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 In 1801, this union was superceded by further Acts which united Great Britain with Ireland and created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.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.

McDONNELL THREATENS BREAK UP OF UK

As part of a desperate bid to woo voters in Scotland, John McDonnell has apparently said that a future Labour government in the United Kingdom would not attempt to stop the Scots holding another referendum on the vexed subject of their independence. However, this puts him at odds with the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, so it looks like another mess over referendums.

Labour has previously been as opposed to breaking up the United Kingdom as has every other party of note; the only ones in favour are the nationalists in Scotland and Wales and, of course, those who want to establish a united Ireland. McDonnell's latest commitment changes things dramatically and potentially heralds a break up of the UK with Scotland going its own way. Once the UK has left the EU, it could well mean the Scots gaining their independence from the United Kingdom only to cede it to the far more bureaucratic and authoritarian powers in Brussels; as a very small nation, Scotland would also find its voice carries little weight in the debating chambers of the EU.

The Scottish Nationalists have previously suggested that leaving the United Kingdom would be managed quite simply. The Queen, or her successor, would remain head of state and the Scots would keep sterling as their currency; there would be no 'border problems' and movement of people and goods would not be hindered. Given the attitude of the European Union to the little matter of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, as well as its insistence that new member states must adopt the Euro as their currency, this all seems to be 'pie in the sky'.

IF Scotland achieves independence and then seeks to join the EU, it would have to adopt the Euro. The border between Scotland and England would become a frontier and the EU would undoubtedly want to implement border controls to prevent the nasty English from gaining any advantage. Tearing up the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707 would throw the British Constitution into crisis and it is far from certain that the government in London would look kindly on the monarch continuing to also have a role in Scotland. The Scots might then be faced with either finding a different monarch or accepting the creation of a Presidential post - President Sturgeon, perhaps.

McDonnell's plainly electioneering stance demonstrates just how far Labour is now prepared to go in order to gain power. For power in Westminster, they will happily sacrifice the integrity of the United Kingdom. These power hungry Marxists must never be allowed to gain office. 

BREXIT : IRISH BORDER NOW THE ISSUE.

There have been conflicting reports today regarding the latest Brexit negotiations but one thing is clear. The Irish government is hell bent on using Brexit for its own ends.

At one point it was reported that the UK and EU had reached an agreement over the question of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. It was said that the UK had agreed to some sort of arrangement whereby Northern Ireland would be more closely tied to the EU than the rest of the United Kingdom, allowing for the retention of the current very loose border between north and south. However, it soon became apparent that either this story was wishful thinking by those on the EU / Eire side or that it was true but completely unacceptable to many on the other side. Whatever the truth, there appears to have been a degree of backtracking.

Arlene Foster, leader of the  DUP, has made it clear that no such arrangement would be acceptable to them while representatives of the administrations in Scotland, Wales and even London, have asked that if Northern Ireland can have a special relationship with the EU, why can't they ? Some Conservative 'Remainers' have also been upset by this proposal, fearing that it could, indeed, lead to a break-up of the United Kingdom. Conversely, the government of the Irish Republic was all in favour but is no disappointed that the proposal has struck the rocks; from their point of view, nothing could better suit their aim of establishing a united Ireland than to create a rift between the North and the rest of the UK.

That this issue has been given the importance which it has is nonsensical. The UK government has made it very clear that it does not want  a so-called 'hard border' and yet it is the UK which is being held up as the 'bad boy' in this argument. It is actually the EU which is causing the difficulty by demanding that there is a 'soft border' across which all of its rules and regulations must also apply. It's crazy.

Theresa May seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate the demands of the bureaucrats of Brussels and it's time that she stopped. Tell them, in clear terms, that the UK will not impose a 'hard border' but that  Northern Ireland will continue to operate as a fully integrated part of the United Kingdom, whether the EU likes it or not. If they don't like it, they're at liberty to institute whatever border controls they like or they can just accept things as they are.

Come on Theresa, show some steel and stand up for your country.