which point it can be governed as though it had always been part of the governing country.
Balmoral is the finished product. Albert, the German prince consort, bought the Deeside estate in 1852, pulled down the old castle and built a baronial one. The household filled it with tartan carpets, tartan curtains and a shooting calendar. What followed mattered far more than the house. The royal example made the Highland sporting estate the object of fashionable desire across Britain. Over the following decades vast tracts of the Highlands were converted into deer forests and grouse moors for owners who visited for a season; a process that displaced people and crofting as surely as sheep had, turning a working Gaelic society into scenery for the people who had removed it. Said's sentence describes the operation exactly. The place stopped appearing foreign to the colonial eye because it had been rebuilt to that eye's specification. The specification is still selling postcards. Balmoral is the product of English colonial theft.
Scotland has, in fact, produced the definitive account of that sequence in the form the argument demanded rather than in a monograph.
In April 1973 the 7:84 Theatre Company staged The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil, first at the "What Kind of Scotland?" conference in Edinburgh, then at Aberdeen Arts Centre, then through the seven crofting counties and the village halls of the Highlands and Islands, playing to the descendants of the people it was about. Written by John McGrath, who called it a ceilidh play, it was performed in Gaelic, Scots and English, with Dolina MacLennan of Lewis singing in Gaelic, John Byrne's pop-up-book set unfolding behind the cast, and the audience dancing when it finished. McGrath himself was not Scottish. He was born in Birkenhead of Irish descent. He built the company that made the play with Elizabeth MacLennan, who was. An Irish-descended Merseysider writing the account of Highland colonisation, staged in Gaelic to the descendants of the cleared, is not a curiosity to be apologised for but precisely the movement this whole series describes; the colonised recognising each other's condition across borders, and lending each other the instruments; running in the one direction the standard account of Scotland never expects it to run. An estimated three hundred thousand people saw it in a country of five million. The BBC broadcast John Mackenzie's television version as a Play for Today on 6 June 1974, and millions more saw it then. It’s still highly popular today. I often see people in chat groups or social media mention it.
Its three title objects are three phases of a single process. The play runs them in order from 1746 to the year of its own performance. First the Cheviot, the sheep that replaced the people in the Clearances. Then the Stag, the Victorian sporting estate and the absentee owner, of which Balmoral is the crown exhibit. Then the black, black oil, the hydrocarbons being taken from Scottish waters as the company toured, by corporations headquartered elsewhere, with the same promises made to the same communities. The play ends by telling its audience that this is their land, warning them that they will find the oil companies even less merciful than Patrick Sellar, the factor who cleared Strathnaver in 1814, burned a roof over a woman of ninety who died five days later, was tried for culpable homicide at Inverness and acquitted, and then farmed the ground he had emptied.
McGrath's insight, reached fifty years ago and still largely unabsorbed, is the one this series is built on. Those are not three misfortunes that befell the Highlands in succession. They are one relationship, running continuously, changing only its commodity. The fact that the argument had to be made in a village hall rather than a university lecture theatre is itself a fact about who is permitted to describe Scotland.
Permitted is the operative word and Said gave it a name. Some peoples are granted standing to tell their own story in their own terms; others must submit the story for adjudication, where it is duly found wanting. He called this permission to narrate. The observation that gives it its force is one every colonised people learns eventually. The energy expended in fact-checking an account is rarely proportional to its errors. It’s proportional to the threat it carries.
Scotland inside it
Consider the phrase North Britain.
A nation with over a millennium of continuous recorded existence, whose sovereignty had been recognised by the highest international authority available to its age (the Pope), was rewritten across the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a compass direction of another country. Not a region of it. A bearing. The usage was neither fringe nor informal. It appeared on official correspondence, in the names of major institutions (the North British Railway, the North British Hotel, the North British Rubber Company, the North British Review) and in the self-description of an entire professional class. Post from Edinburgh was routinely addressed N.B. There is no comparable case in western Europe. France was not renamed South Britain.
Two details make it sharper than it first looks.
The military engineer who designed Fort George in the aftermath of Culloden, William Skinner, held the official title King's Military Engineer for North Britain. The erasure of a nation's name was written into the job description of the man building the fortress to hold it down.
The North British Review, founded in Edinburgh in 1844, was among the leading intellectual quarterlies of Victorian Britain. Scotland's own learned class published its best thought under a masthead that had deleted Scotland.
The conversion of a nation into a direction is Said's geographical violence at its most economical; not merely the seizure of a place but the deletion of its name and the substitution of a coordinate, so that the territory stops appearing foreign to the colonial eye by ceasing, on paper, to be a place at all. The renaming was not principally imposed by decree but adopted, which is how Said says the cultural machinery of colonialism secures its most complete victories. A colonial arrangement that must be enforced is one still in difficulty. One the colonised administer to themselves has succeeded.
The rewriting ran downward from the nation to the ground. The Ordnance Survey's mapping of the Highlands and Islands across the nineteenth century required the wholesale rendering of Gaelic toponymy into English orthography, carried out largely by surveyors with no Gaelic, working from the speech of informants whose language they could not spell. A landscape in which every feature carried a name that was simultaneously a description, a history, a legal claim and a memory was converted into phonetic approximations legible to an English ear, then fixed by the authority of a state map. The identical operation was performed in Ireland by the identical institution from 1824, which is the subject of Brian Friel's Translations, a piercing account of what it is to have one's country transcribed by strangers.
Scotland has produced nothing equivalent. The Cheviot takes the land and what was done to the people on it. The map is a different theft and it went quietly. No Scottish work has made the Ordnance Survey's rewriting of the Gaelic landscape into a subject anyone remembers in a similar way. That silence is its own kind of evidence and it’s the more telling for the fact that Scotland is not short of writers.
Beneath the map lay the memory. The Statutes of Iona of 1609, examined in the previous post, contained a provision Said would have identified at once; the outlawing of the bards, who were to be apprehended, put in the stocks and expelled. The bard was not a folk entertainer. In a society that held its archive, its legal precedent and its lineage in trained human memory rather than in writing, the bardic orders were the library, the registry, the media and the court of record. To outlaw them was to burn an archive that walked.
Boaventura de Sousa Santos supplies the term for what that destroys (and that we often use); epistemicide, the killing of a knowledge system. A language is not a set of labels attached to a fixed world but a way of dividing the world up. Gaelic toponymy encoded millennia of knowledge about terrain, water, weather, grazing, and use. When the survey converted those names into approximations, it destroyed a working body of knowledge and left sounds in its place.
Comparison and the objection
Colonial renaming is universal. Constantinople, Salisbury, Léopoldville, Van Diemen's Land. What distinguishes Scotland is the trajectory of restoration. In most colonies the coloniser imposed the new name and the liberated nation restored the old one ceremonially, usually on independence day, before crowds. In Scotland the substituted name was largely self-applied by a colonised elite and simply fell out of fashion, requiring no repeal, which left no moment of restoration, no ceremony or date on which the country took its own name back. The absence of that moment is a principal reason the injury remains undiagnosed.
The objection is that North Britain was Victorian affectation rather than an instrument of rule and that nobody was compelled. But Said's argument, and Bourdieu's, do not depend on compulsion. They depend on its becoming unnecessary. Cultural imperialism reaches its objective precisely where force is no longer required, where the colonised describe themselves in the coloniser's categories unprompted, and experience the description as promotion. Voluntary adoption is not the weaker case. It’s the completed one.
The Naming. How Gaelic Was Made Foreign in the Country Named After It.
Before either weapon can be understood, one fact has to be recovered because its loss is the reason Scotland's two languages are so often set against each other by people who mean well.
Gaelic was the national language of Scotland. Not a regional survival, not a Highland peculiarity but the language of the kingdom of Alba, spoken across the great bulk of the country by the eleventh century, and the tongue from which the nation takes its name. Latin Scoti meant the Gaels and Scotia was their country; so the nation's own name in the language of medieval record is a Gaelic one. Scotland is the country of the Gaels in the same way Ireland is. The two shared a single literary and legal high culture for centuries.
Gaelic belongs to the Goidelic branch of Insular Celtic. The point that matters most here is the one the coloniser would later invert. Scottish Gaelic and Irish were not merely related. For centuries the learned orders of both countries; the poets, the jurists, the historians; wrote in a single shared literary standard, Classical Common Gaelic, maintained across the sea by a common professional class until the 17th century. The vernaculars diverged; the high culture did not.
