Monday, May 09, 2011

There is only one man who can deliver Scottish independence


It is not Alex Salmond whom Unionists should fear. Yes, he is by all accounts a canny operator, and his victory last week was an astonishing achievement. Like the Rev’d Dr Ian Paisley – who came out of nowhere to found a church and a political party which led ultimately to him becoming Northern Ireland’s first minister – Alex Salmond has move from the political peripheries to being the most powerful Scottish politician since, err... Gordon Brown. But he, of course, thanks to devolution, never wielded much power north of Hadrian’s Wall (though he certainly marshalled his fellow Scots in Westminster to subdue the English).

For a more powerful Scot who actually ruled Scotland, you need to go back to Ramsay MacDonald (Prime Minister 1924 & 1929-35). Or, if you consider him too weak and ineffectual to merit the title of ruler, you need to go back a century to Arthur James Balfour (Prime Minister 1902-05). And for a powerful Scot who ruled Scotland as an independent political entity, all the way back to Queen Anne (the last Stuart, reigning 1702-14), under whom the Kingdom of Scotland remained legally separate, with its own parliament, judiciary, and laws.

The Scottish Parliament was abolished during her reign in 1707, when the Acts of Union were passed (both parliaments enacted legislation, which led to the Treaty of Union which established the United Kingdom). Since then, an important element in Scottish national identity has been the quest for home rule or complete independence. And an important element in that battle has been Sean Connery.

This is not an example of your average superficial celebrity support. No-one was really persuaded one way or another by D-listers Eddie Izzard or Kriss Akabusi battling it out over AV: both were irrelevant to the debate and the outcome. Joanna Lumley – probably a B-lister – fared better over the Gurkhas, as did Dame Judi Dench – an undoubted A-lister – over the Government’s plan to sell off England's forests. But these celeb-cause associations are ephemeral.

Sir Sean Connery has dreamed of Scottish independence since he was delivering milk to Edinburgh’s Georgian terraces. He has supported the cause all of his politically-aware life. He has donated millions to the cause and spoken at SNP conferences. And his celebrity status is stratospheric: he is an A*-lister.

The Prime Minister has said that Westminster will not impede the SNP’s ultimate objective to hold a referendum on independence for Scotland. He is wise not to do so, for the Scottish Act of Union is now subject once again to the will of the Scottish people. His Grace reflected last week that a referendum ought to be UK-wide, since England would also be leaving the Union. But he has reconsidered this view. Two sovereign parliaments under a joint crown entered into a treaty: no democratic and sovereign parliament may bind its successors.

One of the most familiar and stirring justifications offered for secession appeals to the right of self-determination for peoples, which is the normative nationalist principle. But it is the least plausible of justifications. If every ‘people’ is entitled to its own political, cultural or ethnic boundaries, we encounter a plethora of theoretical difficulties, not least of which is how ‘people’ is defined. Do all peoples within a state have the right to their own state? Cultural pluralism has become a distinguishing feature of the British state since 1707. This offers limitless political fragmentation. Scotland’s history is inseparable from that of England: both have been mutually infused culturally and linguistically, and the United Kingdom has been a powerful vehicle of assimilation. Scottish independence will lead to instability, and economic autonomy will bankrupt her.

Perhaps Sir Sean is intent on rectifying past injustices. There has been a view since the Treaty of Union that Scotland was unjustly and unequally incorporated into the United Kingdom, despite being over-represented at Westminster. And further, that the Stone of Scone – the Stone of Destiny; the ancient Coronation Stone – was purloined by Edward I of England, despite James I (of England) & VI (of Scotland) choosing Westminster as his seat. The SNP narrative has consistently been one of re-appropriation: the return of stolen property to the legitimate owner.

It was John Major in 1996 who granted permission for the Coronation Stone to be returned to Scotland. For 300 years, it had symbolised to Unionists nothing less than the anointed foundation of the UK’s governmental authority. But its position in the Abbey, where it had rested for 700 years, has been a symbol of grievous subjugation to Scottish nationalists; a sign of English oppression and superiority. In reality, of course, it symbolised the uniting of the Kingdom under one Monarch, who swears to uphold the liberties of all British subjects and govern them according to their customs and laws. Lying beneath the Coronation Chair in Westminster, it has been the embodiment of the covenant between the Queen-in-Parliament and her subjects, the anointed foundation by which the sovereignty and government of the United Kingdom was upheld.

This is not insignificant myth or futile legend, for we are in the era of the politics of feeling; an age in which A*-list celebrities are able to usurp the scurvy politicians and seize the crown for themselves. Scottish independence is dependent upon the consistent assertion of a distinct national identity, and that is dependent upon symbolism which captures the imagination, appeals to the emotions and inspires. And some of the most powerful symbols in our culture are created and communicated in films via the cinema, and then through DVD via television. ‘Braveheart’ did not star Sir Sean Connery, but it might as well have done as far as Scottish national consciousness is concerned, for inspirationally they are synonymous. The Stone of Scone to many is nothing but a secular museum piece: to Scots it is charged with symbolic and emotional significance.

