The break-up of the union will benefit nobody
Email 
Print
By Marcus Booth
The unprecedented victory of the Scottish Nationalists at Holyrood has put the continued existence of Britain at risk with a referendum on the country’s future now certain. David Cameron could go down in history as the last Prime Minister of the UK.
It is over 300 years since the Union of the Scottish and English Parliaments, which followed the Union of the Crowns in 1603 and began the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is one of the most successful unions the world has ever seen, one which played a crucial role in seeing off the great twentieth-century evils of fascism and communist dictatorship and which remains an important economic, diplomatic and military power, even in the twenty-first-century. But the air is now thick with talk of divorce on both sides of the border. It is beginning to dawn on the rest of the world that, in the foreseeable future, there might not be a United Kingdom.
The Scots have periodically flirted with independence. In the past, when polls north of the border showed growing support for a separate Scotland, the English were distressed and powerful voices on both sides of the border were marshalled to keep the union intact. Now it is different: Scottish Nationalism is on the rise once more and this time some English (supported by an increasingly vocal commentariat) are inclined to say: “Go if you want to”. Indeed, some polls have shown support for Scottish independence is even greater among the English than it is among the Scots whilst poll after poll show that just around a third of Scots support independence.
Alex Salmond, the leader of the SNP and Scottish First Minister, dominates the Scottish political scene whilst the Scottish leaders of the principal Scottish unionist opposition party, Labour, are based in London – detached from events at home. The unionist voices are struggling to be heard. The rest of the world will be flabbergasted that Britain has come to this.
The previous Labour government responded to an upsurge in Scottish Nationalism by giving the Scots home rule, with their own parliament in Edinburgh, in 1999. The Labour party sold it on both sides of the border as the means by which the demand for independence would be “killed stone dead”. This appears to have emphatically failed.
The current devolution settlement has fuelled a sense of separateness on both sides of the border. Home rule did not have to produce this result. Devolution in other democracies has often assuaged separatist tendencies. But the current settlement has lead to tension within the union rather than promoting harmony. Devolution gave Scotland control over most of its domestic affairs – such as education, housing, transport and health – but still allowed Scottish MPs to vote on such matters as they affected England, even though English MPs no longer had any say on Scottish domestic affairs. This asymmetric devolution is regarded as unfair by most people but no government has yet done anything to tackle this constitutional absurdity.
Too many sadly now try to boil down the arguments for and against the union in terms of a simple cost benefit analysis (which, if followed to its logical conclusion, would lead to London going it alone). Economic arguments have their place but many now look to the Prime Minister to lead the charge for a ‘New Unionism’, a revived union – something positive to counter the separatists on all sides. Even some prominent Nationalists (like Jim Sillars, the former SNP Deputy leader) talk of Britain becoming something much more akin to a confederation – sharing, for example, defence capabilities – the arguments for the union are not yet completely lost. The break up of the union will not be without substantial cost for both sides of the border.
Many English think it is only the Scots who would lose, but the end of Britain will takes its toll on England too, especially as regards its place in the world. England is not Britain. If the United Kingdom ceases to exist, it does not follow that England would simply take Britain’s seat on the UN Security Council; others, from India to Brazil to Germany, will have their claims. If the UK ceases to exist, Westminster need not waste its time deciding whether or not England should renew its nuclear deterrent: without Scotland there is nowhere to put it and England, of necessity, will become a non-nuclear power. Without Scotland, the British military will be a much diminished force, since around one-third of the British Army’s fighting force is Scottish. England without Scotland will count for a lot less in the European Union and NATO. It will also be without North Sea oil and gas. England would be the loser too, in prestige, importance and power.
Scotland without England risks being a diminished state on the margins of Europe, a country of five million trying in vain to be heard in an European Union of over 500 million – losing its seat at the top international tables – from the G8 to the UN. As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland shapes the world. Further, as the banking crisis and the bail out of RBS show there is much in the argument that the nations of the UK are stronger united, stronger to face the challenges of a changed world – together.
All the partner nations of the United Kingdom have more to gain by being together than drifting apart. We are so much greater together than the sum of our parts. Of course the imbalances in the British constitution should be addressed and a sense of fairness must be reintroduced but as one commentator remarked in the lead up to the 300 year anniversary of the Act of Union:
“The union between England and Scotland has given each nation more than either is minded to commemorate… As the anniversary approaches, both sides of the border would do well to calm down, take stock and realise just how absurd the break-up of Britain in the 21st century would seem to the rest of the world – and how it would do both Scots and English irreparable damage.”
