David Cameron and Scottish independence

By Tim Haydon.



Few things reveal the muddled thinking of our political class on the most important issue of our times, national identity, than its appeals to patriotism.

For how can David Cameron ask us to tell Scottish voters prior to Scotland’s referendum on Independence that ‘we want you to stay’ because Scotland’s going would undermine the importance and clout of Britain on the world stage and in the next breath declaim that leaving the EU would be a disaster for Britain, whilst doing little to stem the immigrant tide, especially from third world countries?

The truth is that it is membership of the EU which has helped to weaken the bonds between Scotland and the rest of the UK. The SNP views the EU as a safe haven from what many Scots see as the unwelcome embrace of the English, choosing to ignore the downside of membership.

And the immigrant tide is part and parcel of the globalisation of the economy embraced by Cameroonian neo –cons.  True, Cameron is doing something about reducing the attractiveness of the benefits which immigrants have come here from the ends of the earth to enjoy at our expense, some of them hanging off the backs of lorries in their eagerness to get here.  But he welcomes immigrants who come here to find work, accepting that they will be taking jobs which should have gone to our own people, regardless of whether or not foreigners are better qualified or more willing to take work. If they are, whose fault is that? Whose polices encouraged it?

These factors: EU membership and the immigrant tide -are destroying our identity, as they are meant to do. EU membership is all about the destruction of ancient nation-states in a borderless new Europe. Mass immigration is designed to rob the peoples of these  nations of their ethnic identity. After a period of multiculturalism and multiracialism, they are expected ultimately to slump into sameness, itself an intermediate stage to the ghastly ‘utopia’ of global homogeneity.

If one advocates these policies, as Cameron does, then to call on a British patriotism which you are engaged in undermining in order to save a country which your policies are all about wiping from the  face of the earth is either plain stupidity or  just a cynical ploy.

If anything, to be remotely consistent, Cameron should be welcoming Scottish independence, not opposing it.  After all the Union with Scotland has endured because of the racial, religious and cultural affinities the Scots have had with the rest of the UK. When those factors have been undermined thanks to the official policy of encouraging ‘diversity’ especially effective in England what on earth is there for the Scots to want to remain in the UK to chafe under the – at least- nominal government of the Parliament in England? Why should Cameron not welcome the final breaking of these ancient ethnic bonds, to be subsumed in the broader EU?  Isn’t that what his policies all point towards?

All that remains are subsidies. And if the Scots have to be bribed to stay in a marriage of diverse nothingness, it won’t be long before the rest are happy to wave goodbye.

It‘s no good Cameron appealing to the spirit of the Olympics in his ludicrous claim on the patriotism which he has worked so hard to undermine. The Olympic crowds were almost wholly white, as were the crowds at the Queen’s Jubilee and the Royal Marriage celebrations. These events revealed the true nature of Britain’s remaining patriotism, something which the BBC and the rest of the Cultural Marxist media was careful not to notice. They were among the last patriotic cries of a dispossessed people which has yet to realise the extent of its betrayal.

As for Alex Salmond; the idea that ‘New Scots ‘ can be assimilated into Scottish culture as if shared ethnicity, religion and racial history have no bearing on it, is pure fantasy or ignorance. Does he really believe this garbage? The truth is that his movement is fuelled on ethnic antipathy towards the English, an antipathy which has been muted or merely jocular in the past only  because of the affinities already mentioned and because of the subsidies the rest of the UK pay.

Dark clouds often have a silver lining If Scotland does leave the Union, one welcome outcome will be  a swift and decisive shift of the  political centre of gravity to the right.  Scotland is overwhelmingly New Labour when it comes to Westminster elections. Perhaps that is what Cameron is really worried about.


19 thoughts on “David Cameron and Scottish independence

  1. Every country has the right to be run by its own people, for its own people, and that includes Scotland.

    The best thing that could happen for England is for Scotland to break the union. We would need to have elections to select an English government, seeing as one does not exist, and the fear present in Westminster over the split is easy to understand; none of them would get back in.

