David Cameron, Scottish Independence and the Red Queen

By Tim Haydon.

david-cameron-scottish-independence-red-queen

 

Like the Red Queen, David Cameron seems to be able to believe in six impossible things before breakfast. No doubt though, like the Red Queen, he has had plenty of practice in doing so.

The First impossible Thing

One of the impossible things he believes is that it is possible on the one hand for Britain to belong to a political set-up , the EU, whose raison d’etre is the destruction of nations and  on the other that it is worthwhile for it to try to hang on to Scotland.  In the context of the EU, why does it matter if Scotland goes or stays? After all, if the UK is scheduled to be completely obliterated anyway, what is the point of arguing about it?  Of course, the Scots are also the subject of delusion if they think that they can assert their identity within the EU. The EU might save them from the unwanted embrace of the English, but they will find that it is a fire to England’s frying pan.

The Second Impossible Thing

Allied to this first of Cameron’s impossible things is another.  He apparently thinks that on the one hand  it is possible for the population of Britain to be transformed into a multicultural, multiracial ‘society’ (a contradiction in terms) as will Scotland,  but that on the other there will still be some kind of special features to the geographical areas known as England, Wales and Northern Ireland which  the geographical area known as Scotland will feel such affinity for that it will want to attach itself to it in preference to the rest of the multicultural, multiracial EU. In other words, that there will be homogeneity and at the same time, difference.

What, one wonders, might these special features be thought to be in this impossible scenario? Certainly Scotland shares an island with England / Wales, but that is hardly a sufficient binding force. Haiti and the Dominican Republic, for example, share an island, but have never shown much inclination to join up in any other way. What then, seeing that Scotland was able to join with the rest of the UK in the first place because it was racially, culturally and religiously closely allied to it, factors which will have disappeared in the multicultural, multiracial EU?

The Debates are reduced to Economics because the real Issues are not Culturally Marxist

Ethnic affinities, or the disappearance of them, cannot be mentioned in the institutionalised lie that is Cultural Marxist Britain. So we are left with economics.  And it is indeed noticeable that the Scottish Independence debate is being conducted almost wholly in relation to the Scottish standard of living, as is the current EU  in-out debate in the UK as a whole.

At the time when the Union of 1707 was being mooted, the Scots were bribed with economic favours and English gold among the aristocrats of the political class to agree to it. And the same game is being played now, with defence contracts being awarded to Scottish firms and dire warnings of what will happen to the Scottish economy should Scotland become independent.

But if it is true, some might say, that the Scots could join with the English and the other nations of the UK in a political union because of their ethnic affinities, why is it that they needed economic bribery to do so and why now do many of them want to separate from this union and others want to stay only out of material self  interest?

Sigmund Freud and Scottish Independence

The Scots, the English the Welsh, the Irish are certainly ‘family’ ethnically speaking, but as Sigmund Freud pointed out in his Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego in an insight which most  people notice anyway through common sense observation, small differences between individuals or groups in close relationships, such as ethnicities, religions, political parties and sometimes even families (family quarrels can be very bitter) produce ‘feelings of aversion and hostility’.   Freud went on, ‘closely   related races disdain or despise each other’.  It is these small ethnic differences, which were not so much in evidence when Scotland and the rest lived apart and which were previously overcome with economic blandishments, that are the motivating factor for the drive for Scottish independence, whether they are acknowledged as such or not. They  were not considered too important when Britain was an independent and confident country and were usually treated with jocular good humour. With the prospect of EU membership as an economic shoulder to rely on, attention has become increasingly focused on them with the results which we now see.

Sigmund Freud and Ethnic Distaste

As Freud also remarked, greater distances lead to ‘an insuperable repugnance such as ’the Gallic people feel for the German, the Aryan for the Semite, and the white races for the coloured.’ And vice –  versa, it should be unnecessary to add.  The EU is, though, thought by the small peoples which are demanding independence from their neighbours – the Scots, the Catalans, the Basques, the Northern Italians etc – to be sufficiently remote not to be a problem, indeed to be the answer to their problems of being dominated by their larger national compatriots.  But as already noted, remote it might be, but in the end it will prove to be the kiss of death for them as for the rest.  The EU is like poison gas on the battlefield: invisible but present, all-encompassing and deadly.

