Posted on 10/25/2006 12:32:39 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
Is the United Kingdom heading for fragmentation with the secession of Scotland from the Union, even as it prepares to celebrate its 300th anniversary next year? And if it is, should those who make up the vast bulk of its population - the English - give a damn?
The questions arise following a series of astonishing events, beginning 10 days ago when nearly 1,200 delegates packed the new Concert Hall in Perth - the biggest gathering at a political conference that Scotland has seen in recent memory - to hear Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party, deliver his keynote address to his annual conference. His strident call for the break-up of the United Kingdom was cheered to the echo by his adoring audience.
Nothing new there, but what was surprising was what happened next. Two days later, Sir Tom Farmer, the founder of the Kwik Fit chain of exhaust and tyre depots, told the world that Scottish independence was "inevitable".
His words followed hard on the heels of the announcement by this self-same self-made man that he was donating £100,000 to the SNP's coffers to help it fight next year's elections to the Edinburgh parliament. He is not alone. Thanks to big donations from emigré Scots, the most famous of all being Sir Sean Connery, the nationalists reckon that they will have at least as much to spend next May as Labour.
On the same day as Sir Tom's prediction came another extraordinary intervention, not from a captain of industry, but a prince of the church - Cardinal Keith O'Brien, spiritual leader of Scotland's 800,000 Roman Catholics. The Ulster-born cardinal said that he would have no problem with an independent Scotland, if that was the will of its people and, significantly at least in the eyes of this observer, he pointed out that other small nations - such as Ireland - had done exceptionally well since gaining their independence.
Although they insist that it is not entering the political arena, the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Scotland enjoys a decidedly rocky relationship with Scottish Labour, lambasting the devolved administration for what it sees as the Scottish Executive's "anti-family" policies, such as those on same-sex "marriages", gay adoption and contraceptive advice to under-age schoolgirls. Neither Sir Tom nor Cardinal O'Brien has endorsed the SNP, but their espousal of independence has confirmed the growing trend towards separatism. The SNP is ahead in the polls and another survey showed a majority of Scots want to break away. The Greens and Scottish Socialist Party - both in the Scottish Parliament - also back independence. The Liberal Democrats want more powers for the Holyrood parliament and many Scottish Tories want a separate tax regime.
What's all of this to the English, you may be forgiven for asking?
There is a fond notion among the more rabid of my countrymen that the English oppose Scots independence. The truth is somewhat different. After we Scots bored rigid the rest of the United Kingdom's population for decades over our constitutional future, the English - possibly and understandably so that they could get on with their lives - said: " If you want it, take it … but please don't make too much noise about it, there's a good chap." And so the Scots, aided and abetted by English votes at Westminster, opted for devolution. However, in spite of this being a crashing failure and having improved the lot of ordinary Scots not one jot, there is a ferocious demand for more, not less, self-government.
Should the English care? Many do, to the extent that yesterday saw the launch of a national debate on the formation of an English parliament. However, if successful, this could be another straw that breaks the back of the Union.
Far better, surely, for people on both sides of the border to worry about the break-up of the most successful alliance between two former enemies that the world has ever seen.
These threats to the United Kingdom's continuation take place amid an eerie silence from the Scottish Unionist community. While Sir Tom Farmer has been writing his cheques, there has come not a word from the rest of Scotland's industrial and commercial scene. Could it be that the likes of the RBS Group - now the world's fifth biggest bank - Scottish and Newcastle, a huge player on the world's brewing scene, and Standard Life, formerly the world's biggest mutual, all based in Scotland, have been persuaded that independence might not be so bad for business after all?
Labour's point man in Scotland, First Minister Jack McConnell, is no match for the SNP leader. At Westminster, Alistair Darling and Douglas Alexander can't compete with Mr Salmond's instincts for the gutter of political discourse. On his day, Gordon Brown could wipe the floor with the SNP leader, but, like other Cabinet Scots, and as my colleagues Simon Heffer and Boris Johnson might aver, he may be too busy trying to run England to notice what's happening in his backyard. And as for Tony Blair, thanks to the Iraq war and every other vicissitude being visited on the Government at present, he is seen as the nationalists' greatest asset.
Home Secretary John Reid can easily match Mr Salmond's penchant for thuggery and no-blow-too-low style of politics, but pitching him in would turn the forthcoming election campaign into the dirtiest fight ever.