And so the forthcoming inevitable referendum on Scottish independence will pitch a Scottish cinema icon and global superstar against a Scottish media baron, for Rupert Murdoch (or his heirs and successors) is not likely to side with the SNP. Alex Salmond will once again be peripheral. And fear not them which can win an SNP majority, but are only able to deliver a referendum: but rather fear him which is able to deliver independence.

62 Comments:

Blogger John said...

The English people might compete with the likes of Sean Connery, 65% of whom would say to Scotland "sling your hook", or something similar.

9 May 2011 at 09:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder is Mr Connery will give his speech advocating Scottish independence in his now native Spanish? Will he campaign via videolink from there?

9 May 2011 at 10:19  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

It will be a sad day indeed if Scotland breaks from the union but if it must happen then the English MUST demand their own Parliament. How often does England return a mostly conservative politico only to be scuppered by Scotland and Wales.

England will also then be able to assert it's dominance on this island without worrying about Scottish and Welsh sensibilities.

It will be a case of, Well you wanted it, now you've got it.

As I pointed out though it will be a sad day and I would much rather the Union continue and in fact I wish devolution had been rejected in the first place.

9 May 2011 at 10:26  
Blogger English Viking said...

To have the monkey that is Scotland removed from the back of the English Taxpayer cannot come soon enough for me. They Jocks appear to want to be 'free' from England so that they can be told what to do by Brussels. Mental.

It will be funny to watch the wife-beating porridge gobblers go bankrupt after a couple of years, though. When they realise that you cannot build an economy with psychopathic alcoholics as your main source of labour.

The Taffs and the Micks can whistle, too.

9 May 2011 at 10:27  
OpenID tree-and-leaf said...

Big Tam is indeed a popular and well-liked actor, but I'm not sure anyone is swayed one way or another on independence by the MP for Marabella South. (I'm slightly baffled by all this English hysteria on the issue - though His Grace is far from the worst offender).

9 May 2011 at 10:29  
Anonymous Dick the Prick said...

I'm not sure if they need a referendum rather than just the threat of one. Quite a lot of wriggle room.

9 May 2011 at 10:36  
Anonymous Thomas Jones said...

If the people of 21st C Scotland want to establish themselves as an independent European nation then who are those of us in England to even have a view on that. I have enough sympathy for a concept of Britishness but if that in future is to be the same as Englishness then I'm not sure I've lost that much.

TOM

9 May 2011 at 10:39  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Well, if His Grace is correct that it all boils down to a contest between Scottish ex-patriates Connery and Murdoch, Dave has nothing to worry about. And he’s both a Unionist and a Scottish ex-patriate too. If Murdoch can bother to become engaged, the battle to save the Union is won; the Murdoch billions should trump the Connery millions easily. The question for Dave is simple, what does Murdoch want? Maybe the takeover of BSkyB is enough, maybe not.

9 May 2011 at 11:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Why Scotland will gain independence

On Wednesday 23 April 2008, at Scotland House, Brussels, Alex Salmond gave a speech: Choosing Scotland's Future - A National Conversation.

It is a speech worth studying carefully. Whilst flattering the Eurocrats:

‘I was last here in Brussels in July, for the commemoration of the 90th Anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele.

‘That anniversary was a poignant reminder of the vital purpose of the European institutions in build lasting peace and prosperity among our nations.’ (Which of course is nonsense – and he knows that.)

In my opinion, his real long-game is for an independent Scotland:

‘… Scotland could achieve as an independent member of the European Union…’

‘…Scotland's natural orientation and our natural home among the small and independent social democracies of Europe.’

‘… the need to promote Scotland's strong and distinctive priorities as an independent member of the European Union.’

‘And to set a course that will enable Scotland to match and even surpass those small independent nations - Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland - that form an Arc of Prosperity around us.’

‘But of course not all these nations are members of the European Union - which suggests that while a more than one strategy may deliver success in the global economy, political independence is the vital precondition.’

‘We have cut taxes for Scotland's small businesses, to promote growth, jobs and innovation.’ (A threat to German economic dominance through Brussels. Brussels is demanding that Ireland raises its corporate taxes.)

‘A third and final observation. In addition to the basic values and priorities that Scotland shares in economic and social policy, our aspirations in foreign policy are very close to those of our small independent neighbours.’

‘growing desire of our people to take on full responsibility for our country's destiny’

‘And I would also say that the key question is not 'how will Scotland become an EU member?'. We already are.’ (Another sop to the EU – of course after independence – more like Switzerland than Ireland.)

Salmond wants a free Scotland but is willing to engage with the EU in the same manner as Switzerland.