That shared civilisation is precisely what the relabelling would weaponise. When Gaelic was renamed Erse (Irish), the operation took a genuine fact about a common learned world and turned it inside out. What had been evidence of a Gaelic civilisation spanning two kingdoms was recoded as evidence that the language belonged to one of them and was therefore foreign in the other. The truth was repurposed.
An objection arrives here, deserving a proper answer rather than a wave, because it’s the same manoeuvre this post refuses elsewhere, pushed back a further thousand years. If Gaelic was the national language, what became of Pictish? Did the Gaels not do to the Picts what was later done to the Gaels?
They didn’t. The scholarship is now firm enough to say so without hedging.
Pictish was not an alien tongue overwhelmed by an incoming one. It was a Brittonic Celtic language, a cousin of Gaelic within the same Insular Celtic family, closer to it than English is to Scots. The older notion that Pictish was some non-Indo-European isolate, a linguistic mystery displaced by Celtic settlement, was dismantled by Katherine Forsyth in 1997 and has not recovered. Bede records Pictish as a language distinct from Irish, British and English; noting that Columba needed an interpreter. Distinct is not foreign.
Nor was there a conquest. The story of Cinaed mac Ailpín extinguishing the Picts is a later construction. The standard modern account (e.g. Alex Woolf's From Pictland to Alba) describes something else entirely; a convergence running across generations, through shared kingship, a shared church, intermarriage among the ruling kindreds, and the common pressure of Northumbrian expansion and then the Norse. The kingdom of Alba that appears in the sources around the year 900 is not Pictland conquered. It’s Pictland and Dál Riata become one thing.
The place-names settle it decisively. Pictish did not merely survive on the map. It went on working. The Pictish word pett, a portion or landholding, was borrowed into Gaelic as a living term and then used by Gaelic speakers to coin new names for at least two centuries; over three hundred of them across the north-east, with Pictish generic and Gaelic specific fused in a single word. Pitcaple is pett with Gaelic capall, a horse. Pitlochry is pett with cloichreach, stones. Pittenweem is pett with na h-Uaimh, of the caves. Simon Taylor, the foremost living authority on Scottish place-names, has shown the element remaining productive in Gaelic from the mid-ninth century to the mid-eleventh.
The categorical difference is the one that governs everything else in this post. There is no Pictish equivalent of the act of 1616. No statute named Pictish a cause of barbarity. No inheritance was made conditional on abandoning it. No school system was founded to remove it and no child wore a stick for speaking it. Language shift under political fusion, running over three or four centuries, is a different phenomenon from linguicide by statute; and collapsing the two is not a scholarly correction but a rhetorical device. If every language shift in recorded history counts as colonisation, then colonisation describes nothing. A word that describes nothing cannot ground a claim in international law. Which is precisely why the collapse is offered.
Gaelic’s position eroded from the twelfth century onward as the crown's centre of gravity shifted south and east; from Scone and Perth towards Edinburgh; and as Anglo-Norman settlement, burgh charters and trade carried a Germanic vernacular through the Lowlands. That vernacular had not grown in Scottish soil. It entered the country as the speech of the Anglian kingdom of Northumbria, which had pushed north into Lothian in the seventh century. It spread thereafter through burghs deliberately planted with incomers under royal charter and through a landholding class substantially imported from England and Normandy in the twelfth century. The tongue that would eventually displace Gaelic across the Lowlands arrived there by conquest and by settlement, from the south. By the middle of the fourteenth century that vernacular had become the working language of government and record.
Now let’s attend to what it was called since this is where the instrument is made.
Into the fifteenth century, the Germanic tongue of the Lowlands was called Inglis (English) by the people who spoke it. Gaelic was called Scottis (Scottish). The names were an accurate description of where each language had come from and what it was.
Then, across the closing decades of the fifteenth century, the names swapped. The Germanic vernacular took the name Scottis while Gaelic was reassigned the name Erse or Yrisch (Irish).
Consider what that operation accomplished and how cheaply. Without a single statute, without a soldier or anyone announcing a policy, the language of the kingdom of Alba was rendered foreign in the country named after its speakers. It became an Irish language spoken in Scotland, an immigrant tongue, an anomaly, something belonging properly to somewhere else. Every subsequent measure against it inherited that framing pre-installed. When the Privy Council in 1616 ordained schools so that "the Irishe language" might be abolished and removed, the act did not need to argue that Gaelic was alien. The vocabulary had settled that a hundred years earlier.
This happened inside Scotland, before the annexation. We don’t pretend otherwise. Scotland in 1500 was a sovereign kingdom. No coloniser dictated the usage of Gavin Douglas. But nothing about that sentence should be mistaken for a verdict of English innocence. Two things must be held alongside it.
The first is that the anglophone southeast was not a neutral region of Scotland that happened to speak differently. It was the zone of longest English contact, settlement and periodic occupation. Its language was there because Northumbria had taken Lothian centuries before Scotland acquired it. When the court's cultural gravity moved toward that zone, it was moving towards England, linguistically and institutionally.
The second is that Scotland in these centuries was not a country choosing freely among cultural options. It had spent the fourteenth century fighting off English armies bent on its extinction as a kingdom. It spent the fifteenth and sixteenth under continuous dynastic, military and commercial pressure from a neighbour several times its size, the pressure documented in the first post of this trilogy, which followed the money from the English pension paid to James VI to the court that rode south in 1603. Prestige is not weather. The reason English carried advantage in Edinburgh and the reason a Scottish elite came to hear its own older tongue as provincial, was the wealth, the reach and the persistent ambition of the state next door.
So the naming of Gaelic as Erse is not an English statute. It’s the first appearance in Scotland of a mechanism that England would later operate directly, at scale, and by law; and the pressure that produced it came from the same direction as everything that followed.
The same operation would be performed again, on the other language, two hundred years later. That is the subject of a later section.
Ngũgĩ, and the First Weapon: How Gaelic Was (Almost) Abolished
Where he was standing
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o was born in 1938 at Kamiriithu in Limuru, Kenya, into a large Gikuyu peasant family. He came to consciousness during the Mau Mau rebellion and the English counter-insurgency that answered it; a campaign of detention camps, forced villagisation and systematic torture whose documentary record the English colonial state concealed for half a century and litigated against acknowledging into the present century. His own family was inside it; one brother in the forest with the fighters, another killed, his mother tortured at the homeguard post.
He was educated at a Gikuyu independent school, then at the elite Alliance High School, then Makerere and Leeds. He published as James Ngugi, in English, and was celebrated for it. Then in 1977 he broke. He renounced English as the vehicle of his creative work, renounced his baptismal name, wrote and staged with the peasants and workers of Kamiriithu a Gikuyu-language play, Ngaahika Ndeenda (I Will Marry When I Want), and was arrested without charge and held for a year in Kamiti Maximum Security Prison, where he wrote a novel on prison lavatory paper. Decolonising the Mind (1986) announces itself in its opening pages as his farewell to English.
That is the man who wrote the definitive account of the colonial war on language. He wrote it from the receiving end of the apparatus.
The framework
The argument moves in three stages.
Language is not a neutral medium but the carrier of a culture's accumulated way of apprehending the world; its images, proverbs, humour, moral vocabulary, stored history. To take a people's language is not to inconvenience them but to sever them from the instrument by which they know themselves.
Second, the imposition of the coloniser's language in school, court, and administration is not one colonial policy among others but the master policy, because where the bullet subdues the body, the classroom subdues the mind. The mind stays subdued long after the soldiers leave. Ngũgĩ's name for this is the cultural bomb; the weapon whose function is to annihilate a people's belief in their own names, their languages, their environment, their heritage of struggle, and finally in themselves.
Third, he described the apparatus. At his school, a child caught speaking Gikuyu was made to wear a metal plate or button round the neck, sometimes inscribed with a legend announcing the wearer's stupidity. The child could be rid of it only by catching another child speaking Gikuyu and passing it on. The child wearing it at day's end was beaten.
Dwell on the design. Its genius is structural rather than punitive. It conscripts. Every child is made an informer against every other. The mother tongue is converted from a shared inheritance into a mutual hazard. The community is set to police its own dissolution while the coloniser need not be in the room.
The same instrument, in Lewis
In the schools of the Gàidhealtachd, a child overheard speaking Gaelic had hung round their neck a stick, the maide-crochaidh, the hanging stick or punishment stick. The child could be rid of it only by catching another child speaking Gaelic and passing it on. The child holding it at the end of the day was beaten. In some recorded practice every child who had worn it that day was beaten in turn. In at least one variant a notch was cut for each offence so the tally could be settled later.
It was reported still in use in Lewis in the 1930s. Within living memory.
