Scotland: separation from rotting England?
The accession of Scotland to England in the 18th century was a bargain that was politically viable. First, Scotland has retained considerable autonomy. Secondly, it received significant economic benefits: access to the market in England and its then colonies. And what about now, in the XXI century?
Quote:
“Since then, Scotland is the most isolated of all the autonomies of Great Britain. It has its own parliament, church and legal system. Scottish legislation provides for very substantial social benefits, especially for students and retirees. They are paid from the general state treasury, i.e., including at the expense of British taxpayers. On social expenses from the state, the Scots per year receive per person on 1.600 pounds sterling (about $ 2.460) more than residents of England. At the same time benefits are available only to the Scots. For example, a student from England at a Scottish university has to pay around pounds sterling (about $ 9.000) per year, while for a local resident education will be free ”(source: Federal Internet publication “Capital of the Country”, G. A. Yashin).
Actually, not everything is so radiant. Another quote:
“The conservative party actually left the political arena of Scotland by the start of the 1990s, having paid for the neoliberal economic reforms of Margaret Thatcher. In the region, whose economy traditionally relied on heavy industry, many enterprises were closed, tens of thousands of people were out of work, which led to a sharp drop in living standards. In addition, the Tories took an uncompromising position on the issue of devolution (the transfer of power to the localities), which finally undermined the credibility of the local population. In the election of 1997, not a single candidate from the Conservatives was elected to the British Parliament, in the election of 2010, there was only one candidate. In this regard, there was even a joke that in Edinburgh there are more pandas in the zoo than conservatives.
Since then, the Labor Party has been the only political force that could oppose nationalism. Its social-democratic program, appealing to the majority of Scots, was in fact so similar to the nationalist program that instead of debating about whose program was better, the leaders of the two parties usually argued about who borrowed the ideas from whom.
When, under the influence of external factors - the war in Iraq, the economic crisis of 2008 - the policy of the Labor government lost the support of the population, including in Scotland, the place for the arrival of the nationalists was cleared.
The second key driver of support for the Scottish National Party was the economic crisis. In conditions of instability, the population has become more susceptible to the theses of nationalists that small states are better able to cope with the crisis than large ones. With new force, the thesis that Scotland needs to seek control over the natural resources located in its territorial waters: oil and gas fields, has sounded. In the case of separation, their revenues would have amounted to at least 10% of Scotland's GDP, which would be the best insurance against possible economic difficulties, assured independence supporters ”(source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Olga Troitskaya).
As we see, here is a pure economy: unemployment, crisis, oil. There are no proper nationalistic reasons for separating Scotland from Britain. “The Scotland’s referendum on independence will also raise questions about Scotland’s participation in paying British government debt, the place of the new state in the European Union, the distribution of natural resources, and the future of British nuclear submarines based on the west coast of Scotland” (source: "Sight"). “London will also have to remove Trident nuclear missiles from Scottish territory - which is not clear, since there are no other bases for storing nuclear arsenals in the country” (source: Federal Internet publication “Capital of the Country”, G. A. Yashin). Yes, nothing nationalistic; entirely business matters.
Currently, there is a debate in the UK not about whether to separate or not to separate, as well as for what reasons, but about the timing of a referendum in Scotland on the topic of exit-absenteeism. There are two main points of view: the 2013 year (the point of view of the UK government) and the autumn 2014 of the year (point of view by Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister and part-time head of the SNP - the Scottish national party). Moreover, Salmond also insists on giving the right to vote in a referendum and minors - persons from 16 years. David Cameron, the English prime minister, of course, favors the unity of Britain.
Two major politicians - Scottish and English - can not argue with each other. Cameron, it should be noted, is largely objective. After all, the SNP was going to hold a referendum back in 2008 year - but it was prevented by the financial crisis that shook the whole global economy. It is curious that further the economic crisis became an additional reason for the referendum: the very thesis was born that small states cope with the crisis better than large ones. The topic of the referendum on secession was again raised in the spring of 2011, when the SNP won the election - and, one might say, “dry,” so that a single party government was formed in Scotland.
Quote:
"..." In past (local) elections, Alex Salmond asked for a mandate to hold a referendum. He won the election. He received his mandate. I invited him to hold a referendum, he refused - what happens in the end? ”- Cameron was indignant, saying that Edinburgh was dissatisfied with London’s proposal to vote as soon as possible.
Then the British Prime Minister accused Salmond of constantly changing the wording of the questions put to the vote. London insists on a simple formulation of the question of independence (“for” or “against”), Edinburgh does not exclude the second question of “maximum devolution” (almost complete autonomy, in which only defense and foreign policy remain under the jurisdiction of the central authorities). London fears that such an “intermediate” version will gain more supporters than complete independence ”(source: "News - Georgia").
