Napoleon once said ‘Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake’. You may feel the Scots are making a mistake with independence, but one cannot deny it benefits the Eurosceptic right to let them make it.
One of the most ironic features of the Scottish ‘independence’ debate is that it revolves almost exclusively around ‘dependence’ of the state. Both the SNP and Labour are parties of big government welfare dependence. The only debate they have is whether Scotland’s sugar-daddy socialist welfare state can be maintained if they leave the UK or not. If you think it can, and Scotland doesn’t necessarily need English subsidies, you vote SNP. If you think it can’t afford it without English subsidies, you vote Labour.
Indeed, virtually every point in the independence debates was ultimately something to do with welfare. The much debated point about how much oil is left in the North Sea was code for ‘can we fund our sugar daddy socialist welfare state with that oil (which means we can leave the UK) or do we need some English tax money on top of that oil revenue (which means we stay in the UK)’. The SNP and Labour differ on this, hence their different stances in the debate. However, neither Labour nor the SNP have a problem in principle with dependence on the state for your income, nor do most voters north of the border. Let’s look at the electoral mathematics. There are 59 Scottish constituency seats at Westminster. Of these, 58 are held by left-wing Europhiles (SNP, Labour, Lib Dem). The Labour Party alone has 47 of these. In the Scottish Parliament, 112 of the 129 seats are held by big-government-Europhile-sugar-daddy-welfare-state parties. The political right is invisible in Scotland, bar a single Conservative MP and a single UKIP MEP.
It stuns me so many UKIP members and right-wingers in general can look at these numbers and still think Scotland remaining in the UK is a good idea. Why do you want your opponents bloc votes to stay? It would be like the Democrats in America offering to never again have California or New York’s electoral college votes count in Presidential elections, only for the Republicans to insist that they do. I have not heard a single argument in favour of keeping the Union that doesn’t’ involve sentimental nonsense like it would be ‘nice to keep the union together’. Sorry, but ‘nice’ isn’t the basis for sound policy, particularly when ‘nice’ means forcing English taxpayers to fund Scotland’s welfare state whilst simultaneously giving the Labour Party a decisive bloc vote at Westminster. This is the party of mass immigration and EU membership. If Scotland leaves the UK, politics in what is left of the UK would shift away from the parties of mass immigration, Europhilia and big government.
If Scotland left the UK, two things would happen. Firstly, we would no longer have to fund the Scots sugar-daddy-socialist-welfare-state. They would have to fund it themselves, and the rest of the UK could use the money it no longer spends on Scottish Labour voters on things like health, education, the armed forces or strengthening border controls instead. Secondly, we would break the back of the British left, possibly forever. No British party could ever hope to win a General Election if 50 plus of its seats are no longer in the mix. When the Tories won their history-making win in 1979, they only managed a net-gain of 62 seats. When one considers Red Ed trails the Tories by 49 seats at the moment, if he loses an additional 47 Scottish Labour seats, he would need to win a net-gain of 96 seats to win an election – and even then would need a coalition with someone else. Cameron won a similar net-gain of 97 seats in 2010, the third highest net gain in post-war election history, but even then he still needed the Liberal Democrats to form a government. The thought that never again will the Labour Party, the party of mass immigration and EU membership enter Number 10, is a once in history chance the right must welcome.
There is a final point one must consider. Supposing the overly-sentimental UKIP members got their way and Scotland did the ‘nice’ thing and stayed in the Union. Fast forward to the in or out referendum on the EU planned for 2017. There is something you need to know. Every MP gets an allowance to blanket their constituency with ‘information’, and you have probably received these ‘newsletters’ from your local MP. In the event of an in-out referendum on the EU, the 58 Scottish Europhile MPs would blitz their constituencies with leaflets urging them to vote to stay in. The debate might be close, but these 4 million Scottish votes could be the difference. How would UKIP members feel if they insisted on keeping hold of 4 million voters whose vote kept us in the EU? How ‘nice’ would that be?