How apt these words remain today.
Marcus Booth is a founder member of Stronger United, and was the Scottish Conservative Candidate in Angus in 2001.
Image – Union flags hung along Regent Street in celebration of the Royal wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton are seen in London April 19, 2011. REUTERS/Toby Melville
Comments RSS-
Author Profile
-
Being English I see these constitutional discrepencies as a bit of an insult. I’ve had enough of Alex Salmonds spin, he makes it out as though Westminster deprives Scotland and it doesn’t get a fair share of the deal. I don’t see that this is the case when I have to pay £14 for a hayfever prescription.
If Scotland thinks it can go it alone I would like to them subsidise their own free university places, free prescriptions, free care for the elderly, taking back the liabilities that came with bailing out HBOS and RBS (these were Scottish Banks, Barclays and HSBC didn’t need state subsidies and they have investment arms so theres no point in blaming London for the Scottish Banks demise) without further help from Westminster once it has seperated. I’m sure Europe will be ready to support them after Greece, Portugal and Ireland (and possibly Spain) have been sorted.
Part of the problem has always been that, in the eyes of too many influential peoples, the terms ‘Britain’ and ‘the UK’ have become synonymous with ‘England’. This leads to a sense of anonymity when it comes to the Scots, Welsh and, to a less extent, the UK Irish (who are seen as Erin Irish to the same misinformed masses) and a sense of injustice.
Thus, the Celtic minority assumes that their presence as bona fide populations, are subdued and this, in turn, gives rise to the Nationalist fervour that Mr. Salmond and the SUP have so successfully tapped.
The UK stands to be placed under considerable pressure by the Scottish, UK Irish and, increasingly, the Welsh governing bodies, not least because of English cantankerousness in the defence of their ‘realm’.
If the UK is to survive, it must be on an equal and just footing, for all home nations, under a joint National government structure, with policies that protect the interests of the UK population as a whole and not just the English part.
Scotland will be independent, its not a question it is in the past get used to it. They have some 5 years for polls to be in their favor and they will call it when it is assured and Scotland will be free. That is all.
Scotland may have voted overwhelmingly for the SNP for their own parliament where 129 MSPs and no-one else make decisions for Scotland in their interests and theirs alone but they will almost certainly send their usual over-represented contingent of Labour MPs down to Westminster at the next general election to form the UK Government, the one which predominately only governs England nowadays, thanks to Blair & Brown’s lopsided devolution act which deliberately left England out for pure partisan self interest. Since then, we’ve seen 119 non-English MPs voting on English only matters at Westminster, a classic example when tuition and top fees were forced on England in 2005 by 59 Scottish Labour MPs, something they wouldn’t countenance for their own constituents, not that they have any say on these matters for their own constituents anyway. England overwhelmingly voted Conservative last May and yet unlike the rest of the UK it’s wishes were overturned and it did not get the government it voted for but a coalition where most of the things the English voted for have been forgotten or kicked into the long grass to appease the Lib Dems. England had to suffer Brown, the self annointed PM who no one in England ever voted for, deciding leglislation on health, education, transport, law & order, etc, for England when he had no such say on these matters for the people of Scotland. England gets at least £1,500 less per man, woman and child than anywhere else in the UK thanks to the skewed Barnett Formula which our Scottish Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander has refused to look at even though it was a Tory commitment as was the West Lothian Question. England is now the only part of the UK to pay prescription charges and the only part of the UK to charge it’s students £9,000 tuition fees. The only way to keep the ‘union’ together is to give England equality with the rest of the UK, ie. it’s own parliament making it’s own decisions in the iterests of England as the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh & NI Assemblies are allowed to do. It is about time Cameron remembered it was the English who voted for him and start standing up for them because if he doesn’t, it won’t be the Scots who force the break up of this so called ‘Union’, it will be the English.
“The break-up of the union will benefit nobody” I completely disagree with this statement.
The break up of the “Union” will benefit the people of England who currently have zero recognition and representation. The English also get the least per person, per year funding in the so called “United Kingdom” and consequently the worst most expensive services.
The End of the “Union” means that the English will have their own parliament back and working in our interests – in stark contrast to the “UK” parliament that works in anyone’s interests but the English.