But Salmond knows how to find suitable arguments:
“Party leader Alex Salmond served as the first minister of Scotland for the last four years and so far has not risked holding a referendum on independence. Prior to this election, he also made it clear more than once that in case of victory he would not rush into holding a plebiscite, since his main concern would be restoring the economy from the effects of the crisis.
While there was a vote count, Salmond said that if he received a majority in parliament, he would hold a referendum on the independence of Scotland over the next five years. The leader of the Scottish National Party also said that first of all he would demand greater economic freedom for the Scottish Parliament, including the right to establish a profit tax.
“The Scottish people have shown their trust in us, and we must trust our people,” said Alex Salmond. “Therefore, during the new parliamentary term, we will hold a referendum, allowing the residents of Scotland to decide the constitutional future of the country,” Salmond promised ”(source: "BBC Russian Service").
Thus, Alex Salmond, who spoke about the next five years, does not contradict himself at all. However, we still have to talk about deliberately delaying the date of the referendum. And for good reason - no longer economic, but political:
“The fact is that in 2014, a high-profile sporting event will be held in Glasgow - the Commonwealth Games, as well as the celebration of the 700 anniversary of the defeat by the Scots of the troops of the English King Edward II at Bannockburn. Nationalists are confident that these two events will increase the number of supporters of independence ”(source: "Hvil," Denis Ivanenko).
Scottish Jack McConnell, Lord Glenskorrodale, objects to Scot Salmond - a man who was the first minister for five and a half years before the Labor Party lost the election in 2007. McConnell believes that the referendum should be held within the next 18 months. As the Scottish political editor writes “Daily Telegraph” Simon Johnson, “insecurity and disagreement about the timing of the referendum,” according to the ex-minister, “can only delay our recovery after the economic downturn.” Judging by Johnson's article, Jack McConnell is very concerned about the "benefits of the economy." It also indicates that the Church of Scotland opposes 16- and 17-year-olds voted in the referendum.
The same Johnson in his other article, "Michael Moore attacks the" strange concept "of Alex Salmond's independence" (“Daily Telegraph”), cites the opinion of Michael Moore, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party about taxes and expenses in the supposed independent Scotland. At a speech in St. Andrews, Moore said that "the separatists did not make it clear what kind of economy independent Scotland would have." According to him, before 2008, Scotland had in mind prosperous Ireland, Iceland and Norway. But the Irish economy went into decline, and Iceland went bankrupt, - and Salmond saw a role center in the east, in Scandinavia. But Moore doubted that the Scots would be able to secure a high — the same level as in the Scandinavian countries — the level of public services without an increase in income tax, corporation tax and VAT in a separate Scotland. Moore gave examples: if the British government takes approximately 37% of income taxes, the Norwegian government takes already 41,1%, Sweden-47%, and in Denmark-48,1%. However, Stuart Hosie, of SNP, declared Moore’s words a “blunder” and added that corporate tax could be reduced to 20%.
And here is another interesting article by political editor Johnson: "The oil-rich northern islands of Scotland tell Alex Salmond: we could stay with the UK" (“Daily Telegraph”). The journalist says that the Orkney and Shetland Islands are not in a hurry to meet Salmond’s plans and secede from Britain. On the contrary, even if the rest of Scotland votes to secede, they can remain in the UK. Moreover, these islands "may even declare independence on their own."
Here, again, the question of benefits: "... they could agree to join independent Scotland only if they provided a much larger part of the North Sea oil and gas, a quarter of which is located in the waters of Shetland alone."
So now we are talking about voting on the islands. This burning question also has a political background: the inhabitants of these islands “were traditionally extremely hostile to the independence of Scotland” and preferred the Westminster government to it. These islands "were not part of Scotland, but of Norway - until the end of the XV century."
Another interesting fact: “SNP previously recognized the right of the islands to decide their future, but Nikola Sturjon, deputy first minister, recently outraged the residents, saying that it would be wrong because they are“ not a nation ”.
Indignation - indignation, but since the islands now belong to Scotland, they will have to, if it is the will of the Scottish people, first to secede from England, and then to speak of their own independence or the reverse adherence to the remnants of the British crown. The fate of the islands rests simply in the number of votes:
“The threat of a referendum is that the wishes of approximately 42500 residents of the Shetland and Orkney Islands will be silenced by the millions of people living in Glasgow and Edinburgh ...”