Just bear that in mind. Even if you feel the Scots are making a mistake with independence, it benefits the Eurosceptic right to let them make it. As Napoleon once said ‘Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake’. Particularly if that mistake benefits you long term.
Photo by London Permaculture 
If Scotland votes NO and devo max implemented surely that will be the end of the socialist dependency culture?
Of course we will need an English Parliament too, and I am sure that an EP could be used to develop non pc political parties in England and make the Rotherhams a thing of the past. The problem is we have a dangerous and determined anglophobic left who hate the English with passion. Just like the Ulster Volunteers destroyed the Irish Parliamentary Party in 1914. The UAF now are like the Ulster Volunteers of 1914, both were funded by vested interests. History repeats itself.
The advantage of the Scottish people voting to receive their orders directly from the EU elite, as opposed to receiving the EU elite orders indirectly via Westminster, will be that Cameron will be deposed and replaced by someone UKIP could do business with and we will get a real chance of Independence. As for the Scots being more pro EU than the rest of the UK, that was not borne out in the 1975 referendum. That is if you are one of the people that believes the 1975 result was not rigged.
Just one point “UKIP and rightwingers in general”, I don’t see UKIP as a “right wing” party but as the first true Libertarian party.
What’s Libertarian about them?
Short term tactical advantage is absolutely no reason to sink a successful long term union that is beneficial to us all in the longer-term. There are far too many costs associated with breaking the union for the narrow, short-term interests of losing a number of socialist leaning voters to count.
Possibly the most inane, short sighted garbage I’ve ever seen published as a UKIP ‘Official’ point of view. It is obviously based on bigoted out dated, right wing Tory rhetoric; with snide insulting descriptions os British Citizens, This is the sort of narrow minded anti Labour garbage the EDL and BNP members are spouting. It also assumes that we will wait for a 2017 ‘Referendum’ by the obviously successful new Tory government. The ‘author’, and I use the term loosely, spouts old fashioned “Socialist Hatred”, rather than suggesting ways to recruit these potentially valuable voters. Is it a sign that UKIP will treat left wing oriented citizens with the same contempt? If so, the UKIP campaign is going to fall into the image portrayed already – Ex Tory Racists with no respect for the working classes. Well, Morpheous Magnas – YOU HAVE INSULTED AND WORRIED ME; and a lot of my EX Labour UKIP Campaign supporters. Also, you have completely ignored the fact that we need the Scots in two World Wars, and they are in the British Army RIGHT now, protecting our nation’s interests. We NEED THEM NOW; as we have a bigger battle ahead, which many UKIP loyalists of ALL sections of the UK are working hard to win. Your ‘article’ assumes that they won’t even, remotely succeed. I am equally appalled that UKIP published this divisive article with their approval. We have a lot less chance of leaving the EU without the Scots, than with them. Why hasn’t UKIP been more active supporting the No Campaign (for a UNITED Kingdom)? You have probably succeeded in winging many right wing UKIP supporters to your bigoted attitude; but you’ve probably succeeded in alienating many Left Wing UKIP Supporters. Or would you rather we all left UKIP, and stopped working for a British Win Against the EU. I, obviously totally disagree, and want Scotland to vote NO. I would also like bigots like you to stay out of the UKIP limelight, and look to what UKIP is about; and what it’s members and supporters are working to win.
I understand your frustration. Sadly, because of this awful mess, the seeds of division begin to unnecessarily alienate people further. It’s exactly what the SNP wants and we must not fall into the trap. I suppose UKIP is taking a bit of a back step because direct involvement might damage the “no” campaign. Keep up the good work in Scotland and remember that the majority of UKIP members are pro-Union. I think the clue is in the name – UKIP.
You know, from Scotland’s perspective, pretty much all the arguments UKIP make about Brussels can be applied at least equally to Westminster. What arguments do you have to vote No to Scottish independence?
