STURGEON STEAMS ON, BUT TO WHERE ?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain came into being in 1707, following agreement between the governments of England (including Wales) and Scotland, and the passing of relevant Acts in the parliaments of both countries. In 1801, this union was superceded by further Acts which united Great Britain with Ireland and created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. All three nations had previously shared the same monarch from 1603 when James VI of Scotland had become James 1 of England, the Kingship of Ireland having been already taken on by Henry VIII of England in 1541.

Now, after more than 300 years of unity, Nicola Sturgeon wants to impose her fanatical desire for Scottish independence on both the people of her nation and also those of the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course, the Kingdom has already been reduced by the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 and the secession of a large part of the island of Ireland although this owed as much to religion as to politics. Sturgeon's plans have nothing to do with religion and are all about politics and her desire to be 'free' of what she sees as the malign influence of the UK's government in Westminster.

Back in 2014, David Cameron allowed the Scots to conduct a referendum on the simple question of whether or not they wanted to become an independent nation once again. The result was a reasonable clear one - they did not. The promoters of the referendum, the Scottish National Party, were very clear that this was a 'once in a generation' opportunity for Scots to make such a choice, and they still rejected the idea. Ever since, Sturgeon and her pals have used every excuse under the sun to claim that another referendum should be held rather more quickly than was previously suggested; actually, they want one within a year or two.

Before the current round of elections, Sturgeon was saying that if her SNP gained an absolute majority in the Holyrood parliament, she would see that as a mandate to demand a second referendum. Now seeing that the likelihood of an SNP majority is not great, she's changed her tune - now it's a majority of pro-Independence parties in the new parliament that will be sufficient, which takes advantage of the Green Party being in favour of separating from the United Kingdom.

Of course, Sturgeon only talks about the issues which support her position and ignores all else. Even if it's accepted that all SNP voters support independence (which is far from certain), that's only around 48% of the 63% of the electorate who bothered to vote. Adding in those who voted for the Green Party makes little real difference and with all other major parties opposed to another referendum, we're left with something like 30% of the electorate supporting pro-independence parties; for Sturgeon to claim that this gives her a mandate for another referendum is risible, regardless of the number of seats held in the parliament.

If she did actually get her way, held and won a referendum, what would that mean for both Scotland and the rest of the then former United Kingdom ?

Sturgeon has always claimed that the head of state would still be the Queen, but would hold for any future monarchs, or would Scots be looking for a Presidential system ? It has also been claimed that Scotland would retain use of the British currency and there would be no problems over borders or trading arrangements. In fact, as far as Sturgeon is concerned, life for Scots would be almost as it is now, with the single exception that she would be the boss; she glosses over the issues which would arise from her plan to take an independent Scotland back into the European Union.

Despite Sturgeon's optimism, an independent Scotland, especially one that is a very small and insignificant member of the European Union, would not have it so easy. The Queen may well be happy to remain as head of state but what about the future ? Might we see Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Alex Salmond, even George Galloway, standing in a Presidential election ? What a horror show !

Continuing to use the pound sterling would only be possible if agreed by the parliament in Westminster and would leave the Scots tied to financial decisions made by Westminster and the Bank of England. Joining the European Union would, of course, require Scotland to adopt the Euro as their currency while there would also be the small matter of the border with England which would then become a border between England and the European Union; given the ongoing issues over Brexit and the position in Ireland, this could be a major problem. Would we have border posts along Hadrian's Wall, or some other line of EU defence, or would there be calls for England to accept EU rules in order to avoid such nonsense ? 

What would happen as the economies of the 2 nations diverged, as seems inevitable, has been ignored. Scotland has a large budget deficit and there has been considerable criticism of many of the services provided by the SNP administration; EU rules would mean tight financial controls would have to be imposed and the impact of these could be dramatic. Adoption of the Euro as the national currency would place Scotland under the control of the European Central Bank, rather than the Bank of England, and Scotland would then be required to follow whatever fiscal rules the ECB imposes. Scotland would also be tied to whatever fate awaits the Euro and the rest of the highly protectionist European Union. Trade with England could be significantly damaged as EU rules on borders, the single market and customs' union could well mean the imposition of tariffs and other border controls. Anyone living on one side of the border and working on the other may have unwanted issues to deal with as well.

By contrast, England would fare quite well. The financial support given to Scotland would cease to the benefit of taxpayers in the rest of the former union. Exports to Scotland are relatively minor, while disruption to imports from Scotland (principally whisky ?) would hardly be life threatening. England would surely care very little about the border issues which would be a major problem for Scotland and the EU. Indeed, would the EU even baulk at the very idea of Scotland joining them because of this ?

Sturgeon is a fanatic who will steam ahead regardless. One can only hope that the Scottish people would have more sense than to follow her down the road to disaster if, or when, given another opportunity to express a view about potentially breaking up a union which has existed for over 300 years to the substantial benefit of all concerned, in favour of surrendering their sovereignty to a different union of which their nation would be a tiny and wholly insignificant member, lying across the sea and attached to a serious trade competitor. The chances are that the European Union would turn out to be a much less supportive 'friend' than the United Kingdom has been for centuries.

How all this will play out is anyone's guess.

STURGEON SHOULD BE IN THE TOWER !

Nicola Sturgeon really is an annoying little troll. The grandly titled Scottish 'First Minister' is so fanatical about the notion of independence for her territory that she bangs on about it at every opportunity.

With the SNP's annual conference getting underway, Sturgeon has appeared on both radio and television telling us, again and again, that Scotland voted to stay in the European Union and that her mob would back a second referendum on the subject. She also appears to be hell bent on using Brexit as a springboard for holding another referendum on Scottish independence as soon as possible, notwithstanding that the referendum in 2014 was trumpeted as being a "once in a generation opportunity". Of course, as with the EU referendum, those who got the 'wrong' result, that is the result they didn't want, are now dead set on holding another one in an attempt to get the 'right' result.

