Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower

Thursday, 15 November 2007

But will there always be a Britain?

WE ARE RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED that arrogant self-regarding ‘progressives’ in Australia seek to extinguish the kindly light of the Crown. Once it is out it will likely never be relit, and that will be a final end and a betrayal of what their ancestors loved, believed in, and died for. Kevin Rudd, we know, is more than happy to exploit the patriotism of ANZAC Day and its commemoration of those who fought for King and Country. His quietly nursed desire to abolish the Australian monarchy shows us that he has a pitiless contempt for it, too.

But I wonder if we have missed something else far more dangerous. There are many reasons to believe that within our lifetimes the monarchy will cease to bind sixteen nations together in brotherhood, and will reign over England merely, and nowhere else, including Scotland. The stress point of this falls far closer to home.

Simon Heffer – otherwise a professed Tory – writes in today's Telegraph that it is time, as it once was with the Empire, to let Scotland go. Not least, he writes, because it would be an "awesome opportunity for the Tories". Now, Heffer is known for his vein-bursting rants against the Cameron-project; and yet here he is recommending the most naked party-political opportunism at the mere cost of the death of our country. If Cameron had proposed this I think it fair to say that I would have heard Heffer’s head exploding all the way in Oxfordshire. In the very best hang-‘em/flog-‘em tradition of Heffer, then, may I recommend said columnist is, in fact, hanged for treason?

I sometimes wonder whether pundits like Heffer, or even just the average Englishman, lazily bitter at all the news of Scots enjoying English-funded welfare, realise quite what independence means. It wouldn’t just (pace Heffer) teach Scotland a lesson ("grown-ups must be allowed to make their own mistakes"). (And quite how pique is a coherent principle for the constitutional organisation of a country I don’t know).

It would delete the Union Flag from the face of the earth. All the UK overseas territories would be obliged to remove it from their flags, as well. And then Australia and New Zealand would likely follow suit and remove the obsolete portion from theirs. After this, how else would all these territories suffer? Would they be divided amongst the independent British nations, or given to their nearest neighbours, or made independent themselves? Shall we lose the Falklands, at last, because a Scottish politician wound us up? It would also delete the unicorn from the arms of our country, and Canada’s too, and from the mastheads of two dozen worldwide newspapers. It would delete the Royal Navy and its White Ensign; the British Army would be destroyed, not by Napoleon or Hitler, but by self-hating Britons; the RAF would need to be split up and renamed. Scotch republicanism (which fills the ranks of the SNP tremendously) would be given a very good chance of rendering Scotland kingless for the first time in its history. The BBC would cease to exist (small loss, there, I suppose). We would have no seat on the UN security council. Rule Britannia would be a historical curiosity. Balmoral would be sold for housing, its purple hills papered with prefab homes.

Once Scotland goes, the drive for Welsh independence – an even more seemingly preposterous idea – will surely only increase, as it has with devolution. (More powers were recently given to the Welsh Assembly, slowing giving it parity with the Scottish settlement already). Once they are out it is hard to conceive of just England and Northern Ireland remaining in partnership at this point, not least since the six counties have always been viewed by the modern English as a rather troublesome and nonsensical possession. There are also already legislative treaties drawing it into a stickier relationship with the southern Republic (signed by Thatcher, and not forgetting that Brown never once mentioned the province in his recent Union speeches). So independence would give half of Great Britain over to the unencumbered rule of the Continent. The Scotch and Welsh desire far more in the way of ever-closer-EUnion than England, and are eager to fasten their mouths to the EU sow. We would no longer be an island nation, but one landlocked on two sides by Celtic neighbours, altogether divided and conquered by Brussels.

Does Simon Heffer honestly want all that? If so, he selects a radical scoundrelism almost unparalleled in British history. He has bolder aims than Guy Fawkes, and grander dreams of ruination than any ancient leftist.

I tremble at the idea that I could live to see the end of Great Britain. It has rightly been pointed out that whilst Rome lost its Empire and soon after lost itself, Britain seemed to drop its and yet continue to prosper. But the drive for independence in the minds of the Heffers of this world suggests that there is a self-eating canker at the heart of the United Kingdom, and its work is not yet finished.

30 comments:

David Byers said...

Are the people who believe in the Union organised in Scotland? If not they really should think about doing so and have a group dedicated to promoting the benefits of the UNITED Kingdom.

