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.

The Reality of Union: Scotland invisible!

I was watching the BBC programme Dinner with Portillo some time ago (it was discussing Scots independence) and some of the reactions of the English guests were instructive. Rod Liddle initially tried to doubt the existence of Scotland at all, but later admitted that he was really worried an independent Scotland would take away all the Scots Labour MP’s from Westminster. As a leftist of sorts he thought this might not be in his interests as England would become a permanent Tory zone.

Portillo himself seemed to imagine there would be no consequences whatsoever for England, with London remaining the centre of the universe, he was therefore quite happy for the Scots (and Wales) to become independent because essentially we don’t really count.

An Oxford academic worried about how England might change without the influence of Scotland and Wales and might become a less tolerant country as a result. None of them were particularly interested in the effect independence might actually have on Scotland, an omission which perhaps perfectly illustrates the nature of the union!

On the ‘other side’ Hardeep Singh Kohli, who appears to have wangled a berth for himself as a TV expert on Scotland, proved his own ignorance by declaring that a separate military presence for Scotland was impossible and also bizarrely claimed that he didn’t even know the SNP’s policy on nuclear weapons.

He seemed to imagine Scotland as a jealous lover, spurned by those nasty English types who don’t care for our affections! In fact a battered wife might have been a better analogy but when people claim ‘the English’ as a whole believe a certain thing they are generally on a hiding to nothing and this was clearly the case with Mr Kohli.

Former Labour party First Minister Henry McLeish could have enlightened him on SNP policy no doubt but perhaps couldn’t be bothered, he was more interested in whether the RBS should be considered a British bank rather than a Scots one.

Meanwhile historian Michael Fry made some decent points but his political analysis seemed to be that we would be so skint with independence that we would have to slash public spending (as a Tory he liked the sound of that) even though the actual evidence is that Scotland puts more money into the union than we receive!

I mention this programme because it indicates the kind of mish mash which passes for serious commentary on Scots independence through the British prism of TV news.

Anyone watching this programme would have been no wiser about Scots independence at the end than they would have been at the start, yet the case is very clear and easily described.

As long as Scotland and Wales are outvoted by a factor of 10-1 and 20-1, in the important arenas of defence, foreign affairs and other important areas like pensions and social security, within the British parliament, then we do not live in a genuine democracy and our views are easily and effectively ignored.

So what moves are being made towards holding a referendum on independence and what is the current situation of the SNP Government?

Recently the SNP were being attacked by the ‘Scottish’ press for various imaginary sins. Possibly to deflect attention from actual fraud at British parliamentary level by Jim Devine MP, the press decided that an auction for a lunch with Alex Salmond was the height of corruption. The fact that the individual who bought the lunch, could have made the same donation directly to the SNP, and that there were no policy implications escapes our journos.

No, the most important issue for them is that the SNP might have used the parliamentary canteen (parliamentary facilities!) for the lunch in question… If it sounds pathetic, it is.

Nicola Sturgeon was also dunked into luke warm water for the heinous crime of representing a constituent. Yes, because Nicola wrote a letter asking a court to consider that a custodial sentence might not be advisable for a benefit fraudster with ten kids this was seen as a shocking lapse of judgement.

The Edinburgh Evening News claimed “the honeymoon is finally over for SNP”. This claim that the SNP’s popularity was a ‘honeymoon period’ was always designed to be a stick to beat them with, however given that the SNP won the elections in May 2007 it’s been a hell of a long honeymoon! The unionists have yet to hit the SNP with a charge that will stick. In reality they have governed extremely well, a fact which sticks in the throat of many a biased journalist.

The unionists attempted to kill the SNP’s referendum bill by trying to arrange one of there own flunkies as committee chairman. Margo MacDonald’s assisted suicide bill which should have went to the health committee was instead given to a newly created ad hoc committee with a view to ensuring a unionist chair on the proposed referendum bill which was expected to follow it.

In fact however the SNP neatly sidestepped this abuse of parliamentary procedure by publishing the Bill in draft form meaning that they can delay its actual implementation to a more opportune time.

The SNP plans to hold the referendum in late 2010, after the result of the UK elections and at a point where any new Government will have revealed its hand in respect of Scotland. Labour and Liberals might find it more difficult to deny a choice on independence in the face of a hostile Conservative UK Government!

At the moment however all the unionists are pledged to deny Scots a choice and to publish a bill would simply hasten its demise. Timing in this case is everything, and the SNP have organised through their national conversation a proper consultation with the public. SNP ministers have travelled up and down all of Scotland and held numerous public meetings to properly consider independence.

