Is the breakup of Britain inevitable?
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are turning away from Westminster while England clings to a failing system of centralised power. In this video, I ask whether the UK can survive much longer in its current form, and whether its collapse might be the chance to start again.
Could four sovereign democracies emerge from the ruins of a tired union?
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
How long can the United Kingdom last? It's a real question, which needs a real answer.
In the 1970s, a chap called Tom Nairn wrote a book called The Breakup of Britain, and in that he warned that the UK was an artificial state made up, of course, of four nations, who would only remain within it so long as they all believed it worthwhile. My argument is that three out of the four no longer have that belief, and in that case, for how much longer can the UK survive?
Plaid Cymru could soon lead the government of Wales. It's just won the Caerphilly by-election. It is ahead of Reform by a comfortable margin. Labour is disappearing as a power in Wales. The next government in the Welsh Senedd could be led by Welsh nationalists.
And at the same time, the SNP is still dominating Scottish politics, and questions around Scottish independence are showing that more and more people in that country are now looking for independence and supporting the SNP. As a result, the likelihood that the SNP will be in government again after the 2026 elections in that country is very high.
And in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin is already governing, and the possibility that Sinn Féin might be governing in Ireland as well sometime soon is real.
But the point is that in three of the four nations that currently make up the UK, parties whose goal is to leave the union might be leading governments from 2026 onwards.
Westminster doesn't seem to have noticed, or worse, it doesn't seem to care. It's as if London's model of centralised, extractive, and dismissive democracy is the only one that they know about.
Decades of austerity from Westminster have hollowed out the services of local authorities right across the UK and denied the devolved countries the funds they need to deliver for the people of those places. The promise that 'London knows best' has very clearly failed. Nobody in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland can now really believe that. People now don't see it as a risk; they see it as a prospect for relief from the failure that London is imposing upon them.
And they can see that we live in an unequal economy. That's true within England itself. People in England aren't happy either. The Southeast is hoarding wealth and claiming most of the investment in the UK, particularly in infrastructure, whilst the Treasury gifts small grants to the rest of the country in tokenistic, grudging rounds of grant giving, which frankly are desperately unfair in the way that they are managed.
This is not a union of equals. It's a fiscal hierarchy where not just Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland lose out, but so does the North, so does the West of England, so does the Midlands, so does East Anglia, and so does the Southwest.
This is a situation that creates real stress for the future of the United Kingdom. There's moral exhaustion inside the Labour and Tory parties. Both are clinging to a 19th-century idea of sovereignty. They imagine that authority still flows outward from them, and London, towards everyone else, and that is based upon their continuing belief that the public wants competence, dignity, and democracy, but what they fail to notice is that Westminster no longer offers any of these. They have failed to deliver.
And the independence movements in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have noticed. In fact, they've noticed so much that the arguments for independence are now based upon the issues around democracy and governance and not so much on identity. People are not so obsessed with the issues of "I'm not British anymore" as "I want to be properly governed".
And at the same time, England has moved towards a toxic form of nationalism, of exclusion, that the far right is driving and which is proving to be pretty unacceptable elsewhere. The other nations now demand control over their own decisions, and Westminster's refusal to share power just makes breakup inevitable.
Now, the union's survival depends not on what happens now in those three other countries within the union, which are not England, but on what happens in England. Because there will have to be a choice that is made, and the choice will be between, do we want to stick with an alliance with England, or do we want to go our own way, where the alliance could quite possibly be between Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, working in some form of federation, although independent states, to mutually support each other? And that's plausible.
So what does England have to do to provide a choice to the people in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland who are at present being persuaded that it's time to leave?
First of all, England has to recognise that the union, which makes up the United Kingdom, is voluntary. You wouldn't believe that from what the Labour Party and the Tories say. They suggest that they have a right to govern, but the truth is, each nation is sovereign already, and in many aspects, that is recognised around the world.
Westminster also has to create a new fiscal settlement. The fact is that the countries of the UK and the regions of England are no longer willing to be constrained by what they're given by Westminster. They've had enough of being denied real power and the option to make choices locally. The limited funding they're being given is insufficient to empower them, and that is the cause of the frustration which is now rampant right throughout the UK, and giving rise to the feeling that three countries want to leave.
And there has to be constitutional reform as well. England has to indicate that it's not just willing to accept that these countries are sovereign with the right to decide, but it also has to indicate that it is willing to update its own power structures. ]
It has to scrap the monarchy and everything that goes with it, and the eugenic power that is implicit within it.
