Scottish border counties unwilling to be dragged out of the UK? A letter in The Week.

I have come across many articles in recent months arguing that some areas of Scotland would not accept the SNP, if they win an Indeyref2, dragging them out of the UK without putting up a struggle. The Orkney and Shetland Islands are frequently mentioned as not being prepared to be governed from Edinburgh. 

Judging by the letter below, which was first published in The Economist and reproduced in the 22^nd of May edition of The Week, it seems the Scottish counties bordering England might not be happy to be wrenched out of the UK either!

Scotland’s borderlands

To The Economist

The possible preference of the Scottish counties that lie on the border with England not to join a Scottish separation from the UK should be considered seriously.  These counties have voted against the Scottish National Party in elections for the Scottish and Westminster parliaments, and, by nearly two to one, against devolution in 1979 and independence in 2014.  This is the same margin by which Scots voted to remain in the EU, prompting Nicola Sturgeon to claim that Scotland was being dragged out of the bloc “against our will”.  Sauce for the goose?

Jack Ponton, Earlston, Scottish Borders

Veronica Newman of the Campaign for an English Parliament asks if Gordon Brown's latest plan to keep Scotland in the UK has a price worth paying.

Activists from the Campaign for an English Parliament have obviously been busy with pen and paper as another letter appears in the Western Daily Press, this time from Veronica Newman.

Gordon Brown has popped up again with yet another plan to keep Scotland in the same Union as Wales, Northern Ireland and "the Regions".  "The Regions" being, of course, England but we all know Mr Brown finds mentioning the "E" word extremely uncomfortable. 

Be that as it may, Veronica Newman asks if the price of Gordon Brown's plan is worth paying.  Here is her letter published on March 23rd.

Is price of this plan worth us paying?

Gordon Brown has proposed a patriotic third way for Scotland in exchange for it remaining in the UK.

This includes giving Holyrood the authority to sign treaties with other EU countries, control after Brexit of the £800 million they currently contribute to the EU, control over fisheries, agriculture, environmental regulation, employment and energy and the authority to set VAT.

On top of this he wants the Barnett Formula to remain in place and the Bank of England to become the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. One has to ask is the price being demanded one worth paying.

Not only does Gordon Brown want Scotland to have its cake and eat it too he also has the effrontery to propose that EU powers be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies and the regions. By regions it must assumed he means England.

What then will be a patriotic option for England?

Oh yes, that would be an English Parliament.

Veronica Newman
Campaign for an English Parliament Trowbridge, Wiltshire



I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed but, as readers of this blog know, I would prefer independence for both England and Scotland.  Perhaps all the nations making up the UK should have a referendum as suggested in this letter below, published in the Western Daily Press  on March 27th.

I hope England opts for independence
I sympathise with Veronica Newman of the Campaign for an English Parliament when she questions whether Gordon Brown’s recently suggested proposals– or should that be bribes – to keep Scotland in the UK come with a price worth paying ( Western Daily Press March 23). Any such price would, of necessity, be paid by England and English taxpayers.

As far as the future of the UK is concerned, I rather liked the eminently reasonable idea suggested by Piers Morgan when, after a heated discussion about Scottish independence on GMB, he said: “I think if we allow Scotland to have another referendum so soon after the last one then, at the same time, there should be a referendum in England, and Wales, and Northern Ireland.”

Let’s see which nations choose the road to independence – I certainly hope England is one of them.

S.W.
Ilminster, Somerset

Ian Holt of the Campaign for an English Parliament hopes the Scottish people "vote for independence and have done with it."

In this letter to the Western Daily Press, published on March 18th, Ian Holt of the Campaign for an English Parliament reflects the growing feeling of exasperation in England toward never-ending demands from the Scottish National Party.

Time to give Scots their independence 
Nicola Sturgeon wants another Scottish independence referendum. This time I hope they vote for independence and have done with it.

The British state has bent over backwards for Scotland over the last 20 years – at the expense of England.

Theresa May should give England its own parliament and government. If she does not, she may find that we English will start to demand an independence referendum of our own.

Ian Holt

Campaign for an English Parliament, Hucclecote, Gloucester

I sympathise with Mr Holt's view, but I doubt if Scotland could maintain its current level of public spending outside of the UK and would soon be looking south for assistance.  I wrote this letter in response and am pleased to say it was published in the Western Daily Press on March 21st.

Either way the Scots will get our cash
I sympathise with Ian Holt of the Campaign for an English Parliament when he hopes Nicola Sturgeon’s new shot at Scottish independence succeeds ( Western Daily Press March 18).

English taxpayers’ money heading north of the border as a result of the British Government’s allocation of public funds through the Barnett Formula should stop if Scotland becomes a foreign country. However, I suspect a newly independent Scotland would doubtless qualify for shedloads of money from the Department for International Development’s burgeoning £12 billion foreign aid budget.

Whether Scotland votes for independence or not, English taxes might still be filling Scottish coffers!

S.W.
Ilminster, Somerset

Russia - ". . . the most conservative, patriotic and Christian country left in Europe." A potential friend rather than enemy?

I always look forward to Peter Hitchens’s Mail on Sunday column, the latest being particularly interesting especially his suggestion that there is more freedom of speech and thought in today’s Russia than there is in the UK.  As he points out, in Britain it is possible to be driven out of a non-political job as a result of saying something politically incorrect.  Something which as Mr Hitchens writes: “simply isn’t so in Mr Putin’s Russia, now astonishingly the most conservative, patriotic and Christian country left in Europe.”

