Well done ComRes, asking the English not just for views on Scottish independence, but on English independence too. 36% of the English polled said yes to English independence, just 1% behind the June 2011 TNS-BMRB figure for Scots wanting Scottish independence. And that 37% figure for Scots backing independence was a 6% boost on the previous time it was asked. Assuming the English figure isn’t a rogue poll – and more data from other pollsters would be most welcome, it looks like rejection of the UK model is roughly equally popular in England and North Britain Scotland.
Yet the differences are enormous.
In Scotland, the party in government has independence as its sole raison d’être, plus there’s another party in Parliament which supports it, plus three others committed to further devolution, a position which means all sides in the debate are currently arguing against the status quo – but in England not a single party proposes going it alone, not even the English Democrats, whose eccentric Mayor of Doncaster got a slot in the Scotsman yesterday to be incoherent and ill-informed.
That party of government at Holyrood is also led by the man regarded as the finest politician of the age by many, including himself and his bust-erecting acolytes (check out the hubris in this quote, by the way). He’s the great persuader, the regular winner of FMQs whether the facts are on his side or not. Sure, he’s Marmite too, but who is his counterpart, the strong voice for English independence? Jeremy Clarkson? Simon Heffer? Richard Littlejohn?! Is there a single elected politician who favours this position? Apparently not. The English Independence Party have even let their domain name lapse – I’m not going to point you to the spamly holding page.
Here in Scotland there is also a true national debate going on, in the media, in pubs, on blogs like this, or Bella Caledonia, or Labour Hame – something which began in earnest in 2007 and which kicked up a gear in May when it became clear that a referendum would happen this session. But in England, do people sit around and discuss the merits and demerits of the Union unless they’re that particularly ardent form of non-resident SNP supporter? Or reciting the “they’re all living high on the hog on our money” nonsense that the English Democrats promote? I’ve never heard it.
The symbols, naff as I find all flags, are also laden with different values. The Saltire and the Lion Rampant are familiar fixtures at football matches and on public buildings, and come with no anti-immigrant baggage, whereas it has taken a real and recent effort to reclaim the Cross of St George from the hard right.
So why, despite all the advantages the case for self-determination apparently has in Scotland, is the argument for putting the UK to bed not getting noticeably more traction north of the border than south?
#1 by DougtheDug on July 6, 2011 - 9:51 am
The question was:
“Q.4 Irrespective of the outcome of the Scottish referendum, do you think that England should become a fully independent country with its own government, separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, or not?”
It is an ambiguous question because of the phrase, “separate from the rest of the United Kingdom”, which implies a continuing UK. Were these who said yes agreeing to the dissolution of the United Kingom or to an English Parliament within the UK?
If the question had been worded:
“”Q.4 Irrespective of the outcome of the Scottish referendum, do you think that England should become a fully independent country with its own government and that the United Kingdom should be broken up?
Then the answer might have been different.
#2 by douglas clark on July 6, 2011 - 10:16 am
It may not be true, but I am led to believe that English media push out a story that says that Scotland scrounges off England. And that we live in a land of milk and honey, with free prescriptions and adolescent education paid for by them.
Why wouldn’t they want their freedom!
#3 by James on July 6, 2011 - 10:32 am
And the Scots are led to believe that there’s a vast infinitude of “oor oil” out there which the English are bathing in and drinking (even though it peaked in 1999). And still the two numbers are within the margin of error.
#4 by douglas clark on July 6, 2011 - 10:46 am
Indeed James,
The English dry swalow their propoganda pill.
The point, should you wish to engage with it, is that an ill informed electorate has been asked about something they really don’t care or know about. They get their information from a few rabid lunatics and you compare that to the debate we’re having North of the Border?
Why wouldn’t they want their freedom?
Incidentally, I do not think that we should be basing a case for independence based on oil. We should be basing a case for independence through renewables. Especially tidal.
#5 by ReasonableNat on July 6, 2011 - 11:02 am
Really, it is no wonder at all, and it is the media’s reflection of our bizarre new UK political structure that is doing it. Looking at the output of UK wide media, from outside Scotland, you’d be hard pressed to find evidence that the union still exists. There used to be a time, not that long ago, when political news stories about education, the NHS, and so on, applied everywhere. Nowadays that coverage continues but simply forgets the devolved nations. When did you last (or ever) hear about Curriculum for Excellence or de-privatisation of the Scottish health service, on the BBC News Channel? Watching, listening to, and reading UK wide media in Scotland provides us all with in depth knowledge of the controversial health reforms in England – but no clue about what Wales or Northern Ireland is doing. If you look at this from an English perspective we’ve basically all but disappeared.
