Taxi Driver Online

Little Englanders will hasten the end of the UK
http://www.scotsman.com/news/allan-mass ... -1-2390256

By ALLAN MASSIE
Published on Wednesday 4 July 2012 00:00

THE conflicting needs of an EU referendum and one for independence might actually play well for nationalists, writes Allan Massie

How happy could I be with either / Were t’other dear charmer away,” sang Captain Macheath in The Beggar’s Opera. David Cameron is comparably divided, though he might not precisely describe either Nick Clegg or the Tory Europhobic Right as a charmer. But there he is tossed helplessly on the waves, making up and revising his European policy from day to day. The need to keep the Coalition together and his own judgement of what is in Britain’s interest pull him one way; the need to appease the rebels in his own party pull him the other. Now the rebels have found a spokesman, believed to be formidable, in the former Defence Secretary, Dr Liam Fox, and the Prime Minister has been bounced into promising a referendum on Europe.

Cameron has evidently no desire that the UK should secede from the EU. That would create many difficulties. The egregious Dr Fox should himself be aware of at least one of them: much of our future Defence requirements involve co-operation with France. Would such co-operation survive our secession? It seems unlikely – even though both states would remain members of Nato. Inasmuch as the Prime Minister has a policy – though this shifts from day to day – he appears to envisage some sort of renegotiation of our relationship with the EU and the repatriation of certain powers. This would actually require a new Treaty, which would have to be approved by all member states. He would then submit the outcome of these negotiations and the new Treaty to the electorate in a referendum.

In theory this would not be an in-out referendum. In practice it couldn’t be anything else. A majority against a new Treaty, supposedly negotiated in the UK’s interest, could not be anything but a vote for secession.

At present opinion polls indicate that a majority might choose to leave the EU. How reliable these polls are may be doubtful. For one thing most polls also suggest that most people don’t rate the EU among the most important issues. It matters less than the economy, jobs, taxes, the NHS, education and defence. So it is quite possible that when actually asked to vote on the question of our membership, people will think more seriously about the question, and vote differently.

The eurozone crisis has been a gift to those, mostly in UKIP and on the Tory Right, who want us to leave the EU. They think they are in a heads we win, tails you lose situation. Either the Eurozone falls apart, in which case they will argue that the European project was misconceived from the start and is now doomed, or the resolution of the crisis will require closer political union and the surrender of fiscal autonomy by national governments, in which case, they will say, we want none of it.

Yet both assumptions may be mistaken. The break-up of the eurozone and the collapse of the euro itself have been forecast pretty well every week for the last three years. Yet it hasn’t happened, and even the Greeks, who have suffered most from the policy of austerity imposed because of their high level of debt, don’t want out of the euro. As to the alternative, some form of closer political union and some control of national budgets may be agreed, but this will fall far short of what is envisaged. No European authority is going to stop a French or Italian government from running a deficit if it chooses to do so. As I’ve written here before, the likelihood is that compromises will be effected and the EU will muddle through.

There is another reason for thinking that the proposal to leave the EU would be rejected in a referendum. One argument for getting out has been the need to protect the autonomy of the City of London from European supervision and from the desire of some European governments, notably the French, to impose a financial transaction tax to reduce the volume of trading activity in the markets. Yet, “Vote No to Europe to protect the City of London” doesn’t seem to me an election slogan that will have wide popular appeal. Nobody – surely? – is going to demonstrate carrying a banner that proclaims “Hands Off Our Bankers.”

Some of the other complaints about the EU are unfounded. It is quite possible for us to amend our labour laws. Germany did so in the wake of the financial crash. Immigration from countries not in the EU is a national responsibility; we can restrict it as we wish. And, as I am weary of repeating, decisions on Human Rights in the law-courts have nothing to do with the EU.

If pressure continues to build on Cameron, and he gives way, the possibility arises of a referendum on the EU clashing with the referendum on Scottish independence. I think the time-scale makes this unlikely, unless Cameron surrenders and legislates for an in-out referendum. That might make for interesting times. It would surely put the SNP in a pickle. The party is – sensibly to my mind – committed to EU membership. It surely couldn’t resile on that. But, if there was a majority in favour of the UK’s secession – perhaps only an English majority – could Alex Salmond then credibly promise to keep sterling as the currency of an independent Scotland? On the other hand a majority in England in favour of withdrawal and a majority in Scotland in favour of remaining in the EU would surely strengthen the case for independence. Indeed, this is the one development that would persuade me to vote for Scottish independence, since I have no desire to pass the evening of my days in a country dominated by Little Englanders and disfigured by xenophobia. I wonder if the zealots of UKIP and the Tory Right realise that victory for them might hasten the disintegration of the United Kingdom? Perhaps they do, and perhaps their hatred of the EU is so intense, that they simply don’t care.

As for the Prime Minister who says “I don’t believe leaving the UK would be best for Britain”, he must either find the courage to face down the Europhobes in his party, or become their prisoner. There are dark moments when the latter seems the more likely.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

What a total load of tosh.....the sooner we escape the Common Market, the EU, the EC or the EEC....or whatever this bunch of Eurocrats call themselves these days the better fo all of us.

I see not all Little Englanders are English

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

And not All Scots are Indies..in fact most of us aint

Little Englanders like you are very much a minority in Scotland

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Its Impossible for Scot like me to be a Little Englander...What ever the hell that is.