It has to scrap the House of Lords. It is a total anachronism that we still have unelected peers governing this country.
It has to adopt proportional representation so that the votes that people cast are reflected in the power balances within Westminster and people can believe that democracy is something in which they can actually participate with the possibility of effecting change.
And England has to empower local government, not only in England, but everywhere to ensure that powers have devolved downwards to the point where they are best taken. That is something that Thatcher destroyed, and which we need to reimagine.
But England needs to reimagine itself. English democracy has been hollowed out to the point where it hardly exists, and if there is to be a debate about whether the United Kingdom is to continue, or not, England itself has to reinvent the democracy that it has denied the people of its own country for too long.
Then there's a real opportunity to ask the question, " So what do you want? Do you want to leave?", which is a question that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland will all have to ask themselves at some point, and which they should be given the right to consider. And the rest of England also needs to be asked, "How do you want to deal with London?" The fact is, if this opportunity isn't given, then the breakup may happen anyway.
It is possible for a country to leave the United Kingdom without the consent of England. International law recognises that fact. Countries, of course, split up without the consent of the dominant party who wants to keep control over the minority party within a union. We've seen it. We have Czechia and Slovakia. Now we don't have Czechoslovakia, and we've seen the end of Yugoslavia as it once was, and the breakup into numerous states, and then some of them breaking up again because the outcome wasn't fair. The point is, countries can be changed and rechanged to achieve right outcomes. And to pretend that the UK has a right to survive is absurd; it doesn't. The arrogance of those who claim "We are in charge, you will do what we say," is one of the reasons why this very situation of stress exists.
There could be an opportunity, of course, here as well. There is the opportunity for four sovereign cooperative democracies to be created, working to a fair degree in alliance, creating their own free trade area, for example, to achieve outcomes which they could not achieve individually but which they could collectively. There could be agreements about defence. There could be agreements on many things. I suspect not on currency, each country will require its own currency. But the point is that even that could be coordinated to some degree, and they could work together on issues that are fundamental to our common concern, like climate and energy, migration, and peace. All of these suggest that we could have a politics of care and an economy of care and not of control.
But let's go back right to the beginning. Nairn's question still stands. Is there any reason for the union to exist? Have Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland got any reason to consent to remain in alliance with Westminster? And unless Westminster reforms, the answer to that is undoubtedly no. Right now, there is no reason for them to accept rule from England because England is failing to rule in their interests just as much as it's failing to rule in the interest of England itself.
So the breakup of the United Kingdom may be closer than we think, and perhaps that won't be a disaster, although most people in England probably think it would be, but it might instead be a chance to begin anew.
What do you think?
Do you think the days of the United Kingdom are over?
Do you think Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland deserve to be independent countries?
Do you think that Westminster itself has to be reformed and that we need major changes to the monarchy, to the Lords, to our voting system and everything else to make this happen?
Or do you think everything will carry on as is?
Let us know. There's a poll down below.
Poll
Loading ...Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
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!
At the expense of making the same point about the Union that I do with the Monarchy could we end up with a situation where the Union collapses as a result of a crisis?
The most obvious one being the election of a Reform Government in Westminster with little or no support in Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland
I’m trying to imagine Fa***e and his band of chancers, coping with such a constitutional crisis in real time.
… … … …
No, it’s no good – I can’t do it. The man couldn’t run a whelk stall in Clacton without falling out with his suppliers. He’d be a gibbering wreck if the Celts all walked out on England sometime in 2030.
I watched some of Farage’s speech today. he reminded me of a character in a film I saw years ago and eventually I put my finger on it. He increasingly looks like Archie Rice in the Entertainer- a seedy, backward looking vaudeville artist. Farage is pushing the notion that there will be an election in 2027, because the Labour party will split. I don’t think so. I think he knows the more people see of him, the more they will get his measure. The can’t afford to wait until 2029. That said, for sure if there were to be a Reform majority it would hasten the demands for independence and the break up of the Uk, another reason of the many reasons for me to oppose Reform.
Well said. The talk of our union is only ever from English people with no understanding of the unique cultural identies of our devolved nations. It did seem that only Scotland had enough impetus to strike out, but now Wales is showing they too have had enough of being dictated to from Westminster.
I think the treatment of the devolved nations during Brexit and Covid hasn’t helped. Their needs and autonomy were pretty much ignored, despite the excellent jobs done by Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford.
