Theresa May’s Threats 87

The problem with not being independent is that Scotland would continue to be ruled by people like Theresa May. Her threat to close the border is a patent bluff, and motivated by racism.  Her fear is that “Buried deep in Alex Salmond’s white paper is the admission that, just like the last Labour government, a separate Scotland would pursue a looser immigration policy.”

It is neither hidden nor an admission.  Scotland welcomes immigrants who contribute to its economy and its culture.  Scotland doesn’t have a politics of pandering to racists. That is one of the things which so many Scots want to get away from.

There is no way that independent Scotland will be forced out of the EU.  First, there are no grounds for the assumption that WENI will be the successor state and Scotland a legal new entity; the Czechs and Slovaks, for example, both inherited the entire treaty obligations of the former Czechoslovakia.  But even if Scotland did have to reapply – which I doubt strongly – Scotland already meets the acquis communitaire, by definition.  The Commission report establishing that would be prepared in the transitional period between the referendum and actual independence, and Scotland’s application and acceptance would be a same day process.  If Spain wanted to stop that – and many anti-Catalan Spanish politicians are intelligent enough to realize that extreme hostility to the Scots would provoke more, not less, Catalan nationalism – Spain does not have the political clout within the EU, and is in too dependent a position to isolate itself by a veto.

I worked for four years as First Secretary in the British Embassy in Warsaw specifically on Polish preparations for EU entry, and I know what I am talking about – indeed I have no doubt I know a great deal more about EU accession than Teresa May.  I also know that there is enormous sympathy for Scottish nationalism right across the EU’s international relations community, be it national politicians and diplomats or EU staff.  You would be surprised just how much ground has been quietly prepared by Scottish diplomats and civil servants in advance, sotto voce, in our spare time! With Scotland firmly committed to the EU, and the Conservative Party committed to a referendum on leaving, those who believe the EU’s sympathies lie more with May than with Scotland are deluded.

Actually nobody does really believe that, the propagandists of the mainstream media merely want you to believe it.


87 thoughts on “Theresa May’s Threats

1 2 3
  • fool

    For what it’s worth, just to clarify further:

    1/. I have no strong feelings about whether Scotland should leave the UK or not. I should note in passing, however – this has already been touched on in previous threads – that independence would be likely to consolidate a permanent Conservative majority in the UL parliament (which could be an argument for saying that the entire UK should vote on the question).

    Habba makes a good point.

  • Craig Evans


    An excellent piece as usual.

    Scotland will vote YES in September because it is the best thing for us to build the country we want and not have policies we do not vote for imposed on us.

    If the RUK government wishes to be spiteful and impose restrictions on us then so be it, we will have to live with it. However, by there actions ye shall know them and it will show them up for who they are.

    If however we vote No; then god help us for these spiteful politicians in Westminster will strip us of powers and impose further cuts on us.

    Vote YES in September; remember, the Better Together campaign don’t call themselves “Project Fear” for nothing


  • Rick Worth

    Sorry Craig, but you are just indulging in wishful thinking about the EU. Firstly it wouldn’t be forced out. It would be leaving a Member State and forming a new non-member state. That is fairly straightforward and it’s foolish to pretend otherwise. There are arguments to be had about whether it yet qualifies for membership and, if so, whether other MS would let it in on the nod. Personally, I think the politics of it would say not, but that’s for others to decide. What I do know is that burying your head in the nationalist sand over the EU doesn’t help anyone. Nor does the obvious victim mentality.

  • nevermind

    well said Richard at 8:28, for the reasons you mention those few bothered and principled are now throwing in the towel, they had enough. Party politicians ride on and work with this disollution as it is the only way they can get their few supporters to vote, by dropping 6 tons of leaflets, lying and promising the earth, and by fraud through the postal voting system.

    Give me a randomly selected lottocracy tommorrow!

    I also agree with OEM, racism is inherent in most EU states due to their colonial past and records of slavery, still pratcised today in this and other countries, whether its gangmasters in the Fenlands withholding payslips, or Middle eastern princes retaining pay and passports of their domestic slaves.

    That immigration has a special place on an island, is historic. What is going on here is party political jousting with immigration. Whilst all parties have no solution they are tinkering and sticky plastering their social policies to suit their specific rabid line.

    Those who think that Independence will rid Scotland of its sectarianism, its religious relics whipping up nasty fervours for 400 years, should realise that such favouritism and jockality will be seen as the religious racismn it is.