The ill fated Calman commission, designed to scupper independence without actually going as far as considering it, has given its findings which have subsequently been entirely ignored by both Labour and Conservatives. So called devolution max, is actually devolution minimal as no unionist party is willing to countenance any actual financial level of independence.

Without the purse strings of course a devolved assembly remains effectively controlled by central Government, a fact they are all well aware of. Calman was designed to outflank the national conversation, however because it ignored independence all it has done is reveal the poverty of ambition for Scotland of all unionists. Job well done!

What this means is that the line between independence and devolution remains clearly drawn. When the referendum happens the Scots will get a choice which is clear between those who want the best for Scotland and those who don’t.

The unionists can delay that vote but ultimately they cannot deny it. If the SNP needs to spend more time talking to the public and dealing with actual political issues then I’m sure they are happy to do this. If they have to fend off ill aimed allegations without much actual weight then they seem entirely capable of that as well.

According to opinion polls many people in Scotland remain unconvinced by independence, probably because the actual issues are rarely properly addressed through the British media. Those issues will only be properly addressed by those who believe in independence making a case for it. This is what the SNP is attempting to do and gradually they are moving towards their ultimate objective.

Scotland must finally be given a choice and when that choice is properly debated through a referendum campaign their patient groundwork through the national conversation will hopefully pay off.

As I write this the UK General election has just happened. If you lived in England you might well believe that there are no other countries in the British union since it was dominated by coverage of the three unionist parties. These elections are always unfair to pro-independence parties because the UK parties get a double dose of election coverage. They are featured in UK-wide coverage but also in the so called ‘regional’ broadcasts where there branches pretend to be Welsh or Scottish parties in their own right.

As the TV broadcasts were extremely prominent in the campaign the SNP and Plaid Cymru were able to make the point that this is unfair and the BBC’s response to their complaints highlighted that unfairness. Effectively the BBC decreed that only those parties which could potentially elect a Prime Minister ie those parties who could get a majority in the UK parliament deserved a seat at the debates. What this means effectively is that only the parties that contest seats in England are considered relevant. This is an effective comment on the union because it relies on Scotland and Wales remaining invisible for it to work.

In the event a hung parliament emerged while in Scotland and Wales the situation was unchanged. Both gave back large numbers of Labour MP’s both had a reduced rump of Conservatives and a handful of nationalist MP’s. It appears that the Liberal Democrats will either be in coalition with the Conservatives or will prop up a Conservative Government. Luckily Scotland and Wales both have our devolved parliaments to protect us from that dismal prospect. Also, given the continued pariah status of the Conservatives in Scotland, this result should provide a boost to the pro-referendum cause.

Published in Carn the magazine of the Celtic League.

TV debate farce is an undemocratic disgrace

There is a lot of anger about this on Twitter and other social networking sites. No wonder, it is an undemocratic disgrace that the political views of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall can be completely and utterly ignored.

Brainwashed by Britain? Labour's plans for 2012 Olympics

Here is what one Labour think-tank has to say about 2012 (thanks to Ray Bell for this - JOE)

Quote:

"Sport is one of the most powerful tools available to policy makers seeking to entrench the best of British identity. In its elite and mass forms, it reaches into the lives of many millions of people. In the run-up to the 2012 Games, with their focus on children, children are going to be increasingly involved with sporting activity that is explicitly British rather than English, Scottish or Welsh."

Opinion Leader Forum Report, It's the Taking Part that Counts, Opinion Leader Forum 2007, p23

MEDIA BLACK OUT OF DISGUSTING 'F*CK 'EM' LORD SEB COE COMMENT

"The creation of the team [GB] has been opposed by the Football Associations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are concerned it may compromise their individual status within Fifa.But he said the BOA, which selects teams for the Games, has decided to press ahead with a football squad despite the opposition.When asked last night about the opposition from the Welsh and Scots, Coe replied bluntly: “F*** em!”

==============================

See also the Tartan Army Board

http://taboard.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=82111

------------

Thanks to Ray B. for passing on the above information. This story has been removed from the website of the paper concerned and Lord Coe has threatened legal action however since it appeared in the print media it seems unlikely that the paper simply invented it. Perhaps Coe made the remarks 'off the record' and trusted the journalists to keep schtum.

What is perhaps most surprising is that this story has not made the TV media AT ALL.

The whole issue has been blacked out despite the story appearing in both The London Paper and The Metro. Obviously if it turns out that the journalists concerned have made up the story then Coe will escape censure however an urgent investigation needs to happen immediately because if true it is clear that his position is completely untenable.