And from the article: “When the local authorities of Shetland 35 years ago conducted a referendum and asked if the residents wanted to become part of an independent Scotland, the result was nine against one.”
Thus, there are few inhabitants on the islands, but they have a lot of oil and gas. Simple arithmetic: a lot of oil and few people - better than a lot of people and little oil. Hence the talk of disconnecting from Scotland, not yet disconnected from the UK.
Politicians break spears, and meanwhile the supposed separation of Scotland and Britain makes investors think about suspension of investments in the economy of Scotland: how well will it separate - and then what? Domestic investment will turn into international? And what will be the taxes? Will there be any customs duties? And if Scotland is accepted into the EU, will it not be necessary to convert pounds sterling into euros, losing on the difference in rates? And so on and so forth. These questions are being asked now.
Therefore, as it seems, overcoming the consequences of one crisis, the Scottish supporters of complete independence can drag the country into another — no longer a world, but a local, so to speak, man-made. And then their political actions will fall in price. Hardly Salmond does not realize this. However, the SNP referendum plans for the autumn 2014 of the year. Investments are investments, and the SNP probably believes that Scotland will live well with its oil and gas.
At the same time, the leader of the Scottish National Party is well aware that his country owes the Bank of England 287 billions of dollars. Salmond refers to this astronomical sum with sheer Scottish humor. “Salmond’s arguments on this issue are emotional and not without logic. Say, you commanded, and you answer why the bank nearly collapsed ... "(source: "Hvil," Denis Ivanenko).
In short, the economy in the proposed department is much more than politics: the second serves only as a reinforcement of the first. No nationalist hatred, one benefit. Which, by the way, is confirmed by the numbers:
“Today, 40% of Scotland residents want independence, and 43% prefer to remain in the UK. At the same time, two-thirds of Scots are ready to vote for independence if their standard of living rises by at least 500 pounds per year ($ 770). Interestingly, 43% of the British have a positive attitude towards the separation of Scotland, only 32% oppose it. Many British people are convinced that this event will have a beneficial effect not only on the Scottish economy, but also on the situation in other parts of the UK ”(source: Federal Internet publication “Capital of the Country”, G. A. Yashin).
See how things are? Forty percent turn into two-thirds, as if by magic. For complete happiness, the Scots lack not actually independence, but five hundred extra pounds per brother.
Along with this, it is necessary to know that from the former economic greatness of Britain there has now remained a pathetic puff:
“Whole industries, once considered a symbol of British chic and power, disappear before our eyes. Such a fate befell, for example, the British auto industry. During the crisis period for him, the British did not begin to buy back the domestic manufacturer or to prohibit the importation of foreign cars, but simply sold their brands. As a result, the legendary brands actually went hand in hand - first they were bought by the Germans and Americans, and now they belong to the Chinese and Indians. Jaguar and Land Rover bring income to Indian Tata Motors (95% of the company's revenue in the fourth quarter of 2011).
Britain has nothing to not only build cars, but also to build roads. Recently, the government presented a plan for a large-scale transfer of British roads for long-term lease to private investors. At the same time, high hopes are placed on Chinese entrepreneurs.
To patch the £ 42 billionth hole in the budget, the government also has to constantly reduce military spending, including the number of army soldiers. Commander John Maxworthy, founder and head of the National Defense Association of the United Kingdom, notes that if this trend continues to be 2020, the British army will simply cease to exist.
This is not often mentioned, but in terms of external debt ($ 9,8 trillion), Britain ranks second after the United States ($ 14,7 trillion). British debt obligations exceed Greek in 18 times! The country's external debt is 436% of GDP. So today, Britain is among the leading economies of the world, rather by inertia ”(source: Federal Internet publication “Capital of the Country”, G. A. Yashin).
I don’t think that Cameron, who has recognized the will of the Scottish people, will easily forgive 287 billions of dollars to Scotland. In this situation, they do not interfere with England. But, on the other hand, what remains to Cameron - apart from contemplating the sad fate of the former empire?
And then there is growing unemployment, which in the UK is now more than 8%.
From such an economic grief, the inhabitants of Britain began to look into the bottle:
“The British are becoming more and more drunk. Prime Minister David Cameron equated the alcoholism of the population with the national disaster. In different places of the country, networks of sobering stations are opening up - until recently, drunkards here were carefully taken to ambulances in hospitals and patiently brought to life, despising the queue of real patients languishing in the emergency room ”(source: Federal Internet publication “Capital of the Country”, G. A. Yashin). And in the appendage: “... The institutions of the National Health System annually make about 250 thousands of errors that cause the death of more than 3600 patients. Among the British surgeons alone, the number of errors increased by 28% over five years. Every year they forget in the bodies of patients more than 700 instruments, injure healthy organs - in the past five years there have been an increase in 33% of such cases. On average, surgeons cause “serious harm” to 11 patients every day. Doctors systematically, by negligence or incompetence, transfuse patients with the blood of the wrong group, prescribe or inject the wrong medicines ”(G. A. Yashin, same source).
