Saturday, 22 October 2016

Let the SNP wait ....and wait....and wait


How do we respond to the latest threat from the SNP to break up our country? We must respond in a variety of ways. One of them is humour. The gorillas are on the loose again beating their chests and drinking epic amounts of Ribena. This naturally makes them a little hyperactive. We must laugh at the little gorilla that keeps crying wolf. We have always laughed at such people. And yet we also always take seriously threats to our country and act accordingly. Too few people in the Scotland and especially in other parts of the UK recognise what the SNP are trying to do. It may be a little paradoxical, but truth lies in the combination of opposites. At the same time as we laugh we must also stiffen our resolve and be prepared to counter all threats. This is the British way. This has always been how we see off such people.



It is vital to learn from mistakes, both those that were made recently and those that were made long ago. Britain made a long term strategic error in 1916 that is still with us today. It didn’t happen on the Somme, which, by the way, was neither pointless nor a defeat. Rather our error occurred a little earlier. In response to rebellion in Ireland we executed the rebels. We were quite justified in doing so. They were traitors. Any country has the right to fight rebellion especially during war time. The people who decided to use 1916 as the moment to stab Britain in the back when we were struggling desperately to liberate both France and Belgium were cowards and opportunists. I would not wish that my country had such founding fathers. But it was our error that made them such. They might now be forgotten if we had put them in prison for a few years and the incident might be a detail in history known only to specialists.

Nothing in history or indeed in the future is inevitable. There need not have been a First World War. The conditions that gave rise to it were already easing and by 1916 the world might have been safe. It was contingent and all the causes you learned about at school might have had a different outcome.

The British response to rebellion in Ireland was a long term strategic error. It is quite easy to imagine a scenario where Ireland remained a part of the UK. If I could go back in history, I would only have to change a couple of things to make that so. But it wasn’t only Britain that made an error. By rebelling in 1916 the Irish put themselves on a historical path that one hundred years later is not turning out so well. They divided their island. They had fifty years of poverty. One hundred years of continued emigration including my family. They had thirty years and more of terrorism. Worst of all perhaps, after one hundred years the English speaking people in the Republic of Ireland are going to end up in a different trading bloc to the English speaking people of the UK. Long term this is going to harm the Republic of Ireland. Choosing the Euro and the EU and people who don’t speak your language and who in the end are neither your friends nor your family looks like a long term strategic error which began in 1916 in Dublin. The Republic of Ireland strove to avoid precisely this fate when it joined the EU only at the same time as the UK did. But there is no use complaining about a potentially hard border and damage to trade between the UK and Ireland. When countries choose to have an international relationship they inevitably lose the benefits of being part of the same country. This didn’t have to happen. This is what you chose.

But it is crucial to remember that the loss of Ireland in the 1920s was not existential. We were the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. We remained a United Kingdom. What we lost was merely something following the word “and”. People who have read my work know that I have always supported the right of the British people in Northern Ireland to remain a part of the UK. I hope that they do so forever. But if history had turned out differently and Ireland had not been partitioned this too would not have been an existential loss for the UK. It would still have been something after the word “and”.

We in Britain care about our fellow Brits wherever they are from. We will forever defend Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the Falklands. No sensible country wishes to lose territory. But when I see the leader of Gibraltar siding with Nicola Sturgeon I think it is worth reminding him that we would still be the UK even if Gibraltar once more became a part of Spain. The loss would no doubt be painful, but it would not be existential.

What is the UK? In essence it is the sovereign independent nation state that is situated on the island containing England, Scotland and Wales. To lose any part of this is to lose the UK. This would be an existential loss. Far too few people in the UK are aware that Scottish independence means the loss of our country and the loss of our flag. There could no longer be a UK without Scotland, just as there could no longer be a UK without England. We stand and fall together.

Algeria until 1962 was a part of France. But the loss of Algeria did not entail the loss of anything essential to France. There are still some faraway places that are treated as parts of France. But the loss of Saint Pierre and Miquelon (some islands near Newfoundland) would I imagine barely be noticed in France. Losing Burgundy or Brittany would be something else again.

