Brown should embrace the fight over the Union

salieri

But Prudence Brown doesn't take risks, does she, especially when that risk is the annihilation of his political existence and that of all the other Scottish pygmies who have already done so much to destroy the Union.

Bottler Brown bites the bullet? Never - just another portion of nails.

John Backhouse

Top thinking Mr Forsyth! And we all know that, whatever the result, they'd fight like cats in a bag and make themselves look worse than now. Excellent!

Nicholas

Huh, he might have "thought more about the meaning of Britishness than any other contemporary politician" but he and his party have also done more to destroy it!

As someone pointed out elsewhere the decision to dismantle the Union is not Scotland's alone to take.

At least such posturing would be consistent with the weirdness, inconsistencies and dichotomies of New Labour generally and Brown in particular. A Scots Leninist masquerading as a patriotic left of centre Brit "leading" a party composed of the old left keeping quiet (mainly) and along for the ride with a new generation of European-style socialist self-serving career politicians who don't care much about anything other than staying in power and advancing themselves. There, I'm not even going to get into the weird, dynastic family thing in the Labour cabinet which is riddled with Scots Politique.

Ted Tedford

I agree with Nicholas. It's all very well *thinking* about 'Britishness' more than any contemporary (talk about damned by faint praise). But it would be better to judge him by deeds, not thoughts. So far, the fruits of his thinking seem to be little more than dropping the phrase 'Britishness' into speeches, and hoping no one worries away at what he actually means. His speech last September could have been made by any 'progressive' politician in any Euro-Atlantic country.

Perry

There now seems to be an odd dissonance in so much Noo-Lie-Bore chatter. Can’t put my finger on any one play, especially about the ‘Union’ – if such it be.

But ‘Good Cop’ ‘Bad Cop’ comes to mind.

Both want the same thing in the end. Only the means, promises, and lies differ.

But haven’t solved the who, what, why, and where yet.

William Norton

James: To achieve the objectives you mention, the really cunning thing for Brown to do would be to hold a referendum on both sides of the border.

Fergus Pickering

Only 25 per cent support independence. I thought the figure was 41 per cent. Elucidate do. The Scots would be daft to go it alone but they are daft. I know. I live among them. Good eggs but quite daft.

David Lindsay

The point cannot be made too often: the United Kingdom is my country, which no one has the right to take away from me.

Assuming that there can be such a referendum at all (and there is a very strong case that the United Kingdom belongs to the whole British People, past, present and future), then it must be held throughout the United Kingdom acting as an indivisible whole.

There is, in point of fact, no state in the United Kingdom except the United Kingdom, and no nation except the British nation. That anyone might want something else to be the case does not make it so.

Pete Hoskin

Fergus Pickering: For some reason, different polls on the Union produce wildly divergent results. I don't know why this is - perhaps another CoffeeHouser can elucidate?

Personally, though, I think the popularity of the SNP has to speak for something, and that Brown would be far from certain of getting the result he wants from a referendum.

Mrs Campbell

Brown knows that a Labour call for a referendum in Scotland (which Labour did not include in its manifesto in 2005) simply highlights the absence of the referendum which Labour promised in its manifesto but has refused to call. What a bind

Thomas Rai

This is too important an issue to be playing politics with.

(Yes, I'm aware how naive that sounds!)

Ian C

Shrewd observation Mrs Campbell. Not only would it bring forth the Midlothian question but the whole EU thing as well. Sounds better and better.

salieri

Well said, David Lindsay. We have become too accustomed to referenda being used as a cynical political tool to endorse a pre-determined party agenda, instead of what used to be called a plebiscite, a genuine sounding out of public opinion as a whole by which the government solemnly and unconditionally agrees to be bound.

You are absolutely right: a decision to alter the constitution of the United Kingdom can only be taken by the United Kingdom.

bt

It might help Brown in Scotland, but it won't play down here. Do you really think that Crewe & Nantwich have the slightest interest what happens north of the border? (Apart from subsidies, maybe.) Now multiply C&N by 500. That's how fascinated the English electorate are by strange political contortions in the northern mists.

In fact, it could be counter-productive - most of the electorate are only interested in things as they may affect themselves. "Why's he messing around with somebody else's problems when they have their own representatives when he could be sorting out *our* hospitals 'n schools 'n stuff. Oh, and by the way, where's our referendum, Gordon? You remember, the one you promised on the EU."

IMO he needs to bury this one - fast.

Perry

Is it strange that this wretch, who, together with his buddies, and the previous Supreme Leader, have caused and supervised the wrecking of Britain, should claim to support this land and its institutions.

Is it the working of a devious mind?

Is it reparative, in that a decent man has viewed his errors and wishes to repent and make good?

Or is it a cynical ploy, to garner, by whatever means, a few tawdry votes from people desperate to salvage something of what was, and might still be recovered?