It’s a bit obvious. 400 years of union (counting Union of Crowns) has resulted in true political union. We speak the same language, use the same currency have similar culture and a shared history. Add all that to the fact that we live on an island, connected in an important strategic place etc. The Scots were instrumental in the formation of Great Britain (King James 1 et al). Compare that to the EU, an organisation that is trying to emulate the political union of an extremely diverse range of peoples and cultures – and it still wishes to expand. So I would suggest that your premise that “pretty much all the arguments UKIP make about Brussels can be applied at least equally to Westminster” is not valid. The two Unions are totally different. Breaking up the a deep and entangled British Union is total madness and if it happens it will be costly. .
Scotland are dictated to by Westminster and the undemocratic House of Lords. Our “national” Government don’t care about anything North of Watford. The UK entered voluntarily into the EU agreements; Scotland was conquered and subjugated, just like Wales was.
I think your idea of history is more than a bit twisted. Just think – the last UK Labour government was full of Scottish politicians who all held high office: Blair, Brown, Darling, Alexander et al. That’s a peculiar form of subjugation. Or perhaps it was the English who were being subjugated? The people of the UK were duped into the EU and have not had a recent say on the matter. If the Scots can have a referendum on a 400 yr Union why can’t we have one on the EU?
The UK, my friend, entered the EU without anybody’s knowledge.
No referendum – No Vote – No information – No choice.
If I may, I’ll repeat what I wrote in the Scottish Press this week:
“A VOTE FOR INDEPENDENCY IS A VOTE FOR EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
“The people of Scotland are being grossly duped. Merkel, Barosso and Jeuncker couldn’t have planned it better.
If Scotland votes YES, they will be fast tracked into the EU.
They:
Will be forced to join the Euro;
Will have only 6 QMV votes in Brussels (out of 235 votes);
Will lose control of The Bank of Scotland;
Will lose control of resources – including oil;
Will lose the Right to demonstrate;
Will have their Parliament moved to Brussels;
Will ultimately lose the St. Andrews Cross;
Will ultimately lose their identity . . .
Either Mr. Salmond isn’t aware (incompetent); or he’s hiding the truth (traitorous).
I recommend that all Scots question these facts – and vote for the best for Scotland.”
Thanks for the decency to reply. I am deeply concerned at the divisions between left and right histories – it pays perfectly into the EU’s game plan. We all need to shed party loyalty, and move onwards as UNITED British patriots. W should not be each other’s enemy – the EU is!
UKIP Daily, while run by UKIP members, is not an official party organ, in exactly the same way that ConservativeHome is friendly to that party but not run by it. Many of our contributors are not party members, too, but all are supporters.
Therefore, on matters where there is no clear party policy, we encourage authors to express opinions, in order to stimulate debate, as is carried on in these columns.
An author’s opinions have no greater importance, weighting or significance that do those of commenters, providing they are not resorting to ba language or unsubstantiated dismissal.
Thank you for your contribution to the debate.
Thank you for the explanation above. Unfortunately many people regard UKIP Daily as the “Voice of UKIP”. Therefore they feel obliged to agree and follow articles published therein. It may be a good idea to clarify the relationship, and clearly state that articles published are not necessarily those of UKIP. Otherwise, my compliments on your good work. I may start presenting my own views and observations for you to consider for publishing. Thank you. V4V
Thanks for the clarification.
“It is obviously based on bigoted out dated, right wing Tory rhetoric; with snide insulting descriptions os British Citizens”
UKIP policy in a nutshell.
I appreciate this may be the kind of PR doublespeak nonsense that got us here, but it seems to me that it is important to recognise the best narrative for us is to point out this entire situation is the product of a Westminster status quo that is so diametrically opposed to the best interests of our country that it has come to this – to celebrate and revel in the advantage this situation presents is to ignore the abuse we all, Scots, English, Welsh and Irish have suffered at the hands of a contemptuous and scornful political elite, lazy on their throne of representative democracy based on the anachronistic FPTP system. We can be the vanguard of libertarian reform, better to recognise what we are and push this message than dance over the dismembered corpse of our former nation – LibLabCon have done this to us.
