I note this was posted in The National yesterday by my colleague, Paul Kavanagh, who posts under the name Wee Ginger Dug:
It's St George's Day, and a new study has found that only 45% of people in England believe that keeping the United Kingdom together is a priority.
The research by Professor Ailsa Henderson and Professor Richard Wyn Jones is titled The Shameful Conquest of England – and it also found a sense of “grievance about the perceived cost and political influence of other nations”.
The report said there was “a striking degree of ambivalence about the continuing territorial integrity of the UK state among English-identifiers, including a tendency to regard the goal of Brexit as being far more important than maintaining the place of either Scotland or Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom”.
The 2011 census found that 60% of people in England identify primarily or solely as English. A similar percentage of people in Scotland identify primarily or solely as Scottish.
The point is important.
Most people in England are indifferent to Scotland.
Most people in England have never been to Scotland.
Most never want to do so.
They do not like Scottish people, about whom they think in stereotypes.
They think Scotland is a burden on England, even though it most definitely is not.
And, unsurprisingly, in my opinion, given the contempt in which they know they are held, most people in Scotland have little regard for the English.
It is not then sentiment in the two countries that is holding the Union together. It is the political will to dominate in England that does so, and the fear of confrontation and change in the SNP leadership that compounds that.
This is not sustainable.
The UK is not sustainable.
It will just be time before it will splinter, and then ends. A country that does not believe in itself cannot survive.
And then the empire will be over, and not a moment too soon.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What of Wales though?
As a Dutch speaker, I’ve often msde the joke that when Scotland leaves and Ireland is reunited, you’ll be left with a rump UK. Call it RUK.
Ruk is a vulgar term in Dutch for something that is not very good at all.
41% in Wales now want independence
A good starting point!! The only way is up.
But Richard, if it happens soon, would you;
A – apply for Irish nationality (if you don’t have it already) and keep your British/English too
B – just stay a national of the new entity
C – go for just Irish knowing you have full rights in the RUK, even voting.
For you an interesting situation I should imagine!
I have had an Irish passport for many decades now
I prefer “Former” UK which works well will endings such as ed or ers.
BTW: there used to a a constituency in England for the Euro Parliament called “Salop”. When the member for Salop stood to speak – the French speakers were reduced to hysteria.
🙂 x 2
Salop got its name in the past because the post 1066 French speaking administrators of England couldn’t pronounce the original ”schr” sound. Adopting names because they look more official or authentic is a really terrible idea.
If we are going to undo the 18th century – as I trust we are – may I suggest that the rump might aptly be called, South Britain.
Wales has a strong cultural identity and Welsh is spoken much more than Gaelic is in Scotland. With its own legal system and successful education system there is much less to separate to make Scotland independent and I think rightly a resentment that Scottish oil and gas has been used to prop up the UK when the funds should have gone to Scotland. Wales is economically poorer and there is little left of all the industry in South Wales so it’s harder to envisage how Wales would thrive much as many would li,e independence from Westminster.
Harder, I agree
But there comes a time when an abusive relationship is not worth living with
I think Wales would be absolutely fine as are many countries of its small size, the Baltic countries, etc. The point is, if it wasn’t fine at first as an independent nation, it would have its own government who would have control all the levers of power in order to do something about it, unlike the present time.
Thank you, Hazel.
When Mauritius became independent in 1968, there was little other than sugar cane, the government and a small amount of fishing and tourism.
My family, Creole, voted against independence as the Hindutva were on the march, leading to communal violence in 1966.
The economy prospered until a crash and IMF bail out in 1979, but since the mid-late 1980s, the country has prospered and diversified and now needs immigrants due to an ageing population, smaller families and the skills needed for finance and technology and even services to a better off population, e.g. landscaping, interior decorating and building design. Many Europeans and even some Americans have settled.
There’s nothing for Scotland and Wales to fear. It won’t be easy, but escaping the rapacious English and anglicised elite is worth it.
Agreed
Alternatively, you could call it the Former UK, which is not much better!
