A brief history of the relationship between Scotland and England, after the Romans decided they would build a wall to keep out the marauding Pictish tribes: Scottish border raids of rape and pillage in England continued until the Scots were comprehensively splatted by Longshanks, who they had foolishly invited to Scotland in order to help them choose a new king, after their last one rode his horse off a cliff while in a drunken urge to get to his new young French wife. The Scots could have guessed that this might be a bad idea, considering Edward Longshanks was styled “Hammer of The Scots”. The Scots then formed what they call “The Auld Alliance” – an agreement with the French to constantly harass and attack the English.
On the death of Elizabeth lst, by accident of birth the Scottish king became King of England. James lst of England (6th of Scotland) was so hated, that he had to wear padded clothing to avoid being stabbed. Fond of molesting page boys, he threatened the families of handsome male courtiers with death unless they granted him sexual favours. Even by the standards of the day, he stunk like a dead badger, as he was afraid of warm water, and was noted never to wash his hands, which were encrusted with dirt. It was under his rule that the Gunpowder Plot took place.
His son was so despotic and insanely privileged that he drove England to civil war and the formation of a republic. His supporters then raised Catholic armies in Ireland, prompting Cromwell to rampage there to prevent invasion, a pre-emptive defence of the realm for which the English are blamed. The English are also exclusively blamed for the formation of the British Empire, even though that began in earnest after the union of Scotland and England, and Scots were very prominent in all aspects of it.
There remained such a tradition of Scottish hostility to England that, in Jefferson’s first draft of the American declaration of independence, he complained of the British King sending “Scots and other foreigners” to attack the American patriots, who were largely of English heritage.
Moving swiftly forward, in 20l4 the Scots held a referendum on continued membership of the United Kingdom. The result was a 55% win for those who chose to remain part of the Union.
The Welsh have been offered a referendum on membership and have refused it. Northern Ireland held a referendum on the matter and the results were even more conclusive.
And yet, the myth of oppressive ‘occupation’ by the dastardly English continues.
It seems that the more noise the “Indy” side make, the more their country votes to remain part of the UK when given the democratic choice.
The English have never been offered a choice on whether they want to remain part of the UK.
If noisy protest against membership tends to result in democratic choice to remain, could it be that the British government suspect that the English, who don’t complain, might strongly vote to leave if given the democratic choice which has been offered to everyone else? Some polls suggest this might be the case.
So why is England, a nation with a population (53.5 million) more than ten times that of Scotland (5.2 million) refused the choice which has been offered to everyone else?
Well, Conservatives are sentimentally attached to the notion of the UK. Many have roots in Scotland, including David Cameron, and Scottish Conservatives prefer to be overlords of Big Bad England, than to be a tiny voice in a tiny country. And Labour would never have achieved overwhelming power in the UK unless through the (ridiculously skewed) Scottish vote, so they certainly don’t want to lose their ticket to Westminster by allowing the English any self-determination.
Now, of course, fans of the EU know that the only thing significantly reducing the percentage of the Leave vote was the Scots, so they want to cling to the UK; although, as fans of welding reluctant nations together in unhappy marriages of state, and haters of what they believe makes Britain great, they like to use the “threat” of break up as a stick to beat the English with.
In fact, there are too many sticks being used to beat the English, and it’s time for it to stop. There is a general vilification of the English which seeps into political life: can you imagine a party called the English National Party facing anything other than shrieking hysterical accusations of fascism?
There are serious injustices in our democracy when in the 20l5 General Election, 3.8 million English UKIP votes resulted in one MP in Westminster, while l.4 million Scottish SNP votes resulted in 50 MPs.
Northern Ireland, the Welsh and the Scots each have their own parliament, dedicated entirely to matters concerning their own people, on which English MPs can’t vote.
The English don’t have any parliament to defend their interests. Cameron promised us one – it was a vote-winner – but didn’t deliver. Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs can freely vote on matters which only concern the English and usually do so to the detriment of our interests.
This is outrageous, when you think about it, but we don’t have a culture of victimhood, so we don’t wander around whining. We shouldn’t whine – let’s leave that to the Celtic Fringe – but we should demand equality: we certainly need a voice of our own.