    Scotland could acess the EU within a month, there I agree with Craig, they could choose the Euro. But why should they wait with disolving the royal estates and their reliance on paegantry? Why should they want to replace such theatre by electing their own head of state?

  • N_


    This is the second time you have posted on the evasions and weasel words in the Scottish govt’s so-called comprehensive, tell-things-as-they-are document.

    You are absolutely right. I wonder if you would agree with me that those weasel words and statements – they are legion – demonstrate that those on this blog who think that Scottish politicians are a nobler, more moral and somehow higher order of humans than English politicians are just deluding themselves?

    I don’t think those statements say anything about anybody here (except that some of them are probably in the intended market for such statements), but I do agree that many pro-independence Scots hold exactly the view that you ascribe to them, and yes I have encountered it here on this blog.

    They joke and say “we’re above you”. Meaning “to the north” as well as “superior”. And the English are “down below”. Er, yes mate, ha ha, very witty. When you hear that – and you can hear it even from educated people – it’s kind of embarrassing!

    The most ambitious Scots leave Scotland, and that’s been the case for a long long time.

    The ‘independence first, and then we’ll get rid of the monarchy, leave NATO, etc. afterwards‘ position has always been ridiculous.

    I was quite surprised to see it coming from Craig.

    A vote for independence is not in any way a vote against the monarchy and NATO, any more than that could be said of a vote for the union.

    A lot could be said about referenda and how the ‘time for a change‘ side, in circumstances where a lot of people actually want a change, presents a bunch of proposals which is such a crock of politician-style bullshit, lies, and cocky stupidity that, in the end, people vote for the status quo, i.e. for the ‘better the devil you know‘.

    I hope the racist feeling against English people doesn’t increase drastically after the referendum. In North Wales, and even in parts of South Wales, there are many areas where English people aren’t welcome.

    In England, racist attacks on non-whites increase at the time of big-market international sporting competitions.

    The reason the referendum is being held this year is not to do with the Battle of Bannockburn. It’s because of the Commonwealth Games, where England and Scotland field separate teams.

    In Scotland, there is just as much racism as there is in England. Fewer people get stabbed, is about all you can say, which is of course a good thing. But that’s probably to do with social geography. There’s just as much talk of “Pakis”. Anyone who doubts that, please try travelling on late-night buses in Glasgow for a week.

    Or find some inner-city schools which take a lot of white and a lot of non-white pupils and ask white parents what they think about that and what criticisms they would make of how it works in practice.

    If you do, you will hear a lot of racism.

    I hope Craig doesn’t credentialise himself by saying he’s travelled oh so widely in the schemes (council or ex-council estates, some of which are enormous) and he knows to the contrary. If he does, he’ll be wrong.

    Scottish nationalism is his intellectual weak point. We probably all have them. That and he’d like a job as McAmbassador of course. Or maybe McHigh Commissioner?

    A common view of English people in Scotland is that they’re all right so long as they don’t start demanding things or telling Scots what’s what.

    The most boneheaded Scottish nationalists find it hard just to accept people as people, even though most of them assert otherwise. They associate English accents with racism against Scottish people. That is in most cases a complete load of rubbish. Most English people living in Scotland have little problem with Scottish people, and they live in Scotland because they like it there, which obviously includes liking a lot of the culture and a lot of the people.

    Of course an English person in Scotland is just as likely to be racist against “Pakis” as a Scottish person is.

    But the Scottish person, if they are racist against the English, will probably take the view that the “Pakis” are better than the “English”. It’s commonly heard from shopkeepers of Pakistani origin in Scotland that when Pakistan beats England at cricket, “everyone’s” happy. Scottish people come into their shops and say “Hey, Pakistan beat England! Nice one!”

    I should of course underline that some Scottish people are NOT racist against the English and have ample sense NOT to watch sport on the telly.

    As with many things, it’s only the arseholes who cause the problem, and many people are NOT arseholes.

    An English person who stands their ground in a discussion with a certain type of Scot is seen as being an annoying stuck-up English bastard just because the English person hasn’t keeled over and accepted that, at the end of the day, it’s Scotland for the Scots and he, as an English person, is merely tolerated so long as he doesn’t step out of line.

    In other words, the English person is a foreigner and should either pass Norman Tebbit’s cricket test or accept that the most he can ever aspire to is being allowed to offer an advisory opinion to the ubermensch and then be told whether it’s accepted or not.