‘And then the empire will be over, and not a moment too soon.’
Well said, colonisation is brutal and vile, millions affected across history, Ireland, Africa, India, Asia, America, and Scotland. The Empire and UK has long floated on the misery of its colonies, and the poor within England.
Perhaps England will press pause, have a moment of national self-reflection, triggering a renewal of democracy and democratic thriving. Maybe feel more comfortable within its own skin, and like so more comfortable with neighbouring nation states in Europe (including Scotland).
It is true that Scotland has been affected by colonialism. But it is important to not forget that many parts of Scotland, particularly wealthy traders in ports like Glasgow, profited greatly from empire and slavery.
Accepted
That wasn’t Scotland – the country – benefitting, that was certain Scottish individuals benefitting from empire, trading and slavery.
Deprivation was/is still very apparent in Scotland despite the oil and gas, etc., because the wealth generated is sucked up by England, our ‘equal’ partner in a Treaty, and the English government makes damn sure Scotland doesn’t get sufficient funds in our Household Budget to improve our people’s lot.
Agree and it’s what kept it going,
Some years ago I had cause to buy a car part at a motor accessary shop in Cambridgeshire. Upon hearing my accent, the assistant asked where in Scotland I was from. I replied, Glasgow. He looked at my puzzled and said, ” You can’t be, you don’t talk like Rab C Nesbitt.”
🙂
Never understood the English politicians’ attitude to Scotland.
They bang on about how much money England sends them but in the next breath insist they stay in the Union…. whether they like it or not.
Why can’t they just try and govern better…. and then they might find Scots positively want to be in the Union.
But let’s be clear; it’s for Scotland to decide, not England.
Much to agree with
“..and then they might find Scots positively want to be in the Union.” England has taken Scotland too much for fools for hundreds of years for this to ever be the case. Scotland is nothing more than a cash cow to England that’s why the politicians hang on so tightly to our country.
England is a neighbour, nothing more, and mostly we are polite but we don’t want HoC/HoL ruling over us not least because English politicians are nasty self-interested, corrupt bastards who don’t care about their own English people let alone those in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
Good grief, we don’t have to look far for evidence of it:
Shitty waterways/sea and private water companies ripping off their customers – nothing done about it.
Poverty amongst children and elderly – ditto
Wealthy being protected whilst the poor are squeezed until “the pips squeak” as someone once said.
A failing NHS – solution? Sell it to the highest American bidder (with, no doubt, politicians holding shares in those health insurance companies) – kerching.
Who would, voluntarily, want to be part of that? Who wouldn’t be looking ahead hoping to build a better future for our country and our people, free of a parasitic neighbour.
Much to agree with
Addendum:
Scotland produces most of the energy in the UK.
Guess which population has the highest bills for gas and electricity and has the coldest winter temperatures? Guess which country pays the highest charges to connect to the National Grid?
You’d think Scotland and the Scottish would be treated with more respect in such a lop-sided relationship but no, we are treated with disdain and contempt at every turn.
Stay in the Union? Not an fn chance.
“…a new study has found that only 45% of people in England believe that keeping the United Kingdom together is a priority”.
Nine years ago a referendum found that only 46% of people in England believed that keeping the European Union together was a priority. It seems the electorate hasn’t changed in that time.
Indeed. It’s often seemed to me that the Brexit vote was England’s declaration of independence from the rest of the UK. It had probably been inevitable since the political turn brought about by Thatcher, an explicitly English leader much despised in Scotland, albeit to her bafflement and chagrin.
The rest is demographics. At the time of the 2014 referendum, you had to go down to the under-35s to find a majority for Yes; that’s now true of the under-50s. People are not changing their minds on this as they grow older, so in 10 years time there will be a majority in the under-60s, and the independence die will be cast.
I don’t see anything to mourn in this; indeed, as a Scot who abstained in the 2014 vote, the turning point was Brexit: essentially, we had two referendums in very short order as to which Union we preferred and sentiment was for Europe by 62 to 55.