Scotland receives 20% more public funding than England, and only days ago, when it was proposed that more money be voted to the NHS in England – which bears the brunt of mass immigration – the Scottish National Party practically foamed at the mouth.
This inequality results in small but important privileges being given to the three tiny nations, which the English don’t enjoy: free medical prescriptions, free dental care, free geriatric care homes, vastly less expensive university education and bursaries.
A small group getting perks which a large group don’t; a small group able to dictate to a large group, which generates over 80% of the ‘common’ wealth, but which is voiceless.
Just who is being oppressed here?
SNP supporters and those who support Northern Ireland joining with the ROI moan that we want to keep them bound to us, but don’t offer any reasons why that might be. Scots are particularly virulent about this, because their Ref was so recent. But it was their choice to stay, made under their rules.
When Scots expressed venomous outrage that the English flag was flown in London in support of our team playing the World Cup, I decided to check out the reaction to a possible referendum on English Independence by posting the suggestion on a Facebook page.
SNP supporters went into melt-down, some saying “we will have our independence but you will not be the ones who give it to us” which is pretty ridiculous when you consider that they have only recently voted to remain UK. Most were simply outraged that England should be given any unique voice, or choice.
Some claimed that Scotland was financially supporting England (so we are supposed to assume that they voted to remain UK out of charity) while others complained that they had been threatened with financial hardship if they left.
These two claims don’t mesh, and in any case, Brits in general were threatened with everything from bankruptcy to World War 3 if we left the EU – but we still voted to leave.
Scots also moan that they wanted to remain part of the EU – but the EU had already told them they were not interested in an Indy Scotland: the EU aren’t keen on national self-determination.
How can a nation claim to want independence, when they want to be a province of a Federal Europa?
Scots who had voted to leave the UK also moaned about the way the Scottish Independence Referendum was run, although the method of election was rightly chosen by the Scottish government.
In contrast to UK elections and referenda, the SNP chose to allow non-citizen EU migrants to vote, along with underage children, from the age of sixteen.
SNP supporters now complain that allowing EU migrants to vote made them lose the referendum, although at the time, they were accusing the English of ‘racism’ for saying that non-citizens should not be allowed to vote on such an important matter.
The economic reasons shouldn’t have mattered – to be free, you should be willing to eat grass. But in the case of “Indy England” there are no practical reasons why it would do the English any harm at all to be free of the endless drone of hatred from beyond Hadrian’s Wall.
The English taxpayer would no longer have to bear the liabilities of failed Scottish banks. Scotland could use the pound in much the same way as small islands in the Caribbean use the dollar. It would have to accept, as they do, that by doing so it would forfeit ultimate control of its economy. It would find sterling appreciating, without the possibility of devaluation for Scotland, and its cost of borrowing would rise considerably because of the uncertainty of the collateral.
Mr Salmond claims Scotland is self-supporting. This is true in the same way that grown-up children who live with their parents are self-supporting. The higher per capita spending that flows north of the border would stay in the English Treasury. Just think what the English (and Welsh, and Northern Irish) could do with it. Scotland has a culture of welfarism: England is seeking to rid itself of one. Separation means one nation no longer has to accommodate these damaging differences. The area north of Leeds and Manchester that Mr Miliband has this week complained is economically underperforming could become home to businesses fleeing what may well have to become a penal taxation regime in Scotland. Indeed, Mr Osborne should stand by to grant special tax status to Carlisle and Newcastle to make them the Cayman Islands of the north.
We are told we could no longer station our nuclear submarines in Scotland’s deep-water ports. We managed to win the second world war despite the Irish denying the Royal Navy access to Irish ports. England would cope.
And it would also end the outrageous situation whereby Scottish MPs vote on matters that concern only the constituents of English and, sometimes, Welsh MPs.
There are private petitions out there asking for English Indy, although the government petition page has an odd tendency to reject these petitions.
With the continued hostility of the Scots toward us, isn’t it time we had an English parliament, which speaks only for England, and were given the choice offered to others, so the people of England can decide whether they want to stand free at last of the endless childish whine of blame?
And since all governments refuse to offer us that democratic choice, doesn’t it prove that they suspect we would choose not to be permanently bound to a hate-spewing, conjoined twin?
We could even have our own national anthem, which celebrates the glory of our own country, instead of being a hymn offered to the descendants of the Scottish King.