    As an independent people, what the Scots do is entirely their own affair, and if they choose independence it will be in spite of Salmond and not because of him. Good luck to them, let’s hope they break the union so we English can break the vice like grip the Westminster elite have on us, and get back to being a genuine democracy.

    1. I can’t disagree more. If the Union breaks, it will be bad for the Scots AND for us. We will ALL be diminished. Do we really wish to become economically weaker and also have a EVEN HIGHER percentage of ethnics comprise our population? England has had a secure Northern border since 1707. That would END with Scottish ‘independence’. Salmond wants to radically INCREASE the number of migrants coming to Scotland so we would very likely have yet another source of illegal migrants coming to England.

      The true fact is that NONE of us on this small island off the coast of Europe can have REAL independence. That is why the Union was formed in the first place and why it has lasted so long.

    2. Furthermore, despite the rantings of some, I don’t believe the majority of Scots despise the English. What they hate are Tories and the political system of Britain which needs a radical overhaul. We need a fair voting system of PR for one thing which other European countries have had for decades. It hasn’t done them any harm and there is no reason why it should do so for us.

  2. It’s hard to believe that an intelligent man like Salmond actually believes that a Scotland of Asian Muslims and what have you, would be no different from a Scotland of Celts/Anglo Saxons of Christian heritage.

    Perhaps he thinks the New Scots would be an improvement? If so, why does he have such a low opinion of his countrymen that they need to be improved by these foreigners?

  3. If I understand the situation correctly the SNP isn’t advocating Scottish independence merely a transfer of control from London to Brussels. It reminds me of the Irish – wanting independence from Britain so as to govern themselves, only to give up their independence for a (small) place at the EU table. I don’t believe that Scotland will vote for independence – not whilst it is subsidized to the extent it is by the taxpayer south of the border.

    1. Yes, the SNP are fake ‘nationalists’. They are not ethnic nationalists and can’t really be described as genuine civic nationalists either nowdays. In the 1970’s and the early 1980’s they were against Scotland being members of the Common Market. Now, they want ‘independence’ in the EU! Needless to say, this ambition of theirs is an impossibility seeing as the entire purpose of the EU is to “the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe”.

    2. I don’t believe that Scotland is subsidised. The Barnett Formula is at least partially justified. One very good reason why public spending is higher in Scotland than in England is because a large percentage of the land area of Scotland is located in the Highlands and Islands. This is one of Europe’s least populated areas and so it obviously costs more money to provide public services in a large land area which is sparsely-populated. I know this because I have been on holiday to places like Oban, Mallaig, Loch Ness.

    1. This article points out that while Cameron proclaims the desirability of UK unity, with which British Nationalists can only agree, his policies are destroying it’s ethnic basis.

      He probably relies on some idea that non-British immigrants can be come fully ‘British’. But this is to suppose that culture is free-floating and can be ‘absorbed’. This is true only to a limited extent.

      People who believe this often refer to the USA as the supreme example of a ‘propositional’ culture, ie one built on ideas rather than ethnicity. They forget that or are ignorant of the fact that it was the creation of Europe and Europeans, especially The British, and is in the process of disintegrating now as it becoming less European.

      1. I know the Scots won’t say it out aloud but I have often wondered whether at least some of the push for ‘independence’ is to do with the fact that they see England drowning under a tidal wave of immigration and want to avoid that fate themselves? Perhaps, even the most Right-wing Scots are voting SNP (even though it is a left-wing party and wants to substantially INCREASE migration) with regard to this subject?

    2. Yes, we believe in the Union. Our beliefs will not stop the referendum. The best we can do as British nationalists is to support the “No to independence” campaign. Whatever the result, we will have to carry on and live with it.

    3. I urge the Brit Dems to raise awareness of Salmond’s deceit as well as Cameron’s to the Scottish, the Union must be preserved it has done us proud. Why are We allowing the Parasites in Brussels destroy what Our English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish forbearers fought and died for, only a federal UK will work.

      1. We could do with EQUAL devolution all round. Labour botched devolution badly. The Scottish Parliament has full control over most day to day matters including the important subject of law and order. If Britain were not in the EU and we didn’t have the Human Rights Act 1998 then if there were support for it in Holyrood it could bring back the death penalty in Scotland. Another example of its wide-ranging powers is that education is also decided there and in theory Scotland’s private school system could be abolished.

