The Labour Party has a big vested interest in maintaining the United Kingdom as Scotland is more or less a bastion of collectivist voters these days. As a result, they get rather twitchy when the topic of Scottish independence from Britain comes up (though I have always seen it more as English independence from Scotland).
Of course this is also yet another area of common interest with the Tories, who have always been wedded to the idea of the Union in spite of the fact they seem to be widely detested north of the border, regardless of their steady progression under Cameron into becoming just another European style regulatory statist ‘Christian Democrat’ party.
Yet it seems that the aspirations of Scottish nationalists are indeed coming closer to being fruition as they are getting de facto allies due to the rise of long dormant English nationalism. Breaking up the UK into its constituent parts sounds to me like a win-win for all concerned: British people who have a deep desire for totally pervasive regulatory statism will have an English-speaking place to move to where they can vote SNP and get the government they deserve, I mean, want… Scotland’s best and brightest entrepreneurial folks will decamp to England and probably start pushing for more a less regulatory environment… everyone is happy.
The end of the UK is not as unthinkable as it was just a few years ago. In fact I am not sure it will even that big a deal if and when it ever happens.
Tory; the other Labor Party.
As a Welshman who has lived in England most of his life, I always thought that devolution was a great mistake.
I still do. I have many reasons and indeed confirmations for this position.
But as it’s late will save them for later.
Suffice it to say that the shallow thinking behind the move was to create an enormous and unmoveable Labour block that would rule for evermore!
Well lookie here! Give people choice and they choose.
quite a few of the Scots and Welsh will vote for Nationalist parties for all the reasons the Labour Party didn’t want them to!
Meanwhile the Union goes down the tubes!
And The EU can pick us off, one by one!
I live in Northern Ireland, I don’t want to be forced into a union with the Republic of Ireland and I know for damned sure we can’t go it alone.
What do you think about a federation of kingdoms? With English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies with an overall federal parliament in Westminster?
Maybe England can have several assemblies, it’s certainly big enough. Or maybe we can just give local communities back the powers they used to have, local councils with power and responsibility.
By the way, I use Mac OSX 10.4.8 and the formatting buttons work just fine.
Why not just turn the whole place into an anarcho-syndicalist commune, where people take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week…?
There’s always the option of going with several states, largely autonomous with regards to internal matters, and a federal government whose role is limited to regulating interstate commerce, conducting foreign policy, providing for the common defence, establishing post offices and post roads and a uniform system of weights and measures. I’m sure it’s been tried at some point, somewhere.
English independence should be the objective. To hell with the Act of Union! Scots, English, Northern Irish and Welsh have no more reason to form one country than Canada and the US or Germnay and Austria or Australia and New Zealand. English taxpayers should rise up in protest at the subsidies they pay to the other nations in the Union.
Alone, England would likely have had broadly free-market governments since the early 70s. We certainly wouldn’t be facing the prospect of a Gordon Brown premiership. Alone, England can be a prosperous, crowded, wealthy and diverse trading nation. Think of a super-sized version of Dubai or Singapore.
Anarcho-syndicalism? Sure, and it was not pretty.
It’s Time for Scots, English to File for Divorce: Matthew Lynn
2006-11-28 19:03 (New York)
Commentary by Matthew Lynn
Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) — Next year, England and Scotland will
mark the 300th anniversary of the 1707 treaty that melded the two
nations together.
What better way of celebrating that than by filing for
divorce?
Far-fetched? The latest polls suggest there is growing
support for a separation on both sides of the border.
The English and the Scots appear to be fed up with each
other. And a split would be the best outcome for both countries.
Scotland might take the chance to emulate the miraculous success
of Ireland. England would be able to cut its taxes at a stroke.
It might even get the Conservative government it voted for,
rather than the Labour one the Scots wanted.
There is no doubt that there is now real momentum behind
independence. “Although Scottish independence in the foreseeable
future is still unlikely, the chances that it might happen have
risen from below 1 percent to perhaps 10 to 15 percent,” Douglas
McWilliams, chief executive of the Centre for Economic and
Business Research in London, said in a recent report.