But if Scotland gains independence from the EU through independence from the United Kingdom; then what for England?

It may be that our independence from the EU, paradoxically, comes about with Scotland’s independence from the UK. In other words, a free Scotland; a free England.

9 May 2011 at 11:28  
Blogger killemallletgodsortemout said...

Ha! Priceless! Give the whining scotch their deep-fried independence. The sooner, the better. Once they've paid back the exploration costs, let them keep 'their' oil, and let them be completely ruled by the EU. They'd have to be bailed out within five years. I love it - it's the start of the road to scotch self-destruction.

9 May 2011 at 11:48  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

With the life of North Sea oil drawing peacefully to its close, I doubt if the Scots will vote for independence and lose the English subsidy. That being the case, it is the English who must vote for independence.

9 May 2011 at 11:59  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

The last I heard was that Shorne Canary was a tax exile living in California. Just the type of taxpayer Scotland needs I'm sure. Without UK financial support I doubt if Scotland can survive where Ireland has already failed.

Thish musht be shum mishtake surely.

9 May 2011 at 13:13  
Blogger Manfarang said...

And where is it Sean Connery lives?
Somewhere without the cold Scottish winters.

9 May 2011 at 13:17  
Blogger Harry Hook said...

Perhaps Connery, should just go back to delivering the milk...

9 May 2011 at 13:29  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Hang on, wasn't it two Scottish banks (BOS, RBOS) that went down, bringing the UK to its knees? Maybe we should have granted Scotland's its long sought indepedence at that time....and watched Scotland sink like a stone.

Seriously, has Sir Sean given the English tax payer any credit for bailing out both banks? Of course not! Grievous historical chips on the shoulder like that cannot be assauged by any amount of money.

On a matter of principle, give Scotland what it wants (ie direct feualism and fiefdom to the eu) instead of having it watered down first by English cash

BTW, I actually agree with the Scots about the shabby manner in which the union was agreed. Historically it stinks, hwoever I think that they've done rather well out of the deal, notwithstanding the unbelievable amount of anti-English feeling that still permeates the country. It seems that immigrants from anywhere in the world are welcome to settle in Scotland (66% approval) unless they happen to be English, in which case they are "white settlers" and the approval rating falls to 33%.

Best go our separate ways. The marraige was good whilst it lasted, but nothing lasts forever

Old Grumpy

9 May 2011 at 13:49  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oh Dear.

This article by His Grace has got Irma all 'twitchy'.
Fancies another pop but at the original 007 this time, not the aussie numbnuts brought in at the last minute..He made Connery look like Olivier.

Poor Irma..the lass can hold a grudge forever.

Love the skirt..Which convent school did he attend?

E S Blofeld

9 May 2011 at 13:58  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Old Ernsty can never see the Scots wanting real autonomy but having it in all but name. Extra powers will be given by Westminster at Cameron's insistence but not called full independence as such.

The term Pimp (Scotland) Prossie (Rest of UK) springs to mind, bit like the EU have gotten away with us.

Why wring the neck of the golden goose?

E S Blofeld

9 May 2011 at 14:19  
Anonymous Paul said...

As an American of Scottish descent I say, " Scotland Forever".

9 May 2011 at 14:34  
Anonymous Sassenach said...

I assume Sir Sean Connery to be a perrenial embarrassment to many Scots, given his tedious views and off-shore patriotism. He is now little more than a parody of uneducated yet self-important chippiness.

Frankly, if the English are given any say, then it really won't matter what such clowns think. Scotland will find itself voted out of the Union, like it or not.

9 May 2011 at 15:14  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

Yes, if Salmond etc. sought REAL Scottish independence (from its real ruler - and everyone's - the EU) I could respect the position. But apparently he is very pro-EU, so any call for independence is meaningless. If an "independent" Scotland does go bust, it will surely be us (the English) who have to bail it out (or help to, at least), as we did for Ireland, and Portugal.

9 May 2011 at 16:25  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Equally to the point:

WHO CAN DELIVER ENGLISH INDEPENDENCE?

9 May 2011 at 16:38  
Anonymous Judy K. Warner said...

Perhaps the EU won't be enthusiastic about taking on yet another insolvent small country.

9 May 2011 at 16:52  
Anonymous berserker-nkl said...

Has Cast Iron PM not said he will get rid of the Barnett Formula. As has the Clegg in the ointment.

It is those Scotch Eggs that get 20% more per head than the English. Poor old Taffy Land does not fare so well.

The rural areas of England could do with the dosh.

In 50 years time, if those Scots do go independent how will they defend their beaches against the Muslim hordes?

9 May 2011 at 17:08  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Another 'true Scot' in his heart but not in his pocket! If he lived in Scotland and paid taxes, maybe he could be taken a wee bit more seriously.

'Brave Heart II!, the sequel, starring Connery, is all it'll take for the referendum to be carried.