Before the recent Scottish election, coverage of Scottish politics in UK wide media had reduced to negligable levels. The increase in coverage since the election has been arguably still pretty minimal, given the potential consequences. What extra coverage that has appeared has been dominated by opinion ranging from apathy to sheer nastiness. If I were living in England I’d be convinced that: the SNP want to keep the Barnett formula, the SNP want to devolve extra taxes (including oil taxes) on top of the existing grant (without reducing the grant), and that everyone in Scotland thinks with the same mind – Salmond’s mind. I’d have no clue whatsoever that the SNP are arguing for full fiscal responsibility, that the vast majority of Scots also want that, and that it is only unionist parties that are preventing that. I’d also be convinced that Scots are quite happy with the existence of the West Lothian problem, and I’d have no clue that SNP MPs don’t vote on English matters in Westminster while unionist MPs still do.
Who wouldn’t want Scotland to go away…
#6 by ReasonableNat on July 6, 2011 - 11:51 am
I should also say, the current set up is offensive all round. The English electorate deserve a government that is focussed on English matters and that is not distracted by also running the UK at a ‘federal’ level, and they deserve not to have members of their parliament (and government) elected from outwith England.
Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish people equally deserve to have a UK level government that is not distracted by governing England.
That all sides are feeling poorly served should be no surprise under a ‘system’ which has happened by accident, and could never have come about by logic. While all these unfairnesses exist, and while UK wide media continues as they are, the drive towards separation (on both sides of the border) will only continue. Maybe if the unionist parties held their noses, if Westminster acquired some nobility and gave up its power over England, and we all got together to agree a new type of union that deals with the imbalance in populations of the nations, we might create something worth keeping. I just don’t see that happening though.
#7 by JPJ2 on July 6, 2011 - 12:09 pm
Another straw in the wind of the decline in “Britishness” (or, as I would have it, its alteration to become a term similar to “Scandinavian”), I have noticed a meaningful number of former BNP candidates defecting to now stand as English Democrats in council elections.
If even the BNP are losing out to the concept of English rather than British identity then surely Britishness has indeed gone with the Empire.
#8 by James on July 6, 2011 - 12:10 pm
That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Given they’re formally “the British Isles”, would that include the Republic of Ireland? (ducks under the table)
#9 by Indy on July 6, 2011 - 2:08 pm
In an ideal world yes. There is a British-Irish Council at present which could be developed.
Interestingly it brings together the governments of Ireland; the United Kingdom; Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales,; Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Jersey.
In a way that highlights the problem – there is no English Government there!
#10 by James on July 6, 2011 - 2:11 pm
Mebyon Kernow are going to love you.
#11 by Indy on July 6, 2011 - 4:36 pm
Cornwall doesn’t have its own government – maybe it should, that is for them to decide.
It just strikes me as bizarre that the British-Irish Council brings together the Irish, Northern Irish, Scottish Welsh, Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey governments – but nothing that is specifically English. It is just a strange paradox.
#12 by Wyrdtimes on July 6, 2011 - 6:07 pm
There’s a British-Irish council with one rather large component of these isles missing.
#13 by Gavin Hamilton on July 6, 2011 - 12:38 pm
I think as far as ‘English nationalism’ is concerned it has always seen British and English as synonymous and has found devolution to various parts of the UK difficult.
I think nationalism in terms of asserting identity over Europe – ie being anti European is a very strong driver for this group and is a very potent force at the moment.
On the dark side, English nationalism pulls in crypto facist and racist groups like the BNP on its fringes.
I think like many larger European nations but unlike smaller proud nations (say the Scots or the Danes) it is bound up in having once been Top Nation.
There will be the remains of a hankering after Empire and putting the Great back in Britain and all that as a driver for English nationalism.
I think they rediscovered the St Georges cross in 1996 (Euro 96) – note in 1966 the football fans waved the Union Flag, now they wave the cross of St George.
I still believe Federalism is a logical set up for the UK – but this only works if power is devolved around English nations.
The LibDems argue this and have done for a long time.
I actually think English nationalism is potentially an unhealthy development and takes a different form to Scottish nationalism or something like say Quebec nationalism in Canada. Another reason why I think unity and devolution throughout the UK is the way to go, logical and desirable – as is positive but not undiscerning participation in Europe.
UKIP and before them the Referendum Party is, I would argue, at least in part a manifestation of English nationalism.