An ICM Ltd. poll in the Sunday Telegraph this month found
that 52 percent of Scots supported full independence for their
country. In September, a YouGov Ltd. poll showed 44 percent of
Scots in favor of independence, compared with 42 percent against.
The level of support had almost doubled since 2000. Meanwhile,
the Scotsman newspaper reported this month that 51 percent of
Scots favored full independence versus 39 percent against.
The English are even keener to get rid of the Scots. The ICM
poll showed 59 percent of English voters supported the break-up
of the union as well.
2007 Elections
“We are becoming Britain’s Quebec,” Stuart Thomson, a
bond-fund manager at Resolution Investment Management in Glasgow,
Scotland, said in a telephone interview. “It is going to be a
constant case of “will they or won’t they?”’
The crunch may come next year. Elections for the devolved
Scottish Assembly are set for May 2007 — and the pro-
independence Scottish National Party may well emerge as the
strongest grouping. If that happens, the momentum for a split
would become unstoppable.
There would be nothing for either side to fear from that. In
fact, both would be better off without each other.
It is a myth that countries need to be big to prosper. The
Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
last year counted only five countries as “high income” — the
U.S., Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland and Ireland. The U.S. is a
big place, but the rest of them are pretty small. That still
hasn’t stopped any of them getting rich.
Irish Model
The list includes another small Celtic nation on the edge of
Europe. Through a modest amount of deregulation and a lot of tax-
cutting, Ireland has turned itself from a relative backwater into
one of the most successful economies in Europe. It has long since
stopped blaming its problems on the English, and set about
creating a dynamic economy of its own.
Could Scotland follow in its tracks? It couldn’t do much
worse than it is now. The Scottish economy is a mess, dependent
on a bloated public sector and showing few signs of life. “If
Scotland had simply matched the success of Ireland since 1997,
our nation would now be 6,000 pounds a head better off,” the
Scottish National Party said in an analysis this month.
There are few more entrepreneurial people in the world than
the Scots. Just take a look at the numbers of companies around
the world with names starting with “Mc” or “Mac.” And if the
birthplace of Adam Smith can’t create a thriving free-market
economy, then who can?
North Sea Oil
True, it wouldn’t happen quickly. “You had 70 years of pain
in Ireland after independence,” Thomson said. “You probably
wouldn’t get that in Scotland, but it might be a long time before
the economy started to flourish.”
And how about the English?
The accounts of the two countries are hard to disentangle.
The U.K. government collects a lot of tax revenue from North Sea
oil, and that presumably would have to go to the government in
Edinburgh. The financial details of the separation would take a
lot of haggling — as they do in any divorce. Still, the chances
are that the English would pay lower taxes as a stand-alone
nation.
Most importantly, the English would get the kind of low-tax,
free-market government they want. At the 2005 election, the
Conservative Party won more votes in England than any other
party. Many of the main figures in the Labour government are
Scottish, including Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. And
they are kept in power by Scottish votes.
Better Off Apart
In reality, the political cultures of the two countries have
drifted so far apart, they are no longer compatible. The Scots
want a Scandinavian-style social democracy with high taxes,
generous welfare and big government. In Scottish politics, there
are virtually no right-of-center voters left. The Conservative
Party won less than 16 percent of the vote in Scotland last year.
The English want a U.S.-style free market with lower taxes,
and a smaller state. The only reason they can’t have it is
because of the Scots. That is hardly healthy.
As the divorce lawyers like to point out, once a
relationship has broken down, you are better off apart. England
and Scotland have reached that point. The 300th anniversary of
the union should be the last.
(Matthew Lynn is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions
expressed are his own.)
The Telegraph comments here and here make for fascinating reading. For example, one Herbert Thornton said: “If Britain is going to be divided again, surely this is a great opportunity. England should then leave the EEC and apply to join the U.S.A. as its 51st State – a more natural, congenial and democratic partnership than the EEC, and & with a better form of constitution than the decrepit Parliamentary remnants centered on London.” That seems most likely than a truly federal Britain, given the population disparities. But what do I know, I’m just another damn Yank…
Why do so many people who sensibly want to break up the UK or leave the EU seem to think you have to be part of some alternative bloc with the US?
