For the United Kingdom

The Scots have gone to the polls. I thought I should get this in before the results come out. I pray that the Scottish people will vote to remain with the United Kingdom and contribute to peace and our national stability. Of course I am English and biased, but I can’t change that, however many years I spend in France.

I gather that most of the “Yes” voters are left-wing militants. I too am appalled by corruption in our political establishments and big business, but our nations need to stay together. If Scotland stays with England and Wales (Northern Ireland is another problem) I only hope Westminster will keep its promises to decentralise many things like taxes.

I read the news and I don’t know what to believe, but it would seem right for the UK to stay united.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to For the United Kingdom

  1. Rubricarius says:

    Hear, hear, Fr. Anthony. A work colleague of mine is very pro a ‘Yes’ vote. However, he is a decent and honest man and was telling me today that childhood friends of his in Perth surprised him by telling him they will be voting ‘No’. They also told my friend that there were ugly actions of intimidation by Salmond’s supporters of those who disagreed with them.

    Let us pray and hope good sense prevails.

    • The Rad Trad says:

      I have no vested interest in the outcome, being neither an Englishman nor a Scot. My family lived in Scotland before coming to America and always hoped for Scottish independence. That said, I cannot see how this makes the least economic sense for Scotland. They would have to go on the euro, lose the financial advantages of being in the same business/trade/regulatory system as the other country on the island, and be at the mercy of left-wing lunatics. In agrarian days a separation would have been economically feasible, but those times are long gone. I do not have much sympathy for preserving what is left of imperial Britain, but a separation, at least at this juncture, would just be stupid on Scotland’s part.

      • ed pacht says:

        Could they go on the euro? I’ve seen statements that many in the European Union would not permit them entry to the union, let alone to the Euro zone. Whatever the merits of independence, I see no signs that its implications have been well considered.

      • The results are in – it is NO. Scotland will remain a part of the UK under the sovereignty of the British Crown. However, from what I have been able to understand, there needs to be more decentralisation of political decisions, laws and finance. I understand the arguments and desires of the socialists, claiming more equality between the rich and the poor, lamenting the demise of the middle classes which have to fork out most of the cash. Those Scots who wanted independence have real grievances, and I hope our government and politicians will listen to them and do something. The UK has always been able to avoid revolutions through constitutional and social reforms, giving a minimum of security to the poor, the sick and the elderly.

        These problems are not confined to Scotland or even indeed to the UK. The cost of the welfare state here in France is astronomical, and everything points to the National Front getting in with people sick to the gills of Hollande’s socialism and Sarkozy’s sleaze! The extreme right would be ruinous, but might be able to “reboot” the system until something better comes up. Politics make me sick, and I have already expressed my “anarchy” and ideas of neo-tribalism from the 1960’s. Our modern society has become Promethean and globalism is an Orwellian monster. I am frightened of the future.

        My love of my country is more symbolic than anything else, a need for a sign of identity and cultural reference. This is a fundamental human need, but I begin to feel like a German in the 1930’s. We are not necessarily on the side of right.

    • David says:

      My two cents on France.

      I think the FN is far better than the alternatives and would support them if I were French (that they are gaining support from the Jews is testament to the threat of Islam). Then again, I am also a descendant of a guillotined aristocrat and refuse to recognize the Republic as legitimate.

      • Indeed, La Gueuse as the people of the Vendée used to call the republic. More and more people are recognising that we can’t keep financing increasing numbers of people flooding into the country and claiming benefits without ever having done a day’s work. I fear an absolute bloodbath within my lifetime!

  2. Dale says:

    Personally, I think that the whole vote for independence was a good thing. It will clear the air and force England to take certain Scottish demands seriously. Perhaps now a more equal partnership will be possible. I believe that it was similar to the fairly recent attempts in Canada when Quebec voted for independence, and like this recent vote, it was rejected by the majority, but the end result was for Anglophone Canada to realise that Francophone aspirations needed to be taken seriously.

    Also, one can look at this vote with a certain amount of pride; it was all peaceful and if the breakup had been effected, that would also have been done peaceably as well; one could compare that to the recent bloodbath of the former Yugoslavia or the even more blood drenched American War Between the States.

    • Francis says:

      What more does Scotland want? Alongside Wales and Northern Ireland, they’ve benefited from the Barnett Formula (which admittedly would require a clearer statutory basis). It is the irregularities that have crept in the Union since Blair’s mindless tinkering with the constitution that need to be addressed, not the Union. Before Blair set his sacrilegious hands to the British constitution, the latter was a working example of an Aristotelian polity mixing elements of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy. The monarchy now is mostly symbolic, the democracy nominal, and the aristocracy almost destroyed. All that remains is an opaque system of Cabinet politics, dominated by partisan dynamics, over which Parliament has little control.

      Honestly, I think there was something in the some of the demands that were voiced through the Yes campaign – more social measures, etc. Yet, I am puzzled (am I really?) that the huge resources deployed for the referendum were not invested in trying to get the people to work at the grassroots, local government levels (which shows that the respective Westminster and Holyrood political elites do not want or care for local government). Again, the problem is not at the level of the Union (I don’t mean the Westminster government) but at the level of local government. Instead of devolution, what must be sought is subsidiarity at the ground level – the empowering of the shire and toun.

  3. David says:

    The Scottish vote notwithstanding, it appears the Catalans are pushing ahead with their referendum to break from Spain. Presumably, I would expect the Basque country to follow suit in the case of a Catalan victory. I think we can officially categorize Spain as a Failed State.

    What we are seeing is a blowback to the decades-long push for centralism in both economics and governance. When you put so many people who share nothing in common under one yoke, disaster is the only possible result. I predict the same will happen to the United States in due time, as it did to the Roman Empire under Diocletian.

    The ultimate victory for decentralization and subsidiarity would be the overdue splitting of the phony nation of “Belgium”. The EU would have no answer to such a debacle.

    Pat Buchanan sums it up nicely:
    “The call of blood, history, faith, culture and memory is winning the struggle against Economism, the Western materialist ideology that holds that the desire for money and things is what ultimately motivates mankind.”

  4. Jim of Olym says:

    ” I predict the same will happen to the United States in due time, as it did to the Roman Empire under Diocletian.”
    As an ‘American’ whose ancestors came over from England in the 1600s, I agree! We’d do better if we were split into five or six different countries. I could then count myself as a citizen of Cascadia! (maybe take in Victoria as well….lovely city.

    • David says:

      My proposal would look something like this:

      The Northeastern Federation.
      The Southern Commonwealth
      The Great Midwestern Nothingness
      Texas (we’ll annex Oklahoma and New Mexico while we’re at it)
      The Rocky Mountain Republic
      Mormon Land (Utah + Nevada)
      The People’s Republic of California

      I think it could work…

      • Shall we annexe all that to a resurrected British Empire? 🙂

      • David says:

        The Northeast and Southeast are yours if you want them. 🙂

        I hope you enjoy hicks, gumbo, fried foods, and casseroles (admittedly, some of what I listed can be pretty tasty).

        Alternatively, you might prefer crime, filthy polluted cities, and rich white suburbs full of Socialist “educated” idiots who think there is no world outside the Northeast US.

        I wouldn’t recommend annexing Texas or California (for completely different reasons).

      • Frankly, I think the UK has enough problems of its own without resurrecting the British Empire. The borderline between efficiency, ruthlessness and atrocities is but too brief. That was the lesson of India. The US of A can rest easy. Your War of Independence is well and truly won!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s