I’d be interested in what a Tory has to say on this subject!
I am interested in the parallels with Scandanavia and the British Isles (yes including the Irish). Though I think logically we are more unified than that and I would like to see a federal structure develop within the UK.
#14 by ReasonableNat on July 6, 2011 - 12:48 pm
I think the answer lies in pooled sovereignty rather than federalism – it’s all the rage you know 🙂
I think we’ll see a sovereign Scottish state cooperating with the rUK in a pooled sovereignty arrangement long before we see a federal solution. Westminster can’t seem to contemplate either releasing control of England to an English Parliament, nor releasing control of the UK to an UK federal government – it just can’t bear it! It can bear letting go of Scotland though 🙂
#15 by JPJ2 on July 6, 2011 - 12:41 pm
James-it might take a few hundred years to get to that stage e.g. what we like to call the British Lions rugby team (which includes Irish Republic players, of course) are referred to simply as the Lions in Ireland (South).
However, I don’t doubt that eventually the term “British”, when shorn for decades/centuries of all political connotations, might be accepted as inoffensive throughout all Ireland (I won’t be holding my breath though 🙂
#16 by Hamish on July 6, 2011 - 12:43 pm
Sparkling and wicked article, James.
But these statements need a bit of explanation:
“In Scotland, the party in government has independence as its sole raison d’être, plus there’s another party in Parliament which supports it”.
That’s the Greens, right.
” but in England not a single party proposes going it alone, not even the English Democrats”.
That’s not even the Greens, right.
It is a logical impossibility to support Scottish Independence and not English Independence.
No doubt the Greens respect local autonomy to pursue different policies north and south of the border.
But surely on a basic principle such as the right of every nation to determine its own affairs, the Greens should speak with one voice.
#17 by James on July 6, 2011 - 12:47 pm
Thanks Hamish, and yes, I did mean the Scottish Greens in the piece.
The English Greens do of course support the right of self-determination, and don’t try to set pan-UK Green policy on Scottish independence any more than we’d try to set policy for English-only matters. Movement towards English-only independence is not their policy, though.
“It is a logical impossibility to support Scottish Independence and not English Independence.”
Not so. It’s perfectly possible to say that England, Wales and Northern Ireland should continue to be one state.
#18 by Hamish on July 6, 2011 - 4:59 pm
Mea culpa, James.
It never occurred to me that the Greens were opposed to Welsh and Irish independence as well.
#19 by James on July 6, 2011 - 5:08 pm
You’re wilfully misreading me. All Greens support the right to self-determination, which is why the Scottish Greens have no position on what the Welsh or Northern Irish choose to do.
#20 by Hamish on July 7, 2011 - 11:25 pm
So the (Scottish) Greens have/had no position on South African independence?
This is a new one on me: only in my back yard.
#21 by James on July 7, 2011 - 11:49 pm
Honestly, the next round of this nonsense doesn’t get approved. Racist white rule clearly ≠self-determination.
#22 by Hamish on July 9, 2011 - 3:20 pm
James, you are wilfully misreading me.
I was referring to the move for independence led by the ANC.
I do find that slur rather offensive.
#23 by A Cairns on July 6, 2011 - 2:02 pm
Think I’m with Gavin Hamilton here although I do think there is to much obession with national identity from the SNP when it shouldn’t really matter in a modern society.
My concern about Salmond’s new/regurgitated ‘independence lite’ idea is that Scotland could end up half independent and half not leading to bitter recriminations between Scotland and England if it results in an unbalanced federal settlement.
#24 by ReasonableNat on July 6, 2011 - 2:26 pm
You mean like the current situation of bitter recriminations between Scotland and England resulting from the existing unbalanced non-federal (or non-confederal) settlement?
#25 by Marcus Warner on July 6, 2011 - 2:06 pm
I concur with alot of what reasonable nat says, it seems all celtic nations are ignored in the UK media. If it gives you any comfort at all, we in Wales look on Scotland’s media with envy – you should see Wales’!
We don’t know at the moment, but one thing that did mean that devolution would kill the union is the asymmetry. As long as there is, then the direction of travel will fiz along…rather nicely in my view 😉
#26 by ReasonableNat on July 6, 2011 - 4:30 pm
I totally get your point. Our own media probably serves us reasonably well for our size, though I think it probably suffers from having to opt out all the time.
When we’re talking about English perceptions of us though, there’s very little for them to base any perceptions on, since we are really only served by our own media, regardless of how good it might be.