It’s the same instrument. Not a parallel or an analogy, not a comparable practice from some different and gentler order of experience; the same instrument, performing the same conscription of a child community into the destruction of its own language, differing from Ngũgĩ's Kenyan button only in being made of wood. The correspondence has been registered within Gaelic scholarship. Michael Newton's collected testimonies of Gaels on the repressive role of schooling prompted the observation that only the device differs between Gikuyu and Gàidhlig, a button rather than a stick, while the process and the intent are identical.
The family of the instrument
It was standard colonial issue. The roll-call is what turns a Scottish grievance into an entry in the international record.
Wales, annexed to England by statute in the sixteenth century, had the Welsh Not; a wooden token hung round the neck of a child caught speaking Welsh, passed on when another was caught, the last holder beaten.
Ireland, England's oldest colony, had the bata scóir, the tally stick, notched at each offence in Irish, the beating administered against the count.
Guam, a Non-Self-Governing Territory on the United Nations list to this day, received Executive General Order No. 243 from the United States Naval Government in 1917 under Governor Roy Campbell Smith, designating English the sole official language and ordering that Chamorro must not be spoken except for official interpreting. In 1922 Governor Adelbert Althouse instituted a "no Chamorro" rule covering the classroom and the playground, and ordered the collection and burning of Chamorro-English dictionaries, some nine hundred volumes, by the count in the diary of the anthropologist Laura Thompson. The dictionary burned had been compiled by a United States Navy officer and printed at federal expense four years earlier. Children were punished and parents fined into the 1970s. Today fewer than one in twenty Chamorro people under thirty can speak the language.
Kanaky (New Caledonia), also on the United Nations list, saw a decree of 1853 impose the teaching of French in every school of the colony; within a decade only French teaching was permitted at all.
Mā'ohi Nui (French Polynesia), restored to the United Nations list in 2013, taught no Tahitian and no Marquesan at any stage of nineteenth-century public education, and prohibited their use during breaks as well as in class; the identical reach into the playground that Althouse ordered on Guam and that the stick enforced in Lewis.
Three empires and seven peoples. One technology, one purpose, and in several cases overlapping decades. Scotland's children were not at the margins of its distribution.
The statutory chronology and who was holding the pen
The foundations were laid before the annexation, under English pressure and domination.
In 1616 the Privy Council of Scotland ordained a school in every parish so that, in the act's own words, the vulgar English tongue be universally planted and the Irish language, meaning Gaelic, be abolished and removed, having first named it a chief cause of the barbarity and incivility of the Isles. A further act that year provided that no heir of a Gaelic chief might inherit unless he could read, write and speak English. Parliament ratified the schools act in 1633.
Two things must be said about this. The decolonial reading depends on both.
The first is chronological honesty. These were acts of Scotland's own institutions, ninety-one years before the Treaty. Scotland in 1616 was a sovereign kingdom, at least on paper. Scotland cannot be said to be fully a colony until it was fully annexed. What Scotland was not, since 1603, was a kingdom with a resident government. James VI had taken the English throne, moved to London, styled himself King of “Great Britain”, and governed Scotland, as he put it, by his pen. The Council legislated in Edinburgh and the direction came from a court in the larger kingdom. It came as part of a single archipelagic programme, since that same crown was at that moment planting Ulster. Alison Cathcart has shown the Statutes of Iona belong in exactly that frame; one Jacobean project for the reordering of Gaelic society aimed at the Highlands and Ireland together. Ireland was planted; the Highlands were assimilated instead.
The second is what follows from the first. The 1616 act does not show England colonising Scotland. It shows the instrument of statutory linguicide being manufactured in this archipelago, against a Gaelic-speaking people, by a crown already colonising across the water, generations before anything comparable reached Bengal, Nairobi or the Marianas. Note the form of the justification; Gaelic named in law as a cause of barbarity and incivility. The people are behind. Their language is what holds them there. That is Fabian's denial of coevalness, in a statute, three and a half centuries before he named the mechanism.
What the annexation did was inherit the instrument, keeping it running while widening the target.
The Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge, founded in 1709, two years after the Treaty, ran Highland schools on the explicit premise that Gaelic obstructed civility. The Act of Proscription of 1746 extended the assault from speech to dress, to arms and to the music of the Gael. The Education (Scotland) Act of 1872, which made schooling compulsory, made no provision whatever for Gaelic. It displaced the church and charitable schools that had at least sometimes taught through it, and by statutory silence made education and English synonymous.
One implication needs care. Scotland's parochial school system, genuinely two centuries ahead of England's, was, at its statutory origin, harnessed to the erasure of one of Scotland's own languages. That is not a charge against Scottish education but the mechanism this series documents throughout; the capture of a nation's own institutions and their conversion into instruments of a project decided elsewhere.
What the first weapon achieved
Scotland's Census 2022 recorded 69,701 people able to speak Gaelic, up from around 57,000 in 2011, and 130,161 with some skill in it; 2.5 per cent of the population, up from 1.7 per cent. Read alone, those numbers look like recovery. Gaelic-medium education and adult learning deserve the credit they are owed for them.
Now read the other column.
In Na h-Eileanan Siar, the language's remaining heartland, the proportion fell from 52 per cent to 45. In the strongest communities of all (Barvas, South Uist), it fell from 64 per cent to 55. The consequence, stated plainly by the constituency's own member of the devolved parliament when the figures were published: for the first time, Gaelic is a majority language in no local authority area in Scotland.
That sentence is what four hundred years of policy purchased. Not a language with no speakers, but a language with no territory; a speech community dispersed into a national minority of enthusiasts and learners while the ground on which it was the ordinary medium of life empties out. A language that is nowhere the majority is a language that has ceased to be a society's default and become an individual's accomplishment. It’s precisely the outcome the 1616 act, driven by the English state, specified; abolished and removed.
The Second Weapon: How Scots Was Abolished Without Being Touched
Here the argument turns and here I believe it goes somewhere the literature has not.
Everything above describes the classic model of colonial linguicide, the model the anticolonial canon knows; prohibition, punishment, replacement; applied to Gaelic and it worked.
It was not applied to Scots, which was destroyed as a public language anyway.
What Scots is
Scots is not a variety of English that drifted. It can be considered a sister language yet it’s another language. The distinction is a matter of documented linguistic descent rather than national feeling.
Old English was never one thing. It existed as a set of regional dialects; Northumbrian and Mercian in the Anglian group, West Saxon and Kentish in the south; and modern Standard English and modern Scots descend from different ones. Standard English derives principally from the Mercian and East Midland dialects, carried into prominence by London. Scots derives from Northumbrian, the Anglian speech of the kingdom that had pushed north into Lothian in the seventh century and left its language there before Scotland acquired the territory at all.
They are siblings, not parent and child. Scots did not come out of English; both came out of Old English, by different routes, and then spent six centuries apart. That is not a “nationalist” reading and it does not originate with this series. David Murison, who edited the Scottish National Dictionary, set it down in the introduction to the eighth volume; Scots is not, as is sometimes said, degenerate English, but the descendant of an independent development from the same source as Standard English.
What happened in those six centuries is why the two are not mutually substitutable. Scots took heavy input from Old Norse, through Norse settlement in the north (kirk, brae, big for build, gait for road). It took Latin directly through the church and through a legal system that remained Roman in its foundations, which is why Scots law still speaks a vocabulary English law does not. It took Middle Dutch and Middle Low German from the Flemish merchants planted in the burghs by royal charter; and French from the Auld Alliance rather than from the Norman conquest (ashet, gigot, tassie). It also borrowed from Gaelic, in quantity, from the country it was spreading through (glen, loch, cairn, bog, clan, corrie, sonsie).
The result is a system, not an accent. Scots retains the velar fricative English lost; the ch in nicht and loch. It runs a distinct vowel-length rule, Aitken's Law, which English does not have. It negates differently, forms its present participle differently, and holds a lexicon in the tens of thousands of words that has no English equivalent.
Calling that bad English is like calling Portuguese bad Spanish, or Danish bad Swedish. The comparison is exact in every respect but one. Portugal and Denmark kept their states.
From the mid-fourteenth century it was the working language of Scottish government and law, and by the sixteenth it had displaced Latin as the principal language of record and literature in the kingdom; the medium of statute, of the burgh registers, of the Makars, and of the national poems of the Wars of Independence, Barbour's Brus and Blind Harry's Wallace. It remained the language of Scottish government until the parliament was closed in 1707. Henryson, Dunbar and Douglas wrote in it; Burns, MacDiarmid, Lochhead and Kay have written in it since. In any other European nation this would be taught as the national canon in the national tongue.
