21 Reasons why England should Care about Scotland Separating

Alistair McConnachie, Orange Street, London, 4 June 2014. Photo Copyright of Alistair McConnachie

Bookmark and Share

The following speech was delivered by Alistair McConnachie at the London Swinton Circle (Chairman, Allan Robertson), at 7pm on Wednesday 4 June 2014, in the downstairs meeting room at Orange Street Congregational Church, Orange Street, London, WC2.

Alistair would like to thank his supporters who alone make it financially possible for him to devote his full time to researching, writing and delivering this material. If you appreciate this content and if you would like to assist this work, please donate to Alistair via this page.

Posted on this site on 8 June 2014.

You can click on any of the topic headings below to jump to the appropriate part of the text.

Labour: No Moral or Intellectual Philosophy of British Union
Why there has Not Been any Guiding Philosophy of British Union
Labour Adopts Nationalist Frame of Union as "English Imperialist Construction"
How Unionists Look at the Relationship
Separatists Attacking an Undefended Position

What a Proper Understanding of the Union Would Do
Referendum is about Secession not Dissolution
What Remains after Separation would be Damaged Goods

Economic Consequences
Defence Consequences
Internal Political Consequences
International Consequences
Social Consequences

Believing In Britain: A Benefit of the Referendum Debate

In the first part of my talk, I want to explain why the Labour Party in 1997 set the UK off down the road of asymmetrical devolution, or unbalanced devolution – a process which has led to some people in England perhaps wondering if England would be better off without Scotland.

The second part of my talk will explain why England would not be better off without Scotland – indeed, would be much disadvantaged.

Before I begin, let me say, that when I speak here about the Labour Party or other parties, I'm speaking about the leadership of those parties. I am not speaking about those who vote for it, nor am I speaking about all the politicians in those parties. I am generalising about the leadership in order to make my point.

Let me also say that when I speak about "Britain", I am using the word as shorthand for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

When Tony Blair was elected in 1 May 1997 he quickly, on 11th September that year, held a referendum in Scotland on devolution.

When Labour arrived in government in 1997 it had no moral or intellectual philosophy of British Union, and as a result, it did not properly understand Britain as a Nation.

It had no understanding of either at a deep level.

Consequently, it had no fundamental principles based upon British Union and Britain the Nation, upon which it could judge policies in accord with such principles, and upon which it could build policies.

At the end of the day, it just made things up as it went along.

With Labour devoid of any kind of guiding philosophy, the Scottish nationalists were able, and have been able since, to dominate the debate and to run rings around the pro-Union parties.

Westminster, 5 June 2014. Photograph Copyright of Alistair McConnachie

There are at least 4 reasons for this dearth of moral and intellectual pro-British Union and pro-Britain philosophy:

1. Until the late 1990s, very few of us had a philosophy of unionism. Many of us, politicians of all parties included, didn't go around calling ourselves "unionists". Britain was just a fact of life – or so it seemed.

We were like Americans today, who don't go around calling themselves "unionists" because they believe in the union of the 50 states.

For them, America is simply a fact. A fact which they are happy with. The belief in it staying together doesn't need a name. It shouldn't even need a name!

2. The phrase "unionist" or "unionism" was, until the late 1990s really only associated with the belief that Northern Ireland should stay part of the UK. Even the phrase "unionist" in the name "Conservative and Unionist Party" had originally referred to the union with Northern Ireland, not the Scotland/England union which was simply…a given; a fact of life; something that would always be with us. Or so it seemed.

Some of the Labour Party leadership was hostile to the union with Northern Ireland and so they certainly did not go around describing themselves as "unionists".

3. For some in the Labour Party leadership, Britain the Nation, to the extent that they thought about it at all, was something with which they were not particularly comfortable.

For some on the left, Britain was seen as a kind of "imperialist" construction whose history some of them chose to interpret in a cynical or negative manner and whose institutions they would deride. Among those people there was no ability, nor desire to articulate a defence of "Britain, the Nation".

And so the cause of Britain went by the wayside.

There was a void where pro-Britain moral and intellectual philosophy should have been.

Here is another important point to note.

4. Until very recently, the people who thought most about the Union and who thought most about Britain the Nation, were the people who wanted to break it – the Scottish Separatists and the Irish Republicans.

These people had, and have, developed a philosophy of anti-British-Union which is based upon the idea of the Union as an English imperialist construction.

