Will the Union see its 300th birthday?

The Telegraph ^ | 10/25/06 | Alan Cochrane

[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?

[Vanders9]

Well, I agree in principle with the statements made on this board that there is little point in refighting the battles of the past, especially as the reasons for fighting said conflicts may very largely have disappeared, or at least radically changed. Nonetheless, the past MATTERS. All modern nations are, after all, the sum of past events, both good and bad.

As to the original question, my own personal thought is that the Union is indeed tottering. I am sure it will see its 300th birthday but I also think it very likely it will collapse in my lifetime. On the one hand, I can accept that with some "sang froid". 300 years is a long time for a country to exist. There are not that many nations, especially modern nations, that last that long, even those we think of as being "old". The French (who in all senses are a pretty revolting lot) are on their, what, fourth republic since 1795? Norway is only a century old, Italy only a little more.

On the other hand, I live on the borders. I'm very conscious of the past history of England and Scotland. The border wars were not pleasant, in any way. The ultimate lesson of the low-level conflict that we had to live in prior to the Union was that this island is too small for two government, or at least it was in the 16th century. We can only hope things can be different now.

Personally if Scotland does gain independence I'd want to come with them. My impression (and I may be very wrong here - the Scots of a nationalistic persuasion on the board may correct me) is that Scots Nationalists are not so much against England as against London, an attitude most in Northern England would share.

[bobjam]

I don't see England and Scotland ever truly being separated. The fact of the matter is that what happens in the south invariably affects the north, and vice-versa. Perhaps the Union could evolve towards a system where England, Scotland and Wales each have their own parliaments, but work together in regards to defense and foreign affairs. Queen Elizabeth II or perhaps King Charles III could be titular head of state of all three (wouldn't it be ironic if England and Scotland split under a king named Charles?) If the two do actually split, there would almost immediately be a movement to bring them back together.

[bruinbirdman]

"Queen Elizabeth II or perhaps King Charles III could be titular head of state of all three "

Three? From Wikipedia:

The Commonwealth comprises 53 countries, almost a third of the world's countries, and has a combined population of 1.7 billion people, about a quarter of the world population.[4] The total GDP is about US$7.8 trillion (about 16% of the total world economy). The land area of the Commonwealth nations is about 12.1 million square miles (about 21% of the total world land area).

The four largest Commonwealth nations by population are India at 1.1 billion, Pakistan at 159 million, Bangladesh at 141 million, and Nigeria at 137 million.

The three largest Commonwealth nations by area are Canada at 3.8 million square miles, Australia at 3.0 million square miles, and India at 1.2 million square miles.

The four largest economies are India at US$4,300 billion, the United Kingdom at US$2,000 billion, Canada at US$1,220 billion, and Australia at US$700 billion based on purchasing power parity analysis; see List of countries by GDP estimates for 2007 (PPP)

The largest military spenders are the United Kingdom at US$48 billion, India at US$21 billion,Australia at US$10.5 billion, and Canada at US$10.5 billion. The Commonwealth of Nations is not a military alliance. see : List of countries by military expenditures

Tuvalu is the smallest member, with only 11,000 people.

Membership is open to countries that accept the association's basic aims and have a present or past constitutional link to a Commonwealth member.

[bobjam]

I was thinking of a union that is a little more binding than the Commonwealth but not as binding as the what currently exists... perhaps a common currency and unified military.