You stupid boy

I think some of my friends did not agree with my describing the Prime Minister as an idiot in my post The Scottish Crisis about the risk of the break-up of the United Kingdom if Scotland voted to secede, and about his part in creating the situation as it was at that point.

Happily that possibility has not materialised, but now as if to prove my point, we have the almighty gaffe from Mr Cameron of telling an American - a rebel colonial indeed - and, moreover, being picked by a microphone in so doing, what he claimed The Queen had said to him over the telephone. This is after the care shown by Her Majesty to avoid being drawn into the political debate, as I commented upon in The Queen's message to Scotland. The Daily Telegraph has a report on the story at David Cameron: Queen 'purred' down line over Scottish Independence vote and their cartoonist Matt has his own take on the incident:

'It's Prince Philip for you, Prime Minister. He's not purring...'

Image:Matt in the Daily Telegraph

As Captain Mainwaring would have said to Private Pike, "You stupid boy."

The Queen's message to Scotland

The Honours of Scotland

© Crown copyright Reproduced courtesy of Historic Scotland/bestofedinburgh.com

 
The Queen has issued a statement following the Scottish referendum in which voters rejected independence by 2,001,926 votes to 1,617,989 on Thursday.

In the statement Her Majesty says: 

"After many months of discussion, debate, and careful thought, we now know the outcome of the referendum, and it is a result that all of us throughout the United Kingdom will respect.

"For many in Scotland and elsewhere today, there will be strong feelings and contrasting emotions - among family, friends and neighbours.

 "That, of course, is the nature of the robust democratic tradition we enjoy in this country. But I have no doubt that these emotions will be tempered by an understanding of the feelings of others."

"Now, as we move forward, we should remember that despite the range of views that have been expressed, we have in common an enduring love of Scotland, which is one of the things that helps to unite us all.

"Knowing the people of Scotland as I do, I have no doubt that Scots, like others throughout the United Kingdom, are able to express strongly-held opinions before coming together again in a spirit of mutual respect and support, to work constructively for the future of Scotland and indeed all parts of this country.

"My family and I will do all we can to help and support you in this important task."

Last week, after various press reports claimed the Queen was growing increasingly concerned about Scotland breaking away, and some MPs -  doubtless unwisely - urged her to intervene publicly, Buckingham Palace issued a clear statement maintaining that she was above politics:

"Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong. Her Majesty is simply of the view this is a matter for the people of Scotland," the Palace said. Commentators noted this statement as particularly emphatic.

 Last Sunday on leaving Crathie Kirk near Balmoral the Queen did however comment to the extent of saying that she hoped voters would think very carefully about the issues involved. Dressed in the shade of green often associoated wirth royal ceremonial in Scotland that was was all Her Majesty said - politically neutral but pointing to the importance of the decision. As was pointed out on the BBC Radio 4 coverage of the referendum in the small hours of this morning the comment at Crathie was carefully orchestrated, with the press allowed close to the group of well wishers outside the church and hence the opportunity to get the Royal message heard. Skillful and understated - the essence of the Queen's exercise of her office.

 

Scotland decides

I stayed awake listening to the radio in bed until 5am this morning as the results came in of the Scottish referendum.

The result at 55% -45% in favour of the Union, and with victoroes for Better Together in  28 out of the 32 council districts is sufficiently emphatic to give stability and set a new frame of reference for debate about "Devo-Max", and how to resolve the "West Lothian question."

Image:BBC News

The article from which this map is taken, which has other maps illustrating Scottish voting patters in the EU election and other aspects of political demography can be seen here.

Looking back over the campaign, and especially over the last fortnight, there are serious questions to be asked - though some may well be avoided given the result. Despite attempts by some journalists and  spin-doctors to contextualise the point, the Prime Minister pretty clearly made amistake in insisting on a Yes/No referendum rather than allowing for a third option of increased powers for the Edinburgh parliament and government - what has now been achieved in effect - and indeed in agreeing so readily to the holding of a referendum. Other countries, both in Europe and further afield appear amazed that the UK allowed this situation to come about. Further there is the fact that the question was framed in such a way as to give the Yes choice to that of breaking the Union.