Could we have a non-England media that serves ‘the rest of us’??? 😉
#27 by Angus McLellan on July 6, 2011 - 9:52 pm
I would say that our media serves us very badly indeed. I don’t like to keep harping on about parts foreign, but it’s hard to decide if things are good or bad if you never look at the big wide world. Otherwise all you end up doing is comparing Scotland with England and England will always be a much larger country.
Belgium has about twice the population of Scotland, divided about equally between French and Dutch speakers. Belgian media in general pay no more attention to the other linguistic half of the country than English papers pay to Scotland or Northern Ireland, or vice versa. There are some companies which own publications in both languages and share content to some extent, but simply reprinting “La Libre Belgique” with “Vrij Belgie” as the title is obviously not an option. A good translation will in many cases take about as much work as writing something from scratch. Still, there are similarities, especially since Flanders is right next to the larger Netherlands and Wallonia is right next to the much larger France.
In Belgium there are eighteen daily papers, ten major Dutch-language newspapers made up of two heavyweights (De Standaard, De Morgen), a financial paper (De Tijd), and other seven local and “national” papers plus eight French-language papers made up of two heavyweights (Le Soir, La Libre), a financial paper (L’Echo) and five others. There are also a few weekly news magazines (HUMO, Knack, Le Vif/L’Express) and the usual TV guides and similar.
Counting TV channels is harder but even just sticking to over to public channels (none of which are ITV3/4 style repeats so far as I can remember) there are four Dutch-language and three French-language, plus one more of each coproduced with the Netherlands (BVN) and France (Arte) respectively. Belgian public TV can be a bit worthy and dull, and the private channels broadcast mainly foreign content and cheap filler, although the occasional big budger private home produced shows can be of a high quality.
I think Belgium is a bit better served than Scotland. But it would be worth looking at the former Czechoslovakia too, or Canada, or Ireland.
And why don’t Netherlands or French papers print Belgian editions? No idea. They’d have to be more like the “Scottish Sun” in having some significant local content rather than the “Scottish Times” which really just changes the title since they couldn’t reuse as much of their content, but they would have economies of scale. Perhaps someone has done a study?
#28 by ReasonableNat on July 7, 2011 - 12:31 pm
Well, that’s the thing though isn’t it? If we were independent then I can’t see our media market being dominated from London. They’d have to cover the full breadth of Scottish politics and miss out the full breadth of rUK politics. It wouldn’t be worth doing.
We’re not independent though, so really you can’t compare us with Belgium just now. Really you’d need to compare us with Catalonia and such like.
#29 by Tony on July 6, 2011 - 3:21 pm
Been away on holiday and I was twice referred to by English people as English and/or British whilst discussing inconsequential things like treatment on the busses and Andy Murray and tennis.
There was no political disscussion before or after, although one of the people I pointed out to that not all of us self-identify thus fell out with me. Genuinely got hurt feelings and rabbled on about loving callander and the trossachs and how Van Morrison loved being British bizzarely enough.
I have not mixed with English people in Europe for several years and in light of our present political state of affairs thought in my naivity that there would be a greater awareness of our national identities, and the differences therein. Not a bit it seems, my recent experience matches past experiences whereby English people in general just believe us to be part of a ‘greater England’ with a distinct quaint regional difference, but English nonetheless.
Why then is there a need for a driving force to create an independent England when in many/most English minds Britian is England.
#30 by Scottish republic on July 6, 2011 - 3:31 pm
I don’t think the poll is reliable because it’s a YouGov poll of less tha 900 English people and that’s not representative in something like this.
A question can be asked differently?
Do you think England would be better off without Scotland?
YES/NO
Do you think England should become independent?
YES/NO
The question put like thaat might elicit a 51% pro-English independence respone.
#31 by Gavin Hamilton on July 6, 2011 - 4:29 pm
Reasonable Nat – I think you are right and the English wont go for a federal union – no interest rather than hostility.
I know pooled sovereignty is all the rage. But who is going to pool – Scotland might want to but I doubt anyone else will give a fig? I think it is independence or devolution within the UK.
And I think working at evolving devolution within the UK including within England is the way to go. We are quite interlinked and there is more that binds us than separates in the real world outside of the chat rooms of the macblogosphere 🙂 (runs and hides).
This is workable, reasonable, fits where we actually are in the 21st century and is logical based on us being Scottish and British at the sane time (same island, same language, same economy. big cultural overlap but our own identity too)
#32 by ReasonableNat on July 6, 2011 - 4:56 pm
All of you points are absolutely fair, but if the English won’t go for federation, for whatever reason, then it isn’t going to happen. If we vote for independence and attempt to negotiate cooperation as a part of that process we might be able to achieve something suitable. Even having said that, these are not the only two options….