Beaverbrook said...

This is a superb and superbly written post, (Sir Walter) Scott. Self-eating canker is bang on. Australia is a worry, of course, is always a worry, but you've hit on something that I've been thinking for some time now, which is that Scottish nationalism is a force to be reckoned with recently, and is every bit more dangerous than whatever ear wax Rudd can devour from the Australian people to better voice his republican ambitions.

That being said, there is reason to hope. I don't think there has ever been a moment when culturally speaking both main UK political parties were trying to "out British" the other. That moment has arrived, albeit with backs to the wall and red lines all over the sovereign map. Better late than never.

Neil Welton said...

According to the very latest research the greatest threat within the United Kingdom is from England. In Scotland just 23% of the population want independence. In Wales only 12% want independence. In England the figure is currently hovering at around 30%. Funny that. As our David Byers recently suggested the forefront of our collective fight must be Australia. The United Kingdom is safe for now.

David Byers said...

Thanks Neil, I believe not only can other loyal subjects from other Realms help each other but learn as well. Have a read of the sorts of "arguments" that come from the Australian Republican "Movement" and watch how they get repeated in Canada by their republican rabble. What I suppose I'm saying is know thy enemy.

Anonymous said...

HM could force Brown to hold an in or out of the eu referendum. As I understand it HM made a coronation oath to protect the country from foreign powers etc. Loyalty is a two way street. If the Queen wishes her United Kingdom to continue, she must get off the fence and force a referendum on the EU. If the scots and welsh wish to exchange the uk for the eu then so be it. England will not go in.

Neil Welton said...

I just feel it is important to remember that since devolution support for the Monarchy and for the United Kingdom has actually increased in Scotland and Wales. Meanwhile support for independence has only increased in England. It is also worth noting that support for The European Union is no stronger in Scotland and Wales, than it is in beloved England. Please let's have facts, not chestnuts.

Trying to whip up English independence (or is that old English green eye) is something The Conservative Party and the London based media will do for "most naked party political opportunism". Why are you surprised? Wouldn't you do it as part of a psychological strategy? For we have a Scot in Number Ten and, as we all know, lots of people in England like the idea of having a Prime Minister with a very strong Scottish or Welsh accent. The fact the PM is Labour has no bearing of course.

The view from Scotland and Wales is rather different. The people here get the impression that we can only have a United Kingdom if their is a distinctly English Prime Minister and if England is the master in the relationship. Not only that - England must not only be master but it "must be known" that England is master. Personally, I have no problem with England being my master. For my beliefs and values and slightly more in tune with England anyway. You know - not being told how to run my life by the Government, a few tax cuts here and there and, of course, selective education. I also feel a great affection for England - which helps.

However, being rather pragmatic (as opposed to being just an idiot) even I see that in the 1980s and 1990s a great deal of damage was done to the United Kingdom by policies that appeared to be inflicted on Wales and Scotland out of spite. Who can forget The Poll Tax being tested in Scotland first? Who can forget the closure of the coal mines and steel works in Wales? England viewed them as economically unsustainable. The people of Wales viewed them as something rather dear to their sense of community and identity. Perhaps now, you can all see the difference. Strangely enough the Government at the time did not have a problem with giving away millions of pounds of taxpayers money via support grants (or is that subsidies) to businesses and entrepreneurs that they liked. Cough! Funny that.

If the United Kingdom is to survive it will only do so if there are policies in place that represent the distinct values, ideas and beliefs of the people of Scotland and Wales - as well, of course, as the people of England. You cannot blame the people of Scotland or Wales for still strongly believing in the ideas of a society and community. This idea that society, as communicated through the state, is best placed to look after all those who are poor, disabled and thus more weaker than others. Equally, who can blame England for wanting tax cuts - for they see so little for their investment. These now be great political and ideological divides (and I'm not commenting or judging either way) but I thought I would throw it into the mix as "food for thought".

Toque said...

Why would overseas territories be obliged to remove it from their flags?

Countries like Australia and New Zealand might be more inclined to keep it if it becomes an historical artifact rather than the flag of the 'mother country'.

Beaverbrook said...

There is a perfectly reasonable outcome to the rising national sentiments of British nations. The end of Britain and of the British Monarchy is not one of them.

Neil Welton said...

