Home > Alex Massie

Wednesday 16 May 2012

Have Scots Ruined Britain?

Monday, 26th January 2009

Under the headline "Scots have brought Britain to its knees" Simon "John Wilkes" Heffer began his Telegraph column on Saturday like this:

As Scots the world over prepare to celebrate tomorrow their third best poet (after Henrysoun and Dunbar, of course) by eating sheep's intestines filled with what always seems to be gravel, it is appropriate that there should be stunning new evidence of the vast contribution their little nation continues to make to Britain. As recession is declared official, the pound sinks, the stock market totters, banks wobble and misery abounds, let's salute the Scotsmen who did it.

That, mind you, was just the warm-up for a blast of Home Counties invective that concluded:

The sooner the bunch of Scots who govern us are booted into history the better. I don't say that the English would be any better, but at least we would be paying for our own mistakes rather than someone else's. Never has the case for English independence from the Scots been so overwhelming. Sadly, I suspect that in the present state of penury England will be saddled with them for another 302 years of high-end welfarism at least.

All good stuff, of course, and superbly calculated to offend my chippier compatriots (of whom, alas, there is no shortage). Heffer idetified three knavish Scots he holds responsible for our current predicament: Gordon Brown, Alastair Darling and Sir Fred Goodwin, late of RBS and now, apparently, the "worst banker in the world". I am surprised that Heffer didn't add Tony Blair to the mix too, even if neither the former Prime Minister himself, nor most Scots, would really consider him "One of Us".

Of these three villains, Darling is of no account being merely his master's lackey while Goodwin, for all the opprobrium sent his way at present, was the epitome of the heroic banker. His fall has been spectacular, of course, and the consequence of hubris but it has been little more dramatic than the defensetration of plenty of other erstwhile Masters of the Universe. That leaves Brown, of course, and there, I fear, there is neither any escape nor any excuse. Nonetheless, it is English votes, not Scottish ones, that put Labour in power...

More to the point, however, there's no doubt that the fall of RBS has been a severe blow north of the Border. The bank's rise was perceived, especially in Edinburgh, as being symptomatic of a newly confident, even resurgent, Scotland. At long last a new national champion had emerged to take the place of the long-silent titans of heavy industry that produced much of the world's shipping and locomotives. When you land at Edinburg airport you could be forgiven for assuming that you had arrived at RBS International Airport, such was the extent of RBS branding at the airport. Scots had revelled in the battle between RBS and its old rival the Bank of Scotland for control of the English giant NatWest. It was, we liked to think, proof that the country had finally shaken off its seemingly terminal decline and could face the world with confidence and, yes, not a little arrogance. Another example, we liked to say, of how the Act of Union had in many ways, been a startlingly successful reverse takeover.

Well the sun has gone now, replaced by wintry skies and a return to a kind of ground-down pessimism. Or fretfulness at least. The hunt for scapegoats is on.

Actually, what irritates the English about Gordon Brown, I think, is his lazy sense of superiority. It irritates me too, of course, but there's little doubt that, like the late John Smith and Donald Dewar (and Alex Salmond for that matter) there's an arrogance to Brown who believes, in Smith's words that the Scots "are a more moral people" than the English. Much of the campaign for a Scottish parliament was based upon a self-serving assumption that the granite-tough values of an ingrained presbyterianism had produced a people more rooted in community, work, dignity and decency than our southern neighbours, weakened as they were by a feeble Anglicanism on the one hand and a grasping materialism on the other. This, mind you, was one way of elevating Scotland's impoverishment into a virtue.

Poppycock of course. But widely believed - or simply assumed without thinking - nonetheless. One of the good things about RBS's rise was that it, to some extent, contradicted this self-satisfied tosh. This was a new, enterprising Scotland on the march! Wha's like us? Bring it on.

Of course, in retrospect it all rather has the feel of the doomed 1978 World Cup campaign. What, the press asked the manager Ally MacLeod, are you going to do after the World Cup? "Retain it" replied the manager. Aye hubris again, followed, rather swiftly, by the country becoming the laughing-stock of the football world. Pride coming before a fall and all that.

