We put out this video this lunchtime:
This is the transcript:
Latest opinion polls are showing that in both Scotland and Wales, there's a very high chance that pro-independence parties will form the next governments after elections in May 2026.
In Scotland, against all expectations, the SNP is riding high, and with the Greens in that country, they will almost certainly be its next government.
The same is true in Wales, where Plaid Cymru is doing better than it has ever done before in polls in that country, right at the top of the opinion poll and looking as though, again, with Green support, it could form the next administration in that country.
Add in Northern Ireland, where Sinn Féin are, of course, in charge and likely to remain.
So we face the prospect that right across the UK, three of the four countries that make up this supposed United Kingdom will, after May 2026, be governed by parties who wish to leave the Union.
What does that say about the future of the UK?
What does it say about the future of England?
Is it time that England came to terms with the fact that the countries that it now governs from Westminster don't want to be there? They want to be independent countries managing their own affairs in their own right, and it's time for England to go its own way.
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!
My immediate comment might be is why are English politicians not responding to this and either wondering why The Union is at risk or better still looking at what they can do in a positive way to hold it together
I cannot see Scotland accepting greater devolution powers. This is what was promised just before the 2014 Independence referendum, Gordon Brown’s “The Vow” is widely believed to have swung the vote Remain wards. The UK government reneged on promises then and I don’t see Scots being fooled a second time.
You are right. Scotland was caught out once. I very much doubt that it will want to be caught out again.
They are very aware of the ‘dangers’ of the break up of the Union. This is why what political scientists call ‘muscular unionism’ has been the policy for keeping the Union together (this sits alongside the ‘British sovereignty’ rhetoric and policies of leaving the EU – which was a key part of keeping the Union united).
So you have the internal market act – a centralising Westminster power grab – under Johnson, which was and is deeply disliked by Scotland and Wales (and Labour has not hinted at repealing).
But of course ‘muscular unionism’ and ‘British sovereignty’ intersect in symbolism, so you get union flags on everything, and the use of the term ‘UK’ is used in both language that has never been at such a level before – ‘Britain’ used to be more commonly used in the media in the past.
And of course you have the ridiculous UKCA mark that replaced CE (which never needed to happen) on products for petty sovereignty and muscular unionist reasons.
A country comfortable in its own skin, doesn’t need to put flags up (and on everything), and have to talk agressivly of ‘the UK’ in every other sentence, let alone plaster products we use with ‘UK’ on them.
Britain is a country not united in so many ways, and Labour – given the opportunity to change that – have continued the centralising powers from the previous Tory governments (aides by Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs who are viserally hostile to the SNP and Plaid). For example, no devolution of justice powers to the Welsh government (when before the 2024 election Labour hinted at this), plus no scrapping of the internal market act.
Therefore, it will be very good to see Plaid and the SNP do well in 2026.
Nations that
God forbid.
And I tell you, this is not England ‘going it alone’.
This is England effectively being sanctioned and kicked out of its own Union. This is England being rejected by those whom it claims it rules.
Bravo to them I say and woe be to England (say this reluctant Englishman – I wish Dad’s ancestors had stayed in Scotland).
You will be welcomed anytime you choose to make the move, you don’t even need your Scottish ancestry.
Pilgrim, you’ve hit the nail on the head: we all have our limits about how much ignorance, scorn and dismissal we’ll take from annoying people and the same goes for the “lesser” constituents of the United Kingdom. Speaker Lindsay Hoyle’s breach of parliamentary convention to prevent the SNP’s motion on a Gaza ceasefire was a classic example, but there have been hundreds of others going all the way back to 1707 and the statement by John Smith, the then Speaker of the English Parliament: “We have catch’d Scotland and will bind her fast”. That, and the deliberate absence of any right to secede, demonstrate that the “Union” was always intended as a colonial venture.
At some point, England may need to face an uncomfortable truth: the countries governed from Westminster increasingly do not want to be governed from Westminster.
Scotland has had a live, electorally significant independence movement for over a decade, one that Brexit did nothing to settle and arguably poured petrol on. Wales is not there yet, but support for independence has grown from almost nowhere, driven less by flag waving and more by frustration at how power and resources are hoarded at the centre. Northern Ireland is a different case again, with its place in the UK already conditional and an ever more serious conversation under way about Irish reunification. The idea that the Union still enjoys unquestioned consent looks increasingly like wishful thinking.
