[scotland and england] the new feudalism

Devolution continued …

Hence the constant scathing CFR and financier comments, e.g.:

July 1948 - Sir Harold Butler, in the CFR's "Foreign Affairs," sees "a New World Order" taking shape: "How far can the life of nations, which for centuries have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged with the life of other nations? How far are they prepared to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no effective economic or political union?"

Feb. 7, 1950 - International financier and CFR member James Warburg tells a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee: "We shall have world government whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent."

In Britain, the battle is raging, with the Eurosceptics firmly opposed to the government acquiescence to EU control whilst at the same time hell bent on fragmenting the nation and removing the last remaining obstacle to globalization and the new feudalism [which Euro-Serf’s pseudonym refers to]:

From the other side of the Atlantic:

Then the dropped penny: the feudal barons of today are the big corporations. There are clear parallels; primarily that the corporations, like the barons, control the majority of the economic activity of the country other than that involved with the bureaucracy/church. Wealth in the 13th century was generated from land, and that was controlled by the barons. Wealth in the present day is generated from capital and the control of physical and intellectual property - which is controlled by the corporations.

And yet we’re hell-bent on fragmenting with Britannia a fading and less than respectable memory to be cast aside in favour of some sort of regional brave new world.

First to the English view:

Today's Telegraph poll HERE on Scottish and English devolution [shows that] sixty eight per cent of English voters are now in favour of a Parliament for England. This is up from 41% only a few months ago. Fifty two per cent of Scottish voters want full independence and 59% of English voters want them to have it. As we build up to the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union there's going to be a lot more debate on this issue.

I find it odd - and very disappointing - that when David Cameron says he wants to make devolution work, he immediately rules out an English Parliament even before Ken Clarke's Democracy Task Force has reported. At least let us have the debate. I agree with Cameron that we don't want more bureaucracy, more politicians and more spending but an English Parliament would cause none of those to happen if it is planned and implemented correctly.

It comes to something when SNP leader Alex Salmond sums it up best... "In England, people quite rightly resent Scottish Labour MPs bossing them about on English domestic legislation. England has as much right to self government as Scotland does."

Another Scot, David Farrer, said this:

I noticed this post over on Serf's site: Why is it that Scottish & Welsh nationalists are Pro EU. How can it be better to be ruled from Brussels than from Westminster. If the Welsh and Scots feel that their voice is not heard in the UK how can it be heard in the EU with 7-8 times the population?

One commenter's explanation is this: The nationalist movements are statists and the EU represents statist nirvana. They're not looking for a voice, they're looking for a handout. I don't think that's it. The estimable James Higham writes: I think you answered your own question. Anything is better than being ruled from Westminster, according to them. Mr Higham is correct, but why?

Almost all Scots, nationalist or otherwise, get extremely upset about what I call The Presumption of the English Norm. For example, there are apparently several countries in which one can look up "British Embassy" in the local phone book (and in the local language) and find no entry. It's under "English Embassy", even when the language in question has a word for "British". I don't believe that our southern friends have any idea how annoying this kind of thing is, but imagine how they would feel if the rest of the world used the word "French" to mean "English".

Well then, why does this happen? I think that it's all to do with the language of Britain - the UK actually - being called "English" rather than "British". The UK is a very unusual country - one that is a multinational state. (Confusingly, the US is a multi-state nation.) But for many Scots this issue is all consuming, and more than anything else in politics they want to live in a "normal" country. It doesn't matter to them if it all leads to a federal superstate - or worse, a non-federal superstate - as long as Scotland has the same status as everywhere else.

David Farrer puts The Freedom and Whisky Constitutional Plan:

# Withdraw from the EU;

# Devolve all powers - except defence and foreign affairs - to the various national parliaments;

# Each parliament to be fiscally independent with contributions being made to the federal government in proportion to population;

# The federal government should be situated on the Isle of Man, which is not in any of the home countries but is equidistant from all four of them;

# The Irish Republic should be invited to unite with the North and rejoin the UK with Dublin taking its rightful place in the Anglosphere alongside Cardiff, Edinburgh and London.

As a northerner, familiar with Lindisfarne, Newcastle, Berwick etc., I realize it's not historically obvious but I see a continuum. I'm not explaining well. Here’s an example:

Once there were three people besides myself watching Rab C. Nesbitt somewhere in the North. A lady from Arbroath, not Glaswegian of course, understood virtually all of it. The Geordie understood much of it. The Londoner understood none of it. I understood about half of it, being a very strange person.

There is no clear distinction between Scotland and the North and both have suffered terribly at the hands of the Southerners [Culloden and Henry VIII]. Complete separation lumps Northerners in with one country when they often have more affinity further north. I don't like to see this mutual antagonism and feel caught in the middle.

Wikipedia also adds something to this:

A definite problem in defining the boundary between the North and South is the tendency of those living in the far South to include too much of the country in their definition of the North, while those from the far North invariably include too much of the country in their definition of the South.

In particular there is much confusion over the status of central parts of England, for example a county such as Derbyshire would almost certainly be considered Northern by a Londoner, while someone from Newcastle Upon Tyne may consider it Southern.

And:

A 'Cambridge Econometrics' report of March, 2006, found that economic growth above the UK average was occurring only in the South and South East of England, whilst Scotland and North East England showed the slowest growth.

What I’m suggesting is that once this process of devolution gathers pace, it won’t be too long before the North tries to break from the South, then Cornwall from England and so on. Advocates of the English Parliament see only the stateliness of Westminster and the economic advantages of getting the hangers on off their backs but they singularly fail to see that once this process begins, there’s little stopping it going the whole hog.

Then, step in the European government, itself a departmental division of the projected world government and the dream of Wilhelmsbad is on the way to being fulfilled. For that reason, if you must break up the UK, at least replace it with Britain. Ditto the USA.

This blog reminds one and all of Lincoln’s maxim about a house divided against itself. It shall not stand. This blog therefore stands firmly behind the integrity and indivisibility of Britain, of the United States of America and of Canada and may it never be torn asunder.