At last some common sense, I have been trying to make this point for ages. Let them go and let them fund their own welfare utopia but with their own money. If they make it work well power to their elbow, but once there gone then we put up the border crossings and make them show their Sottish passports. I have no beef against Scottish people but once you cut us adrift there is no return.
As for the EU we would fair better in a referendum with out Scotland in the mix.
Actually, Scotland has both a UKIP MEP and a Tory MEP.
So one third of the MEPs are of the so-called political right, as you put it.
Hardly the socialist wasteland that you depict.
And, how many Labour governments would England and Wales have avoided without Scottish MPs?
Not many, and certainly not Blair’s abominations.
It is only since the late 1980s that Scotland started voting heavily for Labour. In 2005 and 2010 England voted Tory and got neither.
The biggest winner if there is Scottish independence will be the Tories as their chances of being the dominant party improve.. Many ex-Conservatives who had voted UKIP may be tempted back into the Conservative fold. Is that what we want at this stage of the UKIP’s development?.
Good point, but if UKIP can maintain momentum then our influence on a restructured Conservative Party would be significant.
Guess Scotland could apply to become a member of the United Kingdom, again, at some point in the future.
If it was to apply to be a member of the UK then it would have to change its name to “North Britain” as suggested by the eminent Scottish historian Niall Ferguson
So England Would be ‘Southern Britain’, Wales ‘Western Britain’, and Northern Ireland, ‘Northern Ireland’. Can’t see any problem with that!
I can. I’m English, not British.
Imagine if Scotland had the chance for a referendum during the Cold War or right bang after WW2. Such is a situation we face today as far as I see it.
Ummar Farooq . . usual garbage historic rhetoric. Why have you been removed from 19 UKIP Groups, and Un Friended by over 160 people? You have no loyalty to this country, and you’ve been found out. Go away.
With or without Scotland we still won’t get a referendum, there is not enough time to organize it.
To start with Cameron will only have a referendum IF he gets re-elected with a majority, it aint going to happen, it will only happen IF he can renegotiate, it aint going to happen.
Why:- The chances of Cameron securing an outright majority is slim to say the least, he couldn’t do it against Brown for goodness sake, he won’t be able to renegotiate, all the major players in the EU have told him and it is in the treaty, no negotiation. 1/11/14 we lose the ability to hold a referendum unless we have a 65% majority agreement from the other member states the net receivers are not going to agree the second largest contributor leaving.
The only way we can go is by having an unofficial referendum,the general election, and invoke Artical 50. It will be in UKIPs manifesto will it be in any others manifesto. 2017 is a pipe dream to suck in the voters people, Cameron is promising something he cannot deliver for the reasons I have mentioned above
1/11/14 we lose the ability to hold a referendum unless we have a 65% majority agreement from the other member states
Why do you perpetuate this myth? Please provide a link to any article in any EU treaty that remotely suggests that this is true?
Happy with your comment about Article 50 though! That’s the only sensible way out.
Might be Lisbon? I’m (more than!) happy to be set straight, but I think withdrawal of a member state is indeed one of the competences that will be moving to qualified majority vote after Nov 1st.
Which would lead to the ridiculous situation where we could vote in a referendum to leave, then have that vote overturned by a majority of EU members. Not quite ‘notaracist’s’ point re a referendum, but perhaps what they were thinking of?
Seems utterly incredible, unbelievable and unworkable. So knowing the EU, it’s probably about right.
Of course any UK gov’t with balls would have held a referendum by now and acted accordingly, and damn the consequences. To paraphrase Salmond, what are they going to do? Invade?
OK, so perhaps we’re thinking of the infamous Article 50 of Lisbon.
As we know, any state that leaves is entitled to draw up an agreement with the EU on its future relationship. It’s that agreement that is subject to a qualified majority vote of the Council and rubber stamping by MEPs, which presumably had an exemption until 1st Nov…
Interestingly, the UK’s Council Member wouldn’t be allowed to take part in any such discussions.