Quite, it's called "forms of devolution". :-)

Anonymous said...

"Who can forget the closure of the coal mines and steel works in Wales? England viewed them as economically unsustainable."

I'd like to see you argue that point in Orgreave, or indded any of the Northern towns gutted by the closure of heavy industry during the 80s.

Don

Neil Welton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Neil Welton said...

Excellent point - and one that should not be forgotten by The Big T worshippers who oft frequent these pages but then conveniently forget her damage to the United Kingdom. Instead, let's all focus on The European Union bogeyman who sleeps under your bed and then tries to steal your nightdress. I prefer rounded pictures over square ones.

As a "lovely" Welshman (no kidding) you see, I can offer up an entirely different perspective. One that be a bit uncomfortable for T fans. Yet it must be said - or I be a complete hypocrite. You know, one who dismisses his forefathers and all that they did build and do for me. You know, all those stupid and backward things that Welsh people do, like provide the coal and steel that did help to build your Empire. Yet we did it, not under the yoke - but out of a great love for all that matters.

One sunny day, when you all come to Wales for tea, Welsh cakes and a fireside chat, I take you to a most beautiful hill side. There you will turn and see all the pretty graves of the miners who hung and did shoot themselves because they lost all that be dear to them. Aye, it be a pretty sight in the sunshine - especially when the widows and children visit to lay their flowers. Methinks the T not be hot in some ways. Funny that.

Now I say before and I say again - before I receive the ranting right-wing complaints. I do not hate T, yet I do not worship T. T did good things but T did some crazy things - and her demise, at Tory hands, prove it so.

Anyway, I have been prone to waffle. Don - England (in terms of its constituency seats and the number of seats won within England) did vote for The Big T. Wales and Scotland never did. Therein lies "the big difference".

Scott said...

I certainly don't believe Thatcher was perfect.

But I certainly do believe that the EU poses a threat to Britain far beyond anything Thatcher ever did wrong. After all, it now passes a majority of our laws. It is not a bogeyman: it is a vast and corrupt plutocracy, dedicated to the eradication of sovereignty, tradition, free trade, and liberal democracy. It hasn't passed its accounts in 13 years. It hasn't relented in seizing powers for 30. It only allows 2-minute speeches from MEPs in its so-called parliament. It wishes to establish a single foreign policy for all nations. It also wants - and is gradually getting - a single police force and single military. (It already has a single judiciary). It is about to create a permanent Presidency with absolute sovereignty over every European head of state (making us, in effect, a republic, and ending at last the long age of royalty in our land). Etc, etc. And yes, the Scots and the Welsh are far friendlier to the idea of EU absorption, not least as expressed in their votes in the EU and national elections. How many Eurosceptics did they elect...?

One must be cold-eyed about this, and not witter on in a weird faux-accent about hills full of dead suicidal miners (a bizarre exaggeration), as if that somehow discounts the serious and present danger facing all of Britain.

It was foolish to close the mines, not least because we are surely going to have to open them again in the next century. (What with all the oil troubles we're set to have, and already having). But they were run not just for an English Empire, but a Welsh one, and a Scottish one, and an Irish one. (As well as a Canadian, and Australian, and Kiwi, and Rohdesian and South African one). It was a British Empire. The Celtic nations, indeed, were marvellously over-represented in the ranks of the administrators and vanguards of the Empire.

You are far too prone to view the English as separate from yourself. They are not. We have been part of one kingdom and one country long before we joined with Scotland. There is no such country as Wales, just as there is no such country as Surrey. And of course Mrs Thatcher was elected in Wales, and in Scotland, and in Northern Ireland. Because this is a UNITED Kingdom. It is (or was) a single country. The regions make no difference (or didn't use to) to electoral legitimacy. Just as I cannot complain about a Labour government's impact upon my home area - solidly Tory for several centuries - because my county is part of the rest country, neither can you.

But of course you did. So of course you got devolution. And after that, you shall have independence. And rack and ruin shall be upon the face of Britain; and all that once was Great will be made small; and all that was permanent, ended, and binned, and burned, in the mighty names of Progress and Democracy.

Whoopee.

Neil Welton said...

Something I said. :-)

Scott said...

;-)

Death Bredon said...

Holy Writ assures me there will not always be a Britian, however close my green and pleasant mother land may be to Paradise.

