Scotland to break free?

I can imagine that one of George III's ministers looked at the world map in 1783 and the newly independent American states and said;

Don't worry my Liege, they won't last as an Independent nation. They'll need England

The same thing is happening now with Scotland. Many Unionists - if indeed that is the term - are arguing that Scotland needs the Union to survive.

It is true that both nations have a large interlinked economy and infrastructure and that the separation would be gradual and staged - unlike the ripped plaster that was the Americas and India.

Yes Scotland has benefitted from the Union with England and Wales with many great innovations have gone North but it has been reciprocal with many great explorers and statesmen as well as inventions like television and breach loading rifles have come south.

Scotland's economy is also doing better than ours with the Scottish paying in more than they get out, they also have a good claim on the North sea oil and gas which will fall into Scottish territorial waters.

The big concern for both sides of the border is the competitiveness for trade that will develop as England and Scotland will fight for contracts. It is a bridge that may have to be crossed but it is something that a fledging Scotland would have to deal with.

The third question was definitely favoured by the SNP because they are concerned that many Scots will feel that after about 300 years breaking free will be too dicey a step but would favour more devolution. This tiny victory of David Cameron's may sway the ballot in 2014 but Alex Salmond remains buoyant and optimistic.

After all the vote is two years away and ultimately an open race. As they say - it is far too early to say!

One thing is for certain, and if I may quote Tom Wilkinson's General Lord Cornwallis (from the Patriot - an apt choice compared to the comparison of the Americas.)

Everything has changed. Everything must change.

Could Starkey be right about Britishness?

David Starkey

I did it again, I saw Laurie Penny glaring out of the cover of Monday's Independent and found myself flicking to the page and reading her comment about historian and right wing enthusiast David Starkey and their spat that occurred this weekend. I gather from a source that it turned quite ugly and almost turned to blows! Obviously I don't (and am sure most people won't) condone this at all.

But what was it all about?

According to the Comment piece that appeared in Monday's Independent David Starkey apparently said;

real British values [are not] entrenched in the foothills of the Punjab.

Well... that's true despite Ms Penny's retort of Xenophobia.

I don't know if there is any more to this statement so I'm writing from what I do know was said.

Briticism is defined in Linda Colley's "Britons; The forging the nation 1707-1837", was forged by many external factors. After all "Britain" was forged by military conquest, aggressive foreign policy by England and royal marriages. In fact many would argue the "Act of Union" with Scotland was heavily forced upon the Scots and stacked well with in England's benefits.
This polyglot of nations with separate cultures were thrown together and had to face a common foe in the form of Catholic Europe and then against Napoleonic aggression.

During this tumulus time the middle mercantile class began to bloom and so capitalism flourished and the enterprising nature that encouraged greater cooperation and global ambition kicked off and combined with Military adventure led to the creation of the Empire and a state of identity for Britons.

Briticism grew from this period and adapted to an Imperial way of life but with it came a certain amount of racial superiority over the peoples of the colonies, the "cowardly" French and the "War mongering" Hun.

In post war Britain this state of identity was lost along with the Empire, greater trade and Industrialism from America and all the nations started to drift apart within the union.

As Europe grew closer together, Britain became suspicious but had no Empire to fall back on. Britain had undeniably lost its place in the world and politically, economically and socially it is still lost, it came from Britain and was moulded by events that happened to Great Britain both internal and external.

In this respect he was right.

There are those who still cling to the old deals of Britishness, some are labelled, as Ms Penny has rightly or Wrongly in this case, as Dinosaurs and in some cases bigots - often deservedly so. The old Imperial British is gone and a new Britishness needs to be forged taking in the multi-cultural society that we find our country in today.

It may seem difficult as Language, culture and religion, once a common factor amongst Britons is now varied wildly and there is a lack of understanding amongst groups. There is also the self divisive nature of some groups who form enclaves within sections of major cities or only settle within certain locales.

However we have been here before, when the Union was first formed Scotland, Ireland and Wales were very different to England and yet in time they moulded and worked together towards a common gain and interest and I am sure that they can do so again it’s just early days.

We White Caucasians need to get over ourselves though and embrace the grand project of redefinition in the same way as others need to.

So where as Britishness was not entrenched in the Punjab it should now start to absorb these new identities and influences. Be it Indian, Jamaican or Polish this ethnicities and ways of life can and should be part of the New Britishness.

German solution to English football

Big news has rocked the nation.

Fabio Cappello has quit as England manager months before the Euro 2012 competition over a spat with the English FA over the John Terry Racism case. This leaves the English National team in serious trouble ahead of the International tournament and surely dooms them to fall at a very early hurdle.

Back in my player days for Stanmore Rovers

As a fan (not fanatic though) of Football and as someone with a deep, unquestioning love of the German national team, I have observed the English team from an "outsider's" point of view. I've seen them at the best of times... 5-1 over us in Munich. (We're still not talking about that...) and more notably the worst of times 4-1 in the last Weld... sorry World Cup.