It is still big-state-ism. All they seem to be saying is they don’t like one big state, and they’d prefer to be part of another. What’s wrong with the Swiss/Canadian/Japanese/Australian example of an independent country with its own peculiar political culture? We don’t have to be like anyone else if we don’t want to be.
A breakup between England and Scotland seems fairly likely, and even desirable given that the original drive for the union was the military threat from the continent, which no longer exists.
The union is not particularly helpful in the face of the current political threats – if the state was smaller and closer to the people it represents, we would probably already be out of the EU.
I’m agnostic on whether we should see it as kicking Scotland out of the UK, or a total breakup of the Union, with NI and Wales finding their own way: NI and Wales are cheaper, and less politically powerful than Scotland, and therefore less damaging.
Joining the US would be ridiculous. I can see NAFTA at a stretch, along with the EFTA, but the English constitution has much to recommend it, if we can find ways of restraining the power of the House of Commons.
I’m all for English independence, but lets not be nasty about it. Let Scotland and England part as neighbours and friends. When the Scottish have to pay for their political political “innovations” their policies may change. Who knows, we may get another Celtic Tiger economy.
Having lived in a small state – Malta – for a few weeks now, and now married to a local, I wonder about the benefits of Scottish independence for the Scots unless such a move is attended by an open, pro-trade, pro-market culture. Malta has made a very successful go of independence but has been cajoled into believing that it must somehow sign up to the whole EU racket, including adopting the euro. I fear the Scots, if they choose to go alone, may be suckered into becoming yet another province of the EU state. They are welcome.
I think the English who yearn for Scottish independence are ignoring some costs. First off, what about defence of the coastline? Suppose that the Scots chose to take a different line on a foreign policy issue to the English in a way that would, for example, prevent the Royal Navy from having bases near the northern bits of the North Sea? Do the Scots really delude themselves into thinking that the English, a much richer and much more powerful nation, would just let this happen?
This is not a trivial issue. During WW2, when the Republic of Ireland chose to be neutral, it meant that the navy could not use the western Irish waters to attack German submarines, at considerable cost to the defence of Britain. I would hope that if Britain does break up, the Scots and the English would at least sign up some form of defence co-operation deal.
It would be nice to think that if Scotland did become a self-governing nation, it would take its inspiration from the Scottish Enlightenment rather than Red Clydeside. Here’s hoping.
Make mine a large whisky and soda.
If Cameron’s tories are regulatory statists why will giving them a natural majority help a newly truncated England become a low tax, small governmanet state? I dare say ending the union could turn out to be the best of all possible worlds, but there’s nothing inevitable about that. Cross your fingers and roll the dice if you want, but let’s not pretend there’s nothing to lose by throwing Britain in the trash can.
If we scrapped the muddle teir “representatives”, MAs and MSPs, and had the Westminster MPs sit in the chambers, I do wonder how that would change the voting patterns.
Regardless, this should be the first step. For, once you split, you cannae have both, so might as well sort it out now, reduce the capacity for meddling bureaucrats (bandwidth limitations) and save money to boot!
It will start off with 1 week in 4 in Holey-roof House, the rest in Westminster, then switch to full time in the respective chambers.
England should engage with Europe much as Norway or Switzerland does in my view.
If only Samizdatistas could manage the same equanimity of thought towards the condition of Iraq they manage towards the condition of their borthers across the border.
lurker, some of us actually think Iraq may break up into separate parts, and that may be both inevitable and desirable. I personally cannot see Iraq remaining a unitary state indefinitely, and after all, Iraq was created after WW1 as a sort of failed experiment of the British Empire (I think I got that right).
Sorry, no cigar.
When the Scots were asked if they wanted devolution they said (very narrowly) “YES” ditto for the Welsh and Northern Irish, the Government rejoiced and it was so.
The “North” of England was asked the same sort of question but using a different type of devolution called “Regionalisation” and said (overwhelmingly) “NO” the Government said Fuck you, no matter what you say, this is how it’s going to be. Now that might wash with some nations but the Englishman when told he can’t do something will go balls out to prove he can, and will. Hold on to your hats ladies and gentlemen, the ride is about to start.