        There is a marked difference between federal systems of governance and devolution though. If we had a federal system, Holyrood couldn’t be abolished overnight by the British parliament as it would have an inherent right to exist by itself. Under devolution, the Parliament in Westminster remains sovereign OVER THE WHOLE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM and this means that they can abolish Holyrood, expand its powers or restrict them simply by passing an appropriate act. Also, Westminster, under devolution, can still pass legislation that covers the WHOLE of the United Kingdom even with regard to the areas of policy the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have control over though Westminster will normally ask for consent to do this from Holyrood and Cardiff Bay.

        Labour’s devolution is a real dog’s breakfast and needs to be looked at. The English should be asked if they want an devolved parliament (though we would probably need some regional devolution underneath that) and the Welsh should be allowed to expand the powers of their assembly to match those of Holyrood (I believe I am correct in stating that many law and order matters are not devolved in Wales)

  4. Let’s be honest here, a large number of Scots just hate the English, with rather twisted and romanticized versions of history to justify that hatred. This has led many Scots to happily cheer on any team that opposes England at football or any other sport. It has become so common that many English have started to resent the Scots and are hoping that they will vote for independence.

    Three hundred years ago the Scottish government agreed to a union with England which was mutually beneficial. this may not be the case today however, as it is the Scots who benefit more than the English now. This is obviously the opposite of how the Scots have been led to believe things to be. Scotland has always had over representation in Westminster, and has been treated rather better than most of the regions of England that have suffered during hard economic times.

    Alex Salmond is not a patriot, from what I can see. He is simply cynically exploiting the historical hatred of England in order to rouse the Scots to vote for independence. What kind of independence will they get though? He wants to shackle Scotland even more firmly to the EU, and would have adopted their Euro currency but for the fact that nobody would vote to join that right now. He is an agent provocateur for the EU in reality.

    His vision of Scotland is not a free and independent nation that can make decisions about its own future but a very small satellite state of the EU, obeying all the diktats from their masters in Brussels. The very same kind of foolishness that the Irish have been led into after freeing themselves from the perceived cruel yolk of British rule.

    If the Scots fall for this divide and rule tactic from Brussels then the Welsh will be next to be led by the nose with their own antagonism and historical feelings of injustice being used to get them to think they are voting for freedom. Tim Haydon is so right when he notes the absurdity of David Cameron using a nationalist argument to try and convince the Scots to stay in the union, but he too is using this as cynically as Alex Salmond is to try and break it.

    There is no room for hatred in Nationalism. Nationalism is about love for ones nation, and not about hatred for others. The only beneficiary to the break up of the union of Britain will be the EU who are hoping that the Scots will divorce the English and we will all be the weaker for them to dissect and eliminate as a British nation. If the Scots really want freedom, then join with us and demand that Britain leaves the EU.

    1. I don’t believe the majority of Scots hate the English. If that were the case, they would have voted for the SNP in far larger numbers than they have done so and would already be ‘independent’. Obviously, some do but as with any minority they get more attention because they rant with a loud voice.

    2. Certainly, David Cameron is a hypocrite. I notice he isn’t averse to saying how proud he is of the Scottish blood flowing in his veins. Anyone would think he was arguing the case for real nationality being based-upon blood ties! Pretty hypocritical for a noted GLOBALIST (along with Clegg and Miliband)

    1. Salmond is a hypocrite as he says he wants independence yet also wishes Scotland to be a fully-fledged member of the EU. I thought he disapproved of the idea of a partnership/union of nations? He IS a Unionist – though in his case he is an EU Unionist!

      Scots are more pro-European than the English are. No doubt this is something to do with the history of the ‘auld alliance’ between Scotland and France but I don’t think the difference is a vast one like some people make it out to be. It is noteworthy to mention that when we had our referendum (conveniently AFTER Edward Heath put us into what was then the Common Market!) in 1975 to decide whether we should stay in it or withdraw the only parts of Britain that wanted to leave was the Western Isles and the Shetland Islands.

Leave a Reply