Then again, this is not a country comfortable with a level-headed view. Wild swings between giddy optimism and unmitigated pessimism are the national currency. The collapse of the banks reinstates that familiar refrain "Can we no do anything right?" But the truth, duller and more banal though it may be, is that we've rarely been either as special as we'd like to think ourselves or as hopeless as we may secretly fear.

But the dent to Scottish self-confidence will have political consequences too. I think it less likely (though not impossible) that the SNP will even hold their multi-option independence referendum next year which means, I'm afraid Mr Heffer, that you might be stuck with us for some time yet.

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (24)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Craig Strachan

January 26th, 2009 6:35pm Report this comment

Bruce Patullo did it better.

rcw

January 26th, 2009 6:43pm Report this comment

The Scots have shown what they are capable of. There are too many names to mention in RBS and the banking world who got it very, very, wrong, and screwed up the banks. Now their policians, starting with little Alex, who jeered at the 'city spivs' have to recognise they ruined the banks themselves. At the same time they also have to recognise, or the voters wil th eballot box, that Scotland's is now a McBanana Republic. It's costs are out of control. The quality of political debate is always to balme the others, they are heading for 70% public funded economy (supported by teh Sassenachs) - and heading in the dubious direction of a becoming, a la' East Germany, a Federal McBanana Republic, which is one run by thugs for their ends.
All this on Rabbie Burns 250 birthday too. How sad.

JohnAnt

January 27th, 2009 1:25am Report this comment

The English have nothing against the Scots - on the contrary, we quite like them. But there are too bloody many of them down here!!

William

January 27th, 2009 9:43am Report this comment

How does England became 'independent' from Scotland? Is it even constitutionally possible?

Heffer, like most Englishmen, is too thick to know the history of his own country. It was Heffer and his ilk who inflicted Margaret Hilda Thatcher on Scotland. Under Thatcher, Scottish unemployment rose from 169,000 to 300,000 in the space of four years.

The English didn't mind this. Thatcher could destroy Scotland if she wanted because, look, she had created all this wealth in England. It has turned out to be an illusion.

The English, including blowhards like Heffer, will learn the truth of 'as we are, so shall ye be.' And no amount of anti-Scottish racism will save their sorry hides.

Gareth Young

January 27th, 2009 10:08am Report this comment

Let's be selective here. They've ruined England, not Britain.

Devolution has strengthened Britain, or hadn't you heard? And the Barnett Formula is a "small price to pay" (Tony Blair) for keeping the Union together.

Yes, on balance, the ruination of England is a small price to pay for the privilege of been ruled by Scots.

bazza

January 27th, 2009 10:15am Report this comment

The scots will tell the world that they were colonised by the English and are oppressed,the next breath they will deny they were ever conquered by the English.
My biggest gripe with Brown and New Labour is the denial of England and English Identity.
Britishness and the faults and blame of British Empire has been laid firmly at the feet of the English working class whilst the scots welsh and irish components of the uk have walked away untainted.
The history of Empire is now one of scots running around with first aid kits after English soldiers used the bayonet on the natives.

gadgie

January 27th, 2009 10:28am Report this comment

I fail to see how the interests of English taxpayers are served when charging them for the astronomical costs of Stormont, the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly(soon to be a parliament).Then we have Lord Moonie a scottish laird willing to change legislationfor money that would affect England but not Scotland. Scrap the Lords and in its place put a british grand committee. equal representation for all home countries regardless of population. The commons can then be the English Parliament. hopefully with a much reduced number of mp's.

James Matthews

January 27th, 2009 10:39am Report this comment

"English votes put Labour in power". No, a flawed electoral system and the absence of an English Parliament put Labour in power. At the last general electon, by a small margin, more English votes went to the Conservatives than to Labour, but that was not reflacted in the number of Conservative seats.

IMarcher

January 27th, 2009 10:55am Report this comment

It was NOT English votes that put Labour in power! The Tories got more votes in England than did Labour at the last general election.

William

January 27th, 2009 12:32pm Report this comment

Quite right, chaps. The Tories should get in even though no-one in Scotland wants them. So, er, the Scots are inflicting Labour on England and the brilliant, genius solution is to inflict the Tories on Scotland. That resolves everything - at least for the English which is all they ever care about.