If we stick with the status quo then the frustration will simply increase of both sides of the border. Look at the age profile in independence polls, if this continues, support for the union will literally die, within a decade or two.
#33 by Gavin Hamilton on July 6, 2011 - 5:41 pm
Agreed they are not the only two options but I think the various shared sovereignty ideas are a bit of a non starter because you need two to share.
I’m unconvinced on the existance of frustration on both sides of the border – outside of nationalist party ranks that is.
The young have always been more interested in radical change.
Agree that as the generation who remember the war pass on we become less British but it does not follow that the young will carry their nationalism all through life.
More volatile as an electorate and less tribal definitely though!
#34 by ReasonableNat on July 6, 2011 - 8:30 pm
Surely if the union is worth having, unionists should be able to get behind a compromise solution that keeps the good bits and also allows us to experience at least some of the benefits of independence?
I accept that you don’t buy the age structure argument, but you must at least see it as a risk. If you are a federalist should you not be arguing somewhat vociferously that the union needs to adapt to survive? Shouldn’t the Lib Dems in London be doing the same instead of getting behind the lowest common denominator?
I mean, what it really gets down to is, what about the union is really worth saving? A lot of what you said (“We are quite interlinked and there is more that binds us than separates in the real world outside of the chat rooms of the macblogosphere”) remains true about Ireland despite its independence (and Canada, Australia and NZ for that matter) so if, in the real world, it is better to, for example, share defence of these islands, then surely it doesn’t make any sense for a unionist to take an ‘all or nothing’ stance?
#35 by Wyrdtimes on July 6, 2011 - 6:03 pm
Interesting until you wheeled out the Unionist claptrap about the Cross of St George needing saving from the hard right.
Britain’s right has been just that: Britain’s. From Mosley’s BUF to the NF and the BNP all British nationalists – all waved the Union flag not the Cross of St George. If any flag needs reclaiming from the hard right it’s the Union flag – although personally I think it needs binning once and for all.
There isn’t an organised independence movement in England but non the less desire for independence is growing. Those who know themselves English are heartily sick of Brishit politicians calling England; “our country”, “the country” or “Britain”. They take us for fools – one day we will sweep them away.
#36 by James on July 6, 2011 - 9:53 pm
Sorry, that’s perhaps the most absurdly inaccurate nonsense I’ve ever seen here. I’m not going to link to the BNP site, but here’s the BBC quoting them and the “English Democrats”. Also, have you heard of the EDL? It’s their sole image. Surely they’re “hard right” enough for you?
EDIT: I’m not taking more comments on the far right and English nationalism – sorry, we’re off topic, more than one of them are into proper denial of reality mode, and I’m starting to see links to some unpleasant material popping up here. I suspect this item has been posted to an English nationalist forum, and at some point we might take a thoughtful blogpost on this subject (but this isn’t it). Any non-right English nationalists wishing to submit anything of that sort should email editors at betternation dot org.
#37 by Don McC on July 6, 2011 - 7:35 pm
“check out the hubris in this quote, by the way”
Hubris? Definately. They should have been far more modest and just claimed the title of “Father of the Nation”.
#38 by douglas clark on July 7, 2011 - 12:48 am
Whilst we have the attention of ‘Wyrdtimes’ perhaps he can assist us in understanding the shift from the BNP to the English Democrats?
I find all this hither and thither amongst right wing fascist *types* quite fascinating.
It is a tad like Stork Margarine – no matter how you re-label it – no-one is going to want it….
#39 by Wyrdtimes on July 7, 2011 - 9:33 am
I’m a civil English nationalist who wants independence for England, which doesn’t fit with either the BNP or the EngDems,
I’m no better equipped to look into the minds of the BNP than you are.
#40 by Gavin Hamilton on July 7, 2011 - 9:46 am
Reasonable Nat – sorry this PC setting doesn’t let me link under our thread – I think the LibDems elsewhere in the UK have talked more about federalism and decentralisation than other political groups. And, it is a genuinely held view.
There is huge support for this idea from the Welsh, the Cornish and from people in other English regions – always has been.
I’m sure you’ll realise outside of Scotland it is not a priority issue. In fact, I believe outside of nationalist circles it is not a priority issue.
I think the LibDems have argued for the union to adapt – that is their analysis and their position.
I think much more binds us together than it does to NZ, Canada and Australia and other places where a lot of Scots immigrated to.