The nationalist philosophy is to conceive of the Union as a form of English "imperialism" which must give way to Scottish "independence"; of a Scotland "controlled" by an "English Parliament", from which it is seeking to "break free".

That is the frame through which Scottish nationalists view things.

So, when it came to power in 1997, the Labour party – devoid of a moral and intellectual framework of unionism of its own – simply adopted the only framework going, which was the nationalist one.

This meant that the Labour Party – seeing the matter as an "English imperialist Parliament" holding back Scotland – reasoned from that misconceived premise that the only possible way to address the question of Scottish nationalism, while trying to maintain the "union" relationship, was simply for this "English imperialist parliament" to cede powers to Scotland to try to make Scotland a little more content with its lot.

There was no more thought given to it than that.

There was no understanding that the relationship was more complex.

There was no understanding that this would be a form of unbalanced devolution which would upset the Union relationship, while being unfair to England.

To a large extent we are still stuck in that false Scottish separatist way of thinking about things.

Constantly giving more powers to Scotland is the only political approach possible within that dominant Scottish nationalist framework.

As I say, Labour adopted this nationalist frame of the Union as an English imperialist construction which had to gradually give way to Scottish independence, because it was utterly devoid of a unionist frame of its own.

Yet, this is completely the wrong way of looking at it from a unionist perspective.

From a unionist perspective, such a frame leads, inevitably, to unbalanced devolution, and a constitutional arrangement which does nothing but confound the integrity of the Union.

Victoria Street, 5 June 2014. Photograph Copyright of Alistair McConnachie

Photograph: Westminster Abbey, iconic Red Telephone Box, iconic new Red Routemaster Bus, Black Taxi, Houses of Parliament flying Union Jack, Victoria Street, 5 June 2014. Photograph Copyright of Alistair McConnachie.

The correct way for Unionists to view the Union relationship, and to build policy upon, is to see Scotland as having created the Union and built up the very idea of Britain the Nation in the first place – along with its Union partners.

We see Scotland as a hugely important player within the United Kingdom.

We understand that the UK depends upon Scotland, hinges upon Scotland, would be destroyed without Scotland, and that consequently Scotland has a massive responsibility to play its part within the Union and to secure, strengthen and promote Britain as a Great nation in the world.

Policy built within that philosophical framework – of Scotland as an active contributor to, rather than a passive victim of – will ensure that any devolution is fair to everybody, and does not weaken the overall integrity of the Union.

It has to have that effect because Scotland will be approaching the matter of Britain in a spirit of giving to, in a spirit of working for, in a spirit of contributing value to, rather than in an attitude of trying to get.

Ask not what Britain is doing for you. Ask what you are doing for Britain – is the approach we understand and come from.

So really, back in 1997 and until very recently, the Scottish separatists were attacking an undefended position as far as the Labour Party was concerned.

They were dealing with a government which had no fundamentally strong belief in Britain as a Nation; neither had it a coherent moral and intellectual philosophy of pro-British Union.

Labour was not able, or willing, to respond effectively by promoting a pro-British Union attitude back at them.

To the extent that it tried to confront Scottish nationalism, it could only do so from the ideologically weak position that quote/unquote "nationalism" is "a bad thing, per se" – which is no more than an endlessly debatable point of view – rather than from a position rooted genuinely in an appreciation of the value of Britain's social, cultural, and political Life…past, present and future.

That is, from a position which understands Britain as a Living Organism which has an intrinsic value, a useful identity, and an eternal purpose.

So when Tony Blair was elected in 1997, the Scottish Nationalists were pushing at an open door.

Labour had made itself, essentially, intellectually and culturally defenceless in the face of such a Scottish nationalist approach.

It was a government which was unable to meet and counter Scottish nationalism effectively with a pro-British political philosophy and cultural attitude of its own.

It just made things up as it went along – reacting to, and allowing itself to be dominated by, the Scottish nationalists – who did have a philosophy of anti-British Union.

And we know that was the case because we only have to look at what it did.

Labour introduced a system of devolution into the UK without actually bothering to ask all the people of the UK whether they wanted their country to be changed in this fundamental way.

Sure, the people in Scotland had a referendum, but all of Britain did not consciously vote for the situation it is now in.

The only sense in which you could say that all Britain, as an entirety, voted on the matter of Scottish devolution is because it was written into the small print of the Labour Party manifesto at the time.

Since it won the General Election then the British electorate could be said, in a way, to have "voted for it" – but that is the only way…and it is an unsatisfying one.