You're right. What is needed is, er, an English Parliament - the present system of 529 English MP's and 59 Scottish MP's is clearly hopelessly biased in favour of, er, the Scots.

Erm, Simon? Your pupils are in trouble.

James Matthews

January 27th, 2009 1:07pm Report this comment

No William, the English won't inflict the Tories on Scotland. You already have your own Parliament and will elect either Labour of the SNP. No problem there, but there is absolutely no justification for the Scots to have any say in England on matters which Scotland now decides entirely for itself. If you don't like the prospect of a Tory government deciding on UK reserved matters vote yes to independence in Alex's referendum - if he ever has the courage to hold it.

Jacko

January 27th, 2009 2:21pm Report this comment

I passed through Edinburgh airport in May '08. You are right, RBS paraphernalia is everywhere. I was even shown Goodwin's reserved parking space!
Too polite to say what I was thinking I did say later when we had a few drinks that I thought RBS had been lured by Barclays
(a wicked English bank) into overpaying for Amro. We now know I was understating the situation by far. At the time my remark was dismissed out of hand.

Your point re Brown's arrogance and that he believes the Scots to be a more moral people than the English is true of a certain type of Scot. Brown is one. That attitude goes back over many centuries and was certainly prevalent and stated at the time of the Union 1707. We quite liked John Smith by the way and I am sure that,had he lived,he would have been far too perceptive and wily to allow the current Scottish/English disension to have arisen.
Brown just makes us spit.

The inequities of the post devolution British "constitution" are just too profound to be ignored and the present economic collapse just points them up more so. Unemployment appears to be hitting England far worse than Scotland because Scotland is subsidised with masses of state jobs by English money. Brown said so many times. He calls it the Union dividend.

The only fair way forward is for England to have the same deal as Scotland and that means an English parliament and government. Not British.
If that comes about then the Union can probably be preserved though there will have to be a clearly British identity to overlying British parliament to which all the countries of the Uk can happily buy into.
I think this is doable but first the British political class has accept there is a problem. They are slowly getting there but many of them still want to pretend all is well when it isn't.

William

January 27th, 2009 3:25pm Report this comment

'for the Scots to have any say in England on matters which Scotland now decides entirely for itself'

Er, James, what did you think the Scottish Office did all these years?

The real question is what the Scottish Office does now. Or have you not considered that prospect?

Presumably it was okay for English Tory MP's to debate Scottish matters as they had to during the John Major years - there weren't enough of them!

Another Englishman utterly ignorant of what he's actually against.

William

January 27th, 2009 3:46pm Report this comment

I’m sorry, James. I should not have used such language. I am stooping to Simon Heffer’s grubby level.

It is a reality, though, that many English people do not understand the constitutional setup. How many English people know that Scotland has always held its own legal and educational systems or a separate NHS, all of which predate devolution? Or that Scotland received budgets for many departments before devolution? It was called the Scottish Office. We hear a lot about how Scottish politicians choose to spend more per capita on health than England but this is never explained in the context of how the budget is decided or that English politicians choose to spend more per capita on police than Scotland. If Scottish politicians chose to spend more on police they would have less to spend on health and vice versa.

It seems it is not enough for some English people that Whitehall is based in London, that the UK government is based in London – how many jobs in London are owed, directly or indirectly, to this massive taxpayer spend? Move Whitehall to Carlisle and see the difference. It seems it is not enough for some English people that 80% of Parliament is controlled by English MP’s. No, they want an ‘English’ Parliament. It’s frankly comic.

Gareth Young

January 27th, 2009 4:43pm Report this comment

It's not just an English Parliament we want, it's an English Government - it's a Government that speaks for and to England.

rcw

January 27th, 2009 5:32pm Report this comment

In my long business career I have noted how Scots rise up the career ladder through agressive and hard nosed behaviour, which the softie English gentlemen type can't deal with. RBS and Parliament are cases in point, as indeed are the contributions to this debate.
The Duke of Cumberland tactics are needed to shut this lot up. Politeness doesn't work.

