What does Scottish independence mean for England?

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

There has been very little coverage of next month’s Scottish independence vote down here in England (much like the Scottish devolution vote in 1997 actually) and what media coverage there has been from a purely Scottish viewpoint. So what does it mean for England?

The important thing to remember is that a No vote in Scotland will be a disaster for England. I don’t mean because Scotland will continue to drain English taxes to pay for their unsustainable public spending and prolong the forced marriage for at least another 50 years but because it will lead to a widening of the democratic deficit in England and we won’t get another chance in our lifetime to finally put the union out to pasture with all the other anachronistic supranational bureaucracies that have expired in recent years.

The British government have already promised extensive new powers to the Scottish Parliament in the event that they vote No on 18th September. They’re getting even more tax raising powers to go with the ones they haven’t bothered to use for the last 17 years and they’re getting some powers over the Scottish benefits system. All three Scottish LibLabCon parties have signed a declaration promising more powers for Scotland and reiterating their commitment to a strong and powerful Scottish Parliament:

We support a strong Scottish Parliament in a strong United Kingdom and we support the further strengthening of the parliament’s powers.

The Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats have each produced our own visions of the new powers which the Scottish Parliament needs.

We shall put those visions before the Scottish people at the next general election and all three parties guarantee to start delivering more powers for the Scottish Parliament as swiftly as possible in 2015.

This commitment will deliver a stronger Scottish Parliament in a stronger United Kingdom.

The British Labour, British Conservative & Unionist and British Lib Dem parties have no vision for England other than taking powers off local authorities and giving them to unaccountable, ineffectual regional and sub-regional quangos. There is no intention of recognising and respecting the sovereign right of the English people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs.

The British nationalist Better Together campaign is only interested in making the case for the union in Scotland and only Scottish politicians have been allowed to front it – Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown, John Reid, David Cameron, Michael Gove. UKIP wanted to join the Better Together campaign but was refused because it isn’t a Scottish political party. No irony there. Better Together might be headed up by British nationalists but it isn’t about British interests, it’s about Scottish interests. Scotland gets the best of both worlds as they say on their website – they can spend money without worrying about where it comes from and make decisions without having to worry about the costs or implications because if it goes wrong it’s always London’s fault for not giving them more money.

Here are the facts about the Scottish independence vote that an English person needs to know:

Scottish independence doesn’t mean the end of the UK. If you’re English and a unionist you can take comfort from the fact that the British union will continue to exist if the Scots declare independence, just the same as it did after the Irish Free State left the union in 1937. If you’re English and want an end to the British union then bad luck, Scottish independence isn’t the silver bullet for the union.

Scottish independence won’t turn Westminster into an English Parliament. The British Parliament will continue to be the British Parliament for as long as the UK exists. The British Parliament was still the British Parliament after Irish independence and it would continue to be so after Scottish independence.

Scottish independence won’t make an English Parliament inevitable. If there was a slim chance of England getting a devolved government with Scotland in the union there’s bugger all chance of it happening without Scotland. England currently comprises 85% of the population of the UK which is one of the excuses the British use to argue that we don’t need an English Parliament. Without Scotland it would be over 90% of the population, making it even harder to sell the benefits of an English Parliament.

No vote won’t make an English Parliament inevitable. The run-up to the Scottish independence vote has been all about Scotland and whatever the result, it’s all going to be about Scotland afterwards. A fair and democratic settlement for England isn’t going to register. the Brits will be too busy negotiating Scotland’s departure from the union or slapping each other on the backs for their “victory” in securing a No vote.

The UK’s international standing won’t be diminished without Scotland. Most people won’t even notice the difference either here or abroad. The UK would retain its membership of all the international bodies it is a member of, all treaties would remain in force and the UK would still be the sixth largest economy in the world by GDP. The UK’s economic power and international standing comes from England, not Scotland or even from Britain.

You won’t need a passport to go to Scotland. You can travel to the Republic of Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands without a passport so there’s no reason why you should need a passport to travel to Scotland if they become independent.

Your Scottish friends and relatives are already foreign. They might be British by law but they’re Scottish. Does it matter? If Scotland votes for independence and a Scot wanted to stay “British” then they could move from Scotland to the rump of the UK. If they don’t want to because they want to live in Scotland then they need to make their mind up whether they’re Scottish or British.