From the middle of the 16th century, Scots began to be anglicised. The single heaviest instrument was scripture. The Reformation gave Scotland its Bible in English; the Geneva version, later the King James. No Scots translation was ever made. The first Bible printed in Scotland, the Bassandyne of 1579, was a Geneva text produced in Edinburgh. It carries the whole story in its own binding; the dedication, To the heich and michtie Prince Iames the Sext King of Scottis, is in Scots. Everything after it is in English.
That same year the Scottish Parliament required every householder worth 300 merks of yearly rent and every yeoman or burgess worth £500 stock to possess a Bible and Psalm Book in the vulgar tongue, under penalty of ten pounds. The vulgar tongue supplied was English. A Scottish statute obliged substantial Scots to buy an English book on pain of a fine.
The consequence is not a matter of inference. Glasgow University Library, holding a copy, records it flatly. The Bible was the most popular book in the country and often the only one in poorer households. The English text did severe damage to Scots. Given literacy was driven by the desire to read scripture, schooling came to be associated with English rather than with Scots. This installed English as the register of authority in Scotland. It’s worth noting how long the omission stood. No complete New Testament in Scots appeared until William Laughton Lorimer's, published in 1983.
After 1603 the court that had sustained Scots as a language of state left for London. After 1707 it lost the last institution that could have defended its status.
Scotland's Census 2022 recorded 1,508,540 people able to speak Scots; 2.4 million with some skill in it, up from 1.9 million in 2011. Around 1.17 million report being able to speak, read and write it. The highest concentrations are in Shetland, Aberdeenshire, Moray and Orkney.
By the numbers, Scots is not a dying language. A million and a half speakers would place it comfortably among Europe's substantial languages, larger than Estonian, Slovenian or Latvian, each of which is the official state language of a member of the United Nations with its own broadcasting, its own literature curriculum, its own terminology institute and its own seat.
Now hold that against a second census figure. In 2011, the number who reported speaking Scots at home was 55,817.
A million and a half people can speak it. Fifty-five thousand say they use it. That gap is the whole story. It’s not a story about attrition. It’s a story about shame.
The mechanism: reclassification
The colonial state never banned Scots. It did something more efficient. It reclassified it.
Scots was not designated a rival language to be extirpated. It was redefined as a failure to speak English properly. Not another tongue but a defective version of the coloniser's. The child who says ken, bairn, the morn, outwith, greetin is not told they are speaking a different language. They are told they are speaking badly. The word is marked wrong rather than foreign and the grammar sloppy rather than other. The correction arrives from a teacher who is very often a Scots speaker themselves, doing it out of care, believing they are opening a door.
That is the deepest cut available to a colonial state. It’s worth being precise about why it beats prohibition.
A banned language remains a language. The ban confers the status it denies. A child punished for speaking Gaelic learns that Gaelic is powerful enough to be feared, which is why prohibition so often produces the memory that later fuels revival. The stick becomes, in the end, evidence.
A language reclassified as error is abolished as a category while its speakers are still using it. There is nothing to revive because officially there was never anything there. No ban to repeal, no martyrs, no instrument to display in a museum. The speakers do the work themselves, in every job interview and every classroom, for free, forever. Bourdieu's symbolic violence in its purest form.
It makes the speakers complicit in a further way. Most Scots live along a continuum, shifting between Scots and English within a conversation and often within a sentence. That shifting is bilingual competence. In any other context it would be described as such. A Catalan moving between Catalan and Castilian is credited with two languages. A Scot moving between Scots and English is corrected. Speak broad and you are uneducated; speak the metropolitan register and you have arrived; mix them, as very nearly everyone does, and you have failed to master either.
The old formulation applies with unusual force. A language is a dialect with an army and a navy. Scotland's were signed away in 1707. And on how it happened, the same authority is unambiguous. Murison spent his working life on the dictionary, in the company of the language, counting its words. His verdict was that the eclipse of Scots as a literary language was no natural death but a deliberate assassination, carried out for political reasons. The man who knew the corpus better than anyone alive called it a killing.
The comparators and why they are colonies
This second technique is not a Scottish peculiarity. It’s just what colonisers do wherever the colonised majority speaks something close enough to the metropolitan language to be classified as a corruption of it. The clearest cases are in the Caribbean.
Haiti. Haitian Kreyòl is spoken by effectively the entire population; French by a small minority. Yet French was the sole official language of the state from independence until the constitution of 1987 made Kreyòl co-official, meaning that for the better part of two centuries the Haitian people were governed and schooled in a language most of them did not speak, while the language they did speak was treated as a degraded French rather than a language in its own right. Education conducted in French was, in practice, a machine for excluding the majority from advancement in their own country.
Jamaica. Jamaican Patwa is the ordinary language of the great majority of Jamaicans and has no official status. Education is conducted in English. Children are corrected. The linguistic literature has recognised Jamaican Creole as a language for decades; the school system has not.
Set Scotland beside those two and the pattern is exact; a colonised population whose everyday tongue is close enough to the coloniser’s language to be reclassified as a botched version of it, then excluded from law, education and advancement on that basis, without a single prohibition being enacted.
This is the contribution the Scottish case makes to the theory rather than takes from it. The anticolonial canon was built largely on cases where coloniser and colonised spoke unrelated languages. Prohibition was therefore the available weapon. Where the languages are related, prohibition is unnecessary and reclassification does the work better. Call it linguistic subordination without prohibition and note that because it leaves no statute, no ban and no martyrs, it also leaves no evidence, which returns us to Principle IV and the consumption of a nation's case.
What was done to it then was precisely what had been done to Gaelic in the 1490s; not prohibition, but reclassification. Gaelic was made Irish. Scots was made bad English. In each case a national language was expelled from the category of language by an adjustment of vocabulary. In each case the adjustment did more damage than any statute. The difference between them is who held the pen. The first was performed by Scots, under pressure from England, in a kingdom still sovereign. The second was completed after that kingdom had been annexed, by a state that then spent three centuries building the schools, the courts, the appointments and the print culture that made the new classification permanent. That has never once been asked to account for either.
Which means the two languages are not rivals for a single title. They are two victims of the same operation, performed twice, a century and a half apart.
That has to be stated plainly because the argument between them is the oldest and most useful asset the coloniser holds in this field. A Gael can point out, correctly, that Gaelic was the language of the nation and that Scots displaced it. A Scots speaker can point out, correctly, that Scots was the language of the Scottish state, that a million and a half people speak it now, and that most Scots think in it. Both are right. Both are describing consequences of the same process. Every hour spent litigating the precedence between them is an hour not spent on the state that reduced one to a minority and the other to an embarrassment.
Scotland's recovery requires both. Gaelic is the older national language, the source of the country's name, and, like Irish in Ireland, the language whose restoration is central to what sovereignty means rather than decorative to it. Scots is the majority spoken national language, the medium in which most Scots actually reason, joke, argue and remember. No sovereignty worth the name can be built while the majority of a people believes its own everyday speech is a fault. Neither can substitute for the other. Neither is served by the other's diminishment.
There is a further reason the rivalry has proved so durable. It’s not accidental. Berthold Schoene-Harwood has argued that the colonial relationship in Scotland produced not one subordinated other but two; a Highland one and a Lowland one, the first culturally emaciated, the second in the process of being dismantled. The imperial centre played them against each other. The Lowlands, dislocated first, became the useful intermediary. Scottishness as the world now recognises it, the kilt and the tartan and the Highland scenery, was assembled by Lowlanders out of Highland culture and at its expense, at exactly the point when the Highlands had been rendered incapable of objecting.
His conclusion is uncomfortable and worth stating in full force. The single, legible, instantly recognisable Scottishness that this post has elsewhere celebrated as the coloniser's failure is, in part, also the coloniser's product. One distinct other is far easier to govern than several. A people collapsed into a single quaint image can be administered in a way that a people with many faces cannot.
Both things are true at once. The symbols are genuinely Scotland's, carried across an ocean for the World Cup by forty thousand people who owe nobody an explanation for them. They are also, in their present arrangement, a settlement reached under colonial pressure, at the expense of the Gaels, by Lowlanders who had already lost something themselves. Which is precisely why the argument between Gaelic and Scots is not a family quarrel but the shape the colonial relationship gave to a nation's culture. It will not be resolved by either side winning it.
The objections
Scots is a dialect, not a language. This is a political ruling in linguistic dress. A colonised people somewhere else has already refused it in terms Scotland should adopt.