And here is the irony: England does not really have a political voice of its own either. Westminster pretends to be both an English parliament and a UK parliament, and ends up doing neither job well. English voters are blamed for decisions taken in the name of the UK, while voters in the devolved nations are overruled by a system structurally tilted towards England. Nobody feels properly represented, but everyone is told the Union must be preserved at all costs.
Of course, not everyone in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland wants independence. Opinion is divided and sometimes finely balanced. But that is not an argument for pretending the question does not exist, or for using procedural tricks and inertia to suppress it. A union that survives only by blocking democratic choice is not a strong union, it is a brittle one.
What really needs challenging is the lazy assumption that the UK is the natural, permanent state of affairs, and that keeping it together is always the highest political good. If a multinational state no longer reflects the democratic wishes of its parts, forcing it to endure may be more dangerous than managing an honest break or a radical overhaul.
So the choice is stark. A genuinely federal UK with real, entrenched powers. Acceptance of independence or reunification where there is a clear democratic mandate. Or continued drift, denial, and obstruction in the hope that nothing finally snaps. History suggests it always does.
Thanks.
Kenneth Douglas wrote: “So the choice is stark. A genuinely federal UK with real, entrenched powers.” It’s worth noting that Gordon Brown has been punting the federal idea ever since the Scottish Independence referendum of 2014 and it has failed every time. Numerous problems have been exposed, but the two which top the bill every time are:
1. The overwhelming population size of England as compared with the devolved nations. This has been used for centuries in Westminster to ensure that the views of Scotland, Wales and N Ireland carry no weight. The people of the devolved nations are therefore already deeply suspicious of any plans which might continue this.
2. The people of various English regions are also very wary of London and the South East. There’s a strong suspicion that the overall governing UK Federal Government will continue with the same old London hegemony.
The problem is crystal-clear: all parts of the UK mistrust the ruling classes of England and nobody should be surprised. The poor governance of the UK, particularly in the last 50 years, is obvious to the large majority of the UK population who have suffered in so many ways from that maladministration. Scotland has always had a close affinity with our European neighbours (perhaps something to do with not waging war on these neighbours for centuries?) and an independent Scotland will prosper as result. I may not live to see it, but I’m certain it’ll happen.
You can’t have a federal state when one party dominates all others: they will hate the influemnce of the smaller parties and the smaller parties will always resent tth power of the greater one. This is not an option.
Declaration of interest.
As a Glasgow-born Scot with a Scots-born maternal family and a N Wales father and grandfather lineage, and not a drop of English blood that I know of, I would welcome getting 2 more passports. But of course that also make me vulnerable to deportation from England, after being picked up by Reform UK Ltd.’s ICE Stormtroopers. Would they pay my train fare?
I’ll see you in the departure lounge.
I’ll have a coffee waiting!
🙂
Independence movement is preparing for the reality of. English asylum seekers and economic migrants trying to find a better life, escape from England’s race to the far right and descent into Trumpian kleptocracy.
I’m not convinced that an independent England would survive either. I suspect that many of England’s regions would want independence from Westminster too.
Would Westminster ever relinquish enough autonomy to England’s regions to contain that. Something along the lines of Switzerland’s Cantons?
I can see a ‘Celtic Union’ developing between Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I could see that Cornwall could make a claim. As for the rest? The disabling power of London within England is the issue that England will be forced to address.
That’s tricky for many people. I think lots of people who came to UK from the remnants of the empire since 1945 called themselves British, and certainly not English.
There are so many versions of English. As kids in West Yorkshire we more often than not thought English meant southern softies, or public school toffies. Test cricket – very much England, world cup football – very much England , but in other contexts not ‘English’ but maybe ‘British’, or possibly Yorkshire.
This issue seems to go along with the whole business of the UK Britain and England being ill-defined, with definitions overlapping and meaning different things at different times. It seems of a piece with the fact that the ‘constitution’ doesn’t exist in a coherent document but apparently does exist across a plethora of documents, acts, traditions etc etc
Talk about a can of worms. Discussing it will open up issues such as the Monarchy, King Charles and Tommy Robinson Yaxley Lennon.
England is welcome to Charles. I would suggest that the others should be looking for a very different form of head of state.
Andrew wrote: “This issue seems to go along with the whole business of the UK Britain and England being ill-defined, with definitions overlapping and meaning different things at different times. It seems of a piece with the fact that the ‘constitution’ doesn’t exist in a coherent document but apparently does exist across a plethora of documents, acts, traditions etc etc”
The absence of a written UK constitution is often touted as a benefit which gives UK governments the flexibility to act when confronted with new or unanticipated issues. To me this has always sounded more like a means for Governments to dodge difficult decisions and/or impose political goals that it knows are likely to be unpopular with the electorate. It also enables the FPTP electoral system to deliver huge majorities out of all proportion to actual votes cast.