    Even lefty Scottish nationalists back some form of the cricket test. Sometimes they get right narky when this is pointed out to them.

    In fact the English person might hold the view that a road should be widened, or taxes should be increased, or this or that change should be made (or not made) to government policy, for reasons which have zero to do with their English nationality. He might just be a person who lives somewhere and has views on stuff. And why the hell shouldn’t he? He may well have some kind of view that he’s living in his own country too: Britain. Many Scottish people don’t like English people in Scotland going around with that idea in their heads!

    But the saltire has been waved and the Scottish person of the anti-English type has been persuaded by the opinion formers, with little effort. In other words, he holds his view because someone sold it to him wrapped in a saltire. People don’t like admitting to that kind of idiocy. He is, in a word, stupid. All racists are stupid. Anti-English Scottish racists are no exception.

    In our illustrative dialogue, the anti-English Scot can’t face up to the fact that the English person might be more rational and aware than he is, and might hold his view for some other reason than someone has sold it to him wrapped in the flag of St George.

    Scottish nationalists often say that English people don’t make a distinction between English nationalism and British nationalism.

    The only way in which that is true is that sometimes some English people who aren’t thinking too much of what they’re saying might refer to the country Britain (you know, the country that has international relations, passports, borders, and stuff) as being “England“. While that riles Scottish nationalists to the max (and in fact it often also annoys non-nationalists like myself), actually it isn’t as bad as it sounds, because nobody actually believes Scotland is or should be in England. The English person has just forgotten about the existence of the small-population country to the north. I mean should they really be treated as if they were Cecil Rhodes or Rudyard Kipling or a Tory scumbag for that? After all, they have been subjected to conditioning too. In most cases they don’t mean to put anyone down and will immediately correct themselves when challenged. Some of them probably learn something.

    The ‘chips on the Scottish shoulder’ thing is widely known south of the border. I’m sorry, but this is one of the psychological trait with which Scottish nationalism is associated, for many of its adherents.

    That’s why, the last I heard, there was the extraordinary position that the polls were showing a majority in England in favour of Scottish independence, and a majority in Scotland against! Does anyone know of any parallels to that? I don’t.

    There is an oft-heard Scottish view that “foreigners are welcome, so long as they contribute to Scottish society”. They’re ‘welcome’ as ‘new Scots’. That is, of course, a case of speaking with forked tongues.

    Any pro-independence types reading this, how about you address the issue of racism in Scotland, including anti-English racism? Start by admitting it exists.

    When an English person ‘insists’ on something, then sometimes the chips on the Scottish shoulder start growing into boulders, and the person is denounced along the lines that ‘you would say that, because you’re English‘, even though the person’s Englishness probably has fuck-all to do with what they’re saying. It’s as though Englishness is the first and last thing the Scottish anti-English type sees, a bit like when a black person says something and the main thing for a white racist is that the person is black.

  • N_

    racism is inherent in most EU states due to their colonial past and records of slavery

    How on earth did you arrive at that view?

    Racism is easily as bad in the Czech republic, Poland or Switzerland as it is in Russia – and worse than it is in Britain.

    I have met dark-skinned Asian people married to white people who have got out of the Czech republic because the racism against them was so pervasive there.

  • fred

    “I have met dark-skinned Asian people married to white people who have got out of the Czech republic because the racism against them was so pervasive there.”

    I know somebody had the same problem in Dundee. Couldn’t walk down the street together without being spat at.

  • Hector

    You misunderstand me, Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!- apologies for thinking you a minor prophet. The UK was established as the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 by the political union of England and Scotland. Everything that has happened since then has been with the agreement and acquiescence of Scotland. The departure of Scotland means the break-up and division of everything that has accrued to the UK and every agreement and treaty the UK has made since 1707.

  • Kempe

    “The departure of Scotland means the break-up and division of everything that has accrued to the UK and every agreement and treaty the UK has made since 1707.”

    Well no, that’s the whole point of a successor state, one that takes on all the obligations.

    Habb, I only used Poland as an example because Craig mentioned that he’d been involved in the negotiations. The fastest accession to the EU so far have been Austria, Sweden and Finland who were able to accede a mere two years after negotiations began (having had to wait a month for them to start). The idea that Scotland’s application could be dealt with in a day or even a month is laughable.

  • Aristotle

    Everything that has happened since (1707) has been with the agreement and acquiescence of Scotland.

    If that were true, you should be able to say what precise entity expressed its agreement in what precise form.