In a lecture given at Carifesta in Jamaica in 1976, repeated at Harvard in 1979 and published in 1984 as History of the Voice, the Barbadian poet and historian Kamau Brathwaite proposed the term nation language for what the Caribbean had been taught to dismiss as 'patois' or 'dialect'. His objection to those colonial labels was exact. Dialect carries a pejorative connotation, one that is inappropriate and limiting; arriving pre-loaded with the judgement it pretends to describe. What Caribbean people speak, he argued, is not a degraded English but a language formed by a particular history, carrying its own rhythms, its own relation to the body and the weather, its own philosophy, and the imported metrical forms of the metropole cannot hold it. The hurricane, as he put it, does not roar in pentameters.
Scots is Scotland's nation language. The word does exactly the work Brathwaite built it for. It refuses the pejorative without claiming anything a linguist would dispute. It locates the judgement where it belongs, in politics rather than grammar; putting Scotland where it in fact stands, among peoples whose everyday tongue was reclassified as an error by the state that governed them.
The technical position supports the political one. The distinction between language and dialect has no agreed basis in linguistics. It’s settled by states. Scots has a documented literary history of six centuries, an ISO 639 code, recognition under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and now statutory recognition in Scotland itself. What it lacked was an army and a navy.
Parents wanted English for their children. Ngũgĩ's own subject. He documents Gikuyu parents who wanted English for theirs and identifies that desire as the cultural bomb detonating rather than as evidence against it, the entire purpose of the apparatus being to produce a people that internalises and then reproduces the coloniser's valuation of its own tongue.
Economic advantage drove the shift, not persecution. These are one sentence read from opposite ends. The persecution created the advantage; once created, the advantage did the work unaided. It’s why the war was won without anyone having to fire the last shot.
What the Caribbean and Oceania Know That Europe Has Not Thought to Ask
The first post in this trilogy went out from the francophone anticolonial writers to the Latin American decolonial school since Fanon and his contemporaries could explain how a colonial structure is built but not why it survives the constitutional arrangements meant to end it. This post has to travel too, for a parallel reason.
Said and Ngũgĩ describe the war on a language. Neither addresses the situation this post has named; what happens to a people whose tongue is not banned but demoted; not forbidden but corrected. For that, the theory comes from two archipelagic worlds that have thought harder about it than Europe ever has because they had to.
The Caribbean: nation language and creolisation. The right to opacity
Kamau Brathwaite has already supplied the term. What deserves setting out is the full architecture behind it.
Brathwaite's argument in History of the Voice is that colonial education imposed not merely a vocabulary but a prosody; the iambic pentameter taught as the shape thought properly takes, so that a Barbadian schoolchild learned to write about snow in a metre evolved for an English voice, in a country that has never seen snow. Nation language is his name for what surfaces when that form is set aside; the submerged tongue spoken beneath the official one for three centuries, permitted at last to determine the rhythm rather than supply the local colour.
Scotland has run precisely this experiment and has largely forgotten it did. When Hugh MacDiarmid assembled a literary Scots in the 1920s out of the living speech, the older Makars and Jamieson's dictionary, he was doing what Brathwaite would theorise fifty years later, refusing the coloniser’s literary standard as the shape thought must take, and rebuilding a national form from a submerged tongue. The Scottish Renaissance was a nation-language movement before the term existed. That it is remembered domestically as a literary curiosity rather than as an act of cultural decolonisation is itself a measure of how thoroughly the analytical vocabulary went missing.
Édouard Glissant, from Martinique, the island of Césaire and Fanon, and so a direct continuation of the first post's line, pressed further. His Le Discours antillais (1981) and Poétique de la Relation (1990) reject both assimilation into the metropole's universal and retreat into a sealed authenticity. Against the coloniser's demand that the colonised become transparent; explicable, categorisable, reducible to terms the centre already holds; he set the droit à l'opacité, the right to opacity or the refusal to be made legible on someone else's terms as a condition of being taken seriously.
That concept has immediate work to do in Scotland. Consider what is actually being demanded when a colonised nation is required, before its claim can be entertained, to produce a currency plan, a border policy, a deficit projection and a NATO position; all computed inside the coloniser's accounting frameworks and answerable to the coloniser's strategic assumptions. That is a demand for transparency in Glissant's precise sense. No European state was ever required to demonstrate its viability to a neighbour as the price of existing. Glissant's point is not that such questions have no answers. It’s that the obligation to answer them first, in the coloniser's terms, is itself an instrument of the relationship.
Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui, the Bolivian Aymara sociologist whose work on internal colonialism in the Andes runs alongside Quijano's, closes the circle with a harder edge; there can be no discourse of decolonisation without a decolonising practice. Her target is not analysis (she has spent a lifetime producing it) but the professionalised use of decolonial vocabulary by institutions that have decolonised nothing, least of all themselves. Applied here, the test is concrete. Teaching in the languages rather than about them. Conducting public business in them. Publishing, broadcasting and litigating in them. Raising children who use them by default rather than by effort. And, on the evidence this post assembles, entering that evidence into the international record where it can be acted upon, which is the difference between describing a colonial condition and moving to end one.
Oceania: smallness as a state of mind
A useful idea for Scotland's situation comes from the Pacific, specifically from Epeli Hau'ofa, the Tongan and Fijian anthropologist whose essay Our Sea of Islands (1993) reordered how Oceania understands itself.
Hau'ofa's target was the account of the Pacific that development economists, colonial administrators and his own students had absorbed; a scatter of remote, resource-poor territories, too small and too isolated to be viable, permanently dependent on larger powers. He observed that this picture was manufactured, a product of the colonial boundaries drawn across an ocean in the 19th century, which converted a connected maritime world of voyaging, exchange and kinship into a set of confined dots administered from elsewhere. Islands in a far sea, in the coloniser's framing. He proposed the inversion; a sea of islands, in which the ocean is not the barrier between small places but the thing that connects and enlarges them. Indonesia has built a state doctrine on the same inversion, Wawasan Nusantara, the archipelagic outlook, which treats the sea between the islands as the thing that unifies rather than divides.
He named the mechanism plainly. Smallness, he wrote, is a state of mind; a belittlement first imposed and then internalised, until a people accept as geography what was done to them as policy.
Set that beside the vocabulary Scotland has been issued about itself. Too wee. Too poor. Peripheral. A small country on the northern edge. Now apply Hau'ofa's inversion. Scotland has some nine hundred islands and among the longest coastlines in Europe. Its adjacent waters carry the transatlantic cables and the fisheries. It faces the Arctic across a shortening distance. It generates several times its own electricity consumption. It’s not a small country on the edge of somewhere else. It’s a maritime nation at the centre of its own sea. The framing that says otherwise arrived, as Hau'ofa says, from the people who drew the boundaries.
Consider what Scotland is actually permitted to know about itself and who certified it.
Its economy is described through an accounting methodology whose creator recorded in a private note to the Prime Minister that its purpose was to make a case against Scottish self-government, which is now reproduced annually as neutral statistics. Its history is authorised by a professoriate less than a tenth of which is Scottish. Its strategic geography appears in the literature under an acronym naming Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom (the GIUK Gap), the eastern pillar of that corridor being Scottish landmass which goes unwritten. We proposed to rename it the GIS Gap for Greenland-Iceland-Scotland in our recent paper on decolonised Scotland’s foreign policy. Its two languages spent centuries being classified by the state that was suppressing them, one legislated a cause of barbarity, the other demoted to a failure of English.
In each case the subject was studied. In none was it consulted.
That’s the pattern Linda Tuhiwai Smith, of Ngāti Awa and Ngāti Porou, set out in Decolonizing Methodologies, research itself as a colonial instrument, knowledge taken from a people, processed elsewhere by others, and returned to them as the authoritative account of who they are. Her book opens by observing that for many Indigenous peoples the word research is among the dirtiest in the language, inseparable from the memory of being surveyed, measured, collected and explained by the people who had taken their land. That observation lands in Scotland with more force than most Scots would expect because here the extraction has been carried out by institutions bearing Scottish names.
Her answer was not to dispute the findings. Disputing findings concedes the frame that produced them. A people arguing inside somebody else's methodology has already lost the argument it believes it is winning. She proposed instead a programme of projects by which a people reclaims the process itself (naming, reframing, restoring, revitalising) and the point of that list is that every item is an act of authorship rather than of rebuttal.
Which is precisely what Liberation Scotland's compendium of markers is. Not a submission to an inquiry convened by somebody else. A people assembling the evidence about itself, in its own categories, and placing it where the world can examine it rather than where its coloniser can adjudicate it.