9 May 2011 at 17:10  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Another 'true Scot' in his heart but not in his pocket! If he lived in Scotland and paid taxes, maybe he could be taken a wee bit more seriously.

'Brave Heart II!, the sequel, starring Connery, is all it'll take for the referendum to be carried.

9 May 2011 at 17:11  
Anonymous Sage said...

Scottish independence would be a tragedy. I hope I never see such a day. Let England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in a United Kingdom be forever.

9 May 2011 at 18:10  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Odious SNP

9 May 2011 at 18:11  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace makes a modern lochaber axe for a somewhat hyped up shambles.
Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy with Sean Connery ,when he described the deal done in the night by Queen Anne as scourless, and enjoyed braveheart when it first came out.
The missing bits are the little spoke of reason for the initial deal , namely that the huge and expensive scottish attempt at colonisation in south America , went tragically wrong leaving the country bust . Further the SNP often forget that a great deal of scottish wealth came about through British colonialism , scotland became wealthy on a huge export boom ,ships , steel ,large machinery ,wool , sea food and of course whiskey.
Had it not been for the union much of scotlands wealth may never have occured ,had it been paying its debts off by itself ,rather than being part of British colonial trade boom.

The SNP perhaps have some slightly odd WW2 outputs but by enlarge up until 1997 they were a sort of folk law political group , and tribune to ancient scotland ,often opening and closing ,meetings with ancient folk law tales.
In the 90s for some reason they seemed to go socialist ,Tony Blair made devolution possible and an eyewatering sum was spent on the new parliament building and the giant figure of the late Donald Dewar voice only seemed to add to the fever as braveheart came and went.
The claim that the union has somehow been unkind to the scots ,is a myth all too often repeated till it became natural.
The bug bear was the loss of heavy industry which of course affected the rest of UK , the socialists of course claiming wanten destruction ,when in truth a great boom pre ww2 was slowly comming to an end. Heavy industry did not return under Tony Blair (although increased political cost did) and the wedge of a flimsey argument many centurys old ,was begun to be driven. "aye indpendence will return scots pride". It perhaps served Tony Blair well as his scots vote worked to keep the anti conservative wind a blowin and labour in power .
The undoing of the union would have all sorts of effects , scotland would run a miniscule defence budget , it may trigger a bout of inflation ,it would lose financial services jobs ,it would enter the more tragic waters of an elected president further along.
The union serves us all well , it is a vital trade group/umbrella strong and culturally sensative/organic .
It is of little use drumming up Independence/union hatred only to have to tell voters that non oil wealth constitutes the vast ammount of scottish wealth and more so when the oil runs out,or for that matter when the fever of the socialist hand outs ,hits the reality of paying for all the politics and beaurocracy.
Then 400 yrs ago will perhaps be seen as a mutual rescue heading into a massive boom,rather than a dodgey giveaway/betrayal.
The union has provided more wealth to ,more people than independence and enabled an all too desired land to stand firm against the trial/subjugation of Nazism.

9 May 2011 at 18:51  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Connery is fecking Oirish!

(No insult to the Irish, just making a point, is all)

9 May 2011 at 19:01  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

IRONY, to the point of comedy.

As some have already alluded to, Scotland can not ever be independent while it remains part of The EU. Most especially can it not do so if it takes on The EURO.

However this is not the IRONY of which I speak.

The IRONY is that The EU is not primally run or controlled by The Germans, French, Belgians, Italians, Austrians or Dutch.

The EU was set up and has long since been secretly controlled by The British Establishment, which effectively owns and therefore controls The European Central Bank, as well as all other central banks, including The IMF, World Bank, and Bank of International Settlements in Zurich Switzerland.

Therefore the exact same establishment that DELIBERATELY conspired to cause the main part of Scottish nobility to go bust 300 years ago, and so force them into a Union with England, is the exact same establishment that Scotland is maybe about to sell its soul to yet again.

I think that classifies as true Irony, don't you think?

9 May 2011 at 19:22  
Blogger Harry Hook said...

Have you heard his Oirish accent?
No... he's Scottish alright.

9 May 2011 at 19:24  
Anonymous 1569 Rising said...

Your Grace...

Two tiny pedantic points.
1. The vast majority of the English county of Northumberland lies north of Hadrian's Wall, therefore the Wall is not, nor ever has been, the "Border"
2. Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Prime Minister 1963 - 1964 was probably the most Scottish PM the UK has ever had.

9 May 2011 at 19:58  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Thatlass shrugged 9 May 2011 19:22

"The EU was set up and has long since been secretly controlled by The British Establishment,"
Could it be..Is it really possible...BYGADS..We have an empire again and the foreign fools don't see it and even do our bidding.

Fear Not English Viking, Oswin, Johnny R et al, tis all a PR front but no-one told us the truth, WE REIGN AGAIN.

Hurrah for Blighty.