William

January 27th, 2009 8:07pm Report this comment

'which the softie English gentlemen type can't deal with.'

This pathetic caricature of the 'softie' English is as offensive as any anti-Scottish drivel so far!

'it's a Government that speaks for and to England.'

Such lip-trembling tosh usually means you and other people who agree with you - which actually turns out to be a very small minority.

rcw

January 27th, 2009 9:29pm Report this comment

William, you seem to have forgotten to take your medication.
Press the buzzer and call nurse.

Lee Jakeman

January 27th, 2009 11:20pm Report this comment

"I'm afraid, Mr Heffer, that you might be stuck with us for some time yet." Is this your way of saying that it is the Scots alone who will decide the future of the Union?

PaganPride

January 27th, 2009 11:32pm Report this comment

rcw - no - let dear William (a norman name by the way) rant! He is exactly the type of Scotsman we loathe. Petty minded, stuck in the 1980's, his "it's OK for us to ruin you because Maggie Thatcher ruined us" single minded debate symbolises everything that is wrong with the so-called union.

No - everytime someone like him inhabits these boards it creates another load of English nationalists. Long may he rant

Stephen Gash

January 27th, 2009 11:45pm Report this comment

What is pathetic and frankly comic is this veritable vomit of a devolved United Kingdom.

The Union was founded on falsehood and is being frun on a myriad of falsehoods now.
What happened to democracy?

English people don't want regions yet have them foisted on them. English people persistently record in polls around 66% wanting their own parliament, but are denied even a referendum.

The result? An increase in calls for English independence from next to nothing, to 34% in a recent poll.
20% of Tory MPs admit to wanting an English Parliament, and 40% of Tory supporters want one.

We are, however, expected to believe that the Union can only survive with the English having no say on how they want their country governed and, indeed, must see their country disappear altogether.

As an Englishman I have no loyalty to the United Kingdom because the United Kingdom has been, and is being, disloyal to me.

William

January 28th, 2009 10:21am Report this comment

'No - everytime someone like him inhabits these boards it creates another load of English nationalists.'

And what England desperately needs is more flatulent, pig-ignorant English nationalists, right?

When the Chinese and Arabs pull their money out of London even the thickest English skinhead will realise they've been conned and not even waving the St. George's flag will save them.

I have a special malt set aside for that day.

William

January 28th, 2009 10:31am Report this comment

What next from The Spectator/Telegraph/Der Sturmer stable?

'How the Jews ruined Britain'?

'How the blacks ruined Britain'?

'How Muslims ruined Britain'?

Or is it only Scots that are to be subject to vicious, racist hate campaigns?

rcw

January 28th, 2009 5:23pm Report this comment

Let me see if I can the run of events right.
1.England bails out Scotland after the Scots lose all their cash in South America. Thus leading to Union of the UK.
2. The English being generous by nature allow the first joint king of Scotland and England to be a Scot. James i/Vi.
3. Scots use the new opportunity of the Union to lead in the creation of the Empire, and stick it to the natives. Too many names to mention although Jardine Mattheson, ex-Opium dealers of Hong Kong fame are worth mentioning.
4. Following the fact that we have allowed Scots to become Prime Minister, Chancellor and to many other important offices, more times than is justified and also a larger number of MPs. Yet again the softie-English have given in to the bullies. Time to call in the Race Relations Board to ask how come the jocks only promote other jocks. Over to you Trevor!
5. Then of course there were the Home Internationals in which England's football team used to stuff the jocks on a regular basis. But again, being soft and generous we allowed these to cease. The truth is that we were fed up with London being chock full of drunken jocks for days on end around the time of matches. I know because I used to work in the West End and saw them singing/chanting, getting drunk at breakfast and using any doorway as a Urinal.
6. And finally: England bails out Scottish Banks who have taken a lead in driving our joint economy into the ground.
These same banks had taken over English banks over the years. Yet again more evidence of chippy Jock getting his own way and the English softie giving in.

By the way William. Muslims and Jews have been and are an asset to Britain, unlike the land of Rab C Nesbit, where 50% of the people in work and not in the pub are paid for by British Taxpayers. Soon it will be 70%+.

Post comment