Ngũgĩ himself arrived, late in his work, at the concept that gathers all of this. In Something Torn and New (2009) he described colonialism as dismemberment, the severing of a people from its land, its languages, its names and its memory; and set against it the labour of re-membering; not nostalgia, but the deliberate reassembly of a body that was taken apart on purpose.
What Scotland returns
These are not borrowings taken and left unpaid. Scotland offers this tradition a case it does not otherwise possess. The case sharpens the theory.
Nation language, as Brathwaite developed it, describes vernaculars that emerged under slavery and colonial contact; tongues formed in the plantation, which were never the language of any court, chancery or statute. Their exclusion from official life can therefore always be attributed, however dishonestly, to their supposed novelty or lack of standardisation.
Scotland forecloses that excuse twice over. The double case is what makes it valuable to the theory.
Scots was a language of state; the medium of parliamentary record, of law, of the burgh registers and of a literary canon, in a sovereign European kingdom, standardising along the same trajectory that produced Danish, Swedish and Portuguese as national languages. It was reclassified downward into a defect of English in the centuries after its state was annexed.
Gaelic was the language of the kingdom before it; the source of the country's name, and it too was reclassified; expelled from the national category and relabelled Irish, in Scotland, by a shift of vocabulary that preceded every statute directed against it.
The theory gains not one case but a demonstrated sequence; the same instrument applied to two languages of the same nation, a century and a half apart, against tongues at opposite ends of the linguistic map; one Celtic and unrelated to the coloniser’s language (although influenced over time), one Germanic and closely related to it. In neither case did antiquity, corpus, standardisation, literary achievement or prior status as a language of state offer any protection whatsoever.
Which yields a conclusion the theory has not had a clean case for, which reaches well beyond Scotland. The categories that demote a language; "dialect" for Scots, "Irish" for Gaelic; carry no decisive linguistic content. They are records of where power was standing when the name was assigned. If a tongue that once wrote a kingdom's statutes can be demoted to bad English, and the language that gave a nation its name can be relabelled as belonging to a different country, then nothing about a language's antiquity, corpus, standardisation or prestige protects it. What determines whether a way of speaking is a language, an error, or a foreign import is not the speaking but whether the people who speak it still hold a state.
That’s the strongest possible support for Brathwaite's refusal of the word. It comes from a European nation, against a European coloniser, in a case where the coloniser has spent three centuries insisting no colonial relationship exists.
The Macaulay Circuit
This series argues that Scotland was the ground on which techniques of English colonial rule were assembled and rehearsed before being exported. In language and education, the argument can be made in the most concrete form available to a historian, by following what happened to one family.
On 2 February 1835, Thomas Babington Macaulay laid before the Governor-General's Council in Calcutta his Minute on Indian Education, the founding document of colonial epistemic subjugation across the empire; arguably the most consequential text in the history of colonial education. He judged a single shelf of a good European library to outweigh the whole native literature of India and Arabia; professed, having consulted nobody competent in the relevant languages, never to have met an Orientalist who could deny it; and specified the objective for which the document is remembered, the formation of a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect, to serve as interpreters between the colonial government and the millions it governed. Indian education under English was to manufacture not scholars but intermediaries. Colonialism is always a collaborative venture between the coloniser and selected factions of the elite.
Now consider what had been done to the man holding the pen.
Macaulay's grandfather was John Macaulay, a minister of the Church of Scotland in the Western Isles and the Highlands, of the Macaulays of Lewis, himself the son of Aulay Macaulay, minister of Harris. A Gaelic-speaking Hebridean family of the manse; precisely the stratum the Statutes of Iona and the acts of 1616 had been designed to extract, school in the Lowlands, and return anglicised. John Macaulay hosted Samuel Johnson on his Hebridean tour. His son Zachary, Macaulay's father, was born at Inveraray in 1768 and carried in Gaelic the name Sgàire MacAmhlaoibh. Zachary's son, born in Leicestershire, formed at Trinity College, Cambridge, and despatched to Calcutta on the Supreme Council of India, wrote the Minute.
Two generations. From a manse in the Hebrides where Gaelic was the language of the household and the pulpit, to a man who informed a subcontinent that its literatures were worthless and prescribed the industrial production of natives English in taste, opinions, morals and intellect.
The direction of agency must be stated plainly. This is a story about what a colonial machinery does to the elite of a colonised people and about what the colonial empire that built that machinery then does with the product. The Macaulays did not set the terms on which their advancement was available. Those terms had been fixed by statute a century and a half before Zachary was born; schooling in the Lowlands, inheritance conditional on English, the native tongue named in law as the cause of barbarity. The family was processed by a colonial apparatus designed to process exactly such families. The finished product was then taken up by the colonial state and deployed, at the height of his powers and on the far side of the world, to write the doctrine that would do to Bengal what had been done to Harris.
The instrument that emptied a Hebridean manse of its language was returned to service in Calcutta, in the hands of a man the instrument had made.
This is where the objection raised in the first post of this trilogy, that Scots ran the empire and therefore cannot have been colonised, receives its most precise answer. Macaulay is not evidence that Scotland was a colonising nation. He’s evidence of what three generations of colonial cultural policy do to a colonised nation's elite and of the use the imperial, colonial centre makes of what it has manufactured.
Recognition Arrives Only When It Is Safe
Ngũgĩ's most useful insight for present-day Scotland concerns what the language war is for.
The objective is not prohibition. Prohibition is the opening phase, adopted while a language is still strong enough to require force. The objective is replacement, the condition in which the native tongue no longer needs banning since the schools have emptied it and the labour market has priced it out. The people themselves have been taught to regard it as an impediment to their children's prospects. At that point the coloniser can afford generosity. Generosity even becomes useful. A ceremonially protected language is a standing monument to the magnanimity of the state that destroyed it.
Here the Indigenous political theorists supply the sharpest instrument. Glen Coulthard and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, writing from Indigenous nations within Canada, have developed a critique of the politics of recognition. The argument that a colonial state, once direct coercion becomes untenable, shifts to recognising the colonised people's culture (granting language rights, cultural funding, ceremonial acknowledgment) and that this recognition, offered on the state's terms and within the state's structures, reproduces the very relationship it appears to soften. Recognition becomes the mechanism by which the colonised are invited to accept the coloniser's framework as the field on which their identity will be validated. Against it they set resurgence, which is the rebuilding of a people's own institutions and languages without waiting for permission.
Now read Scotland's statutory record.
The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 arrived roughly four centuries after the Privy Council directed that Gaelic be abolished and removed, some seventy years after the maide-crochaidh was last reported hanging round a child's neck in Lewis. The Scottish Languages Act 2025 extended statutory recognition to Scots for the first time, three centuries into a subordination the census now records in flat arithmetic. Its substantive protections are deferred to regulations and standards not yet written. The multilingual ambition announced in 2021 had narrowed, by passage, to two languages. The proposed commissioner was dropped and it was passed by a devolved administration which does not itself hold sovereign authority, within a state that has never acknowledged the relationship as colonial at all.
Set that beside the comparators. Guam made Chamorro official alongside English in 1974, after a ban running from 1917 to the mid-1970s. Haiti made Kreyòl co-official in 1987. Aotearoa New Zealand passed the Māori Language Act in 1987 and the kōhanga reo language-nest movement had already begun in 1982, built by Māori communities themselves rather than granted. Kanak languages entered Kanaky-New Caledonia's education system only after the Nouméa Accord of 1998, with the Kanak Language Academy founded in 2007. In each case recognition followed either sustained pressure the administering power could no longer resist, or a constitutional process aimed at self-determination.
Scotland's arrived later, thinner, and in the absence of any such process.
None of which refutes the linguistic-imperialism thesis. It’s among its more elegant confirmations. Recognition arrives at the moment recognition has become safe, which is not an accident of parliamentary scheduling but the characteristic shape of the end of a successful language war, and, in Coulthard's terms, the point at which a colonised people is offered a certificate in place of a sovereignty.
The alternative is resurgence, which needs no permission; Gaelic-medium and Scots-medium education as a national priority rather than a concession; both languages carried into law, broadcasting and public administration as working instruments; the toponymy restored on the maps; and the whole treated not as heritage protection but as the recovery of a nation's own means of thought.
What the Record Shows
Seventeen territories remain on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The United States administers three, France two, New Zealand one, and Western Sahara has no recognised administering power at all. Ten are administered by the state that administers Scotland (Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, and Turks and Caicos). Eighty years after the list was compiled, it remains the largest colonial administrator on earth. That is the state whose account of what does and does not constitute a colony Scotland is asked to accept.