Richard

“Brown has thought more about the meaning of Britishness than any other contemporary politician.” OH PLEASE. Remember the old joke:
Politician - “And why do I emphasise the importance of the Navy?”
Voice from the crowd – “Because you’re in Portsmouth”.
And why does Brown “think” about “Britishness”? Because he’s a Scot representing a Scottish constituency whose continuing ability to govern an increasingly Conservative England rests in great part upon the votes of his Scottish MPs.

TGF UKIP

James is dead right to factor in Salmond on this. The Scots appear to be united on one point above all others, and that is a general dislike bordering on pathological hatred for the Tories. Salmond will have, therefore, Gordon's 20% political disadvantage in England to say to the Scottish electorate "vote no to independence and you'll be voting yes to be ruled by the Tories in 2010." Current and recent polls are meaningless on this issue.

James J

He could put it in a Manifesto .Referenda pledges make good manifesto commitments.

Lee Jakeman

As an English nationalist (although I might be persuaded - just - to accept a "federal" UK to replace the current centralised union), I am in complete agreement with what James writes. I would add, though, that devolution has been unfair to England and English people are now the victims of a new form of apartheid, in which Scottish kids get free University education and English kids don't. They also get many free life-saving drugs on the NHS which are denied to English patients. You don't rectify things like this by going on and on about "Britishness". Most Scots and Welsh don't give a stuff about "Britishness". All this crap about "Britishness" is designed purely for English consumption. What is needed is a constitutional settlement - either a properly devolved UK in which the English are considered a nation in their own right, with their own national parliament and identity, or a complete split into the four constituent nations: England, Scotland, Wales and a united Ireland. Anything less is a fudge. In its present form, you can shove the union. You can also shove an English "grand committee" and "English votes for English laws". The Tories may have derived some comfort from Labour's disastrous election results, but they shouldn't become too smug about it. They are still a "Unionist" party, still peddling the same old lop-sided crap and will only snap out of their fantasy when nationalist politicians start to threaten their seats, as has already happened in Scotland and Wales.

Silent Hunter

Oh for God's sake, man!

Gordon Brown is finished and you know it!

The sooner he goes, the better!

Kevyn Bodman

The debate over the preservation or dissolution of the Union should indeed be entered with vigour.
Do it now; it's a big issue and can't be hidden.

I disagree with David Lindsay that only the UK has a whole can dissolve the Union.

Should the Scotish Parliament with the support of the Scottish people choose to secede, then there are no peaceful options available to a Westminster government to prevent it.
Sorting out administrative matters wouldn't be easy, but that is not the point.

I support the Union, but would like to see the issues brought out into the open, now.

Fergus Pickering

We, the English, could always invade and occupy Edinburgh It shuld be easier than the Falklands and then we could intern all those Scottish MPs. Of course that could onlybe done after the fall of MacBroon and his craven, discredited administration. Oh, I forgot to add.There is in the Scottish History Museum (or some such name) in Queen Street, The Maiden, a Scottish form of the guillotine. We'll have that out and set up in Princes Street Gardens for a start. Bring it on, I say.

Jessica

We in England must also be allowed to vote on ending the Union, after all we are 80% of said Union and it's about time we were treated accordingly.

STAN, UK

How can anyone even think about holding a referendum on ending the UK as we know it without allowing the biggest country (England) to take part. When are the tories going to stand up for England, after all that is where they garner their political support and they had better not forget it!

Davie08

So if England votes to preserve the union and the Scots vote to leave what are you going to do invade? I really don't understand the English you moan on and on about how ungrateful we Scots are for your (imaginary) largesse and then get all sentimental about the union. The union is over deal with it. By thwe way Fergus the Museum of Scotland is in Chambers Street and if you are peddling opinons like yours around the pubs of Edinburgh you may find yourself a candidate for the maiden. A lesson to the circumspect.

Rodney Glyndwr James

Like most of my friends, I feel British first and foremost,and as it happens,in my case, Anglo-Welsh, a long way second.No bunch of self-serving third rate Scottish politicians has the right to take my country, Britain, away from me.If there is to be a vote then we must all be eligible,even ex-pats such as me.
Cameron ,if he is really smart, would campaign for a nationwide vote,positioning his party once more as the Conservative and Unionist party.

Allybe

May I suggest that Rodney Gllyndwr James feels "British first.." because,like many of his compatriots, he has until recently seen British and English as virtual synonyms? It is only the advent of devolution which has forced English people to try to develop an analysis of their own identity. For the record, am not a nationalist, nor a "whinging" Scot - from a historical point of view, the Union ended centuries of pointless and destructive warfare, and allowed both England and Scotland to build asuccessful and peaceful state, to the benefit of all concerned. But the tenor of recent comments from your side of the border - "bunch of self-serving third rate Scottish politicians" is a fair example- plus growing and perhaps justifiable resentment because of the West Lothian question - leads me to believe that a proper federal system would provide a solution which stopped short of destroying the Union completely.