No French person would contemplate giving up any part of French territory without a fight. It is therefore pure folly that some English people appear to welcome the loss of Scotland. What would you even call your country? You couldn’t keep calling it the Rest of the UK (rUK) because there wouldn’t any longer be a UK. Would you call it England, Wales and Northern Ireland? It doesn’t exactly slip off the tongue. What then? Who would take this rump seriously? What would happen to international confidence in the economy of such a place that doesn’t even have a proper name? Who would view its armed forces as being worthy of consideration. If you think Brexit will be a shock, try Scottish independence. Every citizen of the UK would lose his country. The flag that we have fought under for centuries would be no more. How could there be any blue in it? Wishing good riddance to Scotland is wishing good riddance to yourself. Scotland is just as much a part of what you are as it is a part of what I am.

We have always been willing to defend our country against existential threats. Why are we unwilling now? Even if we had lost in 1940, it may have been possible in time that the UK would have won in the end. After all France came through the years of occupation and remained France. But if Scotland ever became independent, the UK would be “no more than a dream remembered” something to be found only in books.

We must recognise the SNP for what they are. They want to destroy the UK. Don’t cooperate with them. Far too many political parties in the UK appear willing to work with the SNP. There is talk of progressive pacts. Let’s be absolutely clear. There is nothing progressive about trying to destroy our country. The SNP have one aim and one aim only. Only fools work with them. Nobody who cares about the UK should vote for such fools.

How should we react to SNP threats? The crucial thing is that we must do all that we can to nullify them. For this reason I believe Scottish politicians like Ruth Davidson have made a long term strategic mistake. After the EU referendum she argued that the UK Prime Minster should not block a second Scottish independence referendum. I understand why she is doing this. She doesn’t want to inflame the situation. She doesn’t want Britain to make the error that we made in 1916. She thinks that if Theresa May blocked an SNP request for a referendum this would increase support for independence in Scotland. All of these things are legitimate concerns. Nevertheless Ruth Davidson is mistaken. Nicola Sturgeon was delighted by her intervention. I have a lot of time for the Tory leader in Scotland, but she must remember above all the maxim "Always do what your opponent least wants".

Never tell your opponent anything. Why help them? It seems to me that Theresa May is doing well. She always argues that the issue of Scottish independence has been settled. She correctly points out that the SNP do not have a mandate, nor indeed do they have a majority. She reminds them that just over two years have passed since the last independence referendum. She is right not to refuse. Why refuse when you haven’t even been asked? But it is vital Pro UK Scots make absolutely clear that we think in the end Theresa May ought to refuse a second independence referendum so soon after the last one.

Strategically I think David Cameron made a major error in allowing a referendum on Scottish independence. He should have said to the Scottish nationalists, the UK is one nation and it is indivisible. In this he would have received the support of the whole world. This is exactly the line that United States would take with regard to secession. It is the line that is taken by every country in the European Union.  What is the point of fighting off existential threats to your country throughout its long history if you can be defeated by separatists? Which of our historical enemies would we give a vote? Would we allow Napoleon to vote on whether he could conquer Britain?

There is no universal right to secession. It is perfectly democratic for nation states all over the world to prevent citizens who wish to conspire in the destruction of their country from doing so. If blocking separatists is undemocratic, then Spain is undemocratic and so is the USA. If the SNP think they do have a right to secede, let them test it in the court of international opinion. How many members of the Security Council would side with secessionists? Russia has fought a war against secession, so has France, so has China and the USA. Why on Earth out of all the countries in the world does Britain alone allow these people to threaten us?

I am heartily sick of the continued threats from the SNP. Must we live our whole life continually in a state of anxiety about our country? What if the SNP had a second referendum, would that settle anything? No of course not. If they won, that would be it. We would never get a second chance. But if they lost within days they would want another go. Anyone who thinks that a second referendum would kill off the SNP is mistaken. What if they got the same result as last time? Do you really think they wouldn’t want still another chance? Anyone who thinks we would win easily is also mistaken. No-one can predict what would happen. Politics is very strange at the moment. Moreover in Scotland we are getting to the stage where we are beyond rational argument. Another campaign would just inflame passions still further. The SNP only have a fundamentalist argument. They want independence come what may. How am I supposed to argue against this? I might as well debate with creationists.