A constitution should be principal-driven and should dove-tail with relevant statute law. Its absence in the UK further complicates the fact that the legal systems of Scotland and England are based on different concepts. In Scots Law it’s the people who are sovereign and this is affirmed in centuries-old statute law, whereas in England it’s the Parliament which is sovereign, although this isn’t affirmed in statute law and this allows governments with large majorities to do as they please. The Tories, for instance, imposed the UK Internal Market Act empowering Westminster with the right to overrule legitimate decisions of the Scottish Parliament.
These legal differences and the lack of a clear, functional constitution contribute to the classic British practice of “just bumbling along”: leave it as it is and we’ll just improvise some sort of solution. That way, pockets continue to get filled and the “right sort of people” retain their influence and affluence.
Thanks, Ken.
As a northerner, I am also sick of England politics being for the rich and the south. It’s not only Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that are fed up of the lies, the lack of responsibility and pandering to vested interests.
I am an Englishman living in Wales, and Plaid Cymru speaks for me. England is the largest part of, as you rightly say, the so-called United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the history of England has meant that since William of France came over, it has been bending its knee, both metaphorically and in thousands of cases literally. Enough of genuflecting! The English, in my humble opinion, are ruled from the extreme summit by people who pretend to be on their side. The result is unhappiness, bewilderment and as we see now, Reform on the rise. Enough of this class warfare. Wales and Scotland are Celtic nations that have battled against the supreme upper class, known as royalty. We (devolved nations) are now realising we must cut ourselves adrift from the part that is sucking us dry. I feel freer and more empowered now. I live in Wales, and not least far more enlightened than I ever have been. Peace to all nations, I sincerely hope.
J B-G, you speak for me; I feel better west of the Severn with another layer of government between me and Westminster. I concluded last year that I am likely to vote for Plaid, not something I had imagined ten years ago when my plan was young. We need to tread carefully and be smart, but we must tread towards self-determination.
As a Devonian, with a Scots father, I’d be happy to cede from the Union, either as a Devon/Cornish citizen, or Scots. I have worked in London, and have experienced at firsthand the arrogance of the SE elite. Politicians promise all sorts of help, but it took us 45 years get a new road into town and it was such a gash job that we are queueing to get in and out of town. Our local rail line through Exeter gets cut off frequently in winter, and Torbay, Plymouth and Truro are stranded with no link to London. The scenic coastal line needs rerouting inland, but Westminster says there’s no financial justification to spend the £1billion required. No trains and Exeter , Plymouth, Torbay and Truro business men lose millions. To hell with Westminster.
If Scotland Wales and NI do split from the Union the obvious next step would be the formation of a ‘Celtic Alliance’ that includes the Republic of Ireland. Effectively a United Kingdom without England. I wonder how long it would before England starts petitioning for membership.
For me, the deeper problem is that England has never built the constitutional architecture that would allow it to function as a modern democracy. Westminster has tried to act as both the English parliament and the UK parliament, and the result is a system that serves neither role well. When you compare it to the devolved parliaments, the contrast is stark: Holyrood and the Senedd look like functioning legislatures, while Westminster increasingly resembles a dysfunctional bearpit.
That’s why I’ve long argued for regional parliaments with their own regional civil services. England is far too large and too diverse to be governed effectively from a single chamber in London. Regional institutions would bring decision‑making closer to the people affected by it, and they would also break the stranglehold of London‑centric politics that has distorted the whole Union.
But decentralisation doesn’t mean fragmentation. On the contrary, modern technology makes it possible to link regional parliaments together virtually whenever genuinely national issues arise. You can have strong regional autonomy and still coordinate seamlessly on matters that require a shared approach. In many ways, that would be a healthier model of governance than the current one, which centralises power by default and then wonders why trust collapses.
If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland choose greater self‑government, England will finally have to confront the question it has avoided for centuries: how should it govern itself? Regional parliaments, linked when needed for national decisions, would give England the democratic resilience it currently lacks — and might even have prevented the Union from reaching this point in the first place.
You can’t have a federal state when one party dominates all others: they will hate the influemnce of the smaller parties and the smaller parties will always resent tth power of the greater one. This is not an option.