GEORGE Osborne was the UK Conservative chancellor of the exchequer from 2010 until sacked by Theresa May in 2016. Among the many well-paid jobs he now has, he is editor of the London Evening Standard. No doubt that made it much easier to get agreement to the publication of an article he wrote for that paper this week in which he revealed the real attitude towards Scotland within the upper echelons of the Conservative party.

Osborne’s subject was the future of the Union, which he viewed solely from the perspective of England. Throughout his piece he gives not a hint that another view is possible. And from that perspective he started with two assumptions. The first was that Northern Ireland will leave the Union before long. His logic was almost certainly right. The fact that Northern Ireland is in economic Union with Ireland and the EU, and not the rest of the UK, means, he argued, that eventually political alignment to Dublin must follow.

But it is the comment that comes next that is telling. Osborne says: “It pains me to report that most here and abroad will not care.”

That dismissal is a staggering comment to hear from a former senior minister. For decades, the lives of thousands of service people were sacrificed by successive UK governments to preserve the Union in Northern Ireland. Now a Unionist politician dismisses Northern Ireland, as if of complete insignificance. The contempt for those who he now thinks were apparently sacrificed without reason, or apology, is staggering. But Osborne had hardly started. When it came to Wales he was totally dismissive: it clearly is a matter of no consequence to him.

That’s two of the four nations of the Union dismissed as hardly worthy of attention. So what of Scotland? Here the approach was completely different. It is clear Osborne thinks the Union with Scotland is what the UK is all about. And what is apparent is his fear of lost status if it were to be gone. But what he shows is that he has no clue what Union means.

In a series of extraordinary claims he suggests: “Its history is our history. Its contribution to the world through its literature and philosophy, exploration and art, is our contribution.”

And he adds “Its departure ... would represent the end of the United Kingdom.”

READ MORE: George Osborne puts forward a 'simple' proposal to stop Scottish independence

Forget Northern Ireland and Wales then, possession of Scotland is key. But to what? Without Scotland, as Osborne put it: “The rest of the world would instantly see that we were no longer a front-rank power, or even in the second row. We would become another historically interesting case study in how successful nations can perform unexpected acts of national suicide.”

And who is “we” in all this? It is England, of course. And so what Osborne means when he says “ours” is that what is Scottish is being claimed for England. What he clearly cannot comprehend is that what he is saying is that he is claiming another country for England as if it is its own. The possibility that what is Scottish is Scotland’s, or more precisely, the Scottish people’s is beyond his comprehension.

That is not surprising. What Osborne reveals is the attitude of the colonialist. He culturally, and even physically, appropriates what is not England’s. The concerns, rights and claims of a people are ignored, entirely. Scotland is just a chattel to be possessed, like a bauble in an imperial crown.

And how to retain this prize? Osborne’s advice on how to respond to the demand for a referendum is: “Simple. Refuse to hold a referendum. It’s the only sure way you won’t lose one.”

His suggestion is to simply ignore the will of the people of Scotland. The message could not be clearer: they are but a thing to be possessed without a right to an opinion of their own. That is not just colonial; that is the attitude of the slaver.

Saying all this, Osborne has let the cat out of the bag. As far as the Tories (and Labour, come to that) are concerned, Scotland is the last remnant of Empire that provides the power that London wants to claim for itself, with utter indifference to what Scotland might wish for.

But, in saying this Osborne does something that he seems not to appreciate. He reveals that Article 30 consent will not be granted, precisely because those in power in England seek to oppress Scotland. And that necessarily brings two things into play.

One is the need for a Plan B in Scotland, when Scotland cannot now negotiate as London will not do so in good faith. The other is the decision made, based on a legal opinion paradoxically supplied by the UK, that suggested that it was legal for Kosovo in 2008 to declare itself independent of Serbia without Serbia’s consent precisely because there was no chance that Serbia would ever recognise Kosovo’s right to do so.

Osborne had revealed that there is no chance of a London based government letting Scotland go. In that case Scotland must use articles like his as the evidence needed when it looks to higher authorities in pursuit of independence if there really is clear evidence that most Scottish voters want to be independent of the rest of the UK, as the May elections might provide in the absence of the referendum that will never be granted.

Bullies often show their weakness when making their threats. That’s what Osborne has done. I hope that one day he might regret what he wrote as Scotland breaks free, as it must do if this oppression is ever to end.

Richard Murphy is a chartered accountant and a political economist taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/richard-murphy/