The exit from Europe – a place favoured by the Scots, who certainly don’t see the French, for example, as an enemy – has changed sentiments in the two most middle-class Scottish cities (Edinburgh/Aberdeen) which were strongly No, whilst the two most working-class cities (Glasgow/Dundee), already Yes, certainly haven’t changed their minds in the other direction.
It’s quite amusing watching the English establishment desperately try to hang onto Scotland with the same fervour with which they’d very happily dispatch Notthern Ireland, but without something coming along to re-bind Scotland into a fading Union, and I can’t imagine what that might be, it’s not going to be possible.
This analysis is spot on. Greater desire among Scots to determine their own affairs, particularly in the face of 14 years of tory government with which we Scots increasingly found ourselves at odds, politically; that was not the only factor in the rise for support for independence. I think another important factor is that the English have increasingly felt in recent times that their basic political unit is England, and not the United Kingdom. And I say this without seeking to dramatise the headlines that might follow from it.
Of course, as a Scot, I would say that one important reason (perhaps the most important?) England doesn’t want Scotland to leave the union is that it would have to find somewhere on its own shores to keep its nuclear weapons.
More broadly, I think there is a really important question around what democracy looks like in this state which has four discrete countries in it. Specifically, because England is exponentially larger (in terms of population and thus voter numbers) than the other three countries put together, if they are not in agreement with England, should they be bound to do what England wants? Brexit is perhaps the most stark example of this. Scotland of course voted 62/38% to remain. I appreciate it is not altogether satisfactory, but I throw this out here as a question, but don’t offer any answer.
Splitting up the UK will have significant implications for our international status. Would England retain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council? I suspect that would be under threat. How about its membership of the G7? Would that go too?
Many of us think that perhaps this would be a good thing, in that it would add one more nail in the coffin of British exceptionalism, but it should still be acknowledged as part of the reality of Scottish independence.
The UN Security Council seat needs to go – as do those of the YS, France and Russia.
The G7 needs ti be rethought
This is the perfect time to do these things
Thank you, both.
The G7 is an irrelevance and has been for twenty years. The October 2008 and March 2009 G20 saw to that after September 2008.
I have not talked to foreign politicians officials about the break up of the union, but get the feeling from British officials and politicians and their counterparts that the psychological and political blow would make it harder for British politicians and officials to swagger around the world in an imperious manner. It would reduce England to the failed state that it was for the latter middle ages and even mid-17th century and make its elite a laughing stock, especially in Uncle Sam’s eyes.
I think the G8 in 2013 was relevant – but only for tax, which is why I was there.
@ Kim SJ,
When, or if, it happens:
Upon dissolution of the union we revert to the status quo ante; the two parties that created the union revert to their former entities: The Kingdom of England (KoE) and the Kingdom of Scotland (KoS). KoE brought Wales and all of Ireland with them; neither of those entities were signatories to the Articles of Union, which was an international treaty. There will be no “rUK”, because that entity will have ceased to exist; Scotland would not be “leaving” the United Kingdom, it would be ending it.
At that point either or neither party could claim continuing status. We can rule out KoS claiming continuing status, because there’s no way 8% of the population can take on the liabilities of the whole; Scotland would almost certainly become a successor state. England could also choose to become a successor state, in which case all assets and liabilities would be shared pro rata; both parties would start afresh, both nations would need to apply as new states to the: UN; IOC; CoE, etc… See Czechoslovakia’s “velvet divorce” as an example.
Or, KoE could claim continuing status. In that case it would accept all the UK’s debts, liabilities and obligations; along with retaining all assets, privileges and rights – including memberships of international organisations. See Russia, Serbia or Sudan as examples.
Everything is negotiable, but those are the starting positions. What the KoE does not get to do is claim continuing status, because it wants to retain the UNSC seat, and simultaneously try to transfer 8% of the national debt to Scotland. Its either/or, but not both.
