Since I first posted this, we’ve had an election, and Westminster and the unionist coalition of Tories/Labour/LibDems under their Great Leader, David Cameron, have decide that we can have a referendum after all – but with very bad grace. But imperialists always revert to type – like the scorpion that stung the ox carrying it across a turbulent river – it’s in their nature …
Repost of Wednesday, 15 December 2010 blog
The Falklands Islanders can leave the UK whenever they want to–but what about the Scots?
The Daily Politics, Wednesday the 15th of December.
THERESA VILLIERS, TORY MP
"Our legal rights to the sovereignty of the Falklands is clear, and we've always said we will never give the Falklands back, unless the people in the Falkland Islands wish to make a change to the current arrangement ... The Falkland Islands stay British unless the Falkland islanders want to change that."
ED BALLS, LABOUR MP
"These are British people, who have a right to self-determination ---"
So say the two largest parties in the UK.
But what of Scotland, a country that voluntarily entered into a union with England as the UK - a country with its own ancient, proud, independent history, traditions and culture, its own church, its own legal system, its own Parliament.
What if a substantial proportion of the population of Scotland - a majority in the last opinion poll - want a referendum to determine their wishes?
The answer is a flat, unequivocal NO from all three of the largest UK parties. They are afraid even to ask the question. So billions can be squandered on maintaining a remote, tiny relic of the faded British Empire, but Scotland cannot even seek the opinion of its citizens.
The question must be asked again and again - why does the UK want to hold Scotland? The answers are clear - defence, i.e. nuclear, policy, revenue from oil and Scotch whisky, and finally the fact that if Scotland goes, the pretence of Empire can no longer be sustained.
And of course there is the secret terror that Scotland might well prove to be more economically successful than England, and might continue to display a concern for its poor, its vulnerable, its aged, and for the education of its young people that is increasingly absent in England.
Let Scotland go! You must be nuts - the Union Jack would rot on the flagpole! There would be riots in the streets of London! Members of the Royal Family would be assaulted in public! (aside from Sir Humphrey – Ahem, that has already happened, Minister ...”)
And what would happen to the post of colonial governor, the Scottish Secretary?
Why that would pass, unmourned, into the sordid pages of the history of that benighted position.
Posts
Yes, not only an outpouring of warmongering (Iran as well)to distract the lieges, but quite a few stories involving sex!
ReplyDeletePanem et circenses.
Anything to avoid discussing the apalling abyss that awaits us.
The fact that independance would instantly relegate the Union Jack to the flagpole of irrelevance is something our southern cousins haven't even considered. Amid the bluster of 'let them have it and see what happens' and 'we'll be better off without them' they haven't considered the far bigger psychological effect on themselves.
ReplyDeleteNo more British Bulldog, no more Empire, no more ignorance to cultures of the other nations of the UK. Regardless of political persuasion I believe most Scots regard themselves as Scots first. The saltire is already engrained in our psyche, we won't miss the Red, White and Blue.
In saying that, it would not surprise me if they chose to continue with the Union Jack after Scotland's escape. When Ireland left for good they left the design of the flag as is, with a half hearted excuse that the St Patricks Cross was there to represent Northern Ireland. Would they really be so entrenched in their own history books that they carried on with that symbol of a once powerful triumvirate - with only 1 out of the 3 left??*
I wouldn't put it past them.
*Sorry Wales, no disrespect intended. I hope the break up of this facade of a Union means you can regain your own confidence and rise beyond the status of principality.
It all depends on who you mean by 'they', Ayrshireman. The diehard Unionist politicians, incl. the diheard unionist Scots among them, are capable of such myopia.
ReplyDeleteBut I think the English people will awaken at last the fact that the Union has been bad for most of them, especially outside of the prosperous south-east. I think they will assert themselves as a nation at last, and will want a new England, proudly flying the flag of St. George.
regards,
Peter
Regarding the Union flag, you're correct Peter I'm referring to those that hold power in the Unionist fortress of Westminster (regardless of which home nation they hail from).
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do feel there has always been a streak of ignorance to anyone or anything outwith the English bubble by the average Southern Joe, I don't blame anyone for this. People have been educated in the introverted Anglicised way for a long time and only now are they being rudely awoken. In fact people are still being misinformed in the press regarding Scotland and the reality of Independance.
Ricky
Thanks for posting ...
ReplyDeleteI don't like generalisations about any class of people, Ricky, regardless of nationality. People are just people, and they differ. I've lived in England in the past for many yeard, and I found English people to be much the same mix as Scots - some aware, some not, some bigoted, some not, some parochial and some not. My children and my grandchild were educated in English schools, and there was no 'introverted Anglicised' way.
But there was indoctrination in Scottish schools by Scottish teachers, in my generation at least - we were fed empire and denied a realistic view of our own history.
The most dangerous things that faces people in their relationships is stereotyping - attributing characteristics to an entire group, nationality or class based on experience of an unrepresentative few.
That's not what oour new Scotland is going to be about - I hope ...
regards,
Peter