The State of our Union

The United Kingdom is less than a century old, and is barely a decade older than the idea of European political union.

Political unions endure only as long as there is a need for them, and they can break apart much easier than how they formed.

Despite what Johnsn, Gover or JRM says, the TCA has broken the Union of the United Kingdom, in that for many good, NI remained in the SM. There are border posts on either side of the Irish Sea, paperwork has to be completed, and as a result there are shortages of some food and goods in NI.

In the next few weeks, it will be easier for stores and companies to get restock from the Republic rather than the rump of the Union, Great Britain.

That is a direct result of the Brexit that Vote Leave, who make up a large part of the Cabinet, negotiated and ratified. Rather ironic for the Conservative and Union Party, but there you go.

As pointed out before, there were just three choices for the regulatory border for NI, all of which raised major political questions, but one had to be chosen. May chose the border across Ireland, which would have been good for the UK but bad for Ireland, and against the GFA.

A border around Ireland would have meant that the UK would have remained in the SM and CU, politically it would have left the EU, but economically tied to it. A vassel state in the words of JRM, but a common sense solution to a complex issue. It would have executed the madate of the referendum, which simply asked if the UK should leave or stay in the EU. This would have satisfied that question.

But no.

So, Johnson had little other choice than the third option of a border down the Irish Sea, just how that would be managed. In the end, the border was harder than might have been expected, but Johnson denied there would be a border at all for menths. If you are asked to fill in a form, then send it to me he once told NI business leaders.

There are many forms now. Not just one.

So, with economic union with the Republic, the political question remains, and under the terms of the GFA, if it appears a majority of people in NI would like reunification then a refendum or vote shall be held. Who can't see that happening within the next decade?

All the more odd then to have the DUP, a Unionist party, pushing for Brexit, still, but railing against its effects. Brexit was always going to have consequences, there was never a cakeist outcome for it, least of all in NI. So, the DUP's support on the Commons for May's Government kept the Brexit flame alive by allowing May to win important votes. Until Johnson took over, held an election and won a majority, so didn't need the DUP's support, so NI was betrayed. Or the DUP was, and NI's place in the Union of the UK was negotiated away.

Useful idiots, I believe is the phrase.

And so to Scotland.

The Acts of Union 1607 (Scottish Gaelic: Achd an Aonaidh), united England (with Wales) and Scotland. I seem to remember there was some political issues, and a window of opportunity which allowed the acts to go through, but I can't remember the details, but I'm sure there is a good Wiki page on it.

So, as we can see, this political Union has endured for nearly 320 years. A remarkable amount of time.

This came after King James VI of Scotland also took the English Crown after the death of Elizabeth I to become James I. The two Parliaments united on May 1st 1707 to become the Parliament of the Great Britain.

So far, so good.

Up to the joining of the Common Market, trade and the such was a simpler, based mainly on tariffs to protect domestic economies. Up to that point, the UK was a single, simple market, with shared standards in many areas, including food.

The the UK joined the Common Market, which became the EU, do try to keep up.

Then, 1997, the then PM allowed referendums on the three non-English members of the Union, Scotland got a Parliament because more people voted for it, whilse Wales and NO got Assemblies, with more limited powers.

But nothing changed, as all member states were in the EU as part of the UK, so there was no conflict in food or other standards. Scotland could, impose standards on GM crops, unit price of alcohol and so on, but there was no issue, because all this was allowed under EU rules.

The SNP, over time, became the dominant party in Scottish politics, and their prime policy was independence. So in 2014 Scotland was given a "once in a lifetime" refendum on staying or leaving the EU. All sorts of promises and pleas were made to stay, and Scotland voted to stay.

But, there was the West Lothian Question: The West Lothian question,[1] also known as the English question,[2] is a political issue in the United Kingdom. It concerns the question of whether MPs from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, sitting in the House of Commons should be able to vote on matters that affect only England, while MPs from England are unable to vote on matters that have been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament. The term West Lothian question was coined by Enoch Powell MP in 1977 after Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP for the Scottish constituency of West Lothian, raised the matter repeatedly in House of Commons debates on devolution.

The produced the opposite, in other words, English votes for English laws. And this, I believe is the root of Brexit, though in the Conservative arty, Eurosceptisism has never gone away.

Then along came Brexit.

How can the UK negotiate a trade deal with, say the US, with lower food standards, if Scotland has the devolved power to decide its own food standards?

The Internal Market Bill.

But before then, convention dictated that the devolved administrations should be consulted and consent given to Brexit. I can tell you, that no such consent was sought or given, the three non-English countries of the United Kingdom were dragged out of the EU against their will by English votes, the Prime Minister and his Conservative and Union (!) Party.

One of the first areas to suffer the effects of Brexit was the Scottish fishing industry, with many fishermen and wholesalers under severe financial pressure, with many of them expected to fold.

All this comes in 2021, when in May there is scheduled to be elections for the Scottish Parliament, whic the SNP is expected to win a landslide. Already the First Minister is pushing for a second vote, partly on Brexit and partly on the broken promises of 2014.

One, speaking as an Englishman (who identifies as European) can understand that.

As we have seen from Brexit, referendum can be blunt instruments, ramming through poorly thought out policies under the term of "the people's will". No thought was given or offered by the Brexiteers on the consequences of Brexit, just that any questions were called unpatriotic, and efforts to raise issues that needed to be overcome as "project fear".

There can be no dount that Scottish independence would have many issues to overcome too, and whether the country would ride to leaving the Union without a though of the implications, time will have to wait on that. But just leaving is the first part.

If leaving the UK is the first step in rejoining the EU, then would Scotland have to go through the lengthy Article 49 process that app prospective new members have to go through?

And how will the resitance of Spain be overcome, as the independence of the Basque Region is still very much a live issue, and Madrid would not like some kind of presedent to be set.

Would Scotland have to ditch the (Scottish) Pound and join the Euro?

How would the border with England work? If it were in different reglatory areas, then a border would be needed.

And, in theory, needs to approval of the UK Government to have a new referendum, something which Johnson so far has denied. But denial of what is likely to become an overwhelming desire to leave will only strengthen the SNP's case of not having a referendum is undemocratic, and the further damage wrought by a hopelessly executed Brexit will further add weight to the cause.

In short, the arguments used by Brexiteers for leaving the EU by the UK can be used, and is used, by the SNP for Scotland leaving the UK. They both have to be right or wrong, not the case for the UK leaving the UK right, but Scotland leaving the UK wrong.