Still, I shudder that to think the EU (the secular, bureaucratic "Fourth Reich") is on the brink of Ruling Brittania without so much as a shot fired.

Home-front concerns of the UK, though real, are the least of the threats to Britian's integrity. First, expel the Duetche Mark, then get the House in order.

Neil Welton said...

Oh, Scott, you be a one. Don't you start your winking at me again. You know you be proper English and, as the rightful Lord and Master of all Welsh folks, I will go to pieces. :-)

You and I actually disagree less than you think. When I said The European Union be a bogeyman - I meant it in the context of this little "chit chat". I still believe the greatest threat to the United Kingdom be from England and its seeming inability to accept that Wales and Scotland be different - be motivated by different values and ideas like community, society and the protection of the weak. How can I now put this? Some unkind person might say the Scottish and Welsh be "warm hearted" - whereas the people of England oft seem so "cold eyed".

I say this not in malice or spite but as a sort of warning to you - because this Principality and this dear Kingdom means so much to me. It be difficult to put into words. For the existence of a Prince just means so much. Yet, on this side of the border, not everyone be as gentle hearted as me. What do you mean you hadn't noticed? There be people here who like to cause mischiefs and stir up resentments. They will use devolution to be provocative towards England and to make Mother hate us all the more - thus they get their independence via another route. Clever see, ain't it? It be called "a mind game". Whatever you do, do not "bite" as some English folks appear to have. However, the people of England do not make it easy for Welsh people. For there be this perception that England like nothing more than to be cruel on purpose. For there be more to life than balance sheets and bank statements. It is something special - it be called human compassion and love. Now, let me give you a classic example of some English masochism.

First, England helps to close all our industries and thus makes rather a lot of people unemployed. England then moans that lots of people in Wales be unemployed and therefore we are all nothing more than layabouts and cheating benefit scroungers. Next, Wales has free NHS prescriptions as a sort of treat for being such very good children when that nasty headmistress was in charge. (Now remember, I pass not judgement on the T when I say she be "a nasty headmistress". I say it to arouse a good chuckle - that's all. For when "the wicked witch of the west" come to powers I only be in my little short trousers and school cap.) Yet some unkind people in England still complain that it is they who be paying for this NHS treat and the sooner England leaves the United Kingdom the better - because life will be cheaper (if not poorer) for England. Not only that but when Wales has its little treat, some in England say it is all part of a plot by The European Union to destroy the Kingdom and to turn us into Communists. People in Wales just sigh - "I think we be losing the will to live." You have to admit, if nothing else, that the people of England have a wonderful sense of humour. After all, if they want free NHS prescriptions all they have to do is vote Conservative - I'm sure they will give them to you. :-)

I must also admit that I paused for a moment when you said - "There is no such country as Wales, just as there is no such country as Surrey." Go on, read it again. Rather quaint, isn't it? Sadly, lots of people in Wales don't think it be too quaint. That's why after T they voted for devolution - to have a say, a voice and not to be told to "know thy place" anymore. I did not support devolution. However, I have always believed that MPs at Westminster should work for a living and perhaps have policies that be crafted for Scotland, Wales and England as the individual constituent parts. That way we get along better - like brothers in one family unit.

Oh, by the way, what I said about the miners being buried together on the hillside - that be true. It is a place, it does exist and I can take you there. They be buried together because, in those days, the church not be struck on suicide and so they be cast aside - as it were. Yet, as they all lay there in the valley, you can't help but feel that God does love them and holds them close. Perhaps they be closer to God than those who think they be close to God. Funny that, don't you think?

One day I shall take you there. However, I note you be from the south east of England. Therefore, don't forget to bring your duffel coat, your knitted scarf and those mittens that your dear old Nanny did send to you last Christmas. For it be windy on the hillsides and you might catch a chill. See how Welsh people be naturally caring about you. How they look out for your well being, health and concern. No doubt, as a true Englishman, all you be interested in is the cost of my tea and Welsh cakes and whether you be funding them via your taxes. :-)

Scott said...

Er, sorry, no offence - but I couldn't read more than a paragraph of that style.

I got as far as understanding that you believe the culture and society of England is naturally hostile to community and compassion, whereas in Wales and Scotland this is quite the reverse. That in England, further, money is far more important; and again, in Scotland and Wales, this is the reverse.