Is this a good thing? So at present a favourable withdrawal deal could be scuppered by any country with a veto, but after Nov 1st we would only need a majority of council member’s backing?
“Article 50
1.
Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements.
2.
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.
In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and
conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking
account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be
negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority,
after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
6655/1/08 REV 1
58
EN3.
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of
the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2,
unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides
to extend this period.
4.
For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the
European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union.
Hi @Gazcon You are almost correct except that Article 50 was only introduced in the Lisbon Treaty and the vote you describe has therefore always been subject to QMV. I believe the percentage majority required varies from 65% to 60%.
QMV – Ah, QMV. We USED To have 29 votes under QMV; same as France and Germany. After 1st November we will have (about) 32 votes, unless Scotland leaves. Then our vote drops to (about) 25/26 votes. Scotland would get the missing 6 votes ‘independently’. Germany? Their voting points go UP to 61 votes! Forget QMV, forget Article 50 . . just LEAVE! PS. If (when) Turkey join, they will have MORE voting points than us!
We would never get a majority to support our intention to leave; or a referendum which may lead to it. The voting is weighted, even before you allow that our vote is half that of Germany (New ruling). Think about it. No – the only way, is to say we’re leaving – AND LEAVE!
Any government with balls would have called an ALL PARTY rejection of the EU. No nation has ever done it before, but it would respected by UK Citizens and the world outside. International trade would return very quickly – the WHOLE world.
NO it’s not. Article 50 takes 18 months to 2 years to complete. That takes us to 2019/2020.
Why comply with an EU Ruling if we’re leaving? Immediate withdrawal is by far the best solution. I strongly disagree with Nigel Farage’s view on this.
W pin a note to the EU door.. “GONE FOREVER”.
Then we watch the Euro collapse, closely followed by the EU.
No, we still have to deal with europe on an ongoing basis for trade. That approach would be very counter-productive.
On the contrary Fedup2014Voter. We have not had a trading profit with Europe since we were sneaked into the EU. They sell far more to us than we do to them. Unless bullied by Brussels, most people would wish to continue trading. Also; we would be free to free trade with the rest of the world; which is where our future lies.
I know the trade deficit with the EU is some £70Bn which gives us plenty of power in discussions. The point I was making is we still need to discuss the future instead of just flouncing out in a hissy-fit. If the EU refuse to do that in a prgamatic way then by all means tell them to go boil their heads.
You worry about the delay of 18 months to 2 years to complete Article 50 negotiations, which could well be shorter if we adopt the Norway Option (EFTA/EEA), yet think we could survive without EU/EEA trade for the 8-10 years or so it usually takes to negotiate free-trade agreements with countries in the rest of the world. That is not exactly clear headed thinking is it?
If the UK leaves – others will follow. The Euro will finally give up it’s death throws; closely followed by the collapse of the EU. Period.
I’m not so sure it will suffer death throws that quickly. The colleagues will throw everything at it to keep their superstate dream alive even after we leave. They will see Germany bankrupt first.
Germany IS virtual bankrupt, although they try to conceal it; and the Bundesbank should be bankrupt, as it can never recover stupid loans it made.
With regard to EU collapse I can only hope you are right!!
Without the UK’s finances, they have nothing to throw at it.
Or not have ANY say in trading agreements – ever?
In EFTA/EEA we would be able to negotiate FTAs with the rest of thr world.
Norway has a seat at the top tables of WTO, UNECE, Codex Alimentarius and many other international organisations where most of EU trade rules originate. The UK does not have a seat at these tables because we are represented by the EU. When has the EU had regard to UK interests?
Never. They simply want to asset strip, then destroy Britain.
No it wouldn’t. The Europeans sell far more to us, than we do to them. The would wish to continue that UNLESS THE EU BLACKLISTED US. The EU NEEDS US far more than we need them – in so many ways.