Oh, I’d like to see Iraq break up aswell. But I’m not so sure I’d be willing to send our boys to some desert death hole to gratify such somehwat fetishistic political desires.
I am all for breaking up large countries as part of a continual evolutionary process of devolving sovereignty downwards to the smallest possible unit. If I was a betting man I would say English independence is probably less that 15 years away. Am I sure? No, not at all, but it is at times of change like that when dramatic political changes happen and my hope is that the end of the UK will be part of a larger realignment that reflects the very beginning of the protracted end of ‘Westphalian’ nations.
Oh and we write quite enough about the topic of Iraq and this article is not about that. Off-topic comments will be deleted.
The Scots voted 70% for devolution on a turn out of 60%.
The Welsh voted yes on a mere 9000 majority (I still swear Ron Davies rigged the Caerphilly vote) and 40% turnout.
This is neither satisfactory or true democracy, but the Genie is out of the bottle now.
The first thing that the Scottish Parliament did was to vote themselves a pay rise even before their bums had properly warmed the seats!
Next thing was they banned fur farms in Scotland (there were no fur farms in Scotland).
Now Scotland is pretty much a marxist Republic and will push for full independence. Ah but when the bills come in they will blame the English even more than they are prone to now.
The whole idea of devolution has been divisive and forced our four nations to be selfish and introspective.
We do not live by bread alone. Social cohesion is important too.
We have spent a thousand years gradually building up the United Kingdom by trial and error to the point where it worked pretty well.
Only to watch a bunch of New Labour clowns, seemingly without an O Level between them,
wreck it inside a decade.
Bugger! that’s O Level in History folks, sorry.
RAB, I think we could see the UK re-appear, but often things need to be taken apart, sluiced out like the Augean Stables§, when overhauled before being reassembled.
If the UK did split the MSPs and MAs would disappear or merge with the MPs, then the UK could reform to cooperate at whatever levels the respective countries felt appropriate.
In all of this I am totally against the EU Borg-like regionalisation drive, so it may mean an independent England can escape its clutches (my guess is the MSPs would happily switch teat mid-suck).
§ p.s. “300” has a new theatrical trailer available on their website…Leonidas’ look after his wife’s nod is priceless…
I think the English who yearn for Scottish independence are ignoring some costs. First off, what about defence of the coastline? Suppose that the Scots chose to take a different line on a foreign policy issue to the English in a way that would, for example, prevent the Royal Navy from having bases near the northern bits of the North Sea?
Well that was the argument against Scots independence from an English point of view in the 1970s: a Soviet nuclear submarine base at Faslane and the loss the southern half of the North Atlantic sonar wall.
Rosyth dockyard closed a decade ago. What’s wrong with Hartlepool?
Maybe the RN can come to some arrangement with the Norwegians and Iceland…
It isn’t a machine TimC
Great Britain is organic.
And once you start dismembering something organic
it dies.
The inevitability is that when the Celtic fringe, including the Irish Republic, realise they cant go it alone, they will be in the arms of Brussels and the Euro in a moment.
This will put pressure on England to join in too.
And as for smaller is better, I for one would not like to see the level of outright corruption that was embodied in Charles Haughy (spelin?) repeated in Wales and Scotland. Though Scotland is well on the way there with the Tommy Lapdancer case!
RAB,
If the politicians could accept a clean out in situ I’d be more than happy – the suggestion works if the UK remains together or not and I have suggested it here before – but I think it will take a split to make them do it.
If the UK steps out of EU politicial union then great, but if the other 3 are forcing England, by dint of their acceptance of the EU teat, to become 9 regions, then England should step out alone and offer a hand to the other 3 to join it.
I am not against the Union one bit, but I am against the sacrifice of England to the pretense of retaining it, ultimately in vain IMHO, under the heel of the EU.
ResidentAlien: Or New York and California? Freedom for Rhode Island!
RAB: I’m fairly certain some attempt was made to rig the Scottish vote (apart from the requirement of a simple majority of votes cast, that is). It was less apparent because it wasn’t as necessary, but it’s a matter of record that in Fife, nearly 1500 more ballot papers were counted than were issued.