When Britain first, at Heaven's command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:

"Rule, Britannia! rules EU:
"Whatever Atlas Shrugged says must be true."

Ernst...*puff* *puff* rawhide!

9 May 2011 at 20:49  
Blogger English Viking said...

Atlas,

If we're running the show and control all these banks and financial institutions, how come we're in such an appalling state?

You're not going to tell me it's 'the Jooos!' deliberately fleecing us so they can impose their NWO are you?

Please don't.

9 May 2011 at 20:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Connery can start lecturing us on what to do just as soon as he comes back here and start paying the same taxes we pay - including the soon-to-be-imposed "tartan" local income tax supplement, concerning the impact of which, Wee Eck was prepared to go several times to the High Court rather than risk it's becoming public knowledge.

Clearly something we'd really relish if only we knew.

Connery is a pseud and a fraud - and a tax-dodger.

9 May 2011 at 21:31  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Well done EV and Ernst, Charles Atlas has taken the wrong tablets yet again.

Back to the main game, Your Grace.

For a long time the intellectual driver of the SNP has been the College of Arts at the University of Glasgow. As a churchman, His Grace is undoubtedly aware that Scotland north and west of the Great Glen is Catholic and more or less Protestant elsewhere. Culturally the West Coat and the East Coast are light years apart, and as His Grace has commented before, the Rangers-Celtic rivalry (a West Coast phenomenon) has often seen the Irish troubles just a heart-beat away, truly. The University of Glasgow historians are grievance mongers of the worst kind and have played up a line of victimhood with its modern base on the ‘theft’ of Scottish oil. Promoting anti-English sentiment is one way of making the Scots forget their own divisions. The European Union has been an important influence too with its emphasis on folklorique.and grants for the quaint and traditional. What the EU is really trying to do is encourage regionalism on the basis of divide and rule, surplanting the nation states.

Be in no doubt, Scottish independence will be a great victory for the EU. Scottish nindependence will also be a disaster for the UK position globally. Maintaining a seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council would become difficult. The Germans or the Indians would try to shoulder us aside.

9 May 2011 at 21:33  
Anonymous non mouse said...

The Scots/Irish argument seems redundant - their being the same people! Or so my reading of historical textbooks indicates:

From late 3rd century (AD) at least: Irish continually raided the west coast of GB and established colonies. They often allied themselves with Picts. Most textbooks suggest they also joined the Barbarian Conspiracy of Germanic tribes (367AD).

Mid-5th century: Irish raids and colonisation continued after the Roman exodus.

c 500: Irish colonized the Solway Plain, north of Dumbarton: the area's named Dalriada (after the colonizers). (Bede I:i, 46)

AD 563: An Irish Prince, Columba (521-597), colonized Iona and converted the Picts. (Bede III.4, 148/9)

c AD 710: King Nechtan’s correspondence with Abbot Ceolfrid reflects happier relations between the Picts and Northumbrians after the reign of Aldfrith (685-705) illegitimate son of an Irish Princess. (Bede V 21 308-321)

**c 900: The Gaels (Scots) had moved from Dalriada (Argyll)to Pictland. They replaced Pictish establishment; except at the fringes, this alliance withstood most Viking invasion.**

And now? Surely I'm not the only product of anciend Northumbria (Celt/Anglian/Viking) who has Irish and Scottish (great)grandparents; whose cousins, nieces and nephews have 'Scottish' names, etc?

So what's a Scotsman's Scot then? An Irish/Pictish/Viking Celt whose ancestors never raided south of the Border after the 3rd century?
**********************************
*Most of the above can be verified in: Crawford, Barbara. “The Vikings.” From the Vikings to the Normans. Ed. Wendy Davies; and **Charles-Edwards, Thomas, ed. After Rome.. Both books are in the series "Short Oxford History of the British Isles." General Editor, Paul Langford. New York: OUP, 2003. Bede support is from the Penguin edition, ed. Farmer 1990.

9 May 2011 at 21:54  
Blogger Owl said...

"has been a symbol of grievous subjugation to Scottish nationalists; a sign of English oppression and superiority."

"superiority"?

With all respect, it is no wonder that the union will not survive.

A union can only suceed between equal partners.

Mind you, you got the "oppression" bit right but that's historical and certainly not relevant today. Probably due to somebody mixing up unionism with colonialism in the bad old days.

Just a thought: why not give Scotland and Wales their freedom and then enter into a union of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. All free but united as Brits.

Oh, and sod the EU.

9 May 2011 at 22:13  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Could it be..Is it really possible...BYGADS..We have an empire again and the foreign fools don't see it and even do our bidding.

Yes it could, because it is so, and it really does not require much research to find this out.

Why do you think French Nationalists tried so hard to keep the British and American establishment out of Europe before and after WW2?

Indeed why do you think the UK has still not taken on The Euro? Could this just be a subtle ploy to deceive the people of continental Europe, until it is far to late for them to do sod all about it?