The Eropeans cannot afford not to trade with the UK. Britain is Europe’s biggest customer – by a long, long way.
I agree but there is no need to seek conflict needlessly. Don’t antagonise just for the sake of it. The EU commission are like spiteful kids and they will hold a grudge for a long time.
And there is no need for conflict. Our problems are with the EU, not Europe.
The European countries, or districts, as they will soon be known, are keen to continue to trade with the UK in free trade agreements, and without burdensome regulations.
If we were still offering trade, but the EU made it difficult, or impossible; they could bring pressure to bear (if that were still possible) on the EU to allow, or even encourage that trade.
We would still have our hand out to welcome trade. They would realise that WE are not the enemy.
We, on the other hand, would be free to trade with the rest of the world, unencumbered by EU restrictions.
Oh! and another thing. The clue is in the party’s name – United Kingdom Independence Party.(UKIP). What would the new name of the party be on the break up?
It will still be the United Kingdom just without Scotland
Sorry, that does not stack up. Wales and NI are not Kingdoms. I’ve always hated “United Kingdom” because it’s an attempt to be modern – like United States and doesn’t technically include Wales & NI.. I prefer “Great Britain & NI”. That’s what our Olympic team is called. Without Scotland we might just call ourselves Britain (and deny Scot’s the British moniker and passport)…
These are really just Samantics, I think we should sort out the finer detail after we leave the E.U?
Sorry, It can’t be. What remains can no longer be called the ‘United Kingdom’. The ‘Divided Kingdom’ maybe. Presumably the Queen will still be Queen of Scotland :-/
I quite like ‘Independence Party’. As UKIP develops beyond a single-issue party into a major force in British politics, the “UK” bit is increasingly redundant in domestic politics anyway. And ‘independence’ neatly sums up UKIP’s ethos – independence of the individual from an over bearing state, independence of thought, and of course independence from the EU.
Do we really need to change it? Just imagine the confusion on the ballot paper. I throw that in because “Independence Party” may be a laudable solution but not immediately clear who the independence is for. A thorny issue.
How about United Independent Kingdom Party?
Sounds good – we already have a ‘United Women for UKIP’
FB page! – No, not sexist – men are welcome too!
Hey Ella 🙂
Hey Glen! : )
There already is, “An Independence Party”. In fact they tricked a lot of UKIp supporters into voting for them in the Euro Elections. Cost UKIP two more MEPs!
The scenario you paint is a valid one. The timing of the referendum, the GE and the possible EU referendum do not chime well with the desire to leave the EU. Irrespective of how the Scot’s vote would potentially tip the balance of the EU referendum the bigger problem is Con/Lab/Lib in England who would all recommend that we should stay in the EU. As Salmond has proved politics can be changed – if he can convince Scotland out of a 300 yr Union it should be easy for us to get out of the EU. By the way I don’t think that being proud of Britain is “sentimental”. The issues of defence, cohesion and Britains influence in the world trump party ideologies and desires.
Pretty much my view.
If Scotland votes for ‘independence’ the small ‘c’ conservative in me will lament the passing of a cultural and historical partnership that has brought much good to the world.
However in the 21st century Scotland is something of a political and economic millstone. Therefore the pragmatist in me will celebrate that never again will we have the likes of Brown and Darling running and ruining my country. Despite what Salmond may say, the Scottish tail has wagged the English dog in recent years, and will continue to do so under ‘devo max’ in the event of a no vote.
Ironic that the nationalists seem keen to replace distant, out of touch Westminster rule and subsidy with still further distant and even more out of touch EU rule and subsidies, but the choice is theirs to make. I guess the English taxpayer will still subsidise the Scots via the EU, but at least the bill will be smaller.
Until the wealthier western members run out of money. France, Italy, Portugal, Greece are already in trouble, and Germany has flat GDP. Ther’ll be no funds from the east, as they’re shored up already. That leaves Spain, UK, and Scandinavia. See how it doesn’t work?