Now, please take it on the chin when I say that England are where Germany was a decade ago. After the 98 World Cup when footballing legends Klinsman, Kupke, Eilts, Sammer all retired from international football. Only Lothar Matias trotted out for Euro 2000 and lets be honest he sucked and so did the rest of the team as we bombed out due to lack of experience, even the 2002 World Cup we were lucky to get as far as we did. Germany was no longer the force it had once been. Even in the World Cup in Germany, where I truly believe we were sublime, pundits described how it "Wasn't the Germany of Old."

Only the last World Cup has changed that opinion.

England are in a similar position, tired older players like Terry and Lampard who are no longer giving their all or, sometimes seemingly not interested at all. Then there is the Lothar Matias shaped spectre of David Beckham often being touted for a return or, y'know, just a half - he scores a blinding free kick.

NO, I say. Change is needed and change is good.

The team plays like 11 super stars when it needs to play as one team and the manager, whomever takes over, needs to ignore the press and endless speculation and take 11 players who play as a team, even if they lack the individual quality. Look at how well Germany did in the last world cup, apart from some obvious talent in the form of Ozell the majority of the rest of the team is mediocre - Podolski, Mertesacker, Metzelder all average. Indeed Klose and Podolski had only scored a handful of goals in the Bundesliga in a year but as soon as they don the White and Black of Germany they become electric. It appears to be inverse for England players who can score braces of goals in a season for their clubs but as soon as the White of England comes on nothing. The team have to be proud to don the shirt and to play representing the country they love and shine.

Indeed any new manager has to realistically take time to build a decent squad and should be ignoring the press and the pressure they pile on for Victory because "We are England" the target should be the World Cup 2014 and beyond. Time needs to be taken and pressure needs to be taken off, I know footie is "more than just a game" for many people but like club level, national teams need to be grown and instant results are not instant. Time and effort is needed and young players cultivated and brought up with a mixture of experienced players in friendlies and tournaments.

Who could take the position? Well, I'm available I've played a lot of Championship Manager and if I can get Gillingham into the final of the UEFA cup final or Margate FC into Division 1 playoffs for the Championship, I'm sure I can mastermind England's victory over Andorra.

But seriously Harry Rednapp is an option, though I doubt he'll leave Spurs before the end of the season.
Gareth Southgate is a good choice as is Stuart Pierce, Neil Warnock or even Sven as a holding position manager until a full timer can go in. What is needed is a manager who can get the team working as a team and not as a group of "Galicticos" if they can do that who knows? You may beat us again in a serious game and one day earn your Three stars!

Scottish Independence

In 1776 a group Nationalists, political theorists, brigands, and well to do Colonists declared Independence from the Crown of England, believing they had a majority support. The fact they didn' and that the majority of Colonists were neither for nor against the Crown or Colonial cause didn't stop a successful rebellion.

Politicians at the time were worried about the financial dent the loss of the Colonies would have on a struggling British economy which was recovering from the debts of the Seven year war and establishing new garrisons in freshly acquired territories. Others were of the opinion that a separate "America" could stand on its own and it would only be a matter of time before they came crawling back to the crown and a merciful and forgiving King George III would welcome them back.

Now, three centuries on, the SNP - a democratically elected government in Scotland, which has always had an agenda for Independence, have moved for a referendum on breaking free of the Union but there is opposition from Westminster.

Before I go on, I should say that I am neither for nor against the break up of the Union. I do believe that the British Empire was only possible because of all the British peoples working together for mutual benefit. Scottish engineers and soldiers have brought about wonders and achieved great things alongside their Welsh, Irish and English counterparts and it would be mutually beneficial for us to stay together and support each other. However if it is the will of the Scottish people then it should be respected.

I also agree with Ed Miliband, if the process of a Independence is messed up, it is going to cause problems for future generations. There is a lot at stake and a lot to debate. Centuries of symbiosis and integration means there is a lot to "unzip" and share out; the NHS, military, rail, road and the clincher - North Sea Oil/gas.

The cynical voice in my head wonders if this isn't what is causing all of the problems and would we be having the same questions about Welsh devolution?
It is a serious question though, after all serious revenue is generated by these natural resources and at a time of economic down turn - we need all the income we can get.
Linked to this is the deficit - what is Scotland's share? Can England foist of a percentage to Scotland and what is a fair amount? After all it was a British Government that failed to legislate and regulate the banks, it was British bankers who cocked up equally so theoretically we're all in this together and we should all get out of this together.

Would you leave your friends in a bar when the bar bill came in without paying your share?