 
The panic last week by all three pro-Union parties at Westminster indicates the extent to which they were caught off-guard, and had dismissed the issue as a minor one until almost too late. The Better Together campaign may have won, but they failed to offer, in the view of several observers writing in the papers, avery positive or enlivening vision. That such a thing could be offered by the Yes Scotland people should have been obvious - think of the depth of the Scottish sense of identity and loyalty that the Scots are happy to call upon, and that could be mobilised for the Papal visit in 2010, never mind historical travesties such as Braveheart....

For the Labour party there is the fact of having been complacent over voters loyalty - the four areas that went to a Yes majority should be solid Labour territory, even if they have SNP MPs and MSPs, such as Dundee.

Those on the Yes campaign who appear to have fallen into bullying and threatening tactics did no credit to their cause, and indeed I suspect did it real harm as stories on intimidation were publicised. This does of course point to the commitment of enthusiasts, and suggests, as commentators pointed out over the night, an anti-establishment politics that fuels UKIP and other non-traditional parties. 

The high turn-out has been commented upon, but I think the unique nature of the question at issue may account for that. It does suggest that the electorate can be energised, against the trend of boredom with established politics.

The legitimate concerns of the Scots can, hopefully, be met Devo Max - but could not that have been achieved without the stresses of recent weeks and the very real risks, in some cases short-lived, but others which potentially threatened if there had been a Yes victory. We have come close - how close may well be a point of debate - but still close enough, to a break up of the United Kingdom - and the worrying thing is taht our politicians did not see the danger until almost too late, and the English media and public paid it scant regard for much of the time and for many people.

Don't the English care?

As we arrive at the week of the Scottish referendum  I remain surprised, despite all the belated coverage last week, at the low level of interest here in England.  Judging from what one sees or rather, what one does not see here in Oxford this is not a matter of great concern, It should be, but it does not seem to be. I get the impression German friends are more interested than fellow Britons.

I might have expected a display of Union flags to appear to stress the idea of unity. Why do not all public buildings and colleges fly the flag to show support for the Union, for who we are as a nation. Mind you there is little awareness of Scotland here if the emphasis in the History faculty is to be taken as a guide, and few Scots come to study in Oxford. That however is not the point - for over 300 years we have been one realm, one polity, and that could be ending, yet interest seems minimal

No one seems to be organising special services of prayer to pray for unity, or for guidance for the Scottish electorate in their momentous decision, which will affect us all.

There appears to be little discussion, other than amongst oddities like myself and my friends.

So I ask, amazed - Don't the English care?

The Scottish Crisis - a friend writes

A friend sent his comments to me in an e-mail about my recent post The Scottish Crisis, and, as he makes a number of excellent points I am, with his permission, reproducing it:

"I have just finished reading your blog piece about the Scottish Crisis and find myself largely in agreement. I don’t think Cameron should be criticised too much for allowing the thing to go ahead; what else could he do when the SNP had just won a majority in the Holyrood Parliament with a manifesto commitment to seek to hold an independence referendum. Where he went wrong, I think, was in amending the Scotland Act to give the Holyrood Parliament the power to hold a referendum and thus allow the madness of giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote whilst denying the same to those Scots (in particular Scottish military personnel) not living in Scotland. It’s a travesty that foreigners can vote in the referendum but Scotsmen who fight and bleed for their country have no such say. He would have done better to have kept control of the situation by legislating for the referendum through the UK Parliament (none of the other parties would have opposed it) and denied the SNP the power to choose the question and the electorate.

As the day of the referendum approaches I find myself in a tightening grip of anxiety. Perhaps I should stop worrying and not take it so personally but, whilst I identify as Welsh (and proudly so) in the cultural sense, I have always considered the United Kingdom to be my country. In fact, as a Welshman, I think I have more reason than most to want the Union to be preserved when you consider that the Welsh are, after all, the true Britons and almost 60% (I was surprised too) of the population of these Islands is still racially a Briton. I can’t imagine what sadness the Queen must feel.