Ireland may be a closer parallel but I think more binds us into the rest of the UK than Ireland – but that is another topic.
#41 by ReasonableNat on July 7, 2011 - 12:40 pm
Sure, the consitution isn’t a priority for most people, but it’s structure is causing resentment, and the eventual effect of that resentment, I imagine, the potential end of the union, certainly would register as a priority. The apathy of unionists in Scotland, and a very large proportion of the population of England, towards calls for constitutional change, is causing them to sleep walk right into the situation that they don’t want. Deeply ironic in my view.
#42 by Dean MacKinnon-Thomson on July 7, 2011 - 2:56 pm
Maybe a Federal or confederal system could hold this unequal union together?
#43 by Angus McLellan on July 7, 2011 - 8:03 pm
The change from being a “unitary state” to a functioning federal or confederal democracy is fairly uncommon in the “developed” world. If Belgium is to be considered federal or confederal that would be one example and the Kingdom of the Netherlands might make two. I am not coming up with any more.
The rarity of such occurences might say something about the likelihood of it ever happening here. And there’s no getting away from the unreasonableness of supposing that one part of a larger state can somehow demand that the state becomes a (con)federation.
#44 by ReasonableNat on July 7, 2011 - 10:00 pm
The EU!
#45 by ReasonableNat on July 8, 2011 - 8:16 am
Sorry, two more points:
1. Just because something is rare doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good idea. Everything is rare before it becomes popular. We’re quite possibly going to see more collections of small nations grouping together, as in Europe, in the future – in order to help them compete with the really massive nations that are likely to dominate this century – India and China. (Really, all four nations of the UK should become ‘independent’ from each other in the coming decades because they’re already in another union anyway – there’s just no need for a UK now, it’s redundant, replaced by a much bigger union doing pretty much the same job.)
2. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about demanding fairness, whether you are a senior partner, a junior partner, or a slave. Much of what Scotland, and to an extent the other devolved nations, are looking for would create fairness all round, and although the English might be relatively apathetic (don’t like to see their traditions fiddled with), most of them would at least prefer some minor alterations to rid them of the West Lothian problem.
#46 by Andrew BOD on July 7, 2011 - 7:55 pm
An independent England will never happen. As has already been said, the motivation for answering yes in the aforementioned poll was indeed the raft of lies, half-truths and innuendo by the English media about us scrounging Scots.
A federal UK might address some of the unbalanced constitutional and frankly colonial arrangements, but in creating a Senate, each of the four ‘nations’ would have to have equal representation. If not, England’s representatives would have their way on any issue. Each nation could have a greater degree of financial autonomy, and it would become a ‘United States of Britain.’ But really, this is huge change and will never happen because there is no appetite for change in England. Certainly not this type of radical change. England is conservative with a small ‘c’.
I guess the only way it might happen is if a vote on Scottish Independence ends in stalemate, i.e. 50%, and then the powers-that-be may throw in some federal-like appeasement.
But then there’s the ‘British’ establishment who will not want to see a smaller UK. Smaller means less power in Europe, at the UN perhaps, and just generally in the global marketplace. I’ve not mentioned oil yet. Oops I just did. But no, I don’t think oil is a top consideration. Losing Scotland’s landmass and coastline in general, when England has just become the most densely populated country in Europe, is a major tactical and strategic consideration.
A last reason why I don’t think England will vote for change is something that has been mentioned already. Many people view Britain as England, and England as Britain. So why would they want change? It’s this aspect of our UK relationship that irks me the most. I feel as if I’m a second-class citizen. When I turn on the UK state news channel, I hear about hospitals, schools & universities, law & order, local government, and I feel like a spectator watching events unfold another country.
England is indeed Britain, and is unlikely to want anything different. Here in Scotland, we don’t need to try and convince a nation of 50 million people to change. Only 5 million.
#47 by ReasonableNat on July 8, 2011 - 8:21 am
“A last reason why I don’t think England will vote for change is something that has been mentioned already. Many people view Britain as England, and England as Britain. So why would they want change? It’s this aspect of our UK relationship that irks me the most. I feel as if I’m a second-class citizen. When I turn on the UK state news channel, I hear about hospitals, schools & universities, law & order, local government, and I feel like a spectator watching events unfold another country.”
You know, I totally agree with that. The excuse of a larger English population is trotted out time and time again to justify this. Just for bringing this up in the company of unionists, I tend to be told that I’m petty, and that I’m making Scots look like a bunch of petty whingers.