In defence of the Union, I certainly wouldn't object to such tactics. But I wonder if the English would wish to be anything other than by-standers in the coming battle. John Major predicted that, by voting for devolution, we Scots were "sleepwalking towards independence", so is it anyone's fault but ours if he proves to be correct?
It would be interesting, wouldn't it?
As an American (and of Scottish ancestry), I am not completely sure how I feel about this!
If this happened would Scotland still be under the British monarchs as a seperate kingdom, as under the Stuarts, or would it become an entirely seperate republic?
Good question. Would it choose to remain in the Commonwealth? Is there still a Commonwealth?
yitbos
Well, there is still a Commonwealth. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (I believe) are still part of it, as a matter of fact.
It finally time for all of us Scot to rise up and throw off the yoke of British oppresion and restore Bonnie Prince Charlie
After the gene pool ravages of the migration to the New World and and two World Wars, I'm wondering where they found the backbone even to consider such things. Mel Gibson complex(?)
I would expect we'd see Scotland become just a separate nation. I doubt they'd bother to reinstate the Scots Monarchy. It would just be a Constitutional or Parliamentary system.
Would it still be a United Kingdom?
Would it still be a "Great" Britain?
yitbos
yitbos
It's increasingly this way around Europe: devolution among the nations, but evolution of the EU. Regionalist Europeans think that they can be more independent of their state by paradoxically becoming more integrated with the EU.
I think they mean to erase any "Great Britain" as well as the United Kingdom!
They want to be JUST Scotland! No longer part of the Commonwealth.
""We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately."
I think the whole of Britain has far greater foes to confront than one another. I can't speak for the internal forces of politics between different entities, but I'm certain that Britain will be stronger in facing the brewing storm together than apart.
Ok, its fairly obvious a bit more information is needed here.
England and Scotland became the United Kingdom when Elizabeth 1st (the virgin queen) died childless, and James VI of Scotland, by the laws of succession, also became James I of England, round about 1603? This was not popular in England, but canny James overcame his assorted shortcomings by some astute political maneouvering and some notable achievements, such as commissioning the King James Bible.
For a century the two countries remained separate entities, just with the same head of state. The act of union united the two parliments in 1707. Curiously enough, it was the Scots who pushed for the Union, the English again were fairly ambivalent.
I dont know what the Scots Nationalists are plotting. Certainly a dissolution of the political union. Whether they also plan to dissolve the monarchy, I dont know. I dont know if legally they can actually DO that. I think the only way they can get rid of the monarch is by force. They are all a bunch of rapid leftists so who can tell?
So, to sum up, we could have the Kingdom of England and the Peoples democratic republic of Scotland, or we could have the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with England and Scotland being separate countries, or we could all come to our senses and keep the present arrangement going and get rid of that stupid tier of beauracracy in Holyrood.
Finally "Great" Britain (thanks for the quotes) is not in any way a measure of us all thinking proudly how "great" we are. It is "Great" as in "Greater", i.e. "big". Big Britain, as opposed to "Little" Britain, i.e. Brittany in France.
I really don't see how a split between Scotland and England would hurt Scottish business at all. In fact, it may open up new opportunities as Scotland could forge the closer relations with the EU that England has long resisted.
As an Englishman, I can't wait for Scotland to gain it's independence. Scotland is a socialist pseudo-utopia that can't pay it's way and relies on $2000 of taxes from every English tax-payer a year to fund its' socialism.
Personally, I'm saving up bricks so we can rebuild Hadrians Wall and keep the socialists where they belong - in the cold! ;-)
'It finally time for all of us Scot to rise up and throw off the yoke of British oppresion and restore Bonnie Prince Charlie'
Surely you mean throw off the yoke of English oppression? The scots are British as well as the English and are unlikely to be oppressing themselves. . . . .
That may be the EU strategy: breakup consolidated nations such as Great Britain, Germany and Italy into their regional principalties (Naples, Bavaria, Wales, Saxony, etc) and then stitch them together under the EU umbrella.
A split between Scotland and England would bring down English income tax by 8p in the pound (that's the astounding net cost of Scotland, including all oil receipts).
If it brings English tax down by that much, it would drive Scottish taxes up by (I guess) 24p in the pound to maintain the current level of public services.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.