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 In 1801, this union was superceded by further Acts which united Great Britain with Ireland and created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.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

VOTES AT 16 IS INSANITY : IT SHOULD BE 21+

A so-called 'opinion piece' in a scientific journal 'Lancet Child & Adolescent Health', a few days ago is reported to be claiming that adolescence in humans now lasts from the age of 10 until 24, whereas it was previously considered to end at 19. The writers of this article refer to there being a delay in the achievement of mental maturity amongst today's adolescents and go on to say that British laws should be written in such a way as to allow for this delayed entry into adulthood.

Young people today seem to have never-ending childhoods and this is blamed on them spending longer in education and being older when they marry and have children. In effect, societal changes have allowed them to continue with a childish approach to life well beyond that enjoyed by earlier generations. In truth it's difficult to argue against this, the evidence being apparent all around us.

Adolescence is a stage of human development which encompasses far more than increasing mental maturity. It is, in essence, about both mental and physical maturity and its end naturally comes at a time when young people are mentally and  physically mature enough to assume adult roles. In the recent past, young people left school at 14 or 15, and found themselves thrust into the real world of work. Few could expect to continue in school or even dream of going to university; the best they could hope for was an apprenticeship. In such circumstances, they had little choice but to 'grow up' quickly.

Today that has changed. Now we keep children cosseted and in full-time education until they are 16 and then only allow them to leave school if they have a formal apprenticeship to take up. The rest have to endure to 18, whether or not they are suited to school life, and huge numbers then progress to pointless university courses; by the time they leave the education system, many are in their mid-20s, never having experienced the realities of work or personal responsibility, and have little or no understanding of the world beyond their own heavily protected environments. They are, in effect, kept as children for far longer than in the past. At the same time, changes in society encompassing a much more liberal approach to relationships and childish misbehaviour plus the creation of a welfare state which pumps out 'benefits' like sweeties, allied to the invention of the internet and 'social media' and a shocking liberalisation of the depiction of both violence and sexual activity in films and on television have encouraged these children to act in what they see as being adult ways, with no fear of having to face the consequences of their actions. Hence, we have vast numbers of transitory relationships and 'one-parent families', the appearance of 'sexting', young people running around with knives and guns galore, a complete lack of respect for others, the virtual disappearance of what used to be called 'good manners', and much more. Many of these young people have no real prospects of ever finding productive and settled work, or of forming lasting relationships. What they do have is a horribly distorted view of the real world in which true adults live.

While all of this has been happening, there has also been a move to give these eternal children even greater powers. In particular, those on the left wing of politics have been increasingly eager to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in elections, knowing that young people are more likely to vote for socialist policies than for conservative ones. That the opinion expressed in the journal and the proposals of those with political motivations are diametrically opposed should be obvious to all.

Already, 16 and 17 year old have been granted the right to vote in elections in Scotland, though not in UK General Elections. Now, the Welsh government wants to follow suit, one senior Welsh minister saying "I think everybody who pays taxes should be able to vote". Pardon me for finding this notion perverse but the vast majority of 16 and 17 year olds are at school and do not pay taxes, so how on earth is paying taxes relevant to this argument ? As an aside, the Welsh government also wants to extend the right to vote to anyone who is living legally in Wales, regardless of their nationality or citizenship, seemingly yet another ploy to try to increase the left wing vote and clearly ridiculous; such a move would allow those who would never be affected by the results of their actions to influence the outcome of elections and the lives of the rest of the population, which must be wrong.

These daft moves, claimed to be about 'modernising' the electoral process are, in fact, nothing of the sort. In truth, given the reality of the situation as described in the 'Lancet Child & Adolescent Health', 'modernising' the process should have exactly the opposite effect as far as young people are concerned. Far from reducing the voting age to 16, it should really be increased to, say, 21 or higher, to reflect the immaturity of today's crop of adolescents. I have no problem with a criterion which links the right to vote to the paying of taxes but, with close to half of all young people in the UK now going on to university, how many of the under 21s actually pay any tax ? Indeed, how many of them have any knowledge or understanding of the world outside of the educational institutions and very limited social circles which they inhabit ?

I say a resounding 'No' to votes at 16.

EU REFERENDUM : WAR IN IRELAND IF WE LEAVE ?

The leaders of the 'Remain' campaign are clearly getting desperate.

Today former Prime Minister John Major was rolled out for the second time this week, along with another former PM, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. The two former adversaries appeared together to spread more stories to frighten the children; this time it was to tell us all that leaving the European Union would lead to Scotland having another vote on its own independence, and would threaten the 'stability' of Northern Ireland. This last point was subsequently firmly refuted by the Government's own Secretary of State for the province, Teresa Villiers, who stated that the words of the 2 former Prime Ministers were "highly irresponsible". Even without Villiers intervention, the statements of Major and Blair are no more than the utterly unsubstantiated views of 2 dedicated Europhiles, and worthy of little, if any consideration.


While Tony Blair's willingness to prostitute himself in this way is typical of the man, that John Major has now become embroiled in this kind of unsavoury and highly disingenuous misinformation says much for a man of whom I previously had a high regard. That the Government led by David Cameron is prepared to put its name to, and support behind, this kind of outrageous scaremongering shows that Cameron himself is a man who is entirely unsuitable for his role as prime Minister and whom no one should ever trust. It also demonstrates just how desperate the 'Remain' campaigners are becoming.


To my mind, this disgraceful episode tells us one important thing - Cameron and his allies cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything. They will lie and cheat, fabricate 'evidence' and say anything at all that they think will win the referendum for their preferred option of remaining within the appalling, corrupt organisation known as the European Union.

Show these lying scumbags that we will not be conned. VOTE LEAVE.