On leaving Europe to the wolves, England’s current prime minister – that chore has no relevance to Scotland’s ambitions and so forfeits the right to be classified as ‘UK prime minister’ – Theresa May said: “This is the first stage in the UK becoming a sovereign, independent country once again.” Now, there’s a familiar phrase.
The main problem with it is the obvious one, the UK is not a country.
The UK is a union of nations. If independence is such a freeing of constraints for England’s parliament, you wonder what threat they see in Scotland becoming a sovereign and independent country once again. No amount of rhetorical blather from May can alter the fact that she had no Plan A let alone a Plan B for dumping Europe.
The extreme ferocity and a deal of sadism visited upon Scotland’s legitimate wish to govern its own affairs, abuse from all sides of English intelligentsia, has a purpose.
What scares them?
It helps to understand the colonial mentality if you reverse the politics and, painful as it will be, see things from their point of view, that is, Scotland as England’s hinterland.
The exercise in colonial thinking offers a fascinating insight into their reasoning. It could be Theresa May writing a paper for Cabinet discussion, or her main address to the Tory conference, the draft penned by any of her trusted advisers and civil servants.
‘Those Pesky Scots’ – the speech
Popular movements are not good for a nation’s stability. The main enemy of our ambition is Scotland’s indigenous popular movement, people such as over-zealous independence supporters, habitual kilt wearers, SNP members, intellectuals, writers, university students, business companies, and non-Tory party affiliated landowners, all those who attempt to withhold or steal our resources that happen to be in their country. Hence, Scots in general are people who oppose our interests, people to be persuaded to our thinking.
Scotland has entered its second Enlightenment. This is very inconvenient as well as regressive. It destabilises our plans for expansion in all sorts of ways. Immediately to mind spring plans to capitalise on ditching the European Union, plans for our southern regions, putting at risk major projects such as renewing our Victorian sewers, rebuilding the House of Commons, implementing plans for a High Speed Train to the north, and indeed, plans for a Northern powerhouse, regeneration that need Scottish taxes and oil to subsidise it.
Our attempts, aided by our newspapers and media, to present Scotland’s reawakening of romantic ideals as the mischievous machinations of an eccentric minority, paints our legitimate reaction as unduly intolerant, plain fearful of the outcome. Nevertheless, as Scotland is part of the UK, and so part of us, we are forced to regard Scottish political assertiveness as internal aggression.
We cannot use force to keep people in check, as we did in the past with, say, Ireland, and our other colonies. We cannot kettle an entire territory. We must be subtle in how we isolate troublesome groups to constrain protest.
Scots, and migrants who identify with their goals, are stupidly concerned with vague and idealistic objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. We in England have those systems in place already, or at least enough to satisfy us we are free citizens. And as England is Scotland, and Scotland is England, indistinguishable one from another, Scots should be content too.
Scotland, even with its backwardness and stubbornness, finds it difficult to understand that its function is to complement the industrial and financial needs of the rest of the UK. Moreover, we cannot engage in new military adventures abroad if we have part of the United Kingdom setting its face hard against invasion or partition in nations that regard our territorial rights, or enforcing democracy, as against international law.
Scotland exists to serve the needs of the groups that dominate our societies and create our wealth, I mean banks and investment houses. The major danger posed by these indigenous enemies is that unless they are stopped in time, they may spread the virus of independence, freedom, and concern for human welfare infecting English regions.
We do not want our barrel of apples infected. That will threaten the stability of our Great British Plans. Consequently we are obliged to prevent the rot from spreading. The threat of rot and infection is a serious one, which requires serious measures. It is the defence of our highest values, our realm, our sceptred isle, in the classic English manner the world has come to know and respect.
To overcome these threats, we must resort to discipline and sanction. One considerable means at our disposal is the Barnett Formula whereby Scotland provides our Treasury with all it earns annually, and in return we give it an allowance. That can and should be reduced step by step, until the people squeal in pain, and realise they have no substantial means to sustain an economy. Standards will fall as will their appointed representatives that hoodwink their voters into believing their exists a heaven on earth, a ‘perfect’ society.
Another tool we have is the way we calculate Scotland’s income and expenditure, known as GERS – Government and Expenditure Scotland. We can use that to show Scotland has little or no income sufficient to support an independent outlook. There is nothing more potent than the fiscal argument. It serves to mould Scots and English attitudes.
Lastly, there is the exterior threat. It includes terrorists either working from abroad, or more potently, ‘within our midst’, migrants and refugees, in addition to European countries especially France and Germany, and also Russia, nation states intent on world domination.
Meanwhile, the threat of democratic politics can be met in the natural way. We must portray Scotland’s ambitions as replicating early post-war fascist ideals, goals built on false grievance, an inability to pool and share.
There is only one sensible answer to the Scottish question. We must invoke the rotten apple theory in all its forms as much as possible. What Scottish nationalists threaten will harm the potential success of our social and economic development, and possibly our deep and abiding friendship with our greatest ally, the United States.
The virus that may spread contagion is what we can call the “demonstration effect,” which can cause the rot to spread as others seek to emulate Scotland’s belligerence. Spain will have none of it. Spain agrees with us. Conformity has to be our goal if we are to grow and prosper. The UK as a country is sovereign and independent. We cannot have a region of the UK declare itself autonomous.
That threat to our well-being is as we describe. It is “the threat of a good example.”
I commend this policy to the conference.
(The term ‘threat of good example’ is an American term first used in the Fifties.)