Having moved to the South West our infrastructure is appalling and investment virtually none existent. And I assure you there is plenty of poverty and deprivation here, it just looks nicer than in an inner city estate. Westminster is totally out of touch with our needs and it feels doesn’t care much.
So will this reform happen without some form of civil unrest? Our government is uninterested and unaware of needs outside the Westminster bubble. I can’t see them voluntarily giving up power.
Thank you, Hazel.
One of my friends is Devon gentry, going back to the Norman Conquest, and operates a farm.
Last spring, he and other rural stakeholders met the Treasury. The official made it clear there’s no money, the locals are on their own and he was taking one for the team by visiting from London. It felt like an official visiting from the colonial office.
The farm is on sale. There’s a suspicion that Wall Street covets British farm land and is influencing government policy.
“There’s a suspicion that Wall Street covets British farm land ”
Take a look at who owns most of the farm land in Ukraine (spoiler : its not Ukraine and its not Russia).
We are surrounded by Duchy land here and very few of the farms are privately owned. That said I suspect a fair deal of corruption over land that has been sold for housing development and it is criminal how much prime farming land is being built on when there are very few jobs available and much is sold to those from outside of Devon who find them affordable. Market forces do not provide us with food or preserve our countryside.
“And England has to (R)empower local government”
Thatcher eviscerated local gov funding & stipped it of assets (council housing), responsibilities (education/schools) – she hated local gov.
Academies were a response to the poor performance of schools under LEA – reason for poor performance? lack of money (not allowed to raise rates and screwed by central gov in London).
Whichever way you look at it – the problem is London and its hinterland (the sarf east). This has sucked talent and resource from the rest of the country. & now, the rest of the country is going to get e.g. lots of pylons etc so London & the sarf east can have lots of RES elec. Nope. Time the southerns put their hands in their pockets, time the southerners recognised that England (and/or the UK) is not London & the sarf east. Or: the rest ofthe country declares independence and erects a border (M25?) and starts charging real prices for elec, gas & water – make the bastards sweat. Jokes (?) aside the problem is that the UK is run for the benefit of “The City” not 60-odd million UK inhabitants. One way to change that is to (drastically) reduce the size of the finance sector, physically (= demolition of buildings used for finance) – force them into a small ghetto. The next crash should provide the opportunity.
Thank you, Mike.
I don’t disagree.
There’s a lot of deprivation in London and the Home Counties.
Much of the traditional City is now excluded from policy making. It’s Wall Street in the driving seat. There’s often a token British firm at No 10 or No 11 meetings, often an after thought as the guest list looks embarrassing.
Not one British CEO was invited to the banquet for Trump at Windsor in September. Soon after, I spoke to a Foreign Office diplomat based in Africa. She said the politicians (and officials and officers) know the game is up for Blighty and the Labour government, so they need to prepare their golden parachutes. She added that the level of corruption has not eased under Labour. It’s got worse as, now, senior officers are cashing in, not just politicians and officials.
In Riyadh last week, Reeves said BlackStone, or was it BlackRock, was British. Er… She was there to punt a post-Brexit trade deal with the Gulf.
I will write to you privately.
Interesting references to Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The former broke into two by agreement within the government, so I’m not sure this is a relevant precedent for the break up of the UK. The UK government could agree to a Scottish government request for another Indy Ref via existing legislation and could also legislate to allow a similar ref in Wales. And the break up of the latter resulted in the horrors of the Balkan conflict.
A more relevant precedent is perhaps the non-break up of Spain following the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 where the international community looked on as the Spanish police were quite heavy handed in emphasising that the Spanish government wasn’t interested in the result.
So regardless of the merits of independence for Scotland etc. it’s likely to be a tough challenge to get there without the consent of the UK government, which doesn’t seem likely to be forthcoming.
The obvious caveat is Northern Ireland where the UK has already consented to a reunification ref in the Good Friday Agreement, subject to certain conditions being met.
Spain is also not a good example, as the Spanish Constitution explicitly states that Spain is indivisible. Therefore, the government can claim that they are acting totally legally and no-one else can interfere. I think that Scotland should look more to the likes of Canada and Australia for precedents. Wales is going to be much more difficult, given how much more closely it is intertwined with English institutions.
I do agree that it is difficult to see the calibre of politicians required, particularly in Westminster. English exceptionalism and entitlement run so deep in the ruling class that it is impossible to see them agreeing to anything that anyone else suggests.
The problem with Wales is not institutions – but the lack of a north / south infrastructure.
