The Break Up of the United Kingdom - Another Labour Legacy?

**British and Proud** · 02-08-2009, 05:11 PM

Here's my latest blog post, minus the pictures:

The Break Up of the United Kingdom - Another Labour Legacy?

The Labour government provided the vehicle for Scots Nationalists to accomplish their objective, of full independence, by establishing a devolved government in Holyrood. Consequently there is a very real possibility that Scotland could secede from the Union. Some predicted this a long time ago - indeed Wikipedia maintains that 'When Labour won the 1997 General Election, Powell told his wife that the electorate had voted to break up the United Kingdom' - however I didn't believe it was a genuine possibility until the start of the economic slump.

When people are actually impoverished by the current regime they are tempted by radical solutions. People will generally be less likely to gamble on significant change when they are reasonably affluent and able to watch their soaps on a big TV, enjoy takeaway food, go boozing and shopping and spend a fortnight in Spain each year. Once their quality of life begins to seriously diminish, however, their attitude will change and they will be more likely to seek alternatives to the status quo. The press are already frantic about the possibility the BNP will take advantage of the government's ineptitude south of the border, however in Scotland it is the pseudo-nationalist SNP who will benefit from discontented voters. The proof being the loss of the East Glasgow parliamentary seat to the SNP last year, a seat which Labour had held for the previous 86 years. Here are the results in full:

John Mason, SNP - 11,277
Margaret Curran, Labour - 10,912
Davena Rankin, Conservative - 1,639
Ian Robertson, Lib Dem - 915
Frances Curran, Scottish Socialist Party - 555
Tricia McLeish, Solidarity - 512
Dr Eileen Duke, Scottish Greens - 232
Chris Creighton, Independent - 67
Hamish Howitt, Freedom 4 Choice - 65

Clearly the SNP were the only party to challenge Labour, and this is the case in many constituencies in Scotland. In Holyrood, the 'nationalists' are currently the largest party and together with the Lib Dems and the Greens actually form the government. It is only the fact they currently don't have an overall majority that prevents them from holding a referendum on independence.

Now, assuming that the economic slump worsens over the next couple of years, thus fuelling further resentment towards Nu Labour, the SNP may well form a majority government in Holyrood. This, coupled with a Conservative victory at the next general election, may be enough to convince the Scottish electorate to support independence, especially if the SNP evoke memories of Thatcher, the Poll Tax and remind the Scottish public just how much they despise the Tories.

Nu Labour's legacy may well be the destruction of Britain as a political entity. Devolution has opened a can of worms, the West Lothian Question has stirred the English, spawning parties such as The English Democrats. The following passage comes from their website:

The fact is there is no political party putting the interests of England first. All three major parties are “unionist” in outlook. This means that they see themselves representing the interests of all three nations in the UK, irrespective of whether policies that support Wales and Scotland disadvantage England. England has over 55 million people, we need our own distinct voice, no unionist party will put England first – we will.

Above: An example of how anti-Scottish sentiment has grown thanks to Nu Labour

Simon Heffer has recently written about the predominance of Scots in government at Westminster, in a rather abrasive article entitled 'Scots have brought Britain to its knees', in which he writes the following:

Some of my dear readers have observed – indeed, are observing with creeping ferocity – that the English have been the victims of a plot by Scots to destroy the auld enemy. I prefer to think it is a cock-up. The little berk who is the only Tory MP in Scotland (and therefore shadow Scottish secretary – it's lucky for him a sheep didn't get elected too), David Mundell, has demanded that English retailers be forced to accept Scottish banknotes. What a good idea: let's see if we can drive a few more small businesses out of existence. After all, the way RBS is going, its notes will soon be worth less than the paper they are printed on.

The sooner the bunch of Scots who govern us are booted into history the better. I don't say that the English would be any better, but at least we would be paying for our own mistakes rather than someone else's. Never has the case for English independence from the Scots been so overwhelming. Sadly, I suspect that in the present state of penury England will be saddled with them for another 302 years of high-end welfarism at least.

In another article entitled 'The Union of England and Scotland is over' he likens the Union to the demise of the Empire:

Back in the 1950s, in the two or three years before Suez, there was a strong constituency in the Tory party that blathered on about the need to maintain the British Empire: the Suez Group was the main focus of this. They were absurd, because the empire had ceased to exist in 1947 when India went. Once the jewel in the crown was lost, the rest of the structure would fall apart inevitably. So it is now with some in the Labour Party. The Union is over, morally at least. When Scotland voted for devolution in 1997 the Union fell into a coma. When Alex Salmond's SNP administration was elected in May the last rites were read, and the final process of sundering got under way. All that remains is for the Scots, in a referendum, to vote to stick the coffin in the grave, with the Union flag still on it, and pile on the earth.

The dissolution of the Union could potentially have disastrous effects. What will happen to our veto at the UN Security Council and our membership of the G8? What would happen to Northern Ireland and Wales? Would the government use the opportunity to implement constitutional reforms, for example abolishing the House of Lords? Would we each be more dependent on the EU? Will this really benefit Scotland now that most of the North Sea Oil reserves have been exhausted?