Scotland can continue using the pound. It doesn’t matter whether the British government says they can or not, they can use whatever currency they want if they declare independence. A large number of countries use another country’s currency either alongside its own domestic currency or as legal tender in that country. An independent Scotland can choose to adopt the pound as legal tender and there’s nothing the British government can do to stop them.

England would benefit economically from Scottish independence. It costs over £11bn a year to subsidise Scottish public services and that bill is paid by the English taxpayer. The Scottish nationalists think that north sea oil and gas tax receipts cover that bill and claim that they have in fact been subsidising the UK’s spending for decades. It’s nonsense but that’s Scotland’s problem not ours. Just removing the burden of subsidising Scotland’s profligate spending would give the English and rump British economy a boost.

Scottish independence would help eurosceptics. Scotland is by far the most europhile part of the UK and their views skew public opinion which in England is very much eurosceptic. If a referendum was ever held on our membership of the EU then Scotland could well swing it in favour of staying in. Scotland also votes almost exclusively for openly europhile British MPs – with the exception of the one EU reformist Tory, all the British MPs in Scotland are Labour, Lib Dem or SNP and openly in favour of ever closer union.

The British flag won’t change. It didn’t change when the Irish Free State declared independence so why would it change if Scotland declared independence? If you like the BNP logo then don’t worry, it doesn’t need to change.

Oliver Cromwell
You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately.

Depart, I say; and let us have done with you.

In the name of God, go!


  1. Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

    The situation between Great Britain and Ireland is very different to that between the nations of Great Britain. The United Kingdom of Great Britain consists of the nations of England, Scotland and Wales. Where under an international treaty the representatives from each nation have united in one parliament called the parliament of Great Britain.

    So when Ireland left there could be no impact on Great Britain, since that union was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Irish have never been part of Great Britain, which in reality is the union of England and Scotland, since Wales was already incorporated with England under a seperate treaty.

    If Scotland were to vote yes to independance, there would not be Scotland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain, there would be Scotland and England and Wales, the Uk would be finished, it would be as if it had never existed. The British parliament would be finished, it would have no authority to be called and to sit to make or repeal laws.

    But the British parliament even if Scotland votes to stay in Great Britain, will still be finished, it currently has no lawful authority to make or repeal statutes outside the terms of the treaty of Great Britain. While Wales and Scotland have national parliaments contrary to the treaty of Union, Great Britain is null and void no matter what British MP’s say or do. Plus lets not forget that the criminal political class have crypto dissolved Great Britain by joining the EU, Great Britain is finished forever as far as the law is concerned, anything to the contrary is lies and propaganda by criminal powers. The dum arse politicians have really done it this time, they have shot themselves in the foot, they have pulled the rug from under their own feet. This is England, stuff the British, who are the British? who were the British?

    • wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

      Sorry Bob but I disagree. The precedents set over the years in international law on the succession of states was codified into the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties. The UK isn’t a signatory to this treaty but it reflects the body of international law and established precedent. The Convention says that both the UK and Scotland would be successor states.

      There are plenty of technicalities that say the British government have broken the law and if we had a constitutional court there are some interesting test cases that could be brought such as ruling on the implied repeal of Article 3 of the Act of Union 1707 which Lord Laws said was not allowed with constitutional statutes and the suggested implied repeal of Article 7 with a supplementary Scottish whiskey tax. We don’t have a constitutional court though and none of it would change the status quo.

      • Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

        My fisrt comment to your reply Wonks since you brought up the Vienna Convention is that because Great Britain was created in the first place, by corruption, and contrary to the English constitution, then “Great Britain” is de facto ab initio.

        Also it is de facto by the common law of England which is superior to statute law, regardless of what any lieing prat of a politician might try to say today. Even during the time of Great Britain, the English courts enforced common law above statute law, the historical record proves it.

        “Judges……unfetted except by the common law, whose supremacy it was their duty to uphold” (Hostettler on Coke) N.B the Common law of England does not recognise “Great Britain”, only the Kingdom of England

        Article seven of the Vienna Convention 1969 states that a treaty can only be recognised if it is contracted by appropriate full powers or the practice of the state. In England the state which includes parliament are constitutionally limited powers under oath to obey the common law which can not be changed in substance.