There is also the question of Nationals. Plenty of Scots and English work or live either side of the boarder with their families. Will passports need to be issued? Will there be an amnesty where groups can relocate home or to where they'd rather live just like in America in 1783? I have a friend who is half Scottish, born in Scotland but lived in England most of her life and dislikes Scotland and considers herself English, should she have to return to Scotland, or live with a Scottish passport in England?

Ultimately though, once there has been a referendum and the Scottish parliament has a mandate for independence, nothing would stop them from closing the boarders and declaring it immediately rather than working to a time table set by Westminster. After all its not like we'll march like "Butcher Bill" Duke of Cumberland over the boarder and reassert the rule of the crown. As a sovereign nation Scotland could appeal to the UN for help as a democratically elected Parliament with a democratically decided referendum England would be powerless. Hopefully though it won't come to that!

It is an issue that needs to be looked at and debated by both Holyrood and Westminster without media hype and bluster of personality for the benefit of both nations and peoples if the referendum comes back "Yes".

SNP to spurn close relations with England for Scandanavia?

Whilst trawling through today's I I found a small but interesting article by Hamaish MacDonnell entitled

 SNP would join the Scandinavian circle if Country was independent.

It is a bit of a coincidence as I was thinking randomly about Scottish independence on my commute in this morning.

My original hypothesis was that when Scotland votes for independence, which I really believe they will and is their right to do so, they would find it difficult to cut ties with England and stand alone. After all England and Scotland have similar interests globally and on this island, both have massively integrated systems like the NHS, roads, railways, police, fire brigades etc... There is also a lot of money invested in both country's business and resources. It would be difficult to make a clean cut. I'd kind of envisioned a stead partnership that would slowly untangle itself as years went by but still remaining close - There's far too much joint history between the two nations and we are stronger together than we will be apart. After all this relationship doesn't need to end on bad terms and we can still be close friends right?
I know that many others would argue that Scotland cannot stand alone, isn't strong enough to stand alone after all most of its population work in the public sector and require English money to sustain it.

Well now it seems as if Scotland is turning back to another former master... Scandinavia. The Orkney's, Shetlands had all been under Norwegian control up until 1468 and Norwegian raids into Scotland had been a constant threat through the early parts of the last millenium.
But the SNP now argue that a new Independent Scottish nation would have more in common with their neighbours across the North sea.

Plans already exist for an electric super grid with Norway and joint projects will be undertaken by the Scottish Navy (operating from the current R.N Trident base at Faslane on the Clyde) as well as the Scottish Air Force (based at Lossiemouth and Kinloss in Moray) will help to police the North sea and to help chart sea lanes opened up by global warming to form the North East passage to Asia past North Russia.

The nations will also look towards gas and oil exploration as well as trade agreements.

We started looking from looking at Scotland's location and basing our strategy around our own neighbourhood. That is why we are looking so hard at Scandinavia -Says a senior SNP source.

Angus Robertson has also asserted that Scotland has suffered from a bias towards the South since the act of Union in 1707 and that Scotland has other options.

Scotland it seems is not prepared to be a needy ex or still shackled to England by misplaced ideas of duty but is looking to forge it's own identity and new friends, really making an impact on the world stage. It is time that politicians and Unionists in England start to look at the real possibility that in ten years time Scotland could and should be standing on its own feet and cutting the chord with England completly and it will be England, not Scotland mooning over the collapsed relationship and that Scotland never calls rather than Scotland hanging on England's whims.

Response to Laurie Penny's article

Yesterday I saw a tweet with the comment depreciating an article by Laurie Penny and Remembrance Day stating how disrespectful and inaccurate it was. Of course, despite my brain telling me how much I would hate it, I read it and boy was I cross. Any way on my third read I have managed to come up with a review and can see what she's driving at in a few places but I also agree that her attacks on "the Establishment" is a little misplaced and her facts a little shaky.

Anyway the actual article is here. 

One of her driving thrusts is that Politicians wearing Poppies is hypocritical because they have authorised the deaths of British Service people in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and also have;

"Authorised the decimation of jobs, welfare and public education to defend Britain's military spending and Nuclear arsenal."

I agree with the sentiment of not cancelling Trident. I was most disappointed by that but it was one of the things that we Libdems had to suck up as part of the Coalition. As for the preservation of the Military budget then she is way off the mark. When a Government CUTS military budgets it is the soldiers on the ground who suffer.



The other side. German Soldiers at the Marne



As any student of military campaigns knows the British army has often suffered from this, be it in the War of Independence, the Crimea, Zulu War, World War One and even in World War Two British Infantrymen have found themselves without vital kit and have either had to make do or succumb to the enemy. Even recently the British soldier has been known as the "Borrowers" by US military personnel as they have never got enough kit, we have rifles that don't fire or go off when you're on sentry duty, radios that are picked up on Mobile phones, a lack of ammunition, aircraft that are as old as I am and burst into flames... This is not a high tech over spent military, we've officially got more Generals than serviceable tanks, more Admirals than warships and now it has been reported in the Metro that we don't have any warships guarding Britain's home waters for the first time in centuries! We are also not a Miltary orientated state, unlike the Kaiser's Germany or even Pre World War One Britain. Her beloved protests have not been met by the Army, nor a single bullet fired by the state. If we were like the afor mentioned states then things would have turned out differently in the riots and protests of the last year. Pre 1914 a gunboat openned up on striking workers in Liverpool and the cavalry were deployed against protestors in Ireland before the Black and Tans moved in.