The Scottish and Welsh national football teams are functionally independent. Since both are completely opposed to a British team neither the English FA nor the British Government can force through a British Olympic Football Team under those circumstances. To do so could seriously compromise future Scottish and Welsh involvement in The World Cup and European Championships. (Is this actually the game plan of 'the Anti-Scot' Gordon Brown?).

Lord Sebastian Coe seems to think that not only can a team GB be forced through against our own FA's express wishes but that he can insult Scotland and Wales with impunity. Clearly his alleged remarks have been blacked out of the British media altogether which suggests that the powers that be believe this story is just too embarassing to break.

Luckily the power of the internet is such nowadays that this won't work. Personally I believe that Coe has reacted as reported. No doubt he didn't mean his remarks to be widely circulated as it would inevitably mean his job however the almost imperialist attitude that Scotland and Wales simply DO NOT COUNT are the political consequence of joining in an unequal union with a country that in our case is eleven times larger and in Wales case 20 times.

Dear Wendy, what happened to the Claim of Right?

(sent through Wendy's blog)

Dear Ms Alexander,

Does your party still support the Claim of Right for Scotland? Gordon Brown and his followers appear to think power resides with the UK parliament, not the Scottish people (see below for the proof of that statement).

That was always the view of the Conservatives and that was why they acted the way they did while in office. Yet Labour along with the Liberal Democrats signed the Claim of Right and also demanded control of Scottish broadcasting from London.

Now it appears that your own leader thinks Scotland's views can be ignored:

Put that if Alex Salmond took Wendy Alexander's advice and held a referendum on independence, it would take place before the Calman Commission reported, the PMS said that for there to be a legally binding referendum, it would require legislation in the UK Parliament.

Asked if the PMS was suggesting that the Prime Minister would seek to block an early referendum after saying that any binding referendum would need legislation in the UK Parliament, the PMS replied that he was not suggesting anything; he was setting out a factual position.

My organisation, Independence First wrote to the last Scottish Executive and British Government seeking their views, what returned was illuminating and alarming.

The Scottish Parliament replied: “The Scotland Act 1998 sets out the statutory framework for the Scottish devolution settlement. Schedule 5 to the Act defines matters which are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament.”

“The devolution settlement and constitutional matters generally are reserved matters under the Act. The Government of the United Kingdom is responsible therefore for considering any fundamental changes to the existing devolution framework in Scotland.”

The Scottish Office in London replied “It is worth noting that in the UK political system the UK parliament is sovereign and it is for Parliament to decide whether or not to hold a referendum on any particular issue - and what the terms of any referendum should be.”

http://www.independence1st.com/comment/not_acceptable.shtml

Yours sincerely,

Joe Middleton

WALES AND BERWICK ACT - 1746

This is mentioned in Wendy Wood's autobiography Yours Sincerely for Scotland on p 210 and 211:

With regard to the Royal Charter of 1604 given by James VI Berwick, like Calais was at that time an occupied town, held by another nationality. If it had not still been part of the realm of Scotland it would not have had the English officials as Calais had. King James abolished these officials for he could not as King of England claim occupation of his possession as King of Scots So Berwick, the capital town of its County is in Scotland and belongs to Scotland.

Up to the 16th century Berwick was specially mentioned as 'my' or 'our' town of Berwick in all Royal Proclamations and Statutes but by the Wales and Berwick Act of 1746 'It is declared and enacted that in all cases where the Kingdom of England or hath been or shall be mentioned in any Act of Parliament the same has been and shall henceforth be deemed and taken to comprehend and include the dominion of Wales and Town of Berwick upon Tweed.'

With this bald statement it is quite reasonable to doubt if the Treaty of 1707 was anything more than a complete farce.

So if Berwick has been legally part of England 'for over 500 years' as the media assures us why is the British parliament passing an act claiming it as part of England (along with Wales!) just over 250 years ago?

I contacted Christine Graham MSP of the SNP (who has been asking Questions about Berwick in the Scottish Parliament) and she is now looking into this.

BROWN SAYS BRITAIN MIGHT TRY AND TAKE POWERS BACK

Report in Scotsman

Devolution review 'may lead to loss of Holyrood powers'

GORDON Brown yesterday backed a review of Scottish devolution – but suggested it could mean the return of some powers to Westminster.