Scottish independence would destroy the country of 65 million people. Why should 5 million have the permanent right to do this whenever they choose? The concept of something being reserved means that there is the right to say “No”. There is a good reason why constitutional matters are reserved and that is what we voted for when we got the Scottish Parliament. The whole country voted on leaving the EU. But we can only make a success of Brexit if the whole country remains intact. We face a time of challenge when we must negotiate the future of all of us so that we get the best deal possible. Why should the SNP be allowed to continually interfere and make life difficult for the UK? Why should they be able to undermine the choice of millions of UK citizens just because they disagree with it? This is not democratic. A Scottish vote is worth no more than any other person's vote in the UK. Why should Scots think we have a right of veto?

The SNP would put Scotland at a long term disadvantage. They would partition Britain and put themselves in a different trading bloc to the other English speaking people on our island. There is no rational case for doing so other than identity politics, ancient history and a dislike of our larger neighbour. Theresa May must be careful. It is crucial that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. She must say to Nicola Sturgeon. I’m sorry Nicola but you will have to wait. When we have a new Prime Minister after Mrs May departs, he or she must likewise tell the Scottish nationalists that while there may be an other independence referendum some day in the mean time they should "wait in Edinburgh, and wait...and wait...and wait."  

60 comments:

  1. Philosophically I disagree on your definition of the UK. The island which contains England, Wales and Scotland is Great Britain. It is only when NI & Gibraltar etc are added does it become the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. So if Ireland had not been partitioned then we would have become Great Britain. In my view it is a somewhat better name anyway.

    In that same vein as Northern Ireland & Gibraltar are not part of Great Britain then in my view they aren't British, Northern Irish, Gribraltese but they aren't British. Sorry if they don't like that but how can someone who doesn't come from Great Britain (which is clear in the name United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN & Northern Ireland and both acts of Union) be British?

    So actually Scotland breaking away from Great Britain is far more serious than losing this U.K. Concept, it loses the British concept, which is still highly prized to our English & Welsh constituencies, and still many in Scotland.

    Make your case that we lose the UK to most English or Welsh people and they will say 'so what', tell them they stop being British & Great Britain goes then I think you might get the reaction you are looking for from your piece.

    As for what a post Scotland GB would be called? England & Wales probably as I doubt NI would remain either as it's more culturally aligned to the west coast of Scotland than England of Wales, and it's also doubtful England & Wales would really want to retain the association as quite frankly its trouble for zero gain.

    As for other nations not agreeing to succession of parts of their countries, this is down to the UK bit in my view. It sounds like it's a coalition of states (a bit like the EU & we've seen countries can choose to leave that such as Iceland & us), whereas France is is well France, no United or Union there it's clear & therefore culturally it doesn't happen.

    However, Britain has in recent years had a tradition of respecting the right of self determination. It is the basis upon which the Falklands Islands, NI, Gibraltar are retained as the people have a clear preference to remain aligned to Britain. If Britain then starts choosing to ignore self determination when a people want to leave then that argument looses legitimacy. That was why the Indpendence Referendum was so powerful, we could point to it & say look we ask & respect people's wishes. This is a noble concept.

    I do not believe Scotland wants another referendum until it can clearly see what form Brexit will take and if it is destined to fail or succeed. The SNP in my view are trying to use this to get more devolved powers, they aren't yet thinking they can pull off a Yes vote, it is a negotiating ploy.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, being British is a powerful concept. This is why I like the Team GB logo of the British Olympics squad even though being completely accurate it should be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland team as it can include athletes from Northern Ireland. The word British has more emotional meaning to it than United Kingdom which to many is a factual and rather 'cold' sounding description of a Kingdom.

      Delete
    2. "The SNP in my view are trying to use this to get more devolved powers, they aren't yet thinking they can pull off a Yes vote, it is a negotiating ploy."

      Another win win for SNP.

      Ask for something you know you do not really want and will never get anyway, then complain when you do not get it.

      Stronger for Scotland, lol.