If Russia is indeed an enemy why on earth has the British Government carried through a program of excoriating defence cuts?  The Royal Navy has aircraft carriers with no aircraft and a fleet of only 19 frigates and destroyers – hardly enough to defend the Bristol Channel.  The Army could easily be seated in Wembley Stadium with room to spare while the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight has more aircraft than any Squadron in the RAF.

In such circumstances are British guarantees of military support to the nations of Eastern Europe worth the paper they are written on?  After all, Britain has 'form' in this area.   

As Poland found out in 1939, when attacked from the west by Germany there was no direct help to come from Great Britain.  Lord Boothby, Conservative MP 1924-1958, could not have described the British Government's response more precisely when he said: "We had gone to war for the defence of Poland.  In the event we did nothing to help Poland at all.  We never lifted a finger."*  When Russia invaded Poland from the east there was no British reaction whatsoever.  Considering such a record no country east of the Rhine should count on the British Government coming to their aid in the event they are attacked by Russia.

Furthermore, Britain, as it exists today, may not be around for much longer.  Brexit has led to the possibility of Northern Ireland joining the Irish State and Scotland ending the Union of 1707 as a result of seeking a second independence referendum. 

Be that as it may, Britain’s enemies today are much more likely to be found within rather than from Northern Eurasia.  Indeed, it may come to pass that England will need to make friends with conservative, patriotic and Christian countries - like Peter Hitchens’s Russia.

Here is a link to Peter Hitchens’s article of the 7^th of August. http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/08/silenced-by-our-boot-faced-commissars-of-thought-crime-1.html

*The World at War, Episode 2 (Thames Television Ltd, 1973).

   

   

"Different priorities for us and Scotland", writes Clive Lavelle of the English Democrats.

In this letter published in the Western Daily Press on July 4th, Clive Lavell of the English Democrats suggests that the people of Scotland and England should be free to pursue their own priorities.


Different priorities for us and Scotland.

I wrote to you recently about the UK having outlived its usefulness and about the need for England and Scotland to 'de-merge'.

If anyone required proof of this, it was provided by Nicola Sturgeon strutting round the EU corridors of power, seeking some kind of special continuance of membership deal for Scotland.

Prior to the referendum, both Ms Sturgeon and Mr Alex Salmond complained about the possibility of Scotland being "dragged out of the EU" by English votes.  They would both have been content for England to be forced to stay in by Scottish votes.

The bottom line is, the people of England and the people of Scotland have totally different priorities and it is high time they were freed from each other in order to pursue those priorities.

Clive Lavelle,
Weston-super-Mare English Democrats.

Independence for Scotland? Yes please - it will bring on English independence and an English Parliament.

A letter in the Western Morning News 20th November.

Bring on English independence.

I recall that the SNP once followed a self-imposed policy of not voting in the Westminster Parliament on "England-only" matters.  Things have changed, now it seems policies for England on subjects ranging from fox-hunting to Sunday trading have, in the SNP's view, an effect on people in Scotland.
 

The reason for this change of thought by the SNP is understandable.  To further their campaign for independence they are determined to interfere, whenever the opportunity arises, in the domestic affairs of England and cause as much disruption and annoyance to English political decision making as possible.  I say bring on independence - English independence!

S.W.
English Democrats, Somerset

English Votes on English Laws (Evel) is meaningless. It does not answer the West Lothian question.

Clive Lavelle of the English Democrats had this letter published in the Western Daily Press on November 14th.  He points out the inadequacy of English Votes on English Laws.

Evel is not answer to British problem.

I am no fan of the idea of relaxing Sunday trading restrictions.

However, a government proposal to do just that in England has been scuppered by none other than the Scottish National Party.

It feared that if the proposal were implemented, wages in Scotland might be driven down.

This demonstrates two things. The first is that SNP politicians in the UK parliament are there, not for the benefit of the UK, but for that of Scotland. Secondly, English Votes on English Laws (Evel) is meaningless. Despite this being an England-only issue, the Scots blew it out of the water.

This is because Evel is entirely negative. Under Evel, British MPs sitting for English constituencies can only veto legislation affecting England alone. It does not prevent Scottish MPs vetoing such legislation.

Evel has been billed as the answer to the English (aka the West Lothian) question. It clearly is not. Only an English parliament can answer that question.

Clive Lavelle.

Weston-super-Mare English Democrats.

I recall that the SNP once had a policy of voting in the Westminster Parliament only when an issue impacted on Scotland.  Now it seems policies in England on matters ranging from fox-hunting to Sunday trading have, in the SNP's view, an effect on people in Scotland.  The reason for this change of thought by the SNP is understandable and obvious.  In order to further their cause of independence they are determined to interfere, whenever the opportunity arises, in the domestic affairs of England and cause as much disruption, mischief and annoyance to English political decision making as possible.  I say bring on independence - English independence!

Will Scots follow Irish Model?

I wonder if the SNP, with 56 MPs out of the 59 elected from Scotland, might at some stage be tempted to declare a Unilateral Declaration of Independence.
This letter published, before the General Election, in the Western Daily Press on the 18th March seems even more relevant now.


Will Scots follow the Irish model?

In the general election of 1918 Sinn Fein won 70 per cent of the Westminster parliamentary seats in the Island of Ireland; four years later the Irish Free State came into being. Nearly one hundred years on, approaching May’s general election, opinion polls suggest that the SNP may win 90 per cent of the Westminster parliamentary seats in Scotland.

If the polls are proved correct will there still be a Union between England and Scotland in four years’ time? As history may well repeat itself, with Scotland following Ireland out of the Union, I would certainly not bet against Scotland being an independent nation by 2020.

S.W.

English Democrats, Somerset