Thank you, Richard.
I’m very interested as I read Nairn’s book as a law student thirty odd years ago. In addition, I’m a descendant of the clan with the motto Fide Et Fortitudine.
Even Buckinghamshire, on London’s doorstep, feels like a colony. HS2 and the east west line cross the small, but perfectly formed county. The government refuses to fund branch lines of the Liz and east west lines into mid-Buckinghamshire and integrate bus services with the Met line. Rural bus services are on the verge of extinction.
The county spends millions a year sending children by taxi from Aylesbury to schools in Wycombe and Buckingham as it refuses to build schools in Aylesbury. The demand is there. Needless to say, just like asylum hostels, the taxi contracts are awarded to donors. The children spend an hour each way in traffic.
In late 2023 and early 2024, I took part in workshops and other events with the shadow Treasury and Business teams and wannabe MPs. It was staggering how London centric they are and detached from the concerns of ordinary people. For them, the only good thing about the provinces are that they provide safe seats for life.
Most, but not all, seem to think the West Wing is real, obsess about America and aren’t bothered and are even ignorant about Europe and emerging powers.
My advice to the Celts, including West Brits: Get the hell out of that toxic union ASAP.
One hopes, in particular, John S Warren pipes up.
John seems to have gone AWOL. He does occasionally.
“The UK government could agree to”, “without the consent of the UK government” “Northern Ireland where the UK has already consented”. There’s a major problem right there. The union between Scotland and England is supposedly voluntary but Scotland “needs agreement” or “consent” from the UK government which, of course, means the English government. Why? Does England need the consent of Scotland to leave the union? Don’t be daft would be the cry.
See how the union works? As long as it benefits England, that’s how it works.
The British, actually the English, state is hidebound. Recognise the union as voluntary, abolish the monarchy, get rid of the house of lords, empower local government, devolve powers downwards and adopt proportional representation!
The English powers that be are probably having an attack of the vapours just reading such rebellious words.
The fact that the English state is so rooted in the past though may very well be to the advantage of the other 3 countries in the UK. As the other 3 countries move forward and England remains in the Middle Ages clinging onto its archaic institutions, the UK breaking apart must surely be inevitable.
One other thing, that occurs to me and I meant to mention.
Given that the Westminster government cares not a jot about any part of England outside of the special south east, it should take great care that it doesn’t lose parts of England to independence.
After all, it wasn’t always a unified state.
“Given that the Westminster government cares not a jot about any part of England outside of the special south east, it should take great care that it doesn’t lose parts of England to independence. ”
I’m reminded that at the time of the Scottish independence referendum there was some interesting debate about the desirability of the North East (Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, County Durham) and Cumbria in the west joining a newly independent Scotland, and essentially extending the border southwards to the Tees (Stockton would have become the new Berwick !).
🙂
I remember that but before anyone gets the impression that Scotland had/has imperialistic intentions, the debate was entirely at the instigation of people in parts of the north of England; it didn’t form part of the Scottish independence debate.
Correct
The Cornish have long wanted independence being a Celtic people with their own Cornish language. And this is a major sticking point over any South West regional mayor/authority as it would involve being unified with Devon!
I’m in tune with Mike Parr, The Colonel & Hazel to be honest.
The Union is a medieval feudalist construct meant to enrich a monarch and subjugate dissent on daylight robbery. It was resurrected by Thatcher and Nicholas Ridley who centralised London’s power and hobbled local authorities.
‘Double devolution’ was always about casting local authorities adrift after that mess and not fixing it – empowering councils to take responsibility for austerity as London/England obsesses over the cost of the public sector, ignoring the excesses of the private sector. I’m thinking of local authority housing revenue accounts – now stand alone budgets under the cynical Tory 2011 Localism Act that having been made the sole responsibility of local authorities affordable housing which are being bled dry by right to buy, central government rent rise freezes and increased costs of an economy out of control and at the same time imposing misery with 80% market rents and severe cuts to maintenance. Some housing revenue accounts have the historic debt placed on them to pay down their social housing even though central government made them provide it!! The debt was localised.
The whole thing is poisonous. But it won’t stop just because the union would fracture. If that fracture is hostile, things could get much worse. Wales would need its own currency, as would Northern Ireland (or become part of Southern Ireland and look at their government). OK, so everyone has their own cash. Great. But is it enough.
All I’m saying is that the UK as whole is small and pushed together. What good is it if the union broke up on bad terms? There might be a BREXIT like border situation between the nations like Dover.