      Delete
  2. The Irish did not divide their island: you can't blame the Irish for decisions taken by a Welshman. The IRA vs UVF terrorism that ensued would not have taken place had Lloyd George not partitioned the country. And the poverty was not new poverty at all: it's not like Ireland was rich in the UK. A fantastic source on this is 'The Great Hunger' by Cecil Woodham-Smith. You'll be shocked to learn that English landlords were EXPORTING FOOD FROM IRELAND DURING THE FAMINE! It's thus hardly surprising that they wanted to be independent when they were literally starving in the UK, as a result of policy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Education but a click away.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

    ReplyDelete
  4. We English don't want to see the SNP succeed in their aim. We want to see the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland continue. For one thing, we have no wish to see an EU state on our borders with a loony Marxist immigration policy which would cause further problems for the overstretched borders agency amongst other issues. However, there are quite a few who are sick and tired of the SNP night and day whinging, whinging, whinging and it is THIS that is making some English people so exasperated they say 'good riddance' to Scotland. I have to tell you that no matter how difficult it is (and I've come across plenty of these nasty 'Cyber Nats' on the web ect so I feel for you) those in Scotland who don't support the SNP's agenda have to stand-up to these people. There is no room for any further appeasement of them. I admire your efforts Effie. Keep-up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And right there is one of the reasons I want to distance myself and my country from England. Not all English are like Barry Scarfe but unfortunately they are the majority which was evident in the Brexit campaign and result.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. As an English unionist that really makes me feel sad to read that but if I may ask you the question.

      If Scotland was offered Home Rule with greater devolution given to pro UK parties would that change your mind?

      Delete
    4. We could be offered the earth and I would still vote yes. I didn't fall for their promises in first place so I sure as hell wouldn't believe the lies this time round.

      Delete
    5. Unfortunately, it seems as if the majority of Scots are like you ScotKat ie people who are TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS to the concerns of people in the rest of the UK. We down here are TOTALLY OVERPOPULATED due in no small part to moronic Scottish politicians like Tony Bliar and Gordon Brown with their MARXIST and genoncidal/RACIST immigration policies which are not not overpopulating us and destroying our countryside but destroying our culture ect. Gordon Brown and the war criminal Bliar done this on purpose knowing full well the immigrants don't go to Scotland but settle in England thus helping the Labour Party at future elections. Please, for once, have some consideration for the opinions of people in the rest of our supposed United Kingdom without nasty name calling of 'Nazi' ect from the likes of Nicola Sturgeon. How would you like it if Edinburgh was so flooded with immigrants it was no longer a Scottish city? Well, thanks to Bliar and Brown, London has been destroyed as an English city as effectively as if Hitler had dropped a nuclear weapon on it.


      The SNP are NOT a real nationalist party. If they would not be so keen to give away sovereignty to Brussels.

      Delete
    6. And there you have it James, NO amount of devolution is EVER going to satisfy the likes of the SNP just as people like the excellent Alistair McConnachie says so you have to ask yourself why are even the likes of the so-called CONservative and Unionist Party intent on giving yet more? Sadly for both English and particularly Scottish unionists, I think the Conservatives are intent on moving Scotland ever closer to 'independence' and no doubt the reason for this is a cynical political motive ie the fact that not that many Scots vote Tory nowdays. I, for one, don't trust them. They are the party of appeasement after all just as they were in the 1930's with regard to Hitler and the Nazis. If I were a Scottish unionist, I would vote for that new Unionist Party that has been set-up called A Better Britain - Unionist Party.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Barry, I am under no illusion about the nature of the SNP having taken Effie's advice and blocked a number of CyberNats. But I think Simon Jenkins here makes a sensible point about how to defeat the challenge of Scottish nationalism. The question deserves to be asked, is it sheer coincidence that the SNP have lost their majority in the Scottish parliament and the Scottish Conservative party's fortunes have improved since it was given greater autonomy? Anyway, here's the article: - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/26/alex-salmond-more-powerful-possibly-imagine-snp

      Delete
  5. Thanks for this. It's an enlightening, interesting (and if I'm honest, a somewhat scary) insight into the mind of a British nationalist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Unionist Zoomer personified.

    Thanks for confirming.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The continuation of a UK as an entity and its use of the Union flag in the event of any separatist success in Northern Britain would I expect be welcomed by a majority across the UK, a population that did not seek change and was entirely excluded from that process is entitled to retain its identity. The Union adds to the UK but it does not define it.

    Scotland has not always been united. By contesting the Brexit result Sturgeon/SNP set a precendent for any parts of Scotland that feel alienated by a result that causes everyone in the terrotory presently known as Scotland to leave the UK. They would be perfectly entited to pursue a different path should they take the view the result denies them their identity or does not align with their wants, needs, hopes and aspirations. Separation does not necessarily begin and end with the formation of a new 'Scottish state'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. Separation once it starts can continue for some considerable time. I have heard that the people of the Shetland Islands often think of themselves as Shetland Islanders first before any other identity. Going by Sturgeon's logic, they would be perfectly entitled to either remain within a 'United Kingdom' without Scotland or seek to have Norway take them over.