You bet it is, because if they known 45 years ago, that they were slowly being effectively taken over by what remains of The British Empire they would have gone collectively ballistic. A fact not missed by those that own the system, who are not only extremely clever, but are highly patient long term thinkers.

The Sun has never set on The British Empire, it simply just hid behind the odd American cloud or two, for several decades, and is about to break cover.

Only please do not believe that The British Empire has much to do with Britain or The British people. It would be most silly to say that the British people have not benefitted from the Empire that bares their name, in some very important ways.

As we know the world would have been a very different place without it, and no one can truly say whether it would have been better or worse if it had either not existed or been replaced by say a Chinese, German or wholly American one.

However this debating point has little to do with NOW, and the future that these people have very well planned for us all.

There is much speculation as to what exactly this future is, as there is also to exactly how much power and control these people have to fully effect their One World Government plans.

But plans there most surely are, as there always is, and always has been.

9 May 2011 at 22:36  
Blogger English Viking said...

Atlas,

I'm afraid the sad fact is that the British Empire lies in utter ruin, and the British (English, more precisely) are only just beginning to reap the whirlwind caused by such unfathomable levels of financial, material, geographical and human carnage from two World Wars, coupled with self-loathing for daring to improve the plight of colonials and then allowing them to live here at our (further) expense.

Empires come and go, but never before has one so vast been so utterly routed in so short a time. I am of the opinion that history will show we were not defeated from without, but committed suicide.

The US Empire (if there ever was such a thing) has only a couple of decades left.

China will dominate the globe for a very long time to come.

It will be best if Christ returns soon, but I fear there is quite a way to go yet.

9 May 2011 at 22:54  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Atlas shrugged 19:22: More reductio ad absurdum than irony.

If, as proposed, "The EU was set up and has long since been secretly controlled by The British Establishment, which effectively owns and therefore controls The European Central Bank etc..."

(and noting the sketch of the history of the Union given by not a machine 18:51)

then the present talk of a rupture in the Union of the ancient kingdoms of Scotland and of England and Wales can also be seen to be a ploy in the same game being controlled by the said British Establishment.

There could be more or less to this than Blofeld and others admit to having seen.

Can the College of Arts at the University of Glasgow be other than a front to put the likes of bluedog off the scent?

And Atlas s. has confirmed that none should suppose an identity of interest between the British Establishment and the people or peoples inhabiting the British Isles or any part of it.

It would be interesting to know where Obamastan comes into the Atlas s. picture.

9 May 2011 at 23:19  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking it isn't all that desperate.

We do have our faith and convictions to hold onto. We know history is controlled by forces beyond human understanding and is heading towards a conclusion determined by God.

And, at the end of our short sojourn here, we have the sure and certain belief of a better life to come.

Like you I do wonder about the future for my children and grandchildren. However, alongwith doing the best we can whilst here, all we can do is trust in the goodness of God.


PS - still think you're a small minded heretic, just in case you think I'm going soft!

9 May 2011 at 23:56  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

My lass said

"Why do you think French Nationalists tried so hard to keep the British and American establishment out of Europe before and after WW2?" because the froggies despise us (anglo saxons), always have done and always will, perhaps?

"Could this just be a subtle ploy to deceive the people of continental Europe, until it is far to late for them to do sod all about it?" So it is a cunning ploy by us, for them all in euroland to take the pound when it all collapses? Bit blackadderish!

"no one can truly say whether it would have been better or worse if it had either not existed or been replaced by say a Chinese, German or wholly American one." it was ordained by The Almighty himself to be a blessing but we lost faith as a gentile nation, literally!

Agree with EV in his summing up.

I love you my lass but you are even more eccentric than old Ernsty. WOW!

ErnstX

10 May 2011 at 00:54  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Atlas shrugged 19:22, your way past blogging , conspiracies form out of cartels and useually not vicea versa .The EU has been using our money for many aspects of soft power for many years ,one only has to look at Ireland to see just how much spin was used to hide the econmoic realities from its own people. Give Dan Brown a ring ,you could do a new novel.

