The Break up of Britain?

The opening session of the Break Up of Britain conference, from Clive Lewis and Caroline Lucas, Jamie Driscoll, Frances Foley, Alyn Smith. This is not about Scottish Nationalism

Comments (13)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Alan C says:

    I believe Clive Lewis had to defy the labour whip/Starmer to attend this. I watched it live.

  2. SteveH says:

    Can anyone tell me why George Soros is giving so much money to this event and to the 2nd Sottish Indy ref campaign, as well as the 2nd EU referendum campaign for the UK?

    This is through the “open democracy” foundation. I love how the extreme left use the noblest of words to promote the most sinister of ideological objectives.

    What does Soros want for his money?

    When Brexit happened the Woke remainers screamed accusing the Russians, Rupert Murdoch etc of interfering in British democracy. All without a shred of proof.

    Yet this internationalist and hid lefty mates are chucking money in order to overturn existing democratic referendums and structures.

    Do you have no shame in taking his 30 pieces of silver?

    As for Clive Lewis – he’s a race obsessed Neo-Marxist who actually accused non-white academics of being the KKK because their findings were at odds with his CRT based beliefs and obsession with race.

    What does Lewis gain from the “break up Britain”? A sense of the destroying the country that gave him all his privileges and freedoms?

    Finally, you are asking the Sottish people to exchange living in one (well established) union to join a bigger one where your national governmental powers would be less, and would be eroded further until Scotland become a trapped backwater in an overbearing United States of Europe.

    Think about who actually benefits from a break up of the UK? Imagine what that means in practice. Scotland would be compelled to adopt the Euro, with the full fiscal constraints that entails. To be told how many migrants Scotland must take.

    Scotland’s real influence on matters will be far less than it is now. We know the Tories will tank in the next GE, so affairs will definitely change.

    All I’m hearing is a near pathological hatred of the English.

    A friend of mine from one of the rougher parts of Glasgow went to work in Plymouth, and lived in a village just outside the city. Whilst on a visit home to see his parents he was having a drink with some friends who proceeded to slag off the English and blame them for all Scotland’s ills.

    He had a go at them telling them that he was treated with kindness and friendship he’d rarely seen. He pointed out that they (his pals) had never even been to England so what the f*** did they know?

    Who would you blame for future problems and crisis in an independent Scotland? Brussels, or the English still?

    1. Tom Ultuous says:

      “Scotland’s real influence on matters will be far less than it is now. We know the Tories will tank in the next GE, so affairs will definitely change.”

      We’re currently not even allowed to have a bottle deposit return scheme. The Tories will tank in the next GE and then the gutter Tory press will concentrate on Labour. Every negative flogged to death, every positive buried. It won’t be long before the Tories will be back to complete NHS privatisation.

      On the EU. Membership isn’t compulsory.
      We’d be leaving a dictatorship to join a trading club. The EU would not have the “control” to steal our oil or sell off our nationalised industries like the Westminster dictators did. Westminster will do the same with our wind / wave renewable energy potential if we don’t gain independence.

      The border is a non-issue. If Westminster excludes us from the common travel area, the NI unionists will feel even more isolated. More likely, the Irish Sea border will move to the border between Scotland and England, thus alleviating tensions in NI. There will be no passports required travelling from Scotland to England any more than there is when currently travelling from anywhere in Ireland to the UK mainland. Scotland will be in the position NI is now, with a foot in both camps and, consequently, we’ll be doing better than England and Wales just as NI already does.

      People say, “but 60% of Scottish exports go to rUK”. So what? What percentage of those exports go to NI where trade would be frictionless? Of the rest, what will English importers of Scottish goods do? Pay additional delivery charges by ordering (where possible) the same from mainland EU rather than ordering from the EU up the road? Everything will run smoothly until the majority in England take their country back from the clowns and re-join the EU, at which point the border can be removed. In the meantime, the red tape and all the hurt will be on the UK side of the UK/EU border just as it is now.

    2. GordonD says:

      I am a neo-Marxist extreme leftist. Genuinely. Not one of these milquetoast social democrats, liberals and centrists masquerading as radicals in the Labour Party (and also the Met Police and far-right but not quite far-far-right in the Tory Party apparently). My question is: how can I get my hands on some this Soros money? I promise to put it to good use to bring down ‘civilisation as we know it’ (or capitalism as we anarcho-syndicalists call it). Many thanks in anticipation.