      Delete
    2. Where have you heard this? Can you back that up please. A link to a poll perhaps? Thanks

      Delete
    3. I haven't got a link to specific poll, but I am did read/hear about during the 2014 referendum that the people of the islands didn't want separation from the United Kingdom and that if it happened some of them would either seek home rule or explore other options such as becoming a self-governing dependency within the rest of the United Kingdom like Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man.

      Delete
    4. No, didn't think so.
      A petition of a mere 1000 signatures was submitted to the SG backing Shetland to become independent in the event of a yes vote. It was encourage by the very honerable Alisdair Carmichael. Says it all really!

      Delete
    5. That's a pretty poor show from a population of 24k. Not much of a backing for Shetland to go it alone or become part of Norway. You're talking absolute nonsense. Please check the facts before you sprout lies.

      Delete
    6. The point surely is though that once a process of separation begins it isn't easy to say 'thus far and no further' and any group of people who believe they have a separate identity can say the example has been set and 'we believe in the right of self-determination' The Shetland Islands could form an independent state on their own with all that oil money which rightfully (according to SNP logic) belongs to them.

      They would then be mega-rich and instead of being 'poor Scotlanders' in an 'independent' Scotland could be very rich Shetlanders!

      Delete
    7. If that's what the islanders want then by all means. However until there's a substanial backing for it SG and Shetland won't consider it.
      Your contradiction is astounding I must add.

      Delete
    8. "Not much of a backing for Shetland to go it alone or become part of Norway"

      Why show your hand until you need to.

      http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2015/10/09/autonomy-group-set-to-launch-next-week

      What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

      Scotland was not always united, perhaps the Highlands/Western Isles next.

      Sturgeon/SNP have no idea of the kinds of forces they are dabbling with and they have even less idea about how to put this particular genie back in the box once they've finished with their ego trips.

      Only 25% of the electorate voted for them at the elections in 2016.

      Nationalism is a scourage, it sets people against people on the most arbitrary of grounds (you only have to live on the wrong side of the street). It is one of the reasons a Union was forged to stop petty disputes and conflict. The English rulers were at first against a Union with Scotland.

      If it goes full circle and English nationalism catches fire and transports itself into an independent state the current separatist faux outrage will look like a tea party, one lumbering population of ~53 million taking decisions in its own interests without regard to or consultation with the other ~11 million sitting on the periphery.

      They have a name for leaders like Sturgeon who stop listening to the will of the people, they call them tyrants.

      I prefered to remain in the EU, a democratic vote must be respected, the noises of the leave campaign about immigration were enough for me and drowned out some of the more reasoned arguments. I have revisited some of these leave arguments, particuly those relating to the treatment of votes by other European nations and the attitudes of 'leaders' like Junckers towards them. The man has absolute contempt for the will of the people. That is tyranny and Sturgeon/SNP act no better, as she has said Independence trumps all, and I believe her, and for that reason alone she is unfit for public office.

      Delete
    9. Exactly. Separatists and secessionists don't know what they are stirring-up as you say. England itself was formed from a union of the old Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy and Scotland has the ancient Kingdom of Fife and Dai Riata etc. The lesson of all this is that once separatism starts it can be very difficult to arrest the process.


      Unfortunately, due to Salmond and Sturgeon and their antics over the years, we already have separatist loons down here: www.cep.org.uk


      englishdemocrats.party/


      Luckily, for now, both groups are small but who knows what the future may bring?

      Delete
    10. The other parties should never treat the SNP as if it is a normal party. It isn't due to its separatist agenda. The BNP was cold-shouldered by the political Establishment because of its policies and there is no reason why the SNP shouldn't be treated in a similar way and denied the oxygen of publicity.