The Prime Minister gave his public support for the first time to the Scottish Constitutional Commission, the body which will be set up to look into Scottish Parliament's powers.Mr Brown accepted there might be a case for some financial controls, including new tax-raising powers, to be handed over to Holyrood from Westminster.But he also said the review would examine whether Holyrood should lose control in some areas, particularly over terrorism or agricultural diseases, to Westminster.

Report in Herald

We should be very wary of allowing the UK Government to revisit the Scotland Act. The Welsh Act has already been re-visited by BritGov and they took the opportunity at that point to fiddle the election system to stop people standing on the FPTP and PR Lists, a clear attempt to weaken the smaller parties and strengthen Labour who tend to do better FPTP.

Powers over 'anti-terrorism' are already held (and abused) by the UK Government. This is a chimera behind which GB can try and take over other inconvenient powers such as say the right to refuse planning permission to new nuclear power stations. Any process of delivering greater powers for Scotland has to be led from here because the UK Government simply cannot be trusted to act honestly.

The Scottish Constitutional Convention (devolution version) called for powers over broadcasting and was supported by the scottish branches of Labour, Lib dems and Tories yet mysteriously when we actually got to the bill those powers were removed.

If we want to guarantee the significant extra powers that we need ie foreign affairs and proper control over all our finances then the obvious answer is to demand independence.

Taking more powers along that process seems logical but it possibly encourages the idea that the UK could be trusted not to interfere in other areas. As we can see from these comments we CANNOT trust Labour or the UK Government one iota and that has effectively been our experence of British rule for the last 300 years.

SAME NONSENSE BY BLIAR FOR WALES

Blair: Independence is backward

INDEPENDENCE for Wales and Scotland would be an old-fashioned backward step, Prime Minister Tony Blair said yesterday - while claiming his own legacy was to make Britain a more modern place.

[A backward step? More like a necessary step which every former colony of the British Empire has made and none have regretted! Independence is not 'backward' for Wales or Scotland. As Jack Straw has pointed out the union is useful for England but it is not useful for Scotland or Wales, both of whom would benefit from independent representation in the EU and the UN. JOE]

Mr Blair has been under pressure on the constitutional issue after a series of polls showed growing support among the English for the break-up of the UK, and a surge in support for the SNP in Scotland.

But Mr Blair told a Westminster lunch that autonomy for the nations of the UK was "a completely regressive step, totally wrong and totally contrary to where the modern world is moving, which is countries moving together."

Using his own background to stress the "interdependence" point used repeatedly by Chancellor Gordon Brown, Mr Blair said, "My mum was Irish, my Dad was English, both lived most of their lives in Scotland. I was born in Scotland but brought up in County Durham, and I now live most of my life down in London. [Who cares? Blair's allegiance is to England, fair enough, but can he not realise that others put Scotland or Wales first?]

"It's a good newspaper story - You have an opinion poll question to people saying 'Scotland have got their own parliament, should England have its own parliament?'
"I would be kind of surprised if people didn't answer that question 'yes'.
"But to then take it a step further and say they want to bust up the United Kingdom; I don't think they want to bust-up the UK." [Pity that's exactly what the polls say Tony.]

An ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph which suggested support for Scottish independence had reached 52% among Scots and 59% in England. And a poll in yesterday's Scotsman suggest the SNP was on course to be the largest party in the Scottish parliament after next May.

Mr Blair said he recalled similar poll results being published in the summer of 1998, which were not reflected in the results of the 1999 Welsh and Scottish elections.
"When people come to the point of do they want to bust up the UK, I don't think they want to do that," he said. "I'm not saying these aren't difficult arguments that you have to handle carefully, because you do, but I think independence would be a thoroughly old-fashioned and regressive step."

The Prime Minister has said he will step down before next September, but would not be drawn on his departure date when questioned by reporters yesterday. Asked about his biggest mistakes since entering 10 Downing Street in 1997, he hinted they might not include issues such as the Iraq war.

"If people ask me what's your biggest mistakes, I always say 'that's for me to know and you to find out'. Although they may, funnily enough not be some of the things you might think of," he said. He added, "I think the thing that has changed about the country overall is that I think the country is basically more willing to advance people on merit today, and ... I think we've become a far more modern country."

Returning to his theme of the regions [Scotland and Wales are COUNTRIES not regions], he said, it was wrong to always compare areas such as Wales or the north-east of England with London, saying there had been strong economic growth throughout the UK

"Part of the trouble with comparing region by region is, if you take London for example, you have some of the wealthiest parts of Britain and some of the poorest. It's more sensible to analyse disparities within regions rather than pitting regions against each other."