I think you’re right about the futility of it all, too. This is bound to lead to greater European unionism, and thus, ironically, less independence. Indeed, this is explicitly the SNP’s platform: to assuage fears of “going it alone”, they embrace the EU enthusiastically. So much for rising and being a nation once again. I feel certain that should it happen, within ten years the people currently calling for it loudest and for the longest will be looking back fondly on the days when we still had our own legal system, guaranteed (although they’ll probably keep quite about the reason) by the Act of Union.
And, for the love of Pete, Scotland isn’t the Celtic fringe! It has one itself, the Highlands, but the east coast is no more Celtic than Ibrox Park.
Culturally, legally and linguistically there are probably more differences between England and Scotland than between New York and California.
I harbour absolutely no animosity towards the Scots, Welsh or Irish. I would be very happy for England to maintain very close links with the other nations of the British Isles. I also think it entirely possible that when the British nations acted in unison in international bodies they would carry more weight than TUKOGBANI does now.
The current constitutional arrangements in TUKOGBANI are a sickening, corrupt and unfair mess. If it requires outright independence for England to bring that about then so be it.
I would also like to challenge the notion about being too small to “go it alone.” Scotland has a population slightly greater than Norway’s. A nation that seems quite capable of going it alone – and is outside the EU. Wales and Northern Ireland have populations comparable with the Baltic states.
WELSHMAN STATED:
“…Meanwhile the Union goes down the tubes!
And The EU can pick us off, one by one!”
Oh lets have the truth mate. Being “picked off” by the EU was never a problem when you were saying “fuck off bastards” to a subservient ENGLISH NATION! Now the English have stirred and are ready for a ruck, I think your bottle’s gone! You didn’t speak up soon enough mate. Good luck to wales though despite the years off snidey pathetic comments. It’s like this mate. You got what you wanted!
resident alien stated:
“Alone, England would…can be a prosperous, crowded, wealthy and diverse trading nation…”
I think we’ve been that before! Like in the days before empire.
I would go even further. Let’s have autonomous counties and cities like they have in Switzerland. More choices means more competition which in turn means better choices.
Guy, well, I put the naval question more as a question rather than to imply that I think Scottish waters are somehow vital to the defence of lands further south, although that cannot be ruled out. But some sort of defence pact would probably have to be sorted out between the English and the Scots. In reality, given the likely resources available to a Scottish govt, I cannot imagine why such co-operation would not go ahead anyway. I guess the Scots would want to keep the docks if they thought they could earn a bit of money out of it, too. Or maybe do a deal with the Danes, the Norwegians, the Irish, etc. Perhaps some sort of North Sea Area Agreement, or suchlike.
This might even be good for the Scottish armed forces by halting the closure of some of the historic Scottish regiments, for example. Any proud Scottish soldier can hardly be pleased at how his martial traditions have been exploited by the English and now left to dwindle.
Hello Hereward the Sais.
Sorry dont get any of your post and I certainly have tried.
Perhaps it’s my age, but I am of the “If it aint broke- dont fix it ” generation.
Our Constitutional affairs from Scotland to Ireland to Wales were not in disarray. Now they are.
Similarly with the house of lords. Logically it was nonsense, but it worked (and cost us taxpayers peanuts).
Now look at it!
Now look at it
Perry,
The anarcho-syndicalism comment was tongue in cheek. I imagine that it might be a little embarassing, though, to have the gag explained by an American.
The comment about federalism, on the other hand, was quite serious.
RAB: Like you, I am also a great believer in “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Unfortunately where the UK is concerned I believe that is almost certainly is broke, maybe even to the point where fixing it is no longer an option.
I fear you’re right Steve P
I think the SNPs policy is for ‘independence in europe’ which i always thought as rather an odd concept.
Also would an independent England lose the UK’s permanet seat on the UN security council do you think?
An independent England should no more lose its Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council than an independent Russia lost its seat when various of its border nations seceded. England has 84% of the population and 90% of the economy of the UK – there is no way that it won’t be considered the “successor nation” to the UK.