      Delete
  8. Your piece has a definite tone of superiority and exceptionalism. I see you say democracy is characterised by the SNP's "interference". Your main argument against independence seems to be based on what the UK would lose rather than what's good or bad for Scotland. Is that because you see Westminster as your master? What about independence frightens you so much, from the perspective of being a Scot? How many countries who gain independence have handed it back?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Effie's address
      A house
      Aberdeenshire
      Great Britain

      She would probably top herself should Scotland have the gall to go it alone and break up her precious Union. Britnat mentality

      Delete
  9. The flaw that runs through all your writing is that you never, ever, acknowledge the fact that the UK was a voluntary union between two sovereign states. Three hundred years of joint history does not nullify this.
    There was once a perfectly functional and successful nation state called England. There was another, called Scotland. What concerns you so much that you will not contemplate that their re-emergence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Countries that gain independence cannot go back, which is part of the problem.

      That being said, I do believe you have a point; the UK system of government is too over-centralised and it is not just in Scotland that many areas get Conservative governments that they don't vote for.

      The answer, as I have stated in previous posts, is to grant Scotland home rule and the pro UK parties to give greater autonomy to their Scottish branches.

      I also believe that the main political parties should give greater autonomy to other English regions.

      Delete
    2. Well, based-upon the example of devolution as it presently stands, the SNP would welcome that as it would be once step nearer their goal. Yes, the United Kingdom probably was over centralised but there are various ways of dealing with that. I wouldn't have started from here. It is clear that with the likes of the undemocratic SNP around Holyrood isn't working just as even John Major managed to work out so we have to have other arrangments. Let's abolish Holyrood and replace with with regional assemblies including in Wales and England but also have REAL constitional reform at the national level like PR for Westminster and an elected House of Lords/Senate.

      Delete
    3. Wow Barry Scarfe you're losing the plot.
      Clutching at staws like wurzel gummage having a chug

      Delete
  10. I would like to see Westminster say No. That's the way to turn doubting Scots towards the Yes movement. It would be playing right into Sturgeons hands. The silly silly woman May has just taken on the job nobody with a brain cell wanted. She will be the fall guy for the mess made by brexit. May is no match for the First Minister. She's a cheap Maggie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are perfectly entitled to say NO. For one reason, the referendum you had on 'independence' (some independence it would have been with no currency of any description. Did Salmond SERIOUSLY think we were going to share one without at least some political union?) was only TWO years ago.


      Salmond signed an agreement that said the outcome would be respected for 'a generation'. Most dictionaries would define a generation as being over two years in duration.


      At any rate, whilst she can nonsensically ask for a referendum she can't automatically have one. The reason for this is that Holyrood is a DEVOLVED parliament OF Westminster and thus, unlike in a federal system such as the USA, the devolved body HAS NO INHERENT SOVEREIGNTY of its own ie the powers it has are DELEGATED to it FROM a higher authority ie Westminster. In this sense, the UK is STILL a 'unitary state' as it has always been. As the Scotland Act 1998 which set it up says, the parliament HAS NO CONSTITUIONAL POWERS as these are ALL 'reserved' to Westminster. Indeed, the Scotland Act 1998 makes this even more clear as not only are all constitional powers reserved the legislation SPECIFICALLY reserves as a constitional enactment the Acts of Union of 1706.


      If I were Mrs Sturgeon, I would be very, very careful. When the British state feels threatened it can get pretty nasty. We wouldn't want MI5/MI6/Special Branch to make her suffer an 'accident', would we?

      Mrs Sturgeon needs to get on with the day job and not keep on asking for yet more referendums. For one thing, businesses won't invest in Scotland with this question continually hanging around.

      Delete
    2. May has a duty to say no, this losing side does not have the good grace to accept the result, but the rights of those that voted no have to be respected.

      In 2015/2016 as Sturgeon/SNP prepared for the Holyrood elections they could have sought to obtain a mandate for a second referendum but they chose not to.

      Sturgeon/SNP have no mandate for a second referenum from the very people they should have sought one from when they campaigned for re-election in 2016!

      Delete
    3. Ok let's go all EXPRESS.
      Sturgeon DEFINITELY has a mandate.
      It was in the snp MANIFESTO.
      Scotland will SLAP down Westminster if they DARE refuse a REFERENDUM.
      BRING IT ON!!!!

      Delete
    4. It doesn't matter what was in the manifesto. Just TWO YEARS ago, Salmond made a WRITTEN and SIGNED PROMISE with Westminster in the Edinburgh Agreement that the result would be respected for a 'generation'. Are you now admitting that Salmond purposely lied both to Westminster and Scotland about that agreement?