Personally, I can't see any benefits to be had from the break up of the Union. United we stand, divided we fall!

**~~Æmeric~~** · 02-08-2009, 07:31 PM

What will happen to our veto at the UN Security Council and our membership of the G8?

I would assume England as the successor state to Britain would keep the UN seat, though I think the UN is way overrated & would prefer the US to leave the UN & kick the UN out of New York. Would England still be among the top 8 economic powers without Scotland? It would seem likely it would.

What would happen to Northern Ireland and Wales?
What happens to Northern Ireland will be decided by demographics. As for Wales it has been part of England since 1536 & ruled by England for a few hundred years before that. It might fun to spit at the English but if independence was a real possibility, I think most would turn it down.

Would the government use the opportunity to implement constitutional reforms, for example abolishing the House of Lords?
What government? A Labour government would be less likely without the Scottish vote. 1997 was the first time since 1945 the Labour Party won a majority of English seats. Most Labour governments have been dependent on their Scottish constituents. I think England would have a much more moderate, less socialistic goverment without Scotland.

Would we each be more dependent on the EU?
Why should it? IO was under the impression that the UK paid more into the EU then it got back in benefits/subsidies.

Will this really benefit Scotland now that most of the North Sea Oil reserves have been exhausted? That should be Scotland's concern.

Great Britain is not, nor has it ever been, a union of Scotland & England. It was England with Scotland annexed to it. The institutions of Great Britain were that of England. Scotland sent MPs to the Parliament at Westminster, Scottish peers elect representative peers to the Britiah House of Lords, English peers never had to because the British Parliament was the English Parliament. British monarchs take their regnal number according to how many same-named sovereigns preceded them on the English throne, e.g. Elizabeth II when there was never a regnant Queen Elizabeth in Scotland. I don't think much would change for England if Scotland left, in fact it might be better if the English didn't have to pander to a minority (the Scots) by suppressing their own nationalism in the name of union.

**British and Proud** · 02-08-2009, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Æmeric

What will happen to our veto at the UN Security Council and our membership of the G8?

I would assume England as the successor state to Britain would keep the UN seat, though I think the UN is way overrated & would prefer the US to leave the UN & kick the UN out of New York. Would England still be among the top 8 economic powers without Scotland? It would seem likely it would.

What would happen to Northern Ireland and Wales?
What happens to Northern Ireland will be decided by demographics. As for Wales it has been part of England since 1536 & ruled by England for a few hundred years before that. It might fun to spit at the English but if independence was a real possibility, I think most would turn it down.

Would the government use the opportunity to implement constitutional reforms, for example abolishing the House of Lords?
What government? A Labour government would be less likely without the Scottish vote. 1997 was the first time since 1945 the Labour Party won a majority of English seats. Most Labour governments have been dependent on their Scottish constituents. I think England would have a much more moderate, less socialistic goverment without Scotland.

Would we each be more dependent on the EU?
Why should it? IO was under the impression that the UK paid more into the EU then it got back in benefits/subsidies.

Will this really benefit Scotland now that most of the North Sea Oil reserves have been exhausted? That should be Scotland's concern.

Great Britain is not, nor has it ever been, a union of Scotland & England. It was England with Scotland annexed to it. The institutions of Great Britain were that of England. Scotland sent MPs to the Parliament at Westminster, Scottish peers elect representative peers to the Britiah House of Lords, English peers never had to because the British Parliament was the English Parliament. British monarchs take their regnal number according to how many same-named sovereigns preceded them on the English throne, e.g. Elizabeth II when there was never a regnant Queen Elizabeth in Scotland. I don't think much would change for England if Scotland left, in fact it might be better if the English didn't have to pander to a minority (the Scots) by suppressing their own nationalism in the name of union.

An intelligent reply, thanks! I get the impression you favour the break up of the union, however, or at least are unperturbed by it. Perhaps due to my mixed ancestry I am strongly opposed to it and feel that, if it would not adversely effect England, then it certainly would the other three nations.

**stormlord** · 02-08-2009, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by British and Proud

if it would not adversely effect England, then it certainly would the other three nations.

That's the point, I think most English people are tired of being spat at for shouldering the burden of carrying the other home nations. It's bad enough having to subsidise Scotland's pathetic economy (more people employed proportionally by the state than Cuba) but having constant Scottish hostility, and Scottish MP's using their votes to undermine English democracy just adds insult to injury.

I used to be very pro-union but frankly we should just accept that it's over, and it would probably be better for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the long run if they're forced to operate in a world where their socialist government spending has to be supported with their taxes alone, rather than siphoned from English workers.

**Birka** · 02-08-2009, 09:21 PM

I imagine someday our children will be having this conversation about whether the old America should separate from the North American Union. The US contributes so much compared to former Mexico and former Canada. Other than a very small elite class in Mexico, the majority of the people are on welfare or part of the Unionist Civilian Security Force, started by the first president of Noramexicana, B. Obama.