As for politicians being hypocritical for wearing poppies. I can see her point however the argument is again flawed. Governments of all ilks have to make the important decision and War is always furthest from their minds. (usually.) When war was declared in 1914 it was not Asquith's intention to fight, nor was it when Chamberlain offered his ultimatum to Hitler over Poland, he wanted war to be averted. Other politicians such as Eden and Blair struck first in the Middle East and those were unjust wars. Should that mean that they shouldn't wear poppies and remember the fallen as a consequence of their actions? Also the death toll in both World Wars, the big ones commemorated by remembrance day, touched every family. My Grandmother lost three relatives on the same day in the Somme. How can you say, Clegg, Cameron or Miliband or even Blair cannot wear a Poppy to remember the deaths of their family? The sacrifices they're forebears made for this country and the cause of democracy. Its not hypocritical it is the very reason to wear a Poppy.

If we are going to talk of hypocrisy of poppy wearers we should look at the senior officers who commanded men in the field, the ones who plan the campaigns, or is it the junior officers and NCO's who actually physically send their men to die? After all British Commanders on the field ignored the reports of the German army preparing to use gas at Ypres, they had German defector's testimony and gas mask equipment shown to them but they ignored the warnings. When my Grandfather was in Italy they warned a Grenadier Guard officer not to march his men down a road because of the minefield. He ignored them and most of them were killed. Soldiers are killed. How is Asquith, who lost his son in World War One, more responsible than these men? Also, and lets be fair about this, the enemy, be they German, Korean, Japanese, Iraqi, Islamic extremist terrorists, Argentine etc, are all trying to kill British soldiers and occasionally they succeed.

I do agree that the war in Iraq was an illegal war. Yes it overthrew a vile genocidal dictator but the British public were lied to by Government and the West has profited from the peace. This should not mar the process of Remembrance though it is something separate. The same is true for those who burnt Poppies in protest of perceived "British Militarism."
Remembrance is a deeply personal thing, a moment to think about sacrifice and loss, the day is a day for the fallen and their families to mourn and commemorate, whatever cause they fell for or the government's motivation for sending them. Protests should be directed in other formats on another day. This is their day, an apolitical day.

A mythology has grown up about both wars and media doesn't help. The struggle seem to be glorified with the Second which by the way Laurie was quite avoidable for the West especially in June 1940. Does that mean that the blood of all those Britons who died after the "Appeal to reason" from Germany is on Churchill's hand's?  No Churchill did what had to be done. The same with Cameron and Libya.
Ms Penny asserts that the soldiers are being to sent to fight for a cause that they don't understand, all I can say is this is not the 19th Century when there were all manner of Political reasons, or even World War One when "Belgian Neutrality" and "German Militarism" were facades for complicated foreign policy. We sent troops into the Balkans to stop genocide, to Afghanistan to overthrow a terror state, Libya to stop oppression and encourage democracy. If anything I can't think of a cause more worthy than democracy and freedom of others (or yourselves.).

I do agree with her sentiment about the commercial side of Remembrance day and with the Crystal encrusted poppies, and the pomp and ceremony that can over hype the whole day, the glorification of War in some places. Although, if you ignore the Media side of it and look to the parish churches and to families you will see the true face of Remembrance, people talking over their losses, of the friends and family who didn't make it and there is the true message.

Finally, there comes the notion of sacrifice. Yes, there are two kinds of sacrifice; Volunteers who willingly give their lives and the ones who were sacrificed by Generals. Unfortunately, Ms Penny again misses the tragic point. In war, they are often both the same thing. Tough decisions have to be made and people lost. Yes, there are many great mistakes, failures and defeats as well as piric victories too. War is awful.
Yes it is OK to hate the Armament producers as she does but the simple fact is they only exist because there is a need for them, and business is good (in a time when austerity has struck everyone else) because War is so prolific. The simple facts are;
1: They pay their taxes and provide massive employment.
2: Until the Human race can evolve a higher sense of purpose and overcome its petty differences War will always exist thus so will Arms producers.

So in answer to the question of what my response is, I think Remembrance is a deeply personal thing, you cannot generalise as Ms Penny has done and say no one group should not be allowed to commemorate and that save the protests and flag waving for another day. Remembrance day is not about celebrating War, or politicising War, its about the lost and the fallen and remembering them no matter what side they fell for.