Global Britain: Repressing Dissent at Home, Armed to the Teeth Abroad

For years people have been crying out for some vision, some future-focused idea of what Britain is, beyond the woolly undefined ‘Global Britain’ (a slogan that’s claimed by Theresa May, Gordon Brown and Boris Johnson). Britain has been for a long time a nation consumed by nostalgia immersed in Spitfire Nationalism and gorging itself in summoning aspects of a glorious mythical past. But now, finally, we have some articulations of a New Future.

So what does it look like?

In his Commons statement on the Integrated Defence, Security and Foreign Policy Review, Boris Johnson opened by saying that its aim was to make the UK stronger, safer and more prosperous. We’d do this by spending billions on increasing our nuclear warhead capacity beyond the current 180 warheads (each warhead has an explosive power of 100 kilotons. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of the second world war was about 15 kilotons.) The government’s integrated defence review said the UK would be lifting the cap on its nuclear arsenal by 40 per cent, from 180 to 260 warheads.

The announcement comes despite the UK being a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which commits the government to gradual nuclear disarmament under international law.

But we know that they don’t care about breaking international law.

The second highlight from the 100 page report was the idea of ‘global trade’. They will float the new aircraft carrier out to the China Sea and – according to Radio 4 – use it as a place for cocktail parties. If the government are rejecting the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons they have also rejected the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR):


So we’re beginning to get a glimpse of their vision for future Britain. But if people are shocked that the Conservatives will ignore human rights abuses abroad, they shouldn’t be, given the contents of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill.

Campaign groups accused authorities of mounting a “staggering assault on our right to protest”, highlighting that liberties had already been curtailed by coronavirus laws.

The legislation stems from a report on the handling of demonstrations by British police which stated that there has been a tendency of “tipping the balance too readily in favour of protesters”, which you may have noticed if you’ve been spied on, kettled, beaten or impregnated by one of the force in recent years.

The report was commissioned by Priti Patel. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMICFRS) was tasked with reviewing how officers used existing powers and whether the law should be changed. The report called on police to improve the way they assess the impact of protests, increase the quality of intelligence and “support forces to use live facial recognition technology in a way that improves police efficiency and effectiveness”.

That the report highlights the Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter protest tells us everything about the state we’re in and the shifting ground of democratic norms. As Daniel Trilling writes the bill itself has been rushed through:

” … the policing bill that is currently making its way through parliament, shows that authoritarian populism remains a central part of the Johnson government’s project. Introduced with a now-familiar disregard for parliamentary scrutiny – the 300-page bill was only unveiled a week ago, giving MPs and observers barely enough time to read and interpret its contents – the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill proposes new powers that will allow senior police officers and the home secretary to restrict protest in unprecedented ways, as well as measures intended to criminalise the living circumstances of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.”

Many people have noticed that the bill offers more protection to statues and to memorials than to women. As Trilling points out: “One of the bill’s harshest measures, which proposes a maximum 10-year prison sentence for damaging a memorial, began life in June 2020 as a proposal by the backbencher Jonathan Gullis, an enthusiastic proponent of the right’s “war on woke”.

So this is the right’s war on woke manifesting itself as new absurdist dystopian legislation.

So here we are.

Many people from a Unionist perspective argue constantly that the benefit of being part of the UK is to be associated with a ‘bigger brand’ – a ‘global player’ – a ‘powerhouse’. Kenny Farquharson this week put the question: Does anybody think COP26 would be coming to an independent Scotland?Ignoring the fact that the UK is failing so badly on its climate targets, this plea also ignores the fact that the 2009 COP was held in Copenhagen. This is Unionist Realism in which the Union is presented as an immutable fact of life – and people find it simply impossible to imagine Scotland as a country operating in the real world – despite hundreds of examples of small nations surrounding us.

And what if – given the grotesque vision of Global Britain projected by Boris Johnson leaves you associated with a ‘big brand’ that is deeply authoritarian, toxic, corrupt, inherently violent and law-breaking? What are the real world financial consequences of vast spending on nuclear warheads and aircraft carriers? Where is the money taken from? We already know. But if you were to protest all this you will be subject to one of the most repressive regimes in Europe. The Unionist argument that cleaving to the powerful is morally bankrupt in the light of this vision of the future.