Its colonial record on languages is clear. The stick in the schoolroom in Lewis, the Welsh Not round a child's neck in Wales, the tally stick notched for every word of Irish, the button Ngũgĩ was made to wear in Kenya. One state, four peoples, one instrument. What Guam, Kanaky and Mā'ohi Nui add is that other empires reached the same design independently; the United States Navy burning the Chamorro dictionaries, France permitting nothing but French in the schools of Kanaky (New Caledonia) within a decade of 1853, the Polynesian languages forbidden even in the playground. Nobody disputes that these are colonial facts. They are cited, in the decolonisation literature and before the UN Special Committee on Decolonization, as ordinary markers of the condition.
Scotland has the identical record and is not on the list. Not yet. Placing it there is the object of the work now being done at the United Nations; the single procedural act that would move Scotland's case from a body of evidence into a standing item on the decolonisation agenda, with the reporting obligations, the Committee's attention, and the international scrutiny that follow inscription.
It has one national language named in statute as a cause of barbarity and ordered abolished; a language that had been renamed as another country's a century before that statute was drafted, so that the abolition of a Scottish tongue could be recorded as the removal of a foreign one; now the majority language in no local authority area of the country for the first time in recorded history. It has a second national language, spoken by a million and a half people, which was never banned because it did not need to be; reclassified as bad English, excluded from education, and left to its speakers to suppress in themselves. It has the punishment instrument, the same one used in Wales, in Ireland, in Kenya and on Guam, in use within living memory. And it has the contempt, still in print. In 2004 The Spectator, then edited by a future Prime Minister, published a poem describing the Scots as a verminous race, calling for the suppression of their dress and their institutions; proposing that the nation deserved not isolation but comprehensive extermination. The director of the Commission for Racial Equality in Scotland condemned the language as deeply inflammatory and completely unacceptable. A national magazine, in this century, printing a call for the extermination of a people. The record shows what followed, which was nothing.
It has a national toponymy transcribed by a colonial survey and a nation renamed as a compass bearing on its own institutional letterheads, by its own learned class, at the height of its intellectual production.
Under Resolution 1541 (XV), it has a test in which distinctness from the administering power is the operative criterion; a test whose evidentiary basis centuries of language policy have been steadily consuming.
Principle V of that resolution continues:
Once it has been established that such a prima facie case of geographical and ethnical or cultural distinctness of a territory exists, other elements may then be brought into consideration. These additional elements may be, inter alia, of an administrative, political, juridical, economic or historical nature. If they affect the relationship between the metropolitan State and the territory concerned in a manner which arbitrarily places the latter in a position or status of subordination, they support the presumption that there is an obligation to transmit information under Article 73 e of the Charter.
Read that list again with Liberation Scotland's compendium open beside it. Administrative, political, juridical, economic, historical; those five categories are, almost item for item, the eight colonial markers. Marker 1 is the military and juridical record; Marker 4 is the administrative and political architecture of reserved powers; Marker 5 is the economic extraction; Markers 2, 3 and 6 supply the historical and cultural evidence of a people held arbitrarily in a position of subordination. The compendium was not assembled to fit Principle V. It was assembled from the Scottish record. That the two turn out to be the same list is the point.
Here the state administering Scotland has a problem it cannot legislate its way out of. The account it has been drawing on for four hundred years is not held only in statutes and census returns. Some of it walks about.
Last June, some forty thousand Scots crossed the Atlantic. Scotland had qualified for a World Cup for the first time since 1998, by beating Denmark at Hampden with two goals in stoppage time. The Tartan Army arrived in Boston in national dress. They played the pipes outside their rented houses at half past six in the morning. They filled Fenway Park and sang Flower of Scotland to a bemused American baseball crowd. When they beat Haiti at Foxborough they did it in front of a majority-Scottish support inside a stadium of sixty-four thousand. The world's press covered them for a fortnight, not as visitors from a region of a larger country, but as a nation, instantly and unmistakably legible as itself, which is precisely what the world's press did not do for Yorkshire.
Now hold that beside the terms of Principle IV, which asks whether a territory is distinct ethnically and culturally from the state administering it.
Consider what those forty thousand people were actually carrying. A national dress that was banned by statute in 1746 and punishable by transportation. An instrument the same legislation set out to silence. A national football association among the oldest on earth, fielding a national team under a national flag; a nation competing as a nation, having no state. An anthem which is not a hymn to a monarch or a flag but a commemoration of a specific battle, fought in 1314, against an English army, which the Scots won. Forty thousand people, in a foreign country, on live television, singing about beating the coloniser.
This is the difficulty the English colonial state has never resolved and cannot now resolve. It almost killed one of Scotland's languages and reduced the other to an embarrassment. It renamed the country on its own maps and letterheads. It wrote Scotland out of the world's diplomatic vocabulary so completely that billions are told Scotland is England. None of it fully worked on the nation itself. Scotland remains one of the most immediately recognisable peoples on the planet, with a culture, a memory and a body of symbols so distinct that they survive translation into any language on earth and require no explanation in any of them.
Which is why the language question is urgent rather than antiquarian. The evidence of distinctness has never been the difficulty. The state has been consuming it for centuries and has still not consumed enough. What has been missing is not the fact of a nation but the file that is now being built.
The other limb of Principle IV requires a territory to be geographically separate. It’s worth being clear about what happened to those two words, because nothing in them says sea.
They were read that way because the states drafting the decolonisation instruments in 1960 were the states that would be answering to them. Britain, France, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain all held territories overseas. Every one of them also held, or had held, territories a good deal closer to home. A criterion confined to salt water, historically framed as the 'Blue Water Thesis' (or Belgian Thesis), disposed of the second category at a stroke. It was engineered by European colonial powers during the drafting battles around Resolution 1514 specifically to insulate contiguous European conquests from international scrutiny. It has never been adopted as law. It was a piece of European colonial statecraft drafted by the accused to fix the boundary of scrutiny at the water's edge, so that European empires would be examined abroad and nowhere else.
Namibia buried it. Administered by land-contiguous South Africa, recognised throughout the international system as a colonial territory, liberated through the very machinery Scotland's movement now engages. The precedent leaves the doctrine nowhere to stand. The scholarship has followed. Basheer AlZoughbi, writing for the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Doha, puts it flatly:
However, the definition of "geographically separate" cannot be restricted to colonies located in overseas territories, as colonization can and does occur when a State colonizes a contiguous territory. In addition, the definition of a colony has traditionally included not only Non-Self-Governing Territories but other territories in colonial situations.
That last sentence must be carried forward. The final section returns to it with the two cases that settle it. Principle V, meanwhile, exists so that administrative, juridical, economic and historical factors can be weighed the moment distinctness is on the table. State borders and territorial contiguity do not erase a colonial relationship. The extraction remains the same.
Nor is Scotland some awkward marginal instance of all this. It’s the case the salt-water reading exists to avoid. A nation annexed by an instrument procured through coercion and bribery, then folded into the annexing state's own description of its metropolitan territory. Every element that makes a colonial relationship recognisable is present in the record, which is why it has had to be kept out of the room.
Which raises the only serious objection left. Two cases dispose of it.
Algeria was never a Non-Self-Governing Territory. France had constituted it as three départements of the Republic; constitutionally metropolitan France, legally not a colony at all, which is precisely the claim England makes about Scotland. Algeria never appeared on the list. On 19 December 1960, five days after the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1573 (XV) recognising the Algerian people's right of self-determination, a resolution understood at the time as giving concrete application to the principle of the complete abolition of colonialism laid down in Resolution 1514 five days earlier. Fanon's Algeria, the paradigm case of the entire anticolonial canon, the colony from which the theory of colonialism was substantially written, was never on the list Scotland is told it is absent from.
Oman was never a Non-Self-Governing Territory either and the coloniser was the same one as Scotland’s. By Resolution 2073 (XX) of 17 December 1965 the General Assembly considered that the colonial presence of the English colonial state, in its various forms, prevented the people of the territory from exercising their rights to self-determination and independence, and called upon the “United Kingdom” to withdraw its troops and eliminate its domination in any form. The record of the Fourth Committee notes what London had been saying throughout, that the Sultanate was an independent State and that the “United Kingdom” had no influence in its internal affairs. The Assembly did not accept it.