The Third Impossible Thing – Replacing the Native British without serious Consequences.

There is a third impossible thing, allied to the others which Cameron appears to believe. He seems to think, like others of his ilk, that while it was the native British people who made this country, they can be replaced with other peoples who are as alien to it as can possibly be imagined and that it will continue to swan on much as before. What’s more, because racial feeling will have been obliterated in the new Cultural Marxist dispensation (It won’t be) life here will actually improve (’The best of Britain is yet to come’).

This ridiculous optimism, which is based on the proposition that Britain is becoming a ’creedal’ society, ie one based on ideas rather than on ethnicity, courtesy of the EU and supranational bodies like the Human Rights Court,  flies in the face of common sense and everyday observation.  Such ideas may suit the political class, which thinks that ideas are more important than anything else because this feeds the sense of intellectual superiority which it hugs to itself, but these notions are too watery on their own to find much continuing allegiance amongst the mass of the people.

The United States is not an Example of a functioning Creedal Nation

It is no good pointing to the United States as an example of a creedal nation.  That country may have been founded explicitly on the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers, but in reality it was implicitly from the first a European, Christian and specifically Protestant country. As it becomes less so, so it is beginning to disintegrate ethnically, socially and politically as Pat Buchan has pointed out in such books as ‘Suicide of a Superpower’, ‘State of Emergency’ and ‘The Death of the West’.

The Irreplaceable People of Britain

The people of Britain cannot be replaced if Britain is to remain remotely the country that so many other admire and want to come to. Their culture cannot be absorbed willy nilly by others, because they are as native to these islands as the native oak. Their colour of their skins, hair and eyes is an adaption to the conditions in these northern climes. The proportions of their bodies and other physical attributes are adaptions to the coldness of them. These alone are important parts of our culture, reflected in our art, architecture, literature – even in our fashions and sense of colour. The particular temperament of the native British, including their tolerance, is a function of their development as a people in the effective isolation of these islands for millennia. Their specific abilities are also the result of living in these latitudes and specifically on these isolated islands.  And so on

The British Character has adapted Influences from Abroad over Millennia

The native British have taken Influences from abroad such as Christianity and made them their own according to their character as a people.  It would ordinarily be many, many centuries before the immigrant influx approximates to these characteristics but, quite apart from the aggressively alien nature of their cultures and religions which have been encouraged here, with the advent of modern medicine and technology, the Darwinian factors which produced the native British have been pretty much eliminated.

T S Eliot and the Dangers of too much Diversity

TS Eliot remarked, (‘Notes towards the Definition of a Culture’); ‘It is a recurrent theme of this essay that a people should be neither too united nor too divided, if its culture is to flourish. Excess of unity may be due to barbarism and may lead to tyranny; Excess of  division may be due to decadence and may also lead to tyranny; either development will prevent further development of culture.’

Multiculturalism is said not to be division because the Cultures live in parallel, so to speak. But in reality, no division could be more ‘excess’ than the imposition of ‘multiculturalism’. How else are they supposed to ‘enrich’ us? (Why is it necessary for them to be here rather than in their own places of origin for them to do this?).

T S Eliot and Social Disintegration

In connection with the four nations of Britain, Eliot also said, ‘It is important that a man should feel himself to be, not merely a citizen of a particular nation, but a citizen of a particular part of his country with local loyalties. These, like loyalty to class, arise out of loyalty to the family. Certainly an individual may develop the warmest devotion to a place in which he was not born, and to a community with which he has no ancestral ties, But I think we should agree that there would be something artificial, something a little too conscious, about a community of people with a strong local feeling, all of whom come from somewhere else….On the whole it would appear to be best that a great majority of human beings should go on living in the place in which they were born. Family, class and local loyalty all support one another and if one of these decays, the others will suffer also’.

That happy balance between diversity and sameness and identification with place, arising out of family feeling, was surely achieved by the United Kingdom of the different peoples of Britain. That is why the unity of our country and its traditional character are worth fighting for. 