I'm afraid that's all total nonsense. The difference *is* philosophical, if it exists at all (and let us just assume it does, for voting records certainly suggest it, though I don't believe it is universally so). But it is not about compassion and community. It is about whether the state, or the individual is preferable morally and logistically for providing this compassion and building this community.

The English generally say: it is the individual who, for morality and logisticality and reality's sake, must be the instrument of compassion and community. All will only truly get along, if all have to make an attempt to get along. Compassion and community will only be real if it is built and run by the people. It is none of the government's business. They could only produce an inefficient or amoral simulacrum. (This is v. similar to American beliefs).

The Celts tend, on the other hand, to say: it is the state that must run our compassion and community on our behalf. We must have vast and distant and confiscatory bureaucracies to create and ensure our compassion and community. Further, it must be provided from the pockets of the English. Fair enough, isn't it? Boyo! Etc.

This is very broad. I certainly think the Scots aren't half so socialist as the Welsh, at least not historically. But it is certainly how the situation lies, re: compassion and community. I know full well, whether you admit it or not, that you will recognise what I say to be true. You have already talked in the past of the state in just such terms.

Neil Welton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Neil Welton said...

Excellent, Scott. Good to see you don't disappoint in terms of the definition of "a true Englishman" - that I give above. :-)

You have finally got my point. There be real differences between England and Scotland and Wales. If these differences be not resolved the United Kingdom will break up. Therefore these differences be a greater threat to the United Kingdom than The European Union.

However, you make two large mistakes - most probably because you were unable to read what I wrote (ones tongue being completely in ones cheek of course!).

Mistake One. You fail to address how the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom will access education and health care if the Government and therefore the taxpayer is not involved. In all my years I have yet to hear a satisfactory response to this conundrum.

Mistake Two. You said: "I got as far as understanding that you believe the culture and society of England is naturally hostile to community and compassion." No! These be "perceptions" in Wales and Scotland. As I made very clear these are not my own personal views.

Scott said...

Please write normal English!

1) There aren't really massive differences between the countries. After all, we must remember that Scotland and Wales combined = 5 million. Which is less than the South-East of England. Almost half as many people, in fact. There are 8 million people in my region. And tens of millions in the adjacent ones. It's hard to find absolute differences between 5 million and all of 55 million English. You will likely find far more than 5 million English people which completely agree with you.

2) Without the taxpayer and the government, the subject will access education and health in rather the same ways he did before the taxpayer and government had anything to do with either. It is peculiar that you ask such a question, and have never received an answer - and yet never bothered to look back to the time of church and charity-run schools, or pre-NHS healthcare, in which churches and charities ran hospitals, and doctors saw and treated the poor for free, and the rich for a fee. And before you start wondering whether that could ever supply enough for a modern population, bear in mind that more hospitals were opened in the last year pre-NHS than have been opened in every year since.

Also: there is more to community and society than hospitals and schools. At least, in England we believe there is.

Neil Welton said...

Every time you post you make me have a little chuckle. Methinks you not be in on the private "Welshie" joke. Yet from the general tone of your replies I sort of feel that you are.

1. There aren't really "massive differences between the countries". What! Wales is a country today, is it? No, there is not really a massive difference between the countries. However, there is a "perception" that there be a big difference. I was just trying to highlight these perceptions. For they pose a danger that will not be tackled by hoping it will go away, just ignoring them or believing The Conservative Party will save the day. For devolution has already occured and it will not be going away under any future Government - even I know that.

2. I have looked "back to the time of church and charity-run schools, or pre-NHS healthcare, in which churches and charities ran hospitals, and doctors saw and treated the poor for free, and the rich for a fee". When I looked I drew different conclusions from yours. I saw why the state, in some role, had to get involved - especially in the slums of Scotland and my dear Wales.

3. Yes, "there is more to community and society than hospitals and schools". However, these be the solid foundations of a society. Without them - and access to them - your caring, compassionate society be finished.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure why we are discussing this - again. I think we better agree to disagree - again. After all, even David Cameron has accepted that his party was wrong and has pledged to support the NHS and education through continuing high levels of public expenditure - for at least five years anyway. However, here be a question that oft baffles me and gets me scratching my head - why on Earth would the people of Wales and Scotland rather turn to The European Union to have their concerns and ideas taken seriously? :-)

Scott said...