    3. “All I’m hearing is a near pathological hatred of the English.”

      Is that from Clive Lewis or Caroline Lucas? : )

    4. Drew Anderson says:

      “…to join a bigger one [union] where your national governmental powers would be less [sic]…”

      Only sovereign nations can join the EU.

      The EU is still, first and foremost, a trading bloc; any polity wishing to trade with it has to meet their trading standards; which is what most EU laws are concerned with.

      Having repatriated powers from Westminster, surrendering some sovereignty over standards (we’d have to match or better anyway) it really isn’t the big deal you’d wish us believe. See EFTA members in the Single Market.

    5. James Mills says:

      SteveH is doing a fine job of helping with ”The Break Up of Britain ”.
      I wonder which oligarch is funding him ?

      1. John says:

        James – reading the hated filled rants that Steve H churns out he is either being paid by some alt – right organisation to do this or he is dumb enough to swallow this crap and actually believes in it.
        I leave you to make your own mind up.
        The main point is he wants to distract everyone from a rational discussion to his own agenda. He is either being intentionally disruptive or is an attention seeker. Either way I would encourage everyone to just ignore him and concentrate on the issues raised by article.

      2. Alec Lomax says:

        Perhaps whoever funds 55 Tufton Street.

  3. Cathie Lloyd says:

    The video doesnt work for me ? on a mac? I missed it on livestream which only started working towards the end. Please can you check. that it is working

    1. Seems to be working on here (and have tried it on a Mac). Anyone else able to see it okay?

  4. Chris Ballance says:

    I particularly appreciated Adam Ramsay’s opening remarks acknowledging that the meeting in that venue was possible because of the legacy of slavery.
    Acknowledging our debt should be an introduction to any meeting in a building funded by slavery .

    Great opening panel discussion – congratulations to all who organised. Well worth a view. Thanks Mike for posting.

  5. SleepingDog says:

    I eventually got through the video, I could probably have edited highlights down below 45 minutes but that’s because little on-topic was new to me or especially interesting. Hanging it on the work of one person may have helped theming but those themes seem a little well-worn with notable omissions.

    I might read Caroline Lucas’ forthcoming book, its coverage of medieval writers on ecology sounds interesting.

    On the flag of St George, the panelists missed the Crusader association which predates Union and has cropped up amongst English football supporters in Qatar, for example. The supposition is that many English people may still think the Crusades were a good thing. Religion did not feature as a topic (the lag between Scottish and England+ censuses may have contributed).

    Some panellists had to be reminded of the existence of the monarchy by the audience. Neal Ascherson correctly characterised the monarchical nature of the British constitution but in his labelling it ancient failed to pick up on its modern adaptation to the monarchical command-and-control system for launching nuclear weapons, which gave a functional prop to British royalty while supporting increased secrecy, security and immunity for them, while setting us apart from most of our European counterparts. It’s not simply a ‘fetish’; these nuclear weapons are effectively pointed at the British public by the British rulers.

    However, there was almost no recognition that the British Empire still exists (although ex-Labour mayor Jamie Driscoll made some good points about our political operating system being largely unchanged since height of Empire), as if subtracting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the ‘Union’ would leave just England. It would have been well worth considering census results from territories of the British Empire outside these nations to make a number of points, and cover the rejection of royalism for republicanism in parts of the Commonwealth. Other European nations still retain parts of their empires too, something not fully recognised in discussion; neither potential EU bars on England rejoining in future if it retained its militarised, tax haven Empire.

    My view on Scotland taking part in a future EU enlargement is that an independent Scotland should have a new biocratic constitution first which may force the EU to redraft its entry rules to accept these kinds of constitutions from member states. I also think Ascherson was right to note how majoritarian democracy in the UK has contributed to its backwardness in political system and culture, although not the prime brake on rationality and progress.

    All in all, worth listening for some viewpoints, insights and information, but perhaps the breakout sessions had more radical ideas than the more mainstream panel sessions and interludes.

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.