The historic victory of the SNP at Holyrood places the UK’s very existence in grave peril writes Marcus Booth.
By Marcus Booth, who stood for the Conservative Party in Angus in the 2001 General Election
The biggest cheer at Conservative HQ may have been for the defeat of AV, but the real story of this election is, in fact, the victory of the SNP at Holyrood. The historic result places the UK’s very existence in grave peril.
The prime minister is about to find that the ‘Scottish Question’ is going to be the defining issue of his premiership. David Cameron could be the last prime minister of the UK.
The collapse of support for the Liberal Democrats may have been a principal cause of the SNP victory (the Tory and Labour vote actually held up) and it may be the case that the Scottish electorate were not voting for separation but the shift is seismic and SNP strategy is never accidental.
This is nothing personal; Alex Salmond was the Hon President of the St Andrew’s Students’ Association when I was President. I admire Alex Salmond; he is one of the UK’s most talented politicians. I also like the SNP leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson, who is one of the finest campaigners I know and who has been a friend for over ten years. But as a one-time Tory candidate who fought the SNP machine in an area under SNP control, I learnt that we underestimate them at our peril – they are brutal, disciplined and effective opponents. Once in power the SNP ruthlessly use every means at their disposal to advance one cause – separatism. There is cold calculation behind the bonhomie.
The electors in Scotland may not have voted explicitly for separation but the SNP will now use every effort to create the conditions surrounding a referendum (including setting the rules and the question) that will deliver their desired result. Salmond will only go to the people when he knows he will win.
Those of us who oppose the break-up of Britain have a duty to prevent separation becoming a ‘fait accompli’. The dangerous cocktail that must be faced down includes:
Inertia south of the border – in particular the Tory leadership need to confront the ‘little England’ tendency of some in the Tory ranks. Short-sighted and misplaced self-interest has led some in England to think “we are better off without Scotland”. This is not the case. SNP MPs at Westminster are happy enough to encourage this misinformation.
Weakness of opposition to Salmond in Scotland – the strongest politicians of the principal unionist opposition party in Scotland (Labour) are in Westminster and many of the strongest Tory Scots represent English seats. The likes of Douglas Alexander may well be the brightest stars in the UK political sky but they may be packing their bags and heading North sooner than they intended. We need all hands to the pumps now – the Scottish political leaders of the unionist parties cannot remain detached from events in Scotland any more.
There is nothing progressive about the SNP’s so-called “Civic Nationalism”; there is nothing progressive in nationalism full stop. This is not about reviving ‘Rule Britannia’ but in acting together the nations of the UK can yet be a force for progressive values, a force for good in the world. We are stronger together.
In the coming weeks and months a new cross party group ‘Stronger United’ will be joining those making the positive argument for a modern devolved union; north and south of the border against both the ‘little Englanders’ down south and narrow nationalism in all its guises – fighting the politics of division with the politics of unity and hope.
We must work harder than ever to ensure that there is nothing inevitable about the break up of Britain.
53 Responses to “Britain – sleepwalking to separation”
Modicum
Anon E Mouse,
Please read my remarks more carefully. I didn’t claim any of the things you’re ascribing to me (such as that the Tory party of the present day or of the 1970s is anti-Irish).
My point was simply that the Conservatives are a nationalist party, and that it’s ridiculous for Mr Booth to suggest that unionism is not a form of “nationalism”, or that unionism is somehow intrinsically more rational and enlightened than Scottish or any other kind of nationalism.
Dave Citizen
Probably missed the boat but just in case……
life’s too short and complicated to get bogged down trying to control what other people do with their own country (resisting invasions excepted). I hope the people of Scotland make their decision based on positive reasons about the kind of country they want to create for their children and not based on the brow beating manipulation of a bunch of rich “leaders” in England or north of the border.
If they do choose to go independent I hope they make a success of it – that way I get to have a cheap foreign holiday without getting on a plane….kerching.
Spectre Haunting Britain
You’ve tempted me out for one last post, never was over-keen on inexactitude.
First though, an apology. In spite of your moniker and being new to this site (don’t worry I won’t be back), I had you down as one of those New Labour parvenus who’ve contaminated our political system on both sides of the border since 1994. It now appears that you are a Tory. Well good for you – and I am genuinely sorry for confusing you with that other lot – from up here though, it’s hard to tell the difference nowadays.
Now to the meat. Sun shining out of Salmond’s derriere? That’s for the birds Ed. We have our scapegoat ready for the cull, it’s called, or it calls itself the Scottish Labour Party. You may not have noticed but they’ve won every single British general election in Scotland since 1964. In 2010 they won a 42 per cent share of the vote in Scotland, 70 per cent of Scottish seats and returned 41 MPs to what I believe you still refer to as, without a blush as well, the ‘mother of parliaments’. So we’ll have less talk of this “rotating” business. You’ll be pleased to hear that they’re toast (this should be confirmed more emphatically at the next British general election, maybe earlier once it’s clear that your lot are a shoo-in for 2015).