 

 

28 thoughts on “David Cameron, Scottish Independence and the Red Queen

  1. If ‘good old Nigel’ has his way and we quit the EU it will do nothing to placate the Scottish Nationalists. They will still be dreaming of independence and blaming all their troubles on the Union. And a much reduced United Kingdom will still have an open door immigration policy to the teeming masses of Africa and Asia. The decline of the Empire, falling Church attendance, mass immigration, and deficit spending were all firmly established years before we joined the old Common Market in 1973. We need a government that defends British interests without living in the past.

    1. Quite, the situation in a nutshell. As for British interests, may one be so bold as to suggest specifically English interests. It is the locomotive that pulls the wagons not the other way round.

    2. I think it may placate some of them though certainly not all. One of the principle reasons why the SNP changed its position from opposing Britain’s Common Market membership in the 1970’s to fully supporting an ‘independent’ Scotland’s membership of the EU today is because for separatists EU membership is seen as a ‘comfort blanket’ or ‘escape route’ out of the United Kingdom without Scotland being isolated. It is basically viewed as a good way of reassuring those who might be tempted by the notion of ‘independence’ but who are still quite fearful of Scotland being isolated.

      It really is no accident that separatist movements in many countries in Europe have increased in size and influence since the Common Market changed from being a mere trade block to being almost fully-fledged political union. Even Germany has a separatist party in Bavaria that wants independence for that state although it is a pretty marginal organisation. If the EU imploded many of these separatist parties would be less influential though they probably wouldn’t die.

      1. If you look on Wikipedia, you will be amazed how many separatist movements Europe now has and in the most surprising of places as well for some of them.

        The change from being a mere Common Market to an almost fully-fledged political union ie the EU certainly hasn’t gone unnoticed amongst these groups and has provided a very big stimulus to them.

  2. I do hope Scotland remains in the UK. It would seem to me that there is the prospect of a ‘nightmare scenario’ to be considered. If Scotland votes for its ‘ersatz’ independence, and attains EU membership in its own right, there will be an ‘open border’ problem, if the remainder of the UK subsequently withdraws from the EU. The England/Scotland border will have to be properly policed and guarded against the ‘free movement’ of EU citizens, thus ramping up hostility between two hitherto related countries.

    1. I agree. Too many in England question the value of the Union and ask what does Scotland bring to the table. I would say that one of the many advantages England has had through our partnership with Scotland is a secure Northern border since 1707, considerable help with our defence (this island has to be defended as one really and Scottish soldiers are amongst the world’s best) and we have a very talented nation working with us and being a collaborator with us with regard to our economy and not a competitor.

      1. Basically, Great Britain is greater than the sum of its parts – equally great though all those parts undoubtedly are on an individual basis.. Scotland helps to put the Great into Great Britain so let’s keep it that way. I don’t want to see this small but great country partitioned.

    2. Salmond makes light of this matter as if it is totally irrelevant but it is one of the most crucial issues. He wants to pursue an even more liberal policy towards immigration than the present government in London does! However, the fact is if he wants an essentially open border like he does and maintain a ‘Common Travel Area’ after ‘independence’ then he will have to forget his more liberal instincts and fashion an immigration policy virtually identical to ours. What is the point in having national sovereignty if you can’t actually exercise it in what is one of the most vitally important aspects of statehood?

      If he refused to do this and had a more markedly liberal policy anyway then we would have to seriously consider having stringent border controls on OUR side of the border in order that we maintain the integrity of OUR borders. There are, after all, TWO sides to every international frontier! The problem with Salmond is that he makes so many assumptions about what others would do and he can’t do this or predict the future so readily.

      The British government has published a good analysis on this issue and on others in this series:

      http://www.gov.uk/government/collections/scotland-analysis

    3. That is all Salmond’s narrow-minded and deeply parochial ‘vision’ will ever ‘achieve’. Where once there was friendship and co-operation there will be enmity and even outright hatred. Basically, we will be right back in the 1700’s because let’s make no mistake here this will be the world’s most protracted and acrimonious dog’s breakfast of a divorce settlement. Really, what on earth is the point in creating wholly separate states on this small rock off the coast of Europe?

      http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/shared/ft

  3. Rabble-rousers Salmon ‘n’ Sturgeon, love mass immigration of welfare-fuelled, fast-breeding, Third World tribes and mixtures into the Holyland of Scotland.