Unfortunately it is a trick which will be repeated again when the main parties write their plans for yet more Scottish devolution into their manifestos for the 2015 General Election – and which will be voted for by the electorate in England and Wales, unwittingly!

Red Telephone Box in Victoria Street, 5 June 2014. Photograph Copyright of Alistair McConnachie

Photograph: The Red Telephone Boxes in the UK and in London were built mostly by the Lion Foundry in Kirkintilloch, as was this one in Victoria Street - which can also be seen in the pic above. The Carron Company from Falkirk also built them (we spotted one on the Embankment) as well as building most of the Post Boxes. The new "hybrid" Red Routemaster buses are made in Northern Ireland. Photograph Copyright of Alistair McConnachie.

A proper understanding is concerned to maintain the logic, and the morality (being fair to everyone) – and thereby the overall integrity, of the British Union.

A proper understanding will:

1. Understand that within a Union, you cannot expect to devolve power to one part of it without leaving the entire structure compromised and imbalanced.

2. Understand that you cannot devolve power in that way without appearing unfair or upsetting people in another part of the Union.

3. Understand that you must not react to separatism by trying to appease it – because you will thereby allow it to dominate debate, and thereby allow it to constantly set the agenda.

4. Understand that regardless of how much political meat is thrown at the insatiable tiger of separatism, it will never be satisfied.

5. Understand that when you try to appease separatism you only succeed in empowering and entrenching it as the dominant force in Scottish politics.

6. Understand that once you have entrenched your opposition in this way, it will be very difficult for you to ever beat it.

Indeed, history tells us that once a nationalist party becomes entrenched as the dominant force in a country, then it is very difficult to remove – because its nature is that it can appear to be all things to all men.

It becomes "the True Church" of the nation, against which all comers must be measured and be judged.

For example, the Indian National Congress took India to independence and only recently lost an election. The African National Congress in South Africa is not going away any time soon.

The Labour Party in Scotland ought to wake up to this reality of political life!

However, Labour did not – and possibly is only now beginning to – understand any of this. It just made things up as it went along.

It wasn't until Gordon Brown came along that we had the first senior Labour politician who started to think about the role of Britain the Nation; that we had some in the Labour Party begin to develop a philosophy of what we might term "British unionism" from a Labour perspective.

So, we are in this position because our political class (especially the Labour party) has had little grasp of Britain as a Nation, and little grasp of the moral or intellectual foundation of the Union.

And so we arrive at today, where some people in England might look on Scotland and wonder if perhaps England would be better off without Scotland.

And that's what I want to address now, in the second part of my talk.

I am going to use the phrase "the rest of the UK" meaning that part which would be left if Scotland separated.

It is an absolute fact that it is this "rest of the UK" which would inherit all the present UK's international treaties.

Scottish Nationalists disagree. They argue that since the original Treaty of Union was a Treaty between two sovereign states, then the break-up of that Treaty means we are back to having two entirely new sovereign states which will each need to split their contracts and assets equitably and renegotiate their treaties with the rest of the world – for example, with the EU or NATO.

They are right about the original Treaty of Union being a Treaty between two sovereign states, but they are entirely wrong in imagining that its break-up today would annul the idea of the UK now.

This is because the UK is not voting to dissolve itself.

Scotland is the only part of the UK getting a vote on this matter.

The fact that only people in Scotland are getting a vote means that legally speaking, in this democratic age, it is about Scotland's secession from the UK. It is not about dissolution of the UK, because the rest of the UK is not getting a vote!

Therefore, it is the rest of the UK – that bit which is not getting a vote – the bit which is left, which would be the "continuing state" which would retain all the international treaties.

If Scotland wants any of the contracts and assets presently belonging collectively to all the people of the UK, then this would have to be subject to negotiation between Westminster and Holyrood and, ultimately subject to the agreement of the people, expressed through the two parliaments.

As for the international treaties – these will all have to be negotiated by Scotland from the start again.

However, while the rest of the UK – which would be largely England – would inherit the bulk of the contracts, assets and treaties of the present UK, it would not necessarily be able to enjoy the reality of them.

This is because, for what remained of the UK, the ability to exercise power outwards in the real world - would be much harder.

England, per se, has only been a great nation in the last 307 years because (like Scotland) it has been part of the UK. If Scotland is no longer involved, then England is going to be much compromised.