    Can you even show that the entity acted as a person in any way whatsoever after 1707?

    If you want independence, you leave and you become a country that is foreign to ‘WENI’.

    Instead, we get SNP politicians saying things like yes, they want Scottish passports, and they want people’s passports to have “Scotland” written on them when they get renewed.

    And they want so many percent of the army.

    And they want access to intelligence collected by GCHQ. I’m not making this up!

    It might help if you considered what kind of entity ‘Scotland’ is, rather than going by irrational feelings that you love it and that it dates back beyond the dawn of recorded time, as almost all nationalists like to believe.

    The departure of Scotland means the break-up and division of everything that has accrued to the UK and every agreement and treaty the UK has made since 1707.

    What does it mean to break up or divide a treaty? Your vocabulary and emotions are running ahead of your understanding.

    Russia took over the Soviet seat in the Security Council and all other obligations and rights that were held by the USSR under international treaties.

    After the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, Germany continued to pay reparations to the UK even when Ireland left the union known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 3 years later, to be replaced in a new union by Northern Ireland.

    If you’d been the German government’s lawyer, you’d have told them to bang the table like true zealots of the law and tell the British ambassador that from now on they were sending a proportion of the reparations payments to London and another proportion to Dublin, right?

    Your problem is that your premise is wrong. The political regime in Britain isn’t really a union. That’s only true when words are used vaguely. It’s a single entity. No union has signed a treaty. There has been no ‘agreement’ by constituent parts of the ‘union’ to any treaty signed by the ‘union’, and you are mistaken to think otherwise. Scottish independence would mean that a bit breaks off. Not leaves the union, but breaks off from the united entity.

    Stop saying the English won’t let you do stuff. That’s not what’s happening. That idiotic theme comes up again and again.

    For example, it comes up in the discussion of the currency. The Scottish authorities have no right to demand a currency union with WENI. What they have is a right to suggest negotiations to try to achieve one, and they may get rebuffed if the other party isn’t interested. Tough. That’s international relations for you.

    The truth is that the Scottish Government’s published plan for ‘independence’ isn’t for real independence at all. If Scotland becomes independent, the Scottish authorities should be prepared to run their own monetary policy – and they should certainly run their own citizenship.

    Quit with thinking you can have your cake and eat it. Having a brass plate on your door because your dad got you into the freemasons doesn’t make you sharp or knowledgeable. Grow up.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!


    ““racism is inherent in most EU states due to their colonial past and records of slavery”

    How on earth did you arrive at that view?

    Racism is easily as bad in the Czech republic, Poland or Switzerland as it is in Russia – and worse than it is in Britain.

    I have met dark-skinned Asian people married to white people who have got out of the Czech republic because the racism against them was so pervasive there.”


    Excellent points, N_.

    May I also point out that racism and slavery pre-date, by a very, very long time, the formation of European countries. I have heard that the tribes of Israel were taken into Egypt in slavery (where did I read that?); Arab traders in the Middle Ages and later were active in the negro slave trade; ancient Athens ran on slaves. And so on.

    But no, of course, its all the fault of the West again! 🙂

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!


    “The departure of Scotland means the break-up and division of everything that has accrued to the UK and every agreement and treaty the UK has made since 1707.”

    That is incorrect. To take just one example (in one of Craig’s former fields, as it happens): the UK is a party to the Law of the Sea Convention – is it your contention that this Convention will become null and void as far as the UK is concerned?

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!


    Thanks for that. But I think I may have dealt with that in point 3 of my post at 08h22 this morning?

  • Hector

    “the UK is a party to the Law of the Sea Convention – is it your contention that this Convention will become null and void as far as the UK is concerned?”

    Yes, Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!, unless the new states formed from the former UK accept it in their articles of division. After all, as one question to be dealt with will be the division of what are now British territorial waters one of the parties involved may find it in their interest not to accept it.

  • N_

    @Hab – Agreed on the long history of racism and slavery.

    Another example outside of the West is the prevalence of slavery in Africa before the western slave traders arrived.

    I don’t know of any ethnic group in which leaders were given the chance to get a slice of the slave action and all of the said leaders said no thanks.