    These phoney nationalists must believe all the Marxist propaganda cr*p spewed out of their modern State-colleges–that the great, traditional, famous Scottish culture and spirit — of self-reliance, bravery, military might, frugality, honesty, business acumen, inventiveness and Christianity — comes NOT from Scottish Keltic- Scythian (unpolluted) DNA, but from the Scottish climate and sap from the Scottish institutions, granite, heather and whisky!

    1. Yes, phoney nationalists are exactly what Salmond and Sturgeon are. The SNP are totally fake. They are one of the most staunchly pro- mass immigration parties in Britain and their sole real aim is to create a separate state on this island – a state that wouldn’t be really independent as it would be in the EU. If they think the likes of France let alone Germany would give a damm about an ‘independent’ Scotland in the EU they are very sorely mistaken. Angela Merkel would just laugh! These two fraudsters are passionately pro-EU so much for genuine independence then! At least up until the 1980’s the SNP were anti-Common Market! Personally, I will never forget how dismissive Nicola Sturgeon was on an edition of Question Time from Glasgow when they were discussing racial attacks and an audience member brought-up the subject of Kriss Donald’s murder – probably the worst racist murder ever in Britain. She didn’t show much concern about it. So much for her alleged ‘nationalism’!

  4. An excellent article containing many “home truths” that are conveniently ignored by all “establishment” politicians. Tim mentions: “closely related races disdain or despise each other” and only last night, on the “Russia Today” TV channel, I heard a Ukranian man comment on the violent confrontations with the Russian supporters saying bitterly: “We are all Slavs – why are we fighting each other?” If Scotland has any sense at all, it will separate from the UK at the earliest possible date! It is already being dragged down into the gutters of EU national oblivion by the ball-and-chain of the UK (or should it now be the EUK? This neatly describes what England has become under multinationalism – Euk! (pronounced “yuk!”) The very fact that Westminster is so desperately struggling by propaganda to hold on to Scotland proves that Scotland is a valuable slave-state which they desire to keep on suppressing and milking for the forseeable future.

    1. It’s not propaganda or as the loony Yes campaign calls it ‘Project Fear’. It is simply stating the very serious ramifications of what a possible yes vote will entail. The most important warning was that there is no realistic probability of entering a currency union with what would then be a foreign country. Why does Salmond want a currency union anyway for? I thought he was an ardent supporter of independence! Well, you can’t exactly be genuinely independent if you are in a currency union with a foreign state whose central bank will be setting your interest rates ect.

      The REAL reason he wants a currency union is because he wants to make Scots think independence and creating a new state will be an easy process and a ‘seamless transition’ from the present situation. It is a DELIBERATE and carefully-calculated trick which plays to the most basic rule out of political playbook 101 ie tack to the perceived ‘centreground’ of the debate so you don’t frighten people.

      http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com

      http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk

  5. It is wrong to group Scots who want independence as rabble rousers or loonies. The Scots have many concerns that have not been addressed right over the decades.

    The Scots have seen and experienced what Westminster has done and see into England and where that is potentially heading. I expect the ones voting YES are not the kind who want multiracialism. The SNP are of course from the same stock as Labour.

    Attacking Scots like they are ungrateful or stupid loonies only cements needless division when really we just want the same thing. Such attacks push many on the fence over to the YES side as it appears like the English are telling the Scots what to do.

    1. The Yes campaign are loonies who clearly are trying to deceive Scots as to the REAL implications of independence. Indeed, many of them don’t want to admit them such as Alex Salmond who has been tying to assure people that everything will change but not much will change from the present. That is a deception and a cruel one at that. It is time he came clean. One of his worst deceptions is that the British government is bluffing about a currency union and that what they have said about this policy of his is just campaigning rhetoric but IT IS NOT and there are good economic and political reasons that won’t allow for a currency union as have been spelt out on that website notes from North Britain. Really, how can you expect to form a successful and durable currency union without a political union to underpin it? You can’t and that is one of the main reasons why the Euro area has failed.

