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?
Keen as I am for the Jocks to stand on their own socialist feet without relying on the English tax-payer, I wouldn't hold your breath for independence.
There are 129 members of the Scottish parliament and only 25 of those are members of the SNP. The scots are pretty reluctant to vote SNP because they know it's going to hit them very hard in the pocket, which is the most sensitive part of a scotsman!
I suspect they will continue with their age-old routine of biting the hand that feeds them - they don't like the English but they are more than happy to receive $2000 per year from each and every English tax-payer to keep them in their socialist public over-spending heaven. . . . . :-)
You put it better than I.
The Scottish have fought alongside the English against Hitler and Napoleon.
However in today's tax-crushed England there will be a lot of dry eyes if they choose to "braveheart" their way out of the Union.
'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.'
Sounds like a good plan to me! :D
Add to that the fact that New Labour will lose a huge part of it's power base and majority at Westminster and you have a winner! Can we organise it for tomorrow? :D
Ahhhhhhhhh . . .
Welllllllll, in terms of all the Western, formerly Christian Nations . . .
NOT IF
--the Jihadi's have their way.
--the globalists have their way.
--satan has his way
--the hedonists have their way
--the socialists have their way
--the secular regressives have their way
. . .
To continue...when Queen Anne died, Parliament passed over James Stewart and offerred the throne to George, Elector of Hanover. George's mother was a granddaughter of James I. George couln't speak English, but London society preferred a sophisticated German continental over a kilt-wearing Scotsman (the English thought of and treated Highlanders much in the same way they thought of and treated Mohawks). This sparked outrage in the north as Scotland had always been ruled by a Scotsman (even Edward Plantaganet's puppet, John Baliol, was Scottish). James Stewart, aka "The Old Pretender", raised an army, marched on London, and almost won. His son, Charles Stewart (Bonnie Prince Charley or the Young Pretender) tried a second time and did not succeed. The ousting of the Stewarts began the Scottish migration to America where they became heavily involved in another, more famous rebellion against the English: the American Revolution.
'The Scottish have fought alongside the English against Hitler and Napoleon.'
They also fought alongside the French in what they call 'the auld alliance' in various attempts to destroy England. I've never met a frenchman who's ever heard of it mind, surprise, surprise!
The scots loved Britain when the empire filled their pockets, now we're a bit too right-wing for them and they want to plough their own left-wing furrow. Suits me.
"It finally time for all of us Scot to rise up and throw off the yoke of British oppresion and restore Bonnie Prince Charlie"
He's make an excellent monarch today, as much as he would have been as disaster as a monarch back in the day. After all, he's dead now, so he cannot do any harm as king.
'The ousting of the Stewarts began the Scottish migration to America where they became heavily involved in another, more famous rebellion against the English: the American Revolution.'
They were a large part of both sides of the conflict actually. Scots and Irish soldiers made up nearly a third of the total British Army in your uprising and have made up a significant proportion of the Army for centuries and still do today.
Why would the Scots want anything to do with royalty, especially the English Royal Family?
To continue...when Queen Anne died, Parliament passed over James Stewart and offerred the throne to George, Elector of Hanover. George's mother was a granddaughter of James I. George couln't speak English, but London society preferred a sophisticated German continental over a kilt-wearing Scotsman (the English thought of and treated Highlanders much in the same way they thought of and treated Mohawks). This sparked outrage in the north as Scotland had always been ruled by a Scotsman (even Edward Plantaganet's puppet, John Baliol, was Scottish). James Stewart, aka "The Old Pretender", raised an army, marched on London, and almost won. His son, Charles Stewart (Bonnie Prince Charley or the Young Pretender) tried a second time and did not succeed. The ousting of the Stewarts began the Scottish migration to America where they became heavily involved in another, more famous rebellion against the English: the American Revolution.
To explain: Parliment passed over James Stewart on the grounds patly that he was a catholic, but mostly because the stewart dynasty had been an unmitigated disaster that had plunged the country into a series of vicious civil wars. Worst of all, Charles II, in all other respects a pretty decent monarch, had sold us out to the FRENCH. You can do a lot of things and be forgiven, but that IS beyond what anyone in England can tolerate.
The myth of "Bonnie Prince Charlie" is well overblown. It wasnt London society that preferred George, it was all of British society, Scots most of all. The Kilt wearing Scotsman was born in Italy and had a Polish accent. The English didnt like the highlanders true, but lowland Scots positively hated them. The 45 rebellion failed primarily for one reason and one reason only: lack of popular support. People did not want the stewarts back. A majority of Scotsmen didnt want them back.
Scots had been migrating to America for years before the clearances. They were heavily involved in a more famous rebellion, but not against the English. It was the British. There were plenty of Scottish regiments in the British army and plenty of Scotsmen who fought for the crown.
British royal family.
Altho of English ancestry, I will mourn the loss of England, I hope the Scots and Irish have sense enough to break away from England, before they become over-run by moslims like Londistan.
'Altho of English ancestry, I will mourn the loss of England, I hope the Scots and Irish have sense enough to break away from England, before they become over-run by moslims like Londistan.'
I think you'll find the 55,260,000 people of white anglo-saxon celtic christian ethnicity out of the 60m population of the UK are quite able to look after themselves against the 1.7m muslims. Sadly the US situation is not so clear cut with around 72% ethnicity described as above versus 15m+ illegals and 7m muslims.
It may be true that the later efforts to regain the throne, after 1688, were supported mostly by Highlanders.
I hadn't thought of it that way. It is the British Isles, afterall. That would include all of Ireland, too?
yitbos
A company of nations. I can't see how this could matter. It's not as if Scotland was never a nation.
The point of the commentary was that the movement is well underway while the English sleep or could care less. Devolution was the first victory. Seems the nose is under the tent as the independence movement grows to the satisfaction of most.
yitbos
You are correct, the House of Stuart was not a shining example of peace and tranquility. Then again neither was the House of Tudor nor the last 100 years of the Plantaganets. Combining the religious conflicts between Catholics, Anglicans and Puritans with the growing power of Parliament at the expense of the Crown, it is hard to imagine that any dynasty would have faired much better.
It is also true that there were a great many Anglophiles in Scotland- especially south of the Firth of Forth. Many of the Scottish nationalist rebellions could also be characterized as civil wars between the Anglophiles and Anglophobes- much like the Carolinas during the American Revolution.
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.