We are like conjoined twins. It is very difficult to separate us without threatening the lives of us both.

I suggest that this is something that some English Nationalists may not have understood. It is certainly something which escapes the minds of Scottish Nationalists.

England's greatness, like Scotland's greatness, is utterly dependent upon being together with each other in a United Kingdom.

Now some people may say, "No, the UK is over. England needs to speed ahead on its own."

Perhaps they imagine that Scotland is a heavy load sitting in the bowels of the Good Ship England. If they throw this heavy load overboard then they think they will be casting off this weight and allowing the Good Ship England to steam full speed ahead.

That's not how it would work. The reality is that they would be throwing a heavy anchor overboard which will keep the Good Ship England hung up on the rocks…for various reasons which I shall now cover.

Let me break these down into various Headings of Consequence.

Let's begin with some basic stuff.


1. England would Lose the Benefit of the Present UK Single Market
As would Scotland, of course, but I'm concentrating on England specifically here.

Independence would disrupt the UK single market leading to price rises, higher costs of regulation and compliance, and market uncertainty – all of which would impact upon England's economic recovery.

Some people might say, "Oh well, we will still have the EU single market which will apply between Scotland and England."

However, that is not as effective a relationship as the UK single market because a single market within the same country is always more harmonious and effective than a single market between countries.

2. England would Face a Loss of Investment
There would be uncertainly over the future of what was left of the UK – for example, the future direction of Northern Ireland and Wales. All this would make the remainder of the UK a less attractive place to do business.

3. England would be Less Energy Independent
Depending upon how the North Sea oil was divided up, England could become considerably more energy dependent, and far less energy independent, while the costs of energy would rise.


4. England would be Vulnerable Strategically
If we think in terms of England alone, then Scotland is crucial to England's defence, protecting as it does its northern perimeter. Yet separation would see England lose several important bases which would become under the control of what would be a foreign power.

Nor could England ever be sure that Scotland would not ally against England's enemy, just like it did in the past. For example, say England somehow went to war with a foreign country, but Scotland chose to remain neutral or even sympathetic? Think of the Republic of Ireland in WW2.

Anti-terrorism: Is England going to be safer when MI5 and MI6 are no longer responsible for security in Scotland?

5. England would Face a Huge Cost to Maintain Trident
There is nowhere else in the UK where the Trident submarines can be based other than at Faslane on the Clyde. If a deal were to be struck and Trident were somehow allowed to remain in Scotland, it would be at a very high price to England – possibly granted only on the basis of England being required to absorb Scotland's share of the UK national debt.

6. England might end up Losing Trident
If no agreement were reached, then Trident would have to be cancelled. It would remove any pretensions some people might have about England on its own being any kind of world power. Indeed, Scotland leaving the UK would have a huge impact upon the balance of power in the world.

In short, if Scotland separated, the future of Trident is all Lose-Lose for England.

Here is the thing: What is left of the UK, and the British World internationally, would rapidly unravel.

So this is not just about Scotland separating. It is about Britain being destroyed.

7. Separation would Stir up the Irish Question Again
The example of a breakaway Scotland would stir up the whole united Ireland question.

When the Republic of Ireland left the UK in 1922 it signalled the end of the British Empire. People world-wide began to think that if the Mother Country couldn't even hold together, then what hope was there for the Empire? 1

Similarly with the UK today.

They would note that if Scotland and England can't hold it together then how can Northern Ireland and England. They would see the weakness of the Union as their opportunity, with all the trouble that might bring!

8. Separation would Risk a Return of IRA Violence to England
There have already been signs of this, earlier this year. 2

9. Wales would pull away from England
With the weakening of England on the world stage, Wales could start to back away.

England could find, in time, that its entire border – not just its northern border – was surrounded by "foreign" countries. It would be unable to protect itself properly.

It could be left on its own, back where it was before the Union.

10. Separation would Encourage English Regionalism
Cornwall might try to break away. Who knows where it could go from there?

There is a danger that England would be reduced to a squabbling mass. The big winner would be the EU and its regionalisation agenda. Along with this would go the rise of the Franco-German strategic axis at the expense of England.

The regionalisation of England, like the break-up of the Union, could prevent England being able to harness the sufficient critical political mass necessary to take effective action on the World and European stage – and even within England itself.

Some people see English regionalisation as a way of countering the economic power of London. It is doubtful that it would work that way.