      This wasn’t just Tory public school boy George Osbourne pointing this out but Ed Balls (who is very likely to be the Chancellor next year), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (a Scot) and the Treasury’s Permanent Secretary (the main civil servant) who by his name is also a Scot.

      Yes, I know Scotland has problems and they undoubtedly do need to be addressed but some of them are also shared by other parts of Britain too. The Yes campaigners and the SNP too often make-out that dire poverty only exists in places like Glasgow and that England in particular is flooded with millionaires. It may come as a surprise to the SNP and other Yes campaigners that one of Britain’s poorest boroughs is actually Tower Hamlets in the EastEnd of London and yet a few miles to its West is Britain’s richest borough (ie the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea). There are very deprived areas in places like Liverpool and Manchester as well.

      As for Scots voting for independence to get away from mass immigration, I understand that and it certainly isn’t ‘loony’. However, the SNP is NOT an ethnic nationalist party and Mr Salmond wants to MASSIVELY INCREASE migration. Indeed, a recent report said he may have to bring-in a million or so in order to balance an independent Scotland’s books as their population is increasing in age more rapidly than other parts of the United Kingdom. What price Scotland’s true identity then?

      I am NOT attacking Scots. It is their right to withdraw from the United Kingdom if they so wish. However, I would respectfully ask them to consider all the possible ramifications of what is being proposed which are very extensive indeed and to reflect carefully upon that and who is doing the proposing and where some of these people are coming from.

      Speaking personally, I very much hope they stay. Breaking-apart the United Kingdom would diminish us all in my opinion and none of us would truely gain from it.

    2. I do understand why some Scots want to leave the United Kingdom. I believe a lot of it is due to sheer exasperation at the direction this country is heading in. A major factor in this is some of the Tories’ so-called welfare ‘reforms’ which are deeply repugnant to any decent human being and are causing some of Britain’s most vulnerable people to take their own lives. I actually believe that some of the motivation behind these ‘reforms’ is to so annoy the Scots that they vote for independence. Just like the Tories pushed them over the edge so they demanded Home Rule after the Poll Tax debacle. I just hope and pray the Scots don’t fall for this little Tory game but I think many of them will.

    3. Tim, I agree in general with what you say. The peoples of the north east, north west and south west of England; and those of Wales and Ulster might also be understandably aggrieved. None are “rabble rousers or loonies”, as such.

      For my own part, I am tired of listening to the pros and cons of it all. The semantics are of no interest to me. In the first and final analysis I am British, a unionist and cannot contemplate the disintegration of our great country and nation, regardless of whether I am personally better or worse off with the status quo. I will not stand by and watch my country being carved up by socialists intent on indebting us to the EU and all that entails.

      1. That is my principle objection to separation too regardless of the pretty immense practical difficulties separation would undoubtedly entail. If Scotland did leave, I would find it exceptionally difficult to feel British because Scotland is an absolutely essential part of Great Britain and not an optional extra.

  6. Real independence would be wonderful for the Scots, but only if they remained outside the EUSSR and if they stopped all immigration. If the Lefties dominating the central belt think unrelated Africans and Asians are going to work for years and pay tax to support white, small-family OAPs, then they are gullible, dangerous fools.

    1. Scotland would very likely turn entirely socialist or as good as since the vast majority of the electorate live in the central belt. The English Tory vote balances that out BUT IT ALSO WORKS THE OTHER WAY. The Scottish Labour vote prevents England turning into something like the Fourth Reich with disabled people thrown into gas chambers which is clearly the direction of travel with the callous Tories under Cameron, Osbourne and the simply utterly repellent Iain Duncan-Smith. One of my biggest fears if Scotland does vote for independence is the effect it would have down here. Basically, we would turn into an even more nasty, small-minded, bigoted Tory wet dream with regard to our most vulnerable citizens with yet more acute social division.

