"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Tuesday, 27 April 2010

Food For Thought

Alex Salmond has said that, in the event of a hung UK Parliament, he will consider dropping the current ban on SNP MPs voting on England-only issues. It seems Nick Clegg isn't the only one relishing the thought of pulling the anti-democratic strings of "a balanced Parliament". Last October Salmond said:
“There’s a vast, overwhelming majority of people in Scotland, regardless of political preference, who rather like the idea of the Westminster parliament being hung by a Scottish rope."
However, the cavalry is racing towards us in their usual, last-minute dash: in an attempt to placate the English, the Conservatives have pledged to introduce a policy of “English votes for English laws” if they form the next UK government in an attempt to answer the West Lothian question. Last night they indicated that they would not countenance any formal arrangement with the SNP which would see Nationalist MPs voting on Enland-only matters.

The only satisfactory conclusion to this mess of devolution is for England to have her own Parliament but, as I've said before, all it will do is cement the break-up of the UK and deliver us, weakened, into the hands of the EU.  Mind you, I did have a thought (!) the other day prompted by Tris of Munguin's Republic.  Since it was the UK which signed up to the EU and the UK would no longer exist if Scotland was fully independent, wouldn't that mean that all existing treaties between the UK and the EU would be null and void?   How can you have treaties between two parties, one of whom no longer exists?  And how would the constitutional position of HM the Queen be affected?  Would she still be Head of State and Queen of Scotland?  There are so many constitutional anomalies to make it a political nightmare yet at the same time it seems an incredibly simple solution to the EU problem.  I must be missing something.


  1. I have had very similar thoughts.

  2. Well it does make you wonder, 13th, but if it was as simple as that, they wouldn't let us know anyway. And, if this is the case then why are the EU pushing for a devolution into 'nations and regions'? It needs a lawyer in European law and a constitutional expert to get the truth of it out to the people. You and I can only muse out loud :-)

  3. The Point about the Queen has been addressed in Scotland and many occasions.

    In Scotland the Queen holds in trust the sovereignty of the Scottish people which can be denied her as is seen fit. She is only invited to visit Holyrood and is allowed to be in the Debating Chamber. She is not allowed to wear the Scottish Royal Jewels but is allowed to touch them in a form of ceremonial significance. When she leave England and enters Scotland she ceases to be an Anglican and becomes a member of the Church of Scotland.

    Before the Union of 1707 it was already a case of 1 King or Queen and two different countries so there is also a precedent for that after the disunion.

    The Union was signed between 2 sovereign natio, Scotland and England (which included Wales and a conquered and ruled part of England) The later addition of Ireland was an incorporation and not a new sovereign addition of its own free will.

    If the Union is broken by Sc Scotland or England there cannot be a United Kingdom as the two founders have, essentially divorced.

    So the idea that Scotland would have to apply to Bruxelles to join the EU and that could be vetoed by England is fanciful and England could not be the sole inheritor of the assets, obligations and treaties of the former United Kingdom.

    So either both Scotland and England (with the attendant UK rump) would need to apply separately for EU membership or both would be given membership automatically as participant members in the original treaty.

    I have always said that the breaking of the Union could be the finest opportunity for the real voice of England ad the English to be heard but don't bet your house of this being acquiesced to by Cameron, Brown and Clegg who are working to a different agenda.

    By the way my opinion on the EU treaty obligations have also been supported Scottish Constitutional minds.

    The bounty of the Union would also have to be divided, probably of numerical grounds, between the two former parties so, give us 9/10ths of the British Museum, the B of E gold reserves the oil off The Falklands etc etc

    You can keep Trident and relocate it on the Thames beside Westminster.

    Greetings from Castle Comb!!!!!

  4. Actually, to think of it, Northern Ireland would 1/10th "belong" to Scotland and they would really need to have a vote of what they wanted to do after the disunion.


Related Posts with Thumbnails