[A better way to counter the power of London, suggested by an audience member after the speech, is for Westminster to give particular regions of the UK a Corporation tax and National Insurance tax holiday – and "see how business responds". This is far preferable to the unworkable devolution of income tax, which will only introduce tension into the UK – because people with assets will move their capital elsewhere as soon as the income tax is raised or lowered in any one area. Devolution of income tax also confounds the Labour ideal of the United Kingdom as a tax-redistributive relationship.]

11. A Border with Scotland might be Necessary
If Scotland adopts an open door immigration policy – as the SNP appears to want – while England tries to tighten up, then a physical border would be essential.

12. The Monarchy would be Imperilled
The Monarchy has substantial support in Scotland. However, in the event of a Yes vote, what we can say is that the republicans will feel empowered and would start to make a big thing about the matter.

There could be a referendum on it, which the monarchists might win – but at what further cost to social cohesion? If there were a No to the Monarchy then its position in England would be hugely weakened.

The Flags of the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies in Parliament Square, 5 June 2014. Photograph Copyright of Alistair McConnachie

Photograph: The Flags of the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies in Parliament Square, 5 June 2014. From left to right: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Turks and Caicos Islands, Virgin Islands, Alderney Bailiwick of Guernsey, Guernsey Bailiwick of Guernsey, Sark Bailiwick of Guernsey, Isle of Man, Bailiwick of Jersey. Photograph Copyright of Alistair McConnachie.


13. The Remainder of the UK, largely England, would be Internationally Humiliated
There will be a considerable emotional reaction world-wide.

The Argentineans would have a field day. If the UK can't hold it together, they would say, then why should what's left of it hold onto the Falklands? The Iranians would be laughing. The Russians would be pleased.

14. Loss of Prestige at the World Table
A rump UK could possibly lose its permanent UN Security Council seat, and its place at the WTO and the G8, the IMF, the World Bank...

15. The British Overseas Territories would pull Away
Without a United Kingdom as we have known it, the British Overseas Territories would start to question their place within the British World Sphere. The Falklands would be vulnerable to Argentina, as would British Antarctica and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Gibraltar would be vulnerable to Spain.

16. The Crown Commonwealth could Reject the Monarchy
Countries of the Crown Commonwealth would start to question the Monarchy, and the republicans in their ranks would feel emboldened to campaign against it.

17. The Commonwealth might Break Up
In short time, without a viable UK at its centre, the rest of the Commonwealth would have no reason to stay together and would start to dissolve.

As a consequence of that, England's reach in the world, diplomatically, economically, politically, militarily, culturally, which it presently enjoys only through participation in the United Kingdom, would be much compromised and reduced.

18. The EU would be Empowered against England
There would be one group which benefitted from this unhappy turn of events. The commissars of the EU would find it easier to see their will imposed on England.

So we are looking here, not just at Scotland separating but at the destruction of the UK, and the break-up of the British World – of the Territories, Crown Commonwealth and Commonwealth.

We are looking at England becoming a shell of its former self.


19. People in England who Regard themselves as British will Start to Lose their Identity
Fiona Laird, a journalist writing in The Guardian no doubt speaks for many when she says, "I have always considered myself British. But if Britain is about to be redefined as a country that doesn't include Scotland, then I don't feel British at all. Living in a country that has Scotland as part of it is an essential part of who I am."

Martin Wolf, the Chief Economics Editor of the Financial Times, who regards himself as British said "If Scotland were to depart, I would lose an important part of myself." 3

20. British People in England will Lose a Huge Part of their Country
I don't want to wake up on 19th September in Glasgow and find that I've lost two thirds of my country and 90% of my fellow citizens! Do people in England want to wake up to find you've lost one third of your country and 10% of your fellow citizens?

21. Relationships between Scots and English will get Worse
This is because the divorce proceedings would never be settled to everyone's satisfaction.

When couples fall out, divorce proceedings can be painful and bitter.

Imagine Scotland and the remainder of the UK arguing over the divorce settlement?

The idea that the remainder of the UK would simply hand over all the oil, and allow Scotland to use the sterling currency, and set up a very agreeable repayment scheme for Scotland's share of the National Debt, and have some hunky dory arrangement with Trident – all without any fuss – is just a dangerous fantasy.

It would be years of constant political arguing and fighting making relations between Scotland and the remainder of the UK – especially between the Scots and the English – much worse with every passing day.

It would be years of constant pain and grief. The proceedings would probably become a fixture on the political scene for years.

