SilverFalcon

I have a feeling that once independence happens a nation experiences one of two things: either it fails horribly in its aspirations and crawls back or disintegrates, or, it experiences a whoosh of patriotic fervour that causes it to abandon the idea of union with the EU and wants, with an incredibly powerful passion, to be isolate and independent and free to make alliances with whom it pleases.

Independence and freedom are funny things. What seems to be the case before is often quite different once the keen wind of liberty is in the nostrils of the nation. This can extend itself to folk bonded individuals who have left the mother ship. You may find calls for escapees to return "home" and you may find, especially in today's rotten world, that these are only too able and willing to rejoin their comrades and folk family. A new Scotland could spell disaster, or it could mean the regeneration of the Scottish people. It depends on how they read it and respond to it. I have to admit that if I were Scots I would be powerfully in favour of independence and rebuilding with my "ain folk" at the helm.

I feel the same way about England. Some of us are just like this and if enough of us feel like this, England will "do a Scotland" too. That seems quite possible and, if one isn't too squeamish, possibly also the only way any eventual reunion or federation on better terms will ever be effected. This desired link with the EU will evaporate as freedom and nation building take hold. Impinging forces may prevent it, but if left to its own devises, blood is thicker than water and aways will be.

Northumbrian

I was trying to make the point that there is nothing permanent about the British state, and it is not sacrosanct. During the 20th century we've seen the withdrawal of most of Ireland from it and the end (apart from a few colonies) of the British Empire. Based on that history I would be very surprised if the British state could endure all of the 21st century.

rjt

Indeed you are right to say there is nothing permanent about the British State as there is nothin permanent about any state.

So the question is what steps do we take to strengthen the state so it has a better chance of staying together.

__________________
Mr Delors said that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community, The Commission to be The Executive and The Council Of Ministers The Senate. NO! NO! NO!
(Margaret Thatcher 30 Oct 1990)

Ignore List: The Prophets of ST Al the Unelectable.

Northumbrian

Why should we? England is a more permanent and established entity than the United Kingdom - shouldn't we look to restore statehood to that?

rjt

Well we will take diffrent views on that I am a unionist and will always remain so, I have great sympathy with the argument for an English parlianment put forward very well by the ED party but no sympathy with that partys political fornication with the Europhile SNP and the glee expressed by some of its members at the rise of IRA Shin Fein in Northern Ireland.

__________________
Mr Delors said that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community, The Commission to be The Executive and The Council Of Ministers The Senate. NO! NO! NO!
(Margaret Thatcher 30 Oct 1990)

Ignore List: The Prophets of ST Al the Unelectable.

cassie

You are arguing from a false premise! It is the threat to England's continuance as an entity which concerns many English people.

Moreover, given that the people of England comprise 84% of the UK's population and return over 80% of MPs to the British Parliament, it is within their scope to take control of the UK. In fact, this needs to be done before the separation you so fervently promote can be effected.

Worse, the continued promotion of 'independence for England' divides support for an English Parliament! Ironically, you are more likely to achieve what you desire by demanding that voters in England should participate in any future referenda affecting the UK, especially any in Scotland!

This is a much more democratic and less divisive course, but many Unionists won't favour it because they fear a referendum in England will yield a clear majority in favour of "letting them go, if that is what they want", regardless of the result in Scotland!

Promotion of this course will expose the true democratic credentials of Unionists . . . one either believes in referenda as a proper means of ascertaining collective opinion, or one does not. It is not a process to be used when one thinks one will 'win', which is to miss the point of holding them. With such an approach, no wonder our political system has become patently more corrupted compared with what it was in the immediate post-war decades.