If we are going to assign blame then I think, as with most things, it must rest with the Blair creature and the 1997 Labour Government. Devolution was a terrible idea and was always going to lead to this. Before devolution the SNP and the nationalist movement in Scotland (though always stronger than in Wales) were still a bit of an eccentric sideshow. Now they are in government at Holyrood and potentially about to destroy the greatest, most stable country on Earth. Like every act of constitutional vandalism committed by that ignominious administration it was a cynical, badly thought out move taken purely for self-interest.

Even if the Scots vote “No” on 18th September there is the now inevitable and perilous prospect of the ‘federalisation’ of Britain. Home rule for Scotland and (eventually) Wales and Northern Ireland, whilst England will be dismembered into banal ‘regions’ without any real historical, cultural or emotional foundation. This is what the European Union has always wanted: a Europe of the Regions and so it is no wonder that Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are its biggest cheerleaders.

Your last sentence about the need to for hope and prayer reminded me of the words of a man who had to fight to keep his nation together. Abraham Lincoln once remarked that he had often been driven to prayer by, “... the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.” I may no longer be a religious man but lately even I have found myself struggling to resist a tremendous urge to fall to my knees and plead with some higher power for the future of my country."

I remain very critical of the Westminster government for allowing the current situation to have developed, to have allowed the No campaign to have been pretty lacklustre, let alone for what might happen on Thursday. The "dev-max" option does not worry me too much. If the UK retained control; of foreign policy, defence, the currency and trade policy, then some sort of British ausgleich between England and Scotland might allow for legitimate Scotland's aspirations and recognise its historic identity. What is being offered now by the UK parties may take us towards that, but it may,but only may, be too little. too late.

Let us continue to hope, and let us continue to pray.

Scotland and Catalonia

In my post The Scottish Crisis I referred to the analgous situation in Catalonia. I found a useful survey of the situation there in a n article by Tom Burridge, the BBC's man in Madrid on the BBC website, and which can be seen at Battle of Barcelona

Frankly it looks as if these issues are being better handled in Spain in so far as three questionsare being considered in the on-going discussion - the status quo, greater autonomy or independence. In Scotland the enhanced Home-Rule option has, in effect, only recently, and seeingly in a panic, been raised.

 

 

 

Commenting on the Scottish Crisis

Amongst the welter of comment on the Scottish referendum and its potential to cause chaos for Scots and English alike here are two good articles from the Daily Telegraph. 

The first, published yesterday is by the well-respected commentator Ruth Dudley-Edwards, who I think would term herself Irish-British, and can be read at Scotland should heed a harsh lesson from across the Irish Sea

The second, from today, is by Peter Oborne, and emphasises the seriousness of the situation, and indeed who is, or are, in his view, to blame. It can be read at Our worst constitutional crisis in 300 years.

The Scottish Crisis

So the bawbee has finally dropped with the Westminster political establishment and the London based media about the situation facing us about Scotland and the threat posed by the referendum. Never mind the next General Election, possible EU referendum or the international situation in Ukraine or the Middle East we are now facing potentially the worst constitutional crisis in over 350 years. I have made this point to friends who, indeed, agree with me for months, but the media coverage in England has been patchy, and the issue seen as a minor distraction.

Now, in the wake of the latest opinion polls the media have woken up and now are full of prospective eventualities that few alas would have thought credible until recently. Depending on what happens next week we are potentially in uncharted waters. Even a No vote victory will engender major questions as to transferring new powers to the Holyrood parliament. A Yes vote would be almost still beyond our comprehension. It may well turn out to be like living through the break up of Austria-Hungary in 1918-19.

As to ascribing blame, well let us begin with our idiot Prime Minister for agreeing to the holding of the referendum at all rather than maintaining that it was beyond the powers of the Holyrood parliament to call such a thing in the first place. This has been the line taken by the Spanish government in regard to the regional government of Catalonia. Furthermore there is the matter not having a third choice of granting more powers, let alone allowing the positive answer to the question posed being for secession. I suppose that comes with having a PPE-ist fron Brasenose running the country.

It is utterly ludicrous that a miniscule number of the four million Scots electorate in a closely fought campaign can decide the fate of 63 million British subjects. 

