Better Together, for who?

by Joe Middleton

The British unionist campaign in the Scottish independence referendum is called Better Together but the question needs to be asked Better Together for who? There are clear advantages for England in retaining the Union and it does not surprise me when English people in Scotland like J K Rowling or Emma Thomson argue in favour of its retention.

If you see the Union Jack as equivalent to the English flag and given the dominance of the St George's Cross in the centre, who couldn't, then the flag could credibly represent England.
 

Given that ancient England was named Britannia by the Romans then Britain is also quite acceptable and indeed it backs up the English preferred view of Wales ie that it doesn't exist.

Therefore if you are English then you can be quite comfortable with either of these symbols in the knowledge that they really actually mean England.

Similarly Queen Elizabeth II of England has a certain ring to it and celebrating bashing those rebellious Scots who England regularly fought with over hundreds of years doesn't really present a problem. Similarly singing about Brittania ruling the waves doesn't really reflect on any other country apart from England a fact made quite evident by the British naval flag.

Since England has approximately 90% of Britain's MP's Westminster could legitimately be claimed to be as good as and in fact a lot better than any devolved English parliament.

Britain means retention of the Scottish Oil Fields under English political control and the use of that money in capital projects like the London Olympics, or duelling the A1 or indeed the Channel Tunnel. It also keeps the pound as a credible currency and magnifies British importance in Europe much like the Scottish fishing grounds.

The Bank of England is effectively Britain's central bank. The inclusion of Scotland and Wales's GDP keeps Britain in the G8 and these additions mean that not only does Britain have a seat in the UN they also get the added boost of being a member of the security council. Both of these places which England relies on would be at risk after Scottish independence.

All in all England gets every advantage from the Union and zero disadvantages. So a piddling amount of Scottish or Welsh MP's might vote in a different way to the English but in reality any party who gets into power in Westminster has to have huge support in England by definition.

The Trident Nuclear Deterrent means England can boss other countries around and interfere in their domestic policy while sonorously declaring that no-one else should have nuclear weapons. They are unpopular in Scotland of course but it's handy to keep them somewhere.

Retaining Britain means that England also retain control of little outposts like the Falklands or tax havens like the Channel Islands which means that the filthy rich can still work in Britain while avoiding paying any nasty tax there.

Do we want or need these? David Cameron certainly sees them as important.

Unfortunately all these additional benefits for England come at a cost. Wales and Scotland have to pretend we don't exist internationally. David Mundell (Scotland's lone Tory MP) doesn't have a problem with that but Better Together can't count him as very representative of the general viewpoint!

The truth is 'independence' for England would mean an actual reduction in power not an increase and England would have to accept that their imperial dream was finally over.

This is something that no English MP will ever countenance voluntarily (though they will be forced under international law to do so after any democratic vote for independence) which is why every London based party is 100% against Scottish independence. It is not in their national interest.

Can Alistair Darling whose ultimate loyalty to London has never been in doubt really convince the Scots who live in Scotland (and don't flip their mortgages) that they actually benefit from English control of everything?

I don't think so.