Because they see - quite rightly - that the EU is an even more unaccountable, sclerotic, corrupt and redistributive bureacracy, from which accordingly even more money can be sucked with even less strings attached.

Anyway. Just to tidy a few things up before we stop.

1) I don't expect the Conservatives to ride in on any steed and do any day saving. But also, you should know that no future British government is ever bound by the actions of any previous British government. So devolution is not inevitably permanent. Just as the Union obviously may not be (though, in many ways it is far more permanent and binding). I believe a federal system will have to be the ultimate solution.

2) State power saved the "the slums of Scotland and my dear Wales", did it? Would that be why today "the poorest men in Glasgow have a life expectancy of 54, lower than the average in India"? (http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/62200/) And would that be why state power so benevolently handled your miners?

You're right that it is far harder to convert modern Britain - unfriendly, dislocated, suspicious, fractured, etc - to a small-state country, than it was to convert the charitable, sociable, unfied country of 50 years ago into a big-state country. There has to be a culture of altruism and charity (which there still is in many ways), and a culture of effort, individual care and concern, etc (which there often isn't any more). State power is a kind of charity-auto-pilot. In the end it does no one any good.

Neil Welton said...

Methinks you and I personify some of the perceived differences between England and Wales. Good news for me. Research shows that England is now the one with the problem with around 30% wanting indepedence. Mind you, that does mean around 70% don't want independence. Thank God there be a Queen who, despite all our differences, keeps England on the straight and unites us all as one.

Good talking, Scottie.

Keep posting - you haven't done much lately.

Anonymous said...

"And of course Mrs Thatcher was elected in Wales, and in Scotland, and in Northern Ireland."

Not quite. NI certainly didn't vote for her as the Conservatives didn't stand there. None of the mainland British parties did. Sorry to be pedantic...

Don

Neil Welton said...

Quite.

Northern Ireland has had a troubled past.

Let's not add to their woes by blaming them for T. :-)

Anyway, here be something very interesting - the votes for The Big T and The Little M in Wales and Scotland.

1983 - http://www.election.demon.co.uk/ge1983.html

1987 - http://www.election.demon.co.uk/ge1987.html

1992 - http://www.election.demon.co.uk/ge1992.html

Perhaps you understand now why Wales and Scotland think as they do - especially about Union with England.

Rather than blame us two - why not look in the mirror?

Scott said...

I wasn't blaming Wales and Scotland. You are far, far too testy about that. Oddly so. Guilty conscience?

My entire post was about short-sighted people in my country like "Heffer, or even just the average Englishman, lazily bitter at all the news of Scots enjoying English-funded welfare".

The whole thrust was that Wales and Scotland will only become independent if we allow ourselves, foolishly and apathetically, to let them, or if we grumpily push them out.

Neil Welton said...

Misunderstanding. I thought you had long gone. I be replying to Don and then posing "mirror" question to readers in England.

Neil Welton said...

Before we all dissipate just wanted to add how much I enjoyed our little "chit chat". A lot of what I write is "tongue in cheek" and, to be honest, I be having a good old chuckle here when I be typing anyway. I especially like the line - "No doubt, as a true Englishman, all you be interested in is the cost of my tea and Welsh cakes and whether you be funding them via your taxes." Yet I be shocked. No Englishman blog here to tell me I be inaccurate. :-)

I would also like to thank those who have e-mailed me privately - especially my friend in Germany and those who have ranted and raved, as per usual, about what I say about the T. For I only serve to demonstrate how important Monarchy is. For how ever badly Wales be treated - we still go trance like, bend our backbones and make a huge fuss when we see "a real Prince". See the great power England has and how it be used most masterfully over the Welsh. :-) However, above all else, you must also remember that the T is rather good for business in Wales and Scotland. She make excellent box office for the monarchist cause. Just consider this.

One day in The Glorious Republic of the United Kingdom, the besotted people of England vote overwhemingly to have the T back "one more time" as President. Something to do with her way with words and her dainty little ankles. Anyway, a few months later the people of Wales organise 'A Celebration Of Welsh Mining'. Now, who do we invite to oversee The March Past of The Valleys? The T or one of her children. :-)

Neil Welton said...

Hey, Scottie - I'd e-mail you if I had your e-mail address but I think I've mixed you up with somebody else called Kippers.

Sorry.

http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2007/06/men-and-principles-part-one.html