      How exactly will Scotland 'slap down' Westminster when Holyrood has NO constitutional powers? I really hope you are not advocating something silly like a declaration of UDI because if that happened Westminster would be within its rights to immediately close the SUBSIDARY parliament in Westminster and have Ms Sturgeon arrested for High Treason. As we no longer have the death penalty for such an offence (thanks Bliar!) but do have the rather cold islands of the Falklands we could send her to serve time there! A perfect excuse would be given to Westminster to do what they have only done once before in history to my knowledge (ie banning a political party) which happened to the BUF in 1940 even though, unlike Sturgeon and company, the BUF's Sir Oswald and Lady Diana Mosley were British patriots and not engaged in seeking to break-up the United Kingdom.

      Delete
    5. Have you heard yourself? WOW.
      "It doesn't matter what was in the manifesto" ok so let's go along with that.
      Hey Scots, it doesn't matter what you have voted for because you previously voted something else.
      Aye let's go with that (thumbs up)
      You unionists are doing our work for us.

      Delete
    6. She can call for one but Westminster and Teresa May are perfectly within their rights to reject it for various reasons not least because Alex Salmond signed the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012 in which both he on behalf of his party and David Cameron promised to respect the result for a "generation". A generation lasts longer than two years and anyway it is only Westminster that can pass the TEMPORARY law to hold a referendum on this question as meddling with the constitution is totally beyond the legislative competence of the parliament.

      Delete
    7. "It was in the snp MANIFESTO"

      Then please quote the part that promises a referendum in the event the UK chooses to leave the EU.

      Delete
    8. "We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."

      Delete
    9. The Scottish Parliament can't ask for a right that is beyond its legislative competence. ONLY the British Parliament can give it TEMPORARY powers to hold one

      At any rate, the last sentence is a complete absurdity. The reason being NEITHER Scotland, nor England, Wales or Northern Ireland were EVER members of the European Union It was the UNITED KINGDOM of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that was pushed into it without so much as a by your leave by the Tory traitor Edward Heath in 1973 and the question on the ballot paper in June was 'Should the United Kingdom remain or leave the European Union?

      Many people consider our membership of the Common Market/EU to have been ilegal all along: www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

      Delete
    10. That's where you're wrong, of course the Scottish Parliament can ask and Westminster can and do have the power to refuse. I've never disputed that. However it would be a very divisive move to refuse. The question would never go away and the enevitable would only be delayed and in doing so the yes movement would only grow. Try telling a Scot "No, not yet". That is why they have not came outright and said it would be refused. That is why there's still yoons like Effie banging out pro uk blogs week after week.
      The genie will never be put back in its bottle. Yoons hate us, we just will not shut up and go away. We gather momentum and grow stronger, sometimes shall but never lose ground. Never weaker.

      Delete
  11. Effie

    As ever an interesting post but if I may query a few points you made.

    One of the central reasons Ireland became independent was because while the British reaction to the Easter Rising was judged to be over-excessive, failure to grant Home Rule over the potato famine fed a desire for separatism from the rest of the UK. For much of the 19th century there was little appetite in Ireland for actual separation but failure to settle the issue ensured that many supporters of home ruler felt that theirs was a lost cause. True, it was on the statue books in 1914 but the intervention of the First World War put pay to all that.

    And I think David Cameron was right to accept the SNP demands for a referendum. As the SNP were biggest party in the Scottish parliament they had a mandate; the problem was that the referendum was badly run, not well co-ordinated and was too negative. Had it been better run with more emphasis on the positives of being in the UK with a better emphasis on Britishness, the margin of victory might well have been between 15 and 20%.

    Today's Daily Record line on the SNP, which is critical of the Governments attitude to a second referendum, does not seem to bare out the argument a stronger line against the SNP works. What I think does seem to work is if greater devolution is given to Hollywood along with greater autonomy to pro UK parties. We have to remember that the Conservative party was a separate entity in Scotland before 1965 before full amalgamation. The result has been that its fortunes north of the border decreased dramatically to a point where it had no seats north of the border between 1997 and 2015. It is surely no coincidence that that changed after it was given greater autonomy after the 2010 election. Should Labour become electable again and give greater autonomy to its Scottish branch, might the union be saved?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Should Labour become electable again"
      Hahahahahahahahahaha oh and hahahahahahaha

      Delete
    2. The Labour party may well be in its death throes, that I do concede; what if the Labour party were to split between moderates and Corbynistas, or we were to see a Liberal Democrat revival?