The Daily Telegraph reports an opinion poll of likely voting intentions with a map illustrating the distribution of opinion. Looking at it I see historical fault lines that stretch back a thousand and more years. Here are the Highland-Lowland divide, the Scots of Argyll and the Picts of the east, the emergence of a Scotland  unified by its Kings , joining Scot and Pict, Galloway and English Lothian into one realm, evidence of Norman patterns along the eastern lowlands as opposed to Celtic Scotland(forgive the over-simplifications of terminology), the development along Anglo-French lines of the Borders in the twelfth century under King David I and King Malcolnm IV, the splits of the Reformation and the mid-seventeenth centuries. All of which, inter alia, is a good argument for not doing anything to unsettle the Union. An independent Scotland by 50.1% would be a deeply divided nation.

Image: Daily Telegraph

In this situation we need to hope, and we need to pray.

Bannockburn

Today is the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn in 1314. There can be little doubt that this was one of the most significant battle sin not only Scottish history, but in British history. Not only did it ensure Scottish independence in the early fourteenth century it created the conditions for that independence, or national identity, to become a continuing reality. 

The battle, and its memory, indeed its myth, became part of Scottish identity, and that has meant teh survival of a distinct Scots polity. Union with England both in the person on the monarch in 1603 and of the parliaments in 1707 did not involve the loss of national identity, of institutions and structures, of law and religion. I may regret that some aspects of Scottish history and life and not like those here in England - I distictly prefer Anglicanism to Calvinism for example - but they are facts of history. They are in part consequences of Bannockburn.

For England, especially for the northern counties, the defeat was a continuing disaster, with Scottish raids deep into Yorkshire. In 1319 the Scots reached the central part of the county, and may well have wintered in the Morley wapentake, and both sides of the border became areas of conflict and raiding with long term consequences both aggravating and aggravated by the European famine of 1315-17 - these were grim years indeed.

As someone of, so far as I know, entirely English ancestry I can respect the Scots identity and the achievement of King Robert I and his supporters. The Scottish fact adds to the rich history and diversity of the United Kingdom. Both of the ancient kingdoms that became Great Britain in 1707 have had and continue to have much to offer each other in their union. So I can reflect historically on the events of 1314, respect the Scots achievement in the decades following, and remain firmly of the opinion that moderrn "independence" for Scotland would be a disaster. It is understandable, but regrettable, that the SNP administration in Edinburgh has managed to hold the referenduim this year - I think at one point they actually sought to hold it today - and to obscure the proper historical understanding of Bannockburn. Historical sentiment and political sentiment can be dangerous bedfellows.

There is an online account of the battle at Battle of Bannockburn, and the BBC today has an illustrated piece about it which can be viewed at Battle of Bannockburn: What was it all about?.

Their website also has an interesting piece entitled Oldest surviving' Bannockburn manuscript restored which is about a copy of 1478 at St John's College Cambridge of John Barbour's The Brus, originally probably written circa 1375.

Given the extensive loss of life at the battle one way to commemorate it would be to pray for the dead of that day and for all who fought there.

The Scottish Referendum

The referendum on Scottish Independence in September appears to be covered very spasmodically south of the border in the English media. We get aflurry of reports of speeches from each side, then the topic goes quiet for a few weeks. This is rather worrying to my mind - this is after all, about the very survival of the country of which we are all a part. 

I fear too many people in England are not interested, or do not bother to reflect upon the implications, or in some, blinkered cases, want to lose the Scots for their own political advantage.

A friend directed my attention to an article by Dominic Lawson in the Daily Mail, which is, I think, quite a good portrayal of the range of opinions in Scotland, of the choices facing voters there, and of the ways in which they are forming their decision. Those choices certainly are not always quite what one might expect in terms of consistencey, or in some cases rationality. The piece is certainly reflective of the Mail's house style, but nonetheless has many interesting insights as to the debate. The article can be read at Heard the one about the Englishman who walked into a Glasgow pub and delivered some home truths on independence?

This is a topic to which I strongly suspect I shall return in the coming months.