I can appreciate Sean Connerys early life , immediate post ww2 Scotland, was like so much else of the country ,grimey and clapped out. It is worth remembering that Labour socialism was a very hard form in scotland,even today the hard socialists are known figures, in part due to its fishing and docks which had ebbs and flows of required some times daily hired Labour. There was a sort of iron grip of militant politics ,any light of private enterprise was useually made utalitarian ,and sectarian problems just flourished within it ,but always managed to claim a shared enemy at an England scotland match .Those were hard days full of hard charactures and in my view, all too often both subject to belicose driecht winds given by hard men , who hadnt really thought much about a very different Scotland.
leaving brutal socialism behind for scotland would always be its cultural change ,it matterd not which political party was in .The SNPs somewhat shortsighted and in my view maligned rehtoric of them and us ,is not so much a fancy highland dance ,but nearer a Basque region flammenco ,strutting poised drama and injustice , a spit in the eye summond up from the past.
Does Alec Salmond not feel for the English people who are also shouldering the losses of RBS ,to help make his alledged personal country better as well , does he not wish to thank the 45million or so not livng in scotland that enjoy smoked salmon or a we dram of single malt. Has the union not proved to be an stable ecnomic wonder for us all in the long view.
Independence may cause pride , but will it disslove the cultural problems left by hard labour and modern economies .I rather fear Independence like in Irelands case is a little rue by someone who was still assuming the grand EU would never fail .
Alec Salmond if he is not careful may coax a demon out the bottle that will not return , as he must either prime yet more hatred or make a rather flimsey ecnomic case ,that in truth he has no way of knowing how it will turn out ,by all means carry on modernising scotland , enjoy a celebration of culture , but dont accuse the union of causing scotlands problems ,when other political forces have done so much more harm.

I cannot deny if the people think independence will be the new happy future then ,resisting it seems like fifedom bellyaching. If it creates unstable growth , presidential corruption , and a sourness to all not scottish ,it will hardly be a leap forward and a good write up in lonely planet will it .

To prove my point I am 1/8 part scottish and I have never had a moment when I hate the scots (or welsh or Irish) and as such have had some enjoyable memorable holidays thier ,I might not understand the mannerisms or sound local ,but is being abused or ignored because I am English modern ?

10 May 2011 at 01:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

My Mate Not a Machine said.

"Give Dan Brown a ring ,you could do a new novel."

Brown is a mere 'one trick' amateur compared to Atlas.

Regarding SNP and Independence, Ernsty thinks it will be Salmond at his brinkmanship best, when in a few years he poses the question to Westminster.
Who will blink first between him and Cameron will be very revealing because IF he loses, the SNP lose credibility and their ethos too.

Politics has no honesty but they all achieve their purpose of playing the game before the electorate as if the EU is not the elephant in the room..We are a powerless nation, pretending at governing ourselves to any who may be watching.
Tinkering for tinkerings sake.

Nighty Night and God Bless, my lass.

Ernsty.

10 May 2011 at 01:56  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Ernst
I cannot believe sometimes that same place of Rennie Mackintosh , Scottish elightement , expansive art,fine food and a once sound banking reputation ,somehow has this residual in built physcotic sleeper which at the right word will be driven by some unreasoned force ,to accuse the union of being responsible for the cultural wastes of hardline left politics .

Its all too wierd for me , although last time I was in Edinburgh, funnily enough visitng the palacial RBS HQ ,I kept picking up this sort of curt attitude (and yes I know an angry scot in the highlands when you cross a field into private land !) ,but it was sometimes there in perfectly simple ordinary business transactions .luckily I met a lady from the methodist church who gave me nice tea and correct directions.
I wasnt offended as you can be a stranger in many Uk cities.

Your right Ernsty there is no anti EU politics in scotland ,how foolish of me not to notice it.

nighty nighty also

10 May 2011 at 02:39  
Blogger Gnostic said...

What makes everyone so sure this surge in SNP popularity will last beyond the current Scottish parliament? Building hell knows how many windmills and blighting the landscape with them is a bankrupting policy that has nothing to show for the pain. Shame nearly every senior bloody politician in the whole of the Union lacks the intelligence to work that out...

10 May 2011 at 07:12  
Anonymous MrJ said...

The Cranmerian text and pics are in no danger of the PCC charge "proportionately intrusive" which becomes part of MSM discourse today (Tuesday).

And the Cranmerian style is usually no more than at the edge of the proportionately ironic. Part of it or a category of its own?

10 May 2011 at 07:42  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Atlas shrugged 9 May 19:22: More reductio ad absurdum than irony.

If, as proposed, "The EU was set up and has long since been secretly controlled by The British Establishment, which effectively owns and therefore controls The European Central Bank etc..."

(and noting the sketch of the history of the Union given by not a machine 18:51)

then the present talk of a rupture in the Union of the kingdoms of Scotland and of England and Wales can also be seen to be a ploy in the same game being controlled by the said British Establishment.

There could be more or less to this than Blofeld and others admit to having seen.

Can the College of Arts at the University of Glasgow be other than a front to put the likes of bluedog off the scent?

And Atlas s. has confirmed that none should suppose an identity of interest between the British Establishment and the people or peoples inhabiting the British Isles or any part of it.

It would be interesting to know where Obamastan comes into the Atlas s. picture.

10 May 2011 at 07:46  
Anonymous bluedog said...

MrJ @ 0746 asked 'Can the College of Arts at the University of Glasgow be other than a front to put the likes of bluedog off the scent?'

Hardly, Jose.