      Delete
    3. I honestly think it would take a lot more than those possibilities to save the union. A time machine would be the place to start. It's not only the Labour party that is in its death thrones

      Delete
    4. It might help the Conservatives if they renamed themeselves the Unionist Party as they were before. However, devolving ever more power to Holyrood won't help in any way. This is because people like the SNP are fundamentalists and can't be reasoned with ie appeasement simply doesn't work with their mindset as Alistair McConnachie argues so eloquently. I would argue that proper constitutional reform at Westminster may help the situation somewhat with PR for elections (though not the strange kind of PR the Lib Dems favour). Dangerous 'electoral deserts' for both the Tories in Scotland and Labour in parts of England have arisen because of our archaic FPTP electoral system. It can't help the unity of the United Kingdom if Scotland looks like it never elects Tories or that the South of England looks to be violently opposed to the Labour Party. The reality of the situation on the ground is not as stark as the electoral system makes it look and this needs to be rectified.

      Delete
  12. Right there in ScotKat is the reason for the need for blogs of this kind. There may be some areas of it that are debatable, as pointed out by the more reasoned nationalists who have replied. But it is the name-calling racist nationalists such as ScotKat, who are unable to have a debate on a referendum, because they don't know why they want independence, other than to be independent. They will always be there to argue that it is our right to self determination, without realising what the implications of that right may mean for Scotland. They will always be at the front of the rentamob, shouting down legitimate arguments from supporters of other points of view. They will never accept the continuation of the Union, in whatever form. They can never be convinced by reasoned arguments because they are blind to the fact that others are entitled to have a view.
    At the end of the day, if there is another referendum which supports the continuation of the Union, they will not accept it, because they don't believe in democracy unless it aligns with their own limited agenda.
    No doubt some will say this can equally apply to the Unionist side. That there are narrow-minded people who will never agree to any other point of view. Undoubtedly, that is true but the one major difference is that if independence was voted for in any future referendum, that would be it. There would be no going back as there would be nothing to return to. The Unionists would have have to accept the democratic decision to remain in an independent Scotland or go elsewhere.
    The nationalists have the luxury of continuous agitation, as is currently being shown.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Surely this is a parody? If so, excellent work. I am sure the Irish will be pleased to know that they made a terrible mistake in choosing not to be ruled by unelected foreign politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, I forgot, Scots are 'oppressed' and always have been even though they have a powerful devolved parliament that is denied point blank to the largest part of the UK. Can the SNP and its followers really not try to sing the same old song of 'wee Scotland is oppressed by evil England'blah, blah, blah? Let's have a new record for a change!

    Don't you even realise you are being played? Mr Bliar (war criminal par excellence), who hailed from Edinburgh, I believe, only set-up Holyrood in order to forment division in the UK and have us all swallowed-up by Brussels in easily digested pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Let us take the iniative to the SNP and ask them what are their plans for more union? Seeing as this party doesn't accept the real meaning of the word democracy why not also re run the referendum of 1997 setting-up Holyrood asking whether it should be abolished? After all, 1997 is a long time ago now and nearly amounts to an entire generation rather than just two years ago!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah yeah cause that's gonnae happen! You're panicking and just blethering total sh*he.

      Delete
    2. But why not? I've often watched some of the debates in the parliament and whilst quite a few are sensible many others are nothing more than childish mudslinging and 'yah boo' politics - sometimes even worse than occurs in the House of Commons and that is saying something!

      I am sure many Scots must be pretty fed-up with all the antics in there and feel they wouldn't be missing much if it were closed-down, especially when a lot of the 'debates' have this constitutional question hanging around them like a bad smell which, sadly, are driving businessmen and women from having any inclination to invest in Scotland and create much-needed jobs and prosperity.

      If the SNP can continue to call for a 'neverendum' on 'independence' despite signing agreements with Westminster for them to last a 'generation' then others surely have the right to call for a new referendum on devolution since, as I said, the last one was as long ago as 1997!

      Delete
  16. Hoohoo the yoons fair have their knickers in a twist! Haha Lovin it

    ReplyDelete
  17. Scottish nationalism is pretty horrid. I fully agree that there should be no further votes on break up of the UK. The UK is one country and no one externally is going to question that.

    ReplyDelete