Whenever you turned on the TV, the radio, opened a newspaper you'd be seeing it. People would get driven up the wall by it. Bitterness rising on all sides with every new daily headline.

And it would never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Consider this: Today Scottish Nationalists are still complaining about matters related to the Treaty of Union...307 years ago.

After separation, 307 years...from now...they would still be complaining about matters related to the Treaty of Disunion back in 2014 – and there would be so much more to complain about.

Just imagine them...307 years from now.

It would be all about how the terms which were settled today were "so unfair" to Scotland, and how "England cheated us" and "that's why we haven't progressed properly"...and things would be oh so much better if 307 years ago...back in 2014...the English hadn't done such and such with its share of the National Debt, or such and such with the currency, or such and such with the gold reserves...and if England had done such and such then Scotland would have been able to "reach its true potential"...which "it was cheated out of by England"...and those Scottish politicians who "sold out Scotland", and so on and on...and on...until the end of time.

In short, some Scots will become even more irritating to the English than they already are!

Yes, I am being a little light-hearted here, but I am also very serious.

If people in England think that a benefit of separation will be that those "whinging Scots" will just "go away" – then believe me, they have another think coming!

Those Scots who are separation-inclined will still moan about "England" even if Scotland becomes "independent" – and because nobody is going to be 100% satisfied with the divorce settlement, that means they will be guaranteed to forever have something to moan about…and to point to when things do not go according to their plan.

Such people will still come down to England or London to make their lives here – just in as great a number, possibly a greater number, as they have always done – and some of these Scots will still talk about "Scotland".

However, they won't be complaining that Scotland is not independent. This time they'll be complaining about how Scotland didn't get a fair deal in the divorce from England.

They'll be complaining about "that disgraceful independence settlement which was terribly prejudiced against Scotland's best interests".

And if it is not that, then it will be some other pretended grievance, or made-up moan.

They will still be demanding a say over things which they previously had a say in. The only difference will be, after separation, we won't be entitled to do so! But that won't stop us demanding!

So, separation won't stop Scots whinging. The people who are inclined to whinge will only whinge more.

Short story: basically, no good can come of it!

I began this talk by saying that the reason we set out on the asymmetrical, unbalanced devolution route with Labour in 1997 was because it had no moral or intellectual philosophy of British Union, and consequently, it did not properly understand Britain as a Nation.

Devoid of a philosophy of its own, it adopted the separatist way of viewing the Union and has been subservient to, and trapped within, that view of things ever since.

I'm glad to say though, that one of the good things which we see happening in this debate in Scotland, is that for the first time more people are thinking about, and understanding, the value of Britain the Nation – and that includes some Labour Party politicians.

Especially in Scotland, a lot of people have become energised and are making the case for Britain, and making it well. A lot of these are young people – which is very inspiring.

The United Kingdom has a great story to tell.

Scots are responsible for Britain. We helped to create it – along with the English, Northern Irish and Welsh.

It is our Baby. We take responsibility for it. We don't walk away from it.

Just because there are problems with it at the moment does not mean we should throw the British Baby out with the Bathwater.

If it is poorly, it is for us to find ways to make it better. It is for us to Believe in Britain.

To believe in all it has been…all it is…and all it can be in the future.

Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for listening.

(1) Jeremy Paxman, Empire, (London: Penguin Books, 2012 edition), pp. 238-240.

(2) See: Anna Edwards and William Turvill,"Irish bombs return to Britain: Explosive devices sent to four Army recruitment offices linked to Ulster terrorism, says No10", Daily Mail, 13 Feb 2014. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2558678/Bomb-threat-Suspected-explosive-devices-army-recruitment-offices-southern-England.html
Also: Gareth Rose, "Return of Irish terrorism to British streets", The Scotsman, 14 Feb 2014, p. 13.

(3) Fiona Laird, "I'm British, and I want to be able to talk about Scotland's independence vote", The Guardian, 29 April 2014. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/29/british-scotland-independence-vote-union
Martin Wolf, "Independence will irreversibly reshape our destinies", Financial Times, 30 May 2014, p. 11.

If you like what we say, please support us by signing-up to receive our free regular Update email - which will keep you informed of new articles and relevant pro-UK information - by entering your details in the 'Subscribe' box at the top right of this page. You can find out more about Alistair at the About Alistair McConnachie page. And here is a link to Alistair McConnachie's Google Profile.

Bookmark and Share