I am all for maintaining the UK as it is because that's what I believe is best for all Scots. I see no reason why the Indy types, just because they are and they know it in the minority should try and make us do otherwise.

You lot Don't intimidate anybody with your "Awe, yer no supportin Independence so ye must be a wee Anti-Scottish little Englander" crap.

Now..you and your minority Indy cronies can go and vote for who ever you want, but keep yer interfering Neb's out of what the rest of us (the Majority) want to vote for.

Why don't you use google instead of spouting your pish?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Englander
BTW the cap fits you quite well

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

All our Caps fit just fine down here...Our heads are of average size unlike those great big ones that appear to adorn the Average Indy

Definition of "Little Englander": "English people who are regarded as "xenophobic" and/or overly nationalistic and are often accused of being "ignorant" and "boorish"

Now, I'm not English and I'm not a Nationalist but I am a Unionist...In short I'm not anything remotely like the definition above....Lets just Ignore the word English for now and focus on the remaining part of the above statement your link referred too.."people who are regarded as "xenophobic" and/or overly nationalistic and are often accused of being "ignorant" and "boorish"

Surely that better describes the SNP and other assorted Indies....It's a bit of an Irony a "little Scotlander" telling a unionist Scot he's basically overly nationalistic while on the other hand extolling the virtues of living in an Inedenpendent Scotland Run by a Nationalist Scottish government!!!!

I'm not xenophobic as I get on well with my English neigbours, I get along just well with people of all nationalities. I Still hate the Concept of the EU but that does not mean I hate the People of Europe.

I also realise that the UK's a small Place and Scotland even smaller, That's why I believe we should curb the numbers of Migrants that wish to settle here, Again, not through xenophobia but simply because of a lack of space to put all these people in this small set of Islands we call the UK.

Speak about picking the bits that suit you.
(My emphasis)

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

I think the wiki has it wrong tbh Gus, I always thought it was a one track inconsiderate Englishman myself, someone with a closed mind who disregards all other creeds.

Please God, let me sleepeth through all thine Indy Guff and let me awake in 2014 after the second going of Eck..I've had my fill of it all...

You have a shock coming to you
Even if we don't win, we're not going anywhere

What was it your hero said?
We will go on and on and....

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

WTF do you mean "We Will" ...You fechin do go on and on........and on and on and on!!!


But after this failed bite at the cherry your lot will have lost momentum and what ever happens after that wont happen til I'm pushing up thistles

Not very far off then

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Another benefit of the union?

The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are to be axed as a battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond will make the announcement on Thursday as part of the biggest overhaul of the Army in more than a century.

All other battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland have survived the cull, but the Argylls will be cut from a separate battalion to just a company, charged with carrying out ceremonial duties such as guarding Edinburgh Castle.

Hammond will set out how the regular Army will be cut from 102,000 troops to 82,000 by the end of the decade - its lowest level since the Napoleonic Wars.

The plan - known as Army 2020 - is expected to see it split into two, with a reaction force, ready to respond to emergencies around the globe, and an adaptable force capable of carrying out a range of tasks and commitments.

Mr Hammond has said the changes - drawn up by Lieutenant General Nick Carter - will provide the basis of a smaller, more flexible and agile Army into the future.

But the prospect of losing historic units has been the cause of intense anguish within the service.

The Daily Telegraph disclosed this week that one officer, Brigadier David Paterson of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, had written to the head of the Army expressing his bitter disappointment at plans to axe one of its two battalions.

In his letter to General Sir Peter Wall, Chief of the General Staff, Brig Paterson said the proposal "cannot be presented as the best or most sensible military option".

Mr Hammond, who will set out details of the proposals in a statement to the House of Commons, has acknowledged that they have involved some "difficult" decisions.

But he said that cuts could not be avoided, with the demands for strict financial discipline under the Government's 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review.

Under the plans, reductions in regular Army strength would be offset by increases in part-time reservists, with the Territorial Army doubling in numbers from 15,000 to 30,000. As well as providing specialist capabilities - such as medics and intelligence - reservists would be used to reinforce infantry battalions on deployment.

'Less flexibility'

The Army would also be required to make greater use of civilian contractors in areas such as logistics support in order to concentrate military capability on the frontline.

Colonel Bob Stewart, a Conservative MP and former commanding officer with the Cheshire Regiment who sits on the defence select committee, said cutting troops was not the right way forward but the Government had been left with no option.

Asked if the Defence Secretary was putting the nation at risk, he told BBC Breakfast: "Every defence secretary has to balance exactly what the risk is. We just don't know what the risk is.

"If you reduce the numbers available you have less options, you have less flexibility, you have less power, that's a fact.

"So if you reduce the numbers you are actually putting the nation more at risk, yes, but equally we don't have much of a choice."

Labour MP and former paratrooper Dan Jarvis said he was "very sad and very concerned" about the downsizing of the army.

He added: "We should absolutely be looking at ways to save money but we should be looking incredibly carefully at the way in which we provide our national security, and a key component of that are our armed forces. They are about to be reduced by a significant amount, the army is going to go from 102,000 to 82,000 in a very uncertain world.

"I am not convinced at all that is the right thing to do, I am not convinced that at the end of that process we will have an armed forces that will be able to do the kind of things we might want them to do in the future."
http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/109394-ar ... my-review/

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/