Note: during the referendum campaign, the UK government did acknowledge that it would be liable for ongoing state pension payments in Scotland, or part payments based on contributions to date; the SNP indicated that they would be willing to take on pension liabilities.
I think your summary on those issues is broadly correct
The framework has already been produced, by the UK Government (rUK); but nobody in Scotland has produced a viable, functionally workable alternative in international law (the SNP has implicitly accepted it; in 2014 Alex Salmond had this all wrong).
Crawford and Boyle, ‘Scotland analysis: Devolution and the implications of Scottish independence’ (gov.UK, 2013; Cm 8554). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a796041ed915d0422067ebf/Scotland_analysis_Devolution_and_the_implications_of_Scottish_Independan…__1_.pdf.
I think this is around the tenth time (or thereabouts) that I have presented this information. For anyone interested in the real, functional solutions in breaking up the Union, this is essential reading. Forget the historical arcania. The UK was set up in 1707 as an incorporating Union (England’s preference), but it will require to dismantle itself as if it is a Federal State, even though it isn’t. The reason for that is that there is no other way to handle the £2.6Trn National Debt, and the circa 2,000 UK state treaties. This also means the currency (Sterling) is under rUK (England’s control); but Scotland has no responsibility or obligation to take any of the National Debt. Indeed, when Crawford and Boyle published, the UK Government solemnly undertook that rUK would take full responsibility for ALL the current UK National Debt. It is a done deal. What Scotland requires to do is solve the currency problem (but using Sterling under these conditions is tantamount to repealing ‘independence’).
These are the issues that people in Scotland require to laser-focus on, with singular clarity. Everything else is, in the end – secondary.
Please note that it is 12 years since Crawford and Boyle provided the base template, and I know few Scots interested in independence who have even read it. That is HOPELESS.
Thanks
In response to John S Warren’s post of 27th April at 10:11am:
Apologies for being late in ‘coming to the party’ on this topic (I’ve been hospitalised for the last 2 weeks), so I’m in catch-up mode today. I tried to open the link and got this response {“_response_info”:{“status”:”not found”}}. Any clues? I’ll also read through the postings and reply if I’ve got anything new/different to say.
Thanks, Ken.
I hope you are ok.
It’s not just Scotland leaving the UK, it’s every part of the British Isles. Neoliberalism has gutted state institutions and infrastructure to the point that it can’t be repaired. We no longer have a functioning government, and it is one or two disasters away from collapse. Much like Roman Britain breaking down into regional kingdoms, I feel that our future is likely to be a modern version of this. Yorkshire, Lancashire, London, Wales, they could all be independent states. Smaller populations are happier; all the happiest countries are the ones with populations less than seven million, and we will likely have lost the institutional knowledge to run a large state within a generation. It may seem like fantasy, but history tends to repeat itself, if not exactly the same, at least in broad strokes.
But Yorkshire shares most of its culture with East Anglia and the south west. Scotland does not.
Slightly off topic but I was talking yesterday to a recently arrived neighbour who has a very marked NI accent (quite a lot different from ROI). He had just done a trip to Belfast via Scotland and he then went on to Dublin and back. He says it is nonsense that he didn’t require a passport for any of that, but if he went from Hollyhead to Dublin Port he would need a passport. He also said the price of a pint in Dublin is at least twice that in Belfast. When I get to know him better I’ll ask what he thinks about Irish reunification.
Prices of pints are always lower out of high tourist centres in capital cities. Just look at the difference between London and Ely. I am not sure that is an issue.
And the passport is required for security reasons, not border control, I think.
The end of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its pervasive imperialistic attitude to the rest of the world might finally put an end to the excruciating use of Great British whatever – Energy, Bake Off, Weather, Nuclear etc!
🙂
More division in the world is unwelcome. Don’t we have enough.
What about we have too much oppression?
An interesting analysis. I get the impression that a number of people in England have an imperialist attitude and resent losing power and influence and realise that their neighbours no longer look up to them. Bit like Russians! Oh by the way Cornwall does not want to remain in an imperialist England!