Finally, the morality in Britain fell below the baseboards. The government is going to allow couples of "unconventional" orientation to formalize their relationship and even get married in church. Almost half of the inhabitants of the country today endorse homosexual marriages. It is not surprising that the institution of the family in the country is very weak. Teenagers in Britain completely bloomed:
“Children are taught to knock on“ bad ”parents in school, police and special services. A ten-year-old boy already knows his rights and threatens to sue his parents if they punish him.
British adolescents in the last decade lead in all that relate to antisocial behavior. Here are the statistics of anti-record 15-year-old Britons. 27% British, 12% Germans, 5% Italians and 3% French are regularly drunk. Participated in at least one fight last year: 49% British teenagers, 38% French and Italian, 28% German. Have sexual experience 38% English, 28% Germans, 24% Italians and 22% French. England set a European record for the number of teenage pregnancies.
But society does not sound the alarm. Adults can no longer or are afraid to work on teenagers who have gone out of control. Instead of morality and morality, teenagers, for example, are offered free condoms and contraceptives. Girls from 13 years can, without any prescription, get as many birth control pills as they can by visiting a local pharmacist who will not tell their parents anything. So, soon, Britain can become a leader in the legalization of teen sex ”(source: Federal Internet publication “Capital of the Country”, G. A. Yashin).
Vladimir Alekseevich Soloukhin, the author of “Stones on the palm of his hand,” a book he wrote in 60-80's, turned out to be surprisingly far-sighted about Britain. last century.
“In the English Parliament, one speaker gave the remaining members of Parliament a peculiar witty trap. The issue of youth was discussed. The speaker read out from the podium four statements of different people about the youth. Here they are, these statements:
1. Our young people love luxury, they are badly brought up, she scoffs at the authorities and does not respect the elderly at all. Our current children have become tyrants, they do not get up when an elderly person enters the room, they peretova to their parents. Simply put, they are very bad.
2. I have lost all hope for the future of our country, if today's young people tomorrow take the reins of government into their own hands, for these young people are unbearable, impatient, simply terrible.
3. Our world has reached a critical stage. Children no longer obey their parents. Apparently, the end of the world is not very far away.
4. This youth is corrupted to the depths of the soul. Young people are insidious and careless. They will never be like the youth of old times. The younger generation of today will not be able to preserve our culture.
All these sayings about youth, about the imminent death of culture, about a hopeless future, were greeted with applause in parliament. Then the speaker revealed the cards. It turns out that the first sentence belongs to Socrates (470-399 year BC), the second to Hesiod (720 year BC), the third to the Egyptian priest (2000 years BC), and the fourth was found in a clay pot in the ruins of Babylon pot age - 3000 years.
It turned out in parliament very effectively and even funny. However, all these cultures really died. And the pot was found, alas, among the ruins of Babylon, and not in a prosperous city. ” (Vladimir Soloukhin, "Pebbles on the palm").
As a result, among the British there is a perception that Britain - following its army and medicine - will collapse in twenty years. And there are grounds for thinking about the disintegration of the United Kingdom: the desire to become autonomous, along with Scotland, is also stated by the Cornwall county:
“... Autonomy was demanded by the English county of Cornwall. The birthplace of Celtic culture, which gave the world the main character of countless myths, King Arthur, does not want to be part of the United Kingdom anymore.
Once a year, engineer John Sweetman dresses up as a herald to proclaim the celebration of St. Piran's Day on the central square of the capital of the county of Cornwall - the city of Truro. The descendants of the ancient Britons consider this saint to be their patron.
Cornish lands are rich in tin and, according to legend, it was Piran who smelted the first tin cross in his hearth. So, supposedly, the flag of Cornwall appeared here - a white cross on a black as ash cloth.
Cornwall is the southernmost part of Britain, and probably the most English of non-English provinces. Out of half a million locals in their native Cornish language, only about 300 speak fluently. But those who raise black and white flags are convinced that England is separate ”(source: "Navigator").
As is easy to see, on the surface of the issue - again, the economy, not politics. The key to restoring independence, which was recently recalled in Cornwall in the 15th century, is tin.
Well, an added incentive to gain independence from Britain is probably rotten English morality.
- especially for topwar.ru
Information