For this communicant a family reunion involves a trip to a rural backwater in south-western Scotland where the tartan beckons for those who are not too embarrassed to play dress-ups. A draughty pile accommodates the diaspora and newcomers are stunned by the beauty of the setting, as ever. Indeed, for most of his life this communicant enjoyed feudal estate in Scotland, but the Marxists in the SNP changed all that for completely dishonest reasons. So this communicant is engaged in the matter of Scottish independence and declares as a Unionist with an axe to grind. He also knows exactly where the subversive ideas come from.

An as yet unexplored line of criticism of the SNP is a comparison its policies with those of another left-wing party across the Irish Sea, Sinn Fein. Whilst there is no suggestion that SNP has a military wing, an SRA, there is no doubt that Alec Salmond is both a nationalist, a socialist and a republican, see profile in wikipedia.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Eck were to oblige with a photo of himself standing next to Gerry Adams?

Nope, too smart to fall for that one.

10 May 2011 at 10:10  
Anonymous MrJ said...

For that clarifying of SNP connections, bluedog, much thanks.

On the other front, hoping Atlas s. may be no less forthcoming.

Perhaps another time.

10 May 2011 at 11:27  
Anonymous Born Again Biker said...

Your Grace,

The boy Alex done well, pray the good folk of Scotland have the vision to see the road to freedom and the courage to ride at speed along its bumpy path to the end destination, Independance, never again to submit to the yoke of slavery.

Ride hard!

(BSA Bantam D10)

10 May 2011 at 15:38  
OpenID scottspeig said...

I have the vision that if Scotland votes for independence, then joins the EU (and we leave!), we would have to rebuild Hadrian's wall (I assume thats the border but probably wrong) as Scotland would have unlimited immigration from the EU yet we wouldn't.

Rather, Scotland should get what every county in the UK should get - more autonomy, setting its own tax/business rates etc and having zero monetary help from central govt who can then concentrate on foreign affairs and defence.

10 May 2011 at 16:18  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Scottspeig, this communicant is a believer in the idea of a federal UK, outside the EU.

From Easter 1916 onwards it was obvious that the UK as then constituted was failing its constituency. The Great War, the Second War and other pressures have prevented objective analysis of the problem. Its a big topic, but the best constitutional model for the UK is the 1978 Spanish model, which permits a Federal monarchy.

The Localities Bill being introduced by Eric Pickles may point the way to bringing England into a Federation. There needs to be a significant attitudinal shift before this happens. Without political leadership of the right kind, there will be no attitudinal shift.

Its a two step process, firstly trhe political elite need to educate themselves in what is required, then they have to sell the idea to the electorate.

Over to you, Dave!

10 May 2011 at 21:38  
Anonymous MrJ said...

It would be rash of "Dave" to go too far without some Cranmerian pronouncement, even if only "Delphic".

10 May 2011 at 23:17  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Inded MrJ.

Dave is a mere Grasshopper awaiting guidance from his wise Master.

11 May 2011 at 08:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scottish oil has and still does bankroll the uk especially london and home counties.apart from that Scotch whisky brings in £3billion a year to london!We in england must ask ourselves why london will fight tooth and nail to stop the scots leaving!

11 May 2011 at 13:46  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Born Again Biker:

What? What slavery? Did the English not allow themselves to be subject to the damned Stuarts???

Apart from James (although I'm lukewarm about him too)most of them were a dangerous waste of space!

The fact is, throuhout history, Scotland has been 'shafted' by its own. Scots used to be aware of this until relatively recently, when some of them began to whinge and whine.

11 May 2011 at 17:00  
Anonymous Oswin said...

For the record: as to who is whom, and from where - all bets were off once genetic research began to cut-through the previous misreading of our island history.

Read Stephen Oppenheimer's ''The Origin of the British'' for a fascinatingly 'scientific' look at our gentic lines. Our previous ideas as to our origins, are proven to be way, way-off beam!

It also kicks-into-touch previously accepted 'time-lines'.

11 May 2011 at 17:27  
Blogger J. R. Tomlin said...

"t will be funny to watch the wife-beating porridge gobblers..."

My GOD, the racist anti-Scottish comments that come from the English. It is truly appalling. No wonder if the Scots want to end this union.

14 May 2011 at 16:57  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@JR Tomlin 16.57
The racist antiScotish comments to which you refer are quite out of order, of course....but are really quite mild when compared to the racist antiEnglish comments which may be heard north of the border. White settler is very very mild in this connection, even though it's a term of antiEnglish abuse

Old Grumpy

15 May 2011 at 21:04  
Anonymous Adrian Peirson said...

All Salmond is doing with his 'independence' is EU Regionalisation.
Salmond works for the EU.
Independence from what when 80% of BRITISH laws are made in Brussels.
Has Salmond ever said anything about leaving the EU, no, because he is simply working to carve Britain into EU Regions.

A Case for Treason

17 May 2011 at 20:42  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older