We will benefit from spending English taxes on England instead of the current arrangement of the “UK” parliament spending English taxes across the “UK” leading to better/cheaper/free services currently denied the English.
As for the UN security council – so what? As for being a nuclear power – so what? I’d rather live in a small peaceful, prosperous independent England thanks. I am sick of Big Britisher delusions of grandeur and British involvements in wars around the world.
English taxes for England.
English law for England.
Home rule for England.
England would acquire considerable North Sea gas fields if the UK were to break up, although only a small portion of North Sea oil.
Marcus seriously underestimates the place that Scotland would have in the world in such a scenario. It would compare with the Scandinavian nations, which are well-respected in the world (Norway is contributing fighter plans to the action in Libya). Unshackling Scotland from the Union would offer intereting and exciting prospects, provided that some brave decisions were made to promote an enterprise culture (as in Finland).
The Unionists in England unfortunately behave as Greater Englanders, for whom the UK is essentially still an English empire. As such, they see any home rule for England as unncecessary, something promoted only by those whom they denigrate as Little Englanders. This prevents them from seeking a new accommodation with the Scots (and the other constituent nations)to transform the UK into a new form of union, federation or confederation. They talk only of ‘fighting for the Union. Fighting talk will only lead inevitably to complete separation.
“Westminster need not waste its time deciding whether or not England should renew its nuclear deterrent: without Scotland there is nowhere to put it and England, of necessity, will become a non-nuclear power. Without Scotland, the British military will be a much diminished force, since around one-third of the British Army’s fighting force is Scottish”.
Two assertions which seem highly questionable (although many will see an end to the Nuclear deterrent as an advantage).
Moving the Nuclear subs will be inconvenient but certainly possible. They will bring around 10,000 jobs with them. Potential political objections seem highly exaggerated, In the past England accommodated the airborne deterrents, both British and American, even though these were more likely first strike targets than the submarines.
As to Scotland providing one third of the fighting strength of the British Army, where can official verification of this be found? It implies improbable numbers of Scots in English battalions.
Clearly an independent England would be a less powerful state than the United Kingdom, but not much more than marginally so. Population down from 60ish Million to around 50 Million. GDP diminished by rather less than this and (obviously) shared by fewer people.
People now rushing to the defence of the United Kingdom are doing so much too late. The Scottish and Welsh referendums in 1997 inflicted a mortal wound. Nations need a consensus on common identity for long-term survival and that has been fatally undermined. There is now no way in which Scotland will stay in the Union accept on terms which would (and indeed should) be entirely unacceptable to the English. The death is slow and painful to watch, so let us hope that Salmond wins his referendum, sticks to his guns on full independence and puts the UK out of its misery.
Unionism is bound to lose the argument. Notice the harping on the past in this and other Unionist arguments.
So what future does the Union offer, to justify Scots continuing to subsidise this archaic, over-bureaucratised, over-centralised, inefficient and ineffective post-imperial fading “British” (read English) lopsided and unjust Union?
“So what future does the Union offer, to justify Scots continuing to subsidise this archaic, over-bureaucratised, over-centralised, inefficient and ineffective post-imperial fading “British” (read English) lopsided and unjust Union?”
How can a nation of under 10 million people be subsidising the United Kingdom? How can you call the union unjust when we all share the same land, same language and same just cultural ideals of democracy and freedom of thought? I support the idea that as one we are stronger and have one voice, I don’t support petty, selfish nationalistic outdated ideals which seems to be touted from the nationlist parties of all of the unions nations.
I find it a fallacy that Alex Salmond believes that Scotland going it alone will lead to a prosperous nation developing one of the highest living standards in the world on the back of diminishing supplies of North Sea oil. Such politicians stoke nationalistic sentiment and make the the general populace forget how much more they have compared to those who subsidise a good majority of their annual budget.
Surely if such vast supplies are in existence in the North Sea why have they not been exploited already to pay off the debt that the Scottish banks have left us?
I support the ideals that the union stands for which is ‘we are one voice in a crowded world’ but if we can’t even believe ourselves that the union is worth continuing then it is dead. As I said before if Scotland has it so bad with free prescriptions, free healthcare for the elderly and free university places feel free to go it alone but please do take back the liabilities that the government of the UK has been landed with from HBoS and RBS.