        In 1707 the English parliament acted to take action of which it had no constitutional powers to do so by agreeing to dissolve itself in favour of “Great Britain”. At the sugestion of James the sixth of Scotland calling himself Emperor of Great Britain in 1603 the English parliament roard with laughter and the English courts refused the title to be used. That is the true situation, James the now first of England introduced Freemasonry into England, and it is this which corrupted the situation by 1707.

        Fraud, corruption and threats according to the Vienna Convention invalidate all treaties. If you are unaware the Freemasonry threaten to cut the throats of or disembowel any member who exposes their workings or refuses their directions. Clearly corruption had been introduced by 1707 which resulted in an English parliament committing a criminal act, ultra vires. “Great Britain” has never legally existed in the eyes of the Vienna Convention, nor the Eyes of English law and constitution.

        “it is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great part of Europe- the whole of Italy and France, and a great part of Germany, to say nothing of other countries, is covered with a network of these secret societies” (Benjamin Disraeli 1856)

        “the government of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, Kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have every where their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments plans” (Benjamin Disraeli, 1876)

  2. Daggs (55 comments) says:

    The Scots won’t be leaving the Union. Any chance of them doing so was scuppered by Alastair Darling when he tore Salmond to pieces over what currency an independent Scotland would use.
    When this vote is behind us, it us the English that need to rise up and demand Westminster recognises us. But who will lead us in this mission? As of now, i see no one.

    P.S. UKIP once muttered about democracy for England. That appears to have been ‘kicked into the long grass’

  3. Simon M (30 comments) says:

    What will Scottish independence mean for England? Hopefully no more of this cr*pola, courtesy of the British Broadcasting Corporation…


  4. Barry (5 comments) says:

    It doesn’t mean the end of England, or the United Kingdom BUT it WOULD MEAN the END of the United Kingdom of Great Britain because that Union was formed by the union of England (and Wales) AND Scotland. The United Kingdom will continue and will probably stagger on for a few years and no doubt Wales will then leave and finally NI will join the Republic even though the Republic can’t afford to take it on.

    I don’t wish this to happen. I hope the Scots vote No and continue with their mostly very successful partnership with us. If it does end, I will blame Mrs Thatcher and that evil and moronic cretin Tony Bliar.

  5. Barry (5 comments) says:

    Actually, the Scots aren’t all that Europhile. The numbers in Scotland who wish to get out of the EU are not much different to the numbers of English or Welsh people who wish to do so. This is a myth peddled by some. Those in Scotland who are pretty pro-EU are mostly in the Highlands as that part of Scotland gets a lot of grant money from the EU to help prop-up the fragile economy in those areas. If we left the EU, then we can easily chunnel a sum of money to replace that EU funding to the Highlands and Islands.

  6. DougtheDug (17 comments) says:

    “The British government have already promised extensive new powers to the Scottish Parliament in the event that they vote No on 18th September. They’re getting even more tax raising powers to go with the ones they haven’t bothered to use for the last 17 years and they’re getting some powers over the Scottish benefits system. All three Scottish LibLabCon parties have signed a declaration promising more powers for Scotland and reiterating their commitment to a strong and powerful Scottish Parliament”

    Hi Wonko, long time no comments.

    Just a couple of points about that quote above. All the parties propose that the principle of fiscal equality will still apply to Scotland. In other words Scotland will get no more money than it gets now if there is a No vote and if Barnett is swapped for some other formula, a lot less. Power over benefits means doodly-squat when the funding remains the same.

    The three Scottish regions of the UK parties proposing something means nothing unless the party itself puts it in their manifesto.

  7. neil hamond (1 comments) says:

    Yes, go for Scottish independence republic and get rid of the rotten monarchy system and in England and free the world from the world problems and the dirty games ofMI6 and gchq and their dirty mater plan for the world.MI6 the creator of da’ish isis and houthees and mess all the middle east and the world the creator of elbola. We wish one day very soon we see republic of England and repulic of Wales and have a pieceful world no more illuminate any more.long live repulic of England very soon

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.