    As well as Hebrews being enslaved, other Hebrews also kept slaves – there are rules governing slavery in the Hebrew Bible or ‘Old Testament’ as Christians call it. Theoretically the line was that Jewish slaves should be redeemed (there was no such line regarding non-Jewish slaves), but in an odd echo of 20th century history, often the Jewish leaders dragged their feet or thought of reasons to change the line…for ever so temporary and contingent reasons of course! Not sure why you mention only “Arab” involvement in the negro slave trade. There was Jewish involvement too (OK, some of the Jews were Arabs, but some weren’t), and of course there was also black involvement, which sometimes those involved in black studies are prone to forget or skim over.

  • Richard

    It was John Major, about twenty years ago, who suggested that he was opposed to separatism despite the fact that it would probably give his party a majority in the remainder of the U.K. for the foreseeable future. He was suggesting – honestly or otherwise – that he put the welfare of the country and her people before party political advantage.

    My suspicion is that the present lot have made a similar calculation but have reversed Major’s priorities. I have no way of actually knowing, and I certainly can’t prove it, but I suspect Cameron and his chums at best don’t care about Scottish separatism and at worst are actually hoping that it happens. Every time they open their kissers to speak “for” the union they don’t just say something clumsy and counter-productive, they do so with an unpleasantness which is totally uncalled for. Once is a gaffe, twice looks particularly incompetent, but more often than that and something else – something unspoken – is going on.

    If this hunch is right, then Salmond, who comes across like as wily a politician who ever stood on a soapbox, knows it. They are handing him ammo, he’s using it, they know he knows and he knows they know and if the gap can be closed between “no” and “yes”, they both get what they want. The people of these islands, however, wake up to exactly the same real problems as they have now and exactly the same self-serving morons not trying to solve them. After separatism, what will they think of next to divert the sheeple? Bets anyone?

  • Rick Worth

    @Hector. You are indulging in the same wishful thinking as Craig. A small part of the UK will (perhaps) be leaving. That has no bearing at all on treaties signed by the existing state.

  • fool

    Aristotle “And they want so many percent of the army.

    And they want access to intelligence collected by GCHQ. I’m not making this up!”

    I was thinking about how a would be independent sets up its secret service prior to gaining independence. In particular how this would work in Scotland. Obviously it would ppear to be prima facie illegal to set up a quasi state secret service prior to independence, yet without it wouldn’t independence be pretty shallow. I don’t know if as Aristotle seems to suggest Scotland seeks a buy in to British intelligence and nothing else, or whether it has or will have its own SSS (Scottish Secret Service) which would want a buy in. When you start to think about this its difficult not to think that there may be some elements of the deeper state who are not altogether not so fussed about ‘independence’; perhaps it serves some particular end.

  • fred

    Look it’s going to be swings and roundabouts whatever happens.

    These people who can only see positive about independence and negative about the union I would not believe a word they say and visa versa.

    When we need rational debate all we get is fanatics promoting their own Fantasy Islands.

    First get the referendum over. Should the people of Scotland vote for independence, which is by no means a foregone conclusion as some seem to think, well then that is when the horse trading begins and I don’t think anyone can predict the outcome of that no matter how clever they claim to be.

  • Mary

    Andrew Marr the BBC stooge for the powers-that-be.

    BBC presenter Andrew Marr accused of breaking guidelines on referendum coverage

    Sunday, 16 March 2014 16:37

    A BBC presenter is at the centre of a row after appearing to voice his own opinion on the issue of a newly independent Scotland’s membership of the European Union.

    In an interview with First Minister Alex Salmond, Andrew Marr ended an exchange with Mr Salmond on EU membership by saying he believed a Yes vote would see Scotland forced out of the EU and finding it hard to get back in.

    “I think it will be quite hard to get back in, I have to say”, viewers heard the BBC man say.


  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!


    “Not sure why you mention only “Arab” involvement in the negro slave trade. There was Jewish involvement too”

    Nothing sinister there, N_ ; it was simply the example that came to mind. Happy to accept your further example of Jewish slave traders.

  • fred

    “A BBC presenter is at the centre of a row after appearing to voice his own opinion on the issue of a newly independent Scotland’s membership of the European Union.”

    That’s his job, he interviews people and gives the opposing viewpoint.

    Really the Nationalists screaming “bias” at any opposing viewpoint is getting increasingly like Israel screaming “antisemitism” at any criticism of Israel.

  • fred

    I see the Scottish Conservatives are saying they will stop free prescriptions if they get into power.

    Personally I believe that would be a good thing. At the moment rich people in Edinburgh who can well afford to pay for their medicines get them free while young mothers in the Highlands have to travel over a hundred miles to give birth because there isn’t enough money left in the health budget to keep their maternity unit open.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.