The list, then, has never been the definition. It’s an administrative register populated by nomination. Administering powers do not nominate themselves, which is precisely why Scotland's absence from it records the behaviour of the state administering Scotland rather than anything about Scotland. What determines colonial status is the relationship. The General Assembly has repeatedly exercised the competence to decide that question directly, against this coloniser, and in the face of this coloniser's insistence that no colonial relationship existed.
None of which makes inscription unimportant. It makes it achievable. Algeria and Oman establish that the Assembly is not confined to a register compiled by administering powers and can reach a territory those powers have declined to name. Resolutions 41/41 and 67/265, which returned Kanaky (New Caledonia) to the list in 1986 and Māʻohi Nui (French Polynesia) in 2013, establish that a territory can be inscribed decades after the question was supposedly settled. The recital to the Māʻohi Nui (French Polynesia) resolution goes further still, recalling that the territory had been considered non-self-governing in Resolution 66(I) of 1946 before its administering power quietly stopped reporting. Sixty-seven years off the list did not extinguish the status.
What those precedents do not do is act on their own. Every one of them followed a case that somebody built, lodged and pressed.
That is the deepest reason a decolonial reading must take language as seriously as the constitutional and the fiscal questions; and the most practical one. If distinctness from the administering power is the operative criterion, then the evidence of Scotland's two languages, of what was done to them and by whom, is not cultural background to the claim for inscription. It’s fully part of the claim's substance and belongs in the file.
The languages are not the sentimental annex to Scotland's case. They are among its load-bearing walls. Given the English colonial state’s pressure and domination, they have been under demolition since before the annexation that made the demolition a wholly colonial act.
What is claimed here, in the end, is not the creation of something new. Scotland was a sovereign kingdom with its own crown, its own parliament, its own law, its own church and its own languages of state for the better part of a thousand years before any of this began. The claim is resumption; the recovery of a sovereignty suspended by an instrument void from the beginning; and with it the recovery of the means of thought that sovereignty carried.
A stick was hung round a child's neck in a Lewis schoolroom. The child was set to hunt another child and at the end of the day the last to hold it was beaten. In the same decades, in Wales and in Ireland and in Kenya and on Guam, other children were carrying other tokens for the same reason. Across the Lowlands, no token was needed at all, because a million people had already been taught to hear their own grandparents as speaking badly.
Any account of Scotland that cannot accommodate both of those facts is not an account of Scotland. It is the coloniser's brochure.
The refusal is not the end of it. The evidence is assembled. The instrument that connects it to international law is Resolution 1541 and the file is being lodged. What was done to Gaelic and Scots are not laments to be entered in a book of Scottish sorrows. They are two counts in a case now before the world.
Read Liberation Scotland's Colonial Markers documentation.
References
AlZoughbi, B. (2013). Settlements or Colonies: Misleading Statistics in the Occupied Territory of the de jure State of Palestine. Case Analysis. Doha: Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, January 2013.
Baird, A. (2020). Doun-Hauden: The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence. Kindle Direct Publishing.
Barbour, J. (1375). The Brus.
Beveridge, C. and Turnbull, R. (1989). The Eclipse of Scottish Culture. Edinburgh: Polygon.
Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire: L'économie des échanges linguistiques. Paris: Fayard. English edition: Language and Symbolic Power, ed. J.B. Thompson, trans. G. Raymond and M. Adamson. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991.
Brathwaite, E.K. (1984). History of the Voice: The Development of Nation Language in Anglophone Caribbean Poetry. London and Port of Spain: New Beacon Books.
Cathcart, A. (2010). "The Statutes of Iona: The Archipelagic Context." Journal of British Studies, 49(1), pp. 4–27.
Constitution of the Republic of Haiti (1987), Article 5.
Coulthard, G.S. (2014). Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Dobson, W.T. (1887). History of the Bassandyne Bible, the First Printed in Scotland. Edinburgh.
Douglas, G. (1513). Eneados.
Durkacz, V.E. (1983). The Decline of the Celtic Languages. Edinburgh: John Donald.
Education (Scotland) Act 1872, 35 & 36 Vict. c. 62.
Fabian, J. (1983). Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York: Columbia University Press.
Fanon, F. (1952). Peau noire, masques blancs. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. English edition: Black Skin, White Masks, trans. C.L. Markmann. New York: Grove Press, 1967.
Forsyth, K. (1997). Language in Pictland: The Case Against 'Non-Indo-European Pictish'. Studia Hameliana 2. Utrecht: De Keltische Draak.
Friel, B. (1981). Translations. London: Faber and Faber.
Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, asp 7.
Glissant, É. (1981). Le Discours antillais. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. English edition: Caribbean Discourse: Selected Essays, trans. J.M. Dash. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1989.
Glissant, É. (1990). Poétique de la Relation. Paris: Gallimard. English edition: Poetics of Relation, trans. B. Wing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.
Hau'ofa, E. (1993). "Our Sea of Islands." In E. Waddell, V. Naidu and E. Hau'ofa (eds), A New Oceania: Rediscovering Our Sea of Islands. Suva: University of the South Pacific.
Kay, B. (1986). Scots: The Mither Tongue. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing.
Liberation Scotland Committee (2025). The Markers of a Colonized Nation: Scotland's Colonial Markers. Liberation Scotland.
Macaulay, T.B. (1835). Minute on Indian Education, 2 February 1835.
MacDiarmid, H. (1926). A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle. Edinburgh: William Blackwood.
McGrath, J. (1974). The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil. London: Methuen. Revised edition 1981, with the introduction "The Year of the Cheviot."
McGrath, J. (1981). A Good Night Out: Popular Theatre: Audience, Class and Form. London: Eyre Methuen.
Meighan-Chiblow, P. (2023). "Languages Do Not 'Die', They Are Persecuted: A Scottish Gael's Perspective on Language 'Loss'." Bella Caledonia, 19 July 2023.
Michie, J. (2004). "Friendly Fire." The Spectator.
Murison, D. (1974). Introduction to the Scottish National Dictionary, vol. 8. Edinburgh: Scottish National Dictionary Association.
Murison, D. (1977). The Guid Scots Tongue. Edinburgh: Mercat Press.
National Records of Scotland (2024). Scotland's Census 2022 — Ethnic group, national identity, language and religion. Published 21 May 2024.
Naval Government of Guam. Executive General Order No. 243 (1917); language and dictionary orders of Governor A. Althouse (1922).
Newton, M. Collected Gaelic testimonies on education and cultural repression, discussed in "Education and the Colonisation of the Gàidhlig Mind," Bella Caledonia, 2019.
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o (1981). Detained: A Writer's Prison Diary. London: Heinemann.
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o (1986). Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. London: James Currey.
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o (2009). Something Torn and New: An African Renaissance. New York: BasicCivitas.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Privy Council of Scotland (1616). Act of 10 December 1616, in Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, first series, ed. J.H. Burton and D. Masson. Edinburgh: HM General Register House.
Rivera Cusicanqui, S. (2010). Ch'ixinakax utxiwa: Una reflexión sobre prácticas y discursos descolonizadores. Buenos Aires: Tinta Limón.
Said, E.W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
Said, E.W. (1984). "Permission to Narrate." London Review of Books, 6(3), 16 February 1984.
Said, E.W. (1993). Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf; London: Vintage, 1994.
Santos, B. de S. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Scottish Languages Act 2025, asp 10.
Schoene-Harwood, B. (1998). "Emerging as the Others of Our Selves." Scottish Literary Journal.
Simpson, L.B. (2017). As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom Through Radical Resistance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education — or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.
Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge (founded 1709).
Statutes of Iona (1609). In Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, first series.
Sureda, A.R. (1973). The Evolution of the Right of Self-Determination: A Case Study of U.N. Practice. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff.
Taylor, S. and Márkus, G. (2006–2012). The Place-Names of Fife. 5 vols. Donington: Shaun Tyas.
The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil (1974). Television version directed by J. Mackenzie. BBC, Play for Today, broadcast 6 June 1974.
UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) (1960). Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 14 December 1960.
UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) (1960). Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the Charter, 15 December 1960.
UN General Assembly Resolution 1573 (XV) (1960), 19 December 1960.
UN General Assembly Resolution 2073 (XX) (1965), 17 December 1965.
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), Articles 13 and 14.
Watson, W.J. (1926). The History of the Celtic Place-Names of Scotland. Edinburgh: William Blackwood.
Withers, C.W.J. (1984). Gaelic in Scotland 1698–1981: The Geographical History of a Language. Edinburgh: John Donald.
Woolf, A. (2007). From Pictland to Alba, 789–1070. New Edinburgh History of Scotland, vol. 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Member discussion