      That is one reason amongst many I hope Scotland stays because we need the Scottish Labour vote to balance out this increasingly mad descent into the gutter.

      Though I have no wish for a Labour victory I won’t be sad to see the back of Cameron’s evil crew next year and they are very likely to be ejected from the office they slithered themselves into so Scotland can vote NO with confidence. Let’s face it, he doesn’t give a damm about the social division he is causing and he has done virtually nothing to stem the flow of immigrants so all those people who voted Tory in 2010 in order for that to happen were misguided to say the least and had their votes wasted.

  7. (Party Member) Yes Douglas, I am also fed up with listening ( and reading on our website) to the pros and cons of Scottish Independence. For the record OUR PARTY is totally AGAINST SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE which would break up Great Britain. As our Party Policy CLEARLY STATES , regarding the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, ” We would oppose absolutely any move to break up the United Kingdom by Independence for Scotland or the ceding of Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland “. Whilst we may convey our views in a Moderate way WE ARE A NATIONALIST PARTY.

    1. Aye to all of that Tim. I already know where the party stands on all of the major issues and appreciate the need to express our views moderately………it’s something I have been used to doing for the last 30-odd years in a professional capacity. Thanks for your reply and no doubt we’ll exchange views in the days ahead. D.

    2. Yes, we are a proudly Unionist party which believes in the Union 100% and we are not ashamed to make everyone aware of this fact. We do accept the right of the Scots to withdraw from the United Kingdom if they so wish (this is their right under international law) but we fervently hope they continue their 307 year old partnership with the rest of us which has been of benefit both to them and to us.

  8. There is no reason for Scotland to leave the Union, if there was a reason it was passed long ago. The Scots have always been pandered to by Westminster and the popular and universally unchallenged view is that the Union of England and Scotland was primarily a benefit to England and no benefit to Scotland. This view is held by many people almost as a sort of kneejerk reaction.
    No England lost a lot by allowing the Scots into the free and equal union. Scotland was already a militarily and economically defeated country in 1707. The English allowed the Scots equality in the Union even though there was no economic or otherwise reason to do so.
    Let them go, but here is the caveat, once they have gone there will be no more cosy deals or special arrangements. Things will go back to 1707 as if by time machine. Yes let them go, good riddance, bye, bye, and close the door as you go.

    1. One of the main benefits to Scotland from the Act or Treaty of Union was to gain free and totally unimpeded access to English markets and that is still the case today. The Act or Treaty of Union created the world’s first real single market. For us, it was to gain security from having a secure Northern border and likewise that is the case today.

      The only Scots I would bid good riddance to are the perpetual moaners ie those most in thrall to the ‘politics of grudge and grievance’ as personified so well by the duo of Salmond and Sturgeon. It’s a shame these two and those who follow them can’t be exiled on a small, uninhabited island in the Western Isles whilst letting the rest of us co-operate to our mutual benefit and pull together like we have done so successfully for the last three centuries.

      Other Scots I would feel sorry for. Salmond, Sturgeon and others need to learn their history. The idea of Great Britain was a Scottish idea in the first place and not a wicked and dastardly act of typical English imperialism. James VI of Scotland set it in train when instead of being content with being ‘King of Scotland’ (something Mr Salmond earnestly desires to be!) he rather bombastically styled himself as ‘Emperor of the whole island of Great Britain’.

      Also, until the late 18th Century English people were markedly reluctant to call themselves Britons and the idea of ‘South Britain’ didn’t catch on as much as the idea of ‘North Britain’ did North of the Border. James Thompson, who was a Scot, wrote Rule Britannia!

    2. That is basically Salmond’s ‘vision’ for Scotland (when you strip it down to its bare bones and remove the more PC overtones) ie to turn back the clock to 1707 and before when very few Scots had any close connections with England, Scotland was fairly isolated and when Scotland was ‘unsullied’ by any influences from outside (especially from England). It is an essentially backward-looking and deeply parochial ‘vision’ and I hope it is firmly and overwhelmingly rejected on September the 18th this year.

      http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/precious/uk3

Leave a Reply