What we need is grown up politics shorn of imperialistic history to make it work, both in Westminster and Scotland, Wales, NI. I just don’t see many statespeople of any calibre who could make this happen in a plausible way anywhere.
To have the break up of the union created by the sort of centrifugal politics we have now based on identity politics etc., fills me with dread. It can only make life worse. The end of the union is the right idea, authentically empowering these nations is the right idea, but I am not convinced of the timing at all.
But it would make it better for three of the four countries.
And that matters to me.
I am someone who would like the Union to continue but find little to disagree with in this clear analysis of the current state of affairs.
1) I agree- the union is voluntary. No state can claim to be democratic that tries to hold within itself a population where there is a settled and demonstrable will to leave on the part of a section of its population. ( I know that glosses over how that will is to be demonstrated, but I have only 400 words)
2)The state of disaffection is caused by the long term imposition on large swathes of the country of an economic and political dogma ( Thatcherism/neo-liberalism) for which they have never voted, which is inimical to their economic interests and the general wellbeing of the population.
3)There is an urgent need of constitutional reform. The HOL is a democratic disgrace. There are arguments for and against a ( directly or indirectly) elected HOS. If a Monarchy remains it should have its finances and functions drastically overhauled. If an elected HOS is chosen then it should be a salaried position with a limited term of office, for which the Monarch could choose to stand if he so wished, provided he surrendered the vast majority of his estates to parliament, to be administered for the good of the nation.
4. On the currently increased popularity of Plaid Cymru. I welcome this as I think it gives the Labour Party a necessary shock . I think their stated position that they do not advocate a referendum in their first term preferring to concentrate on cost of living issues is the right one and enables people who would otherwise not wish for the upheaval and potential toxicity surrounding an Independence referendum to do so. If I lived in Wales i could imagine myself voting Plaid next year as the safest choice to keep Reform out.
5. I don’t understand why you think the separate states, should the Union break up, would need separate currencies? Surely that would make trade much more difficult and entail customs borders between them?
6. I could explain my reasons for being in favour of maintaining the Union, but it would take a separate, maybe longer post.
I have addressed the currtency issue many times.
Without their own currency no state can really exist. It is as fundamental as that.
But separate currencies do not require customs borders.
And that is my point.
As an act aggression, borders might well be imposed, tit for tat, political games etc. And BTW, the self harm this does to the aggressor means nothing as long as someone else is suffering.
My concern is that where ever I look, we seem to be managed by this sort of mindset.
So9, we leave England in charge as a reward? Why?
Pilgrim at 12:36 is spot on. In the event of threatened secessions we can rely on the ruling powers in England throwing every obstacle they can find to prevent any peaceful solutions. The term ‘Perfidious Albion’ wasn’t meant as a joke; it was justifiably earned. They can never be trusted. If that seems an overstatement, just consider the infamous ‘Vow’ on the eve of the 2014 Scottish referendum, promising a package of inducements to be granted if the Scots were to vote against Indy. The following day, once the results were in, the Vow was swiftly dumped.
There are a number of issues which might make that tougher next time (and apologies for being repetitious).
In Scotland Scots Law prevails, as was stated in the Treaties of Union 1707. The Tories’ Internal UK Market Law, supposedly allowing UK Gov to overrule any law passed by the Scottish Parliament, is basically a colonial ruling which could be contested in international law in a secession dispute.
In Scotland, in accordance with the Treaties of Union declaration, only Scots Law prevails. It also decrees that the people of Scotland are sovereign, not the king or Westminster. On that basis it has also been determined that rulings in English Law by the Supreme Court have no validity in Scotland under Scots Law. All of this will create a richt guid stooshie if Westminster attempts to overturn or ignore a referendum on independence carried out by the Scottish Government. The question is: is the SNP up for such a fight?
In a separate venture by a small pro-independence group, a case has been made at the UN European HQ in Geneva that, over centuries, Scotland qualifies as a colonialised nation and therefore has the right in international law to secede from the UK. We await the UN’s decision.
How long can Westminster continue to deny Scotland and what dirty tricks are they prepared to use to prevent secession?
Good questions, Ken.
I hope you’re OK.