“Fairer representation all round”? I do agree. I’m eternally grateful that the war criminals Blair and Brown (or Maggie Broon as we call him up here) never had the bottle to establish an English parliament or to take devolution in England seriously (three cheers for Ed Miliband on this too), as that might just have saved the disunited kingdom from the inevitable. Phew! Thank God too that, even for the poor old Lib Dems, federalism is la-la land.
EU political benefits? First thing I’d say is that I want us (i.e. us not you, we already know how you’d vote) to have a referendum on Scottish membership, an emphatic decision one way or t’other (b) we already pay subs (c), assuming the referendum yields a yes vote: positive network externalities (d) effective protection of our fishing industry (we’ll never forgive Heath for that sell-out and it’s been downhill thereafter) (e) more bargaining strength than the sfa we exercise at the moment (not over-stating this but, as the saying goes, every little helps) (f) we’ll be sending politicians to represent us at European institutions who’ll be dedicated to defending and advancing our national interests (g) and don’t laugh at this one Ed, it could smooth our entry to the euro (after another referendum of course, why should the Swiss have all the fun?). We’d need to radically increase our share of fixed rate mortgages and we’d need to build up that oil fund and gear up our economy but, if we want to significantly increase our share of exports to Europe this, in the long-run, would make sense. (h) I do have others but I’ll stop there.
As for this business with the Americans? Naughty Ed, naughty naughty Ed. I think you’ll find that the Americans are becoming more interested in the war criminal Blair’s attempts to have al-Megrahi released in exchange for oil deals and ‘British’ business interests in Libya. A little aside here Ed. I hear that Tartan Day is extremely popular in New York, last year’s march even passed by the World Trade Centre site (Ground Zero). Oh, and Joe Stiglitz is one of the economic advisers to the SNP government, Hilary Clinton congratulated him on his appointment, such a nice man compared to that earnest young toff you’re lumbered with as ‘chancellor’ – you know, the one who strikes you as always being out of his depth (tee-hee).
Final point, I think you’ll find that one of the important differences between us and you is that we have no desire to be America’s poodle. What was it De Gaulle said again, “Ah England, America’s Trojan horse in Europe”. Wise man.
Ed's Talking Balls
It’d be a shame if you didn’t stick around, SHB, so I hope you’re here to read this.
Your tone isn’t in the least bit condescending and that is welcome: certainly in stark contrast to some of the authors on this site.
In terms of substance, I’m interested by your paragraph on prosective Scottish membership of the EU. I think if you look over the Irish Sea you might be less keen on the idea of joining the Euro. Not being tied to that ill thought-out currency is one of the few things I can bring myself to thank Gordon Brown for! I’d also be intrigued to see the result of a Scottish referendum on EU membership (it’d be interesting to see the result of the English version too, but hey-ho…) I actually have no idea what Scots think about the EU.
My comments regarding America? Well, they were rather tongue-in-cheek. They were mainly aimed as retaliation for Seon’s vitriol above. I don’t believe it was a good decision to release Al-Megrahi; I was thoroughly unimpressed with MacAskill, Sturgeon and Salmond in the aftermath; waving of Saltires must have shamed Scotland; but (and, it is a key but, in fairness) I’m still none the wiser as to Labour’s involvement. I’ve never been one for conspiracy theories so am inclined to believe it was a Scottish decision. However, Labour lies weren’t uncommon in that period (nor now, come to think of it) and the pieces seem to fit. I guess I’ll never know.
As for the final comment, I would question whether England as a whole wants to be America’s poodle. I’m not quite prepared to say that ‘poodle’ is a fair description either. We need strong allies inside and outside of Europe and America fits the bill. Perhaps sometimes I’m keener on those across the Atlantic than I should be, but that might be a reaction to the irrational hatred shown by many in the UK. Our government needs to strike a balance, as would Salmond’s, should he get his wish. Antagonism of such a superpower would be ill-advised. Incidentally, I’m sure Salmond would love to export haggis to the US: I read recently (seriously, I promise) that there’s a big, ready market out there.
Anon E Mouse
Modicum – In fairness you did say: “Nationalism is a key defining characteristic of the Conservative party and always has been: from past support for empire and opposition to Irish independence, to present day unionism and passionate hatred of the EU”
I take your point though.
Have you actually considered that the SNP vote may be a permanent thing? Remember how badly Labour did in England as well. The Tories now have control of 86 more council seats than their massive gains in 2007.
If Labour can’t reconnect with middle England and Miliband shows no sign of having the ability to do that the party will become more irrelevant than it currently is. Personally I hope the SNP convince the Scots to go it alone just to stop the inequity of the Barnett Formula…