Sturgeon insists on behaving as though Scotland is an independent entity, rather than being part of the United Kingdom; the UK is a sovereign nation, Scotland is not. The UK has a seat at the United Nations, Scotland does not; neither, for that matter, do Wales, London, Cornwall or any other constituent part of the UK. The United Kingdom held a referendum and the decision of the majority was to leave the European Union; it matters not one jot that this area or that county had a majority in the opposite direction. When Scotland held its independence referendum in 2014, was there interminable chatter about which areas voted to stay in the UK against which wanted independence ? Indeed, was there a clamour from the people of Glasgow, Dundee, North Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire demanding that, as they'd voted for independence, they should now be allowed to go their own way ? Of course not.

Sturgeon's notion of democracy is whatever she wants it to be at any particular time. Rather than accept the will of the people of her country, the United Kingdom, Sturgeon wants to break up that union for her own antiquated concept of sovereignty which, by the way, then leads to her taking her newly independent Scotland back into the European Union, a move which would result in far less autonomy than Scotland now enjoys under the United Kingdom. Enforced use of the Euro as its currency and total control of its finances by the EU, with only a very small voice in the Union's debating chambers. Given the current fuss being made about the Irish border, the little matter of the border that would then be created between Scotland and England, and the sea crossing from Stranraer to Larne and Belfast, would keep the EU's negotiators scratching their heads for decades. Clearly, Hadrian's Wall would have to be restored, and there'd be a floating border in the North Channel - wonderful.

Rather than supporting her Prime Minister through difficult negotiations with European bureaucrats, Sturgeon plays the part of a termagant, doing her best to stir up trouble and to use the situation against her own country and for her own narrow political objectives.  

People should see her for the troublemaking political opportunist - dare I say traitor ? - that she really is.

ELECTION OUTCOME UNFAIR ?

After one of the most astonishing General Elections in memory, the Conservatives have won an absolute majority and can run the country their way, that is, if the Scots don't mind.

The admittedly unwritten British Constitution relies on the notion that the government of the United Kingdom sits at Westminster; any party with an absolute majority, or able to build a workable coalition, makes the rules. Unfortunately, the Scottish Nationalists don't understand this and, despite having their own government in Edinburgh and very significant devolved powers, they seem to believe that they should also take a leading role in the running of the Westminster parliament, including voting on matters which only affect England and Wales. The rhetoric of the likes of Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond also makes clear that they intend to create as much disruption as possible in order to encourage agreement to another independence referendum and, they expect, actual independence for Scotland, sooner rather than later. God help the people.

How the Scottish National Party attained their position of apparent influence is, of course, a consequence of the 'first passed the post' voting system. Having gained only 4.7% of the total votes, they've won 56 seats, or 8.6% of the total. Some consider this to be 'unfair', particularly those whose number of seats won was less than their percentage of the total vote, such as the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Greens. Whether or not this is really unfair clearly depends on the viewpoint of the observer and also on what definition one applies to the very vague word 'unfair'. A child will often claim that being refused something they want is 'unfair', while a sports fan may argue that player A has some sort of 'unfair' advantage over player B. In politics, the losers frequently consider it 'unfair' that they didn't win, poor darlings.

The simple facts are that we have the system we have and it's unlikely to be changed in the near future. Neither of the 2 main parties, currently the Conservatives and Labour, are very enthusiastic about changing to proportional representation, the varieties of which are many and confusing, as such systems will tend to work against them. What are existing system does usually produce is majority government and a degree of certainty about the 'direction of travel' for the nation, things which most people, and businesses, prefer over the wishy-washy approach of most coalitions. Long may it continue.

ELECTION HORRORS AHEAD.

Thank God the election will soon be here though what it will bring us is another matter.

For weeks now we've been subjected to the lies, prevarication and disingenuous drivel of a vast horde of political figures, and others, all telling us what they think we want to hear and none of them telling us the truth. Questions put by interviewers have been ignored, avoided or answered in such a way that an impression is given without actually making any hard and fast commitments; even Miliband's recent statements about the SNP and possible deals with them still leave more than enough 'wriggle room' for Labour to do whatever they like in the event of a hung Parliament.

The opinion polls have remained stubbornly stuck, with no party seemingly making any significant progress in convincing the people that they are the ones to vote for. We have the likelihood, at the moment, of Labour probably having most seats and entering into an effective agreement, formal or not, with the SNP, a party which is desperate for the UK to be broken up. The SNP, for their part, have made it very clear that they will not support any Conservative led administration under any circumstances, confirming their position as a party of the extreme left. Likewise, Plaid Cymru have made a similar statement, though both the Liberal Democrats and UKIP have left open the question of whom they might be prepared to support.

In the end, what we are left with is the real prospect of a minority Labour government propped up by a mish-mash of extreme left wing parties including the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens. With the mantra of all 4 relying hugely on 'an end to austerity' we will find ourselves plunged into another financial abyss, with government borrowing rising again to unsustainable levels. Of course, there will also be vast increases in taxation, especially for anyone who has anything; I can see further assaults on the so-called 'well off', more raids on pension funds, huge increases in council tax and so on. Eventually, the bulk of the population will be much worse off.

What to do about it all. Sadly, voting for my preferred option, UKIP may well lead to my constituency electing a typically oily Liberal Democrat, though the best candidate I've seen by far is actually the Labour chap. Nationally, votes for UKIP may well help Labour to pick up Tory seats and make the horror of a Labour-SNP axis a reality. I doubt that I will make a final decision until election day.