I voted ‘Possibly, unless Westminster reforms’ because I think that Westminster will try to do what it has always done, which is to fudge a solution. The nuclear option of the three non-English parts of the UK gaining independence will be strongly resisted but even Westminster must realise that if they simply bury their heads in the sand and try to maintain the status quo, then this will inevitably cause a major rupture at some point with potentially hugely damaging consequences for England. So If there looks to be a possibility of that emerging, I think they’ll go for the Federal option, which at least gives them a modicum of control. I gather you’re not a fan of a Federal UK Richard, however from Westminster’s view point it would definitely be the lesser of two evils.
I am definitely not a federal fan.
Not being English but having lived there for 15 years, I don’t think it’s the English to blame, more Westminster.
I am in Scotland and was persuaded by the independence case before the 2014 referendum. A major factor was the argument that Westminster is corrupt, undemocratic and not fit for purpose. To your reform list for England, I would add a written constitution and out of that ridiculous building. An end to all the poncing about with knee breaches and swords, that is no way to run a country in the 21st century. In Scotland we already have PR and a modern parliament (electronic voting). If we were independent we would also have a written constitution, and I expect quite soon an elected head of state. I am afraid I can’t see any of this happening without the break up that would force England to face up to the mess it is in.
Brilliant assessment Richard. As a Scot I’ve been waiting for his moment when the celtic fringe ( that’s what I read the three devolved nations are called) finally move away to run their own countries and benefit from their own resources..not another foreign nation taking advantage of it. Just another empire dying..it’s inevitable.
Very interesting to read other commentators and their views.
“The arrogance of those who claim “We are in charge, you will do what we say,” is one of the reasons why this very situation of stress exists.” It’s arrogant certainly, but it is also true.
There are two sources: (1) The City of London, with its ‘Remembrancer’ sitting behind the Speaker in the House of Commons to ensure the City’s interests are always advanced, has always regarded the rest of the world with contempt. The further away you go from London the more contemptible. (2) The monarchy. Referring to the UK government as ‘Westminster’ is not really correct. The King is head of state and under the law of the United Kingdom, ‘high treason’ is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown. Charles rules by divine right, not consent. He is above the law and can grant legal immunity to anyone he pleases. The rule of law is a mirage. Charles and his advisors however have far more subtle and effective ways of getting their own way. He is still constitutionally in charge. He approves every bill before giving his Royal Assent. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, without a constitution.
Let’s not mention the ‘Great Reset’ that Charles announced in 2020 (https://www.royal.uk/clarencehouse/thegreatreset) . It is a project of the World Economic Forum, ‘committed to improving the state of the world’ (for the benefit of its members); ‘the international organisation for public-private cooperation. ..’ (https://www.weforum.org/organizations/world-economic-forum/). It is about cementing absolute power through technology. And Keir Starmer chooses Davos over Westminster : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qI0xQSn8Y0 ).
Thus the Digital ID, the central bank digital ‘currency’, the destruction of privacy, freedom, and human rights, ‘you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy’ – Yanis Varoufakis’s ‘techno-feudalism’ . And the ‘entitled’ have no intention at all of meekly stepping down.
As head of state, the king is supposed to represent the UK as a ‘nation’; at home and internationally. But he is not accountable. He is silent on Palestine and on Starmer’s fascism. Would that we had an elected head of state, like Ireland.
Couldn’t NI simply become part of the RoI?
Couldn’t any of them, or all 3 apply to join the EU and then adopt the Euro?
Maybe they could look at those options before actually leaving the UK.
They might be better off with their own currency but still join the EU.
It does look more and more likely that change will happen.
I live in Bristol, if Wales wants to move its border east, I would be very happy.
No one should choose the euro.
It woul;d negate the whole point and opurpsoe of being independent
Not sure about Wales, what would be its economic base? An independent Wales would be one of the poorest countries in Europe. Continuous brain-drain. Twenty two percent of the population lives in the north and most of the remainder on the south coastal strip – hills and mountains in between. Travel between north and south is excruciating and very much cheaper to travel to Gdansk or Belgrade than Cardiff (and shorter travel time to Brussels) [see Richard on infrastructure, above]. Substantial cross-border daily commuting in north and the same in the south, I believe. If we remained a nation of sanctuary the border would be a nightmare. I’ve always had a feeling that independence would not be viable. Plaid do not have independence in their current manifesto, but a long-term aspiration subject to a commission to collect evidence etc. Maybe in that long term something could be worked out to resolve the questions above. I will be voting Plaid if that’s what it takes to keep Reform out.
[…] is our usual practice, we posed similar polls on YouTube and here, and usually we get similar outcomes, although with a greater number of people invariably voting on […]