We’re crowdfunding for our future. If you’d like to support us go here:


Comments (17)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Ray Burnett says:

    Mike, You are better informed than I am but with regard to the proposals in the Police &c. Bill, my understanding is that they only apply to England & Wales. No?
    Apart from the Transport Police, is there a “British Police”?

    1. Yes it does only apply in England and Wales. My point was that we are being asked to be tied to an increasingly authoritarian state – and this is repellent.

      But also – how do we show solidarity with the people of England and Wales (whilst also running away!).

      Also also – as we saw with Spycops and the G8 Summit – the British state – particularly when operating covertly has little to control it.

      1. Ray Burnett says:

        Thanks, I also, also, also concur with the concerns you sought to address. The problem I was having is that the mainstream media so uniformly discuss it as if it was a pan-Ukania proposal that when Bella seemed to be doing the same I began to question my own understanding!
        With regard to cross-border solidarity (always an important aspect of our response, I would have thought that simply by NOT bringing in any comparable legislation the Scottish Parliament majority they would be offering the most useful solidarity possible. And when the Covid-19 situation allows, the wider indie movement could/should mobilise a noisy public demonstration ( march and static rally) from say the Calton Hill by the Parliament to Holyrood Park, to defend our hard won democratic rights and to champion these through a particularly Scottish context, e.g. in support of our travelling folk, our own refugees and asylum seekers and our own defenders of the rights of the common people.

        1. Axel P Kulit says:

          But surely Westminster could over rule Holyrood and impose this bill directly?

          1. Ray Burnett says:

            Axel, The UK govt fact sheets state that majority of proposals are for E&W only. A small number have cross-border relevance. From a cursory scan it is unclear (at least to me) what the latter are.

  2. Thomas Dunlop says:

    If this was North Korea, Russia or Iran announcing such a unilateral increase in warheads there would be an international outrage comdeming such rogue behaviour. Hypocrisy is so thick you can feel it.

    1. Axel P Kulit says:

      Ah, the soft velvet feel of hypocrisy slowly smothering everything

  3. Wul says:

    ” …there has been a tendency of “tipping the balance too readily in favour of protesters”,…”

    Do we enjoy any civil rights or protections that are not the direct result of protest and dissent?

  4. Paula Becker says:

    228 million kids in Asia have been killed by Covid lockdowns and other disruptions
    We use 129 billions masks a month for Covid worldwide – mostly disposable. That’s about 3 million a minute adding to the world’s plastic pollution.
    We could protest all this except we can’t. Not because of the Priti Patel bill, which isn’t yet law, but because of the Coronavirus Act.
    Bellacaledonia is a big fan of lockdowns and the CV Act.

    1. Pub Bore says:

      Why can’t you protest?

      1. Paula Becker says:

        Because if you gather together in large numbers you are breaking the Covid laws.

        1. Pub Bore says:

          Yes, it’s called ‘civil disobedience’.

          A lot of protests involve breaking the law; especially when the law you’re breaking is the one you’re protesting. In the present case, by obeying the lockdown you’re only giving it tacit support.

          So, go on, girl; get out there! Don’t just girn about it! Mobilise some like-minded people, meet up in a public place, make a song and dance, and burn your facemasks!

          What’s stopping you? Are you waiting for permission or something?

    2. Pub Bore says:

      And according to Professor Marcel Levi, the outgoing chief executive of University College London Hospitals Trust, COVID-19 almost disabled the UK’s healthcare system too. Twice, in fact. This is precisely why our governments have twice had to enforce strict hygiene rules (‘lockdown’): to ensure that the spread of the disease didn’t outstrip the system’s capacity to manage our global health needs, as has indeed happened in many poorer countries where their systems’ capacities are much lower than ours.

      1. Paula Becker says:

        Strange that they never used those Nightingale hospitals though.

        1. Pub Bore says:

          Now, that was a swindle; our healthcare services would never have had sufficient personnel to staff them had the lockdowns not succeeded.

    3. Paula Becker says:

      228 thousand not million. My mistake. Bad enough though.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.