Campaign to split UK may fuel race tensions

Do you agree? If the UK were to break up, would we see a `balkanized` Britain?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
Campaign to split UK 'may fuel race tensions'
Daily Telegraph
Link
Campaigners fighting to break up the historic Union of England and Scotland are today warned they could end up fuelling racial tensions.

On the eve of the 300th anniversary tomorrow of the Treaty that paved the way to the Act of Union, Trevor Phillips, head of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, raises fears that the break-up of the UK could help reduce the British people to "a collection of ethnic tribes".

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, supports the Union, claiming that British values transcend race, colour and ethnicity

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Phillips, born in London but educated in Guyana, also makes an impassioned defence of the notion of Britishness.

"Those whose own Britishness has never been cast into doubt may wonder why we make such a fuss about it.

"Perhaps it is not until you've had the experience of being told to get back where you come from (in my case, Finsbury Park actually), that you fully understand why an inclusive Britishness is so precious," he writes.

Mr Phillips's intervention comes after Gordon Brown, who is expected to take over from Tony Blair within months, issued a stark warning of the threat to the Union.

Also writing in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Brown, a Scot who represents a Scottish seat, warned on Saturday of a "balkanised Britain", fractured by the twin forces of nationalism and multi-culturalism.

Mr Phillips praises the Chancellor for his "eloquent defence of the British Union", saying it would have struck a chord with many. He saluted the Chancellor for warning about Scottish separatism and attacking "the laissez-faire, anything goes multi-culturalism which threatens to turn the British people into a collection of ethnic tribes".
 
#2
Good topic, wrong time of day.
 
#3
I cannot see the possible independence of Scotland prodicing hatred of the two sides that enabled even the less extreme methods of the Yugoslavian breakup to take place. A few BNP types either side of the border might jump up and down but nothing worse, I would have thought.
 
#4
A breakup might actually reduce 'ethnic' tensions, the Scots and English would have less cause to resent each other. The Union Jack is, unlike the English flag, viewed as a fascist emblem by many minorities due to its association with the BNP/NF, etc.
 
#5
AndyPipkin said:
A breakup might actually reduce 'ethnic' tensions, the Scots and English would have less cause to resent each other. The Union Jack is, unlike the English flag, viewed as a fascist emblem by many minorities due to its association with the BNP/NF, etc.
In that case we should make sure everybody knows that the Union Flag belongs to all of us and not a few nutters.

And yes I am Scots.
 
#6
Personally I find Mr Philips remarks deeply offensive to suggest that I as a Scot would in some way become predudiced against the English because of talk of a change to the Act of Union. Perhaps I should complain to some equality wallah.

Peter
 
#8
All for a split as long as each nation becomes responsible for funding itself.

Of course, this might cause the Scots, Ulstermen and Welsh to perform a rapid about turn on the issue. What they really want is to live their dream of independence, but have England pay for it.

PAW
 
#9
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
All for a split as long as each nation becomes responsible for funding itself.

Of course, this might cause the Scots, Ulstermen and Welsh to perform a rapid about turn on the issue. What they really want is to live their dream of independence, but have England pay for it.

PAW
It all depends on whose figures you choose to believe, there are several suggestions around these days which suggest that we Scots are paying for our scrounging mate down south. Now considering the reluctance of successive Westminster governments to the thought of independance perhaps there is some truth in this. Dear old Maggie was not known for her largesse towards any one she considered a scrounger.

Peter
 
#10
maxi_77 said:
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
All for a split as long as each nation becomes responsible for funding itself.

Of course, this might cause the Scots, Ulstermen and Welsh to perform a rapid about turn on the issue. What they really want is to live their dream of independence, but have England pay for it.

PAW
It all depends on whose figures you choose to believe, there are several suggestions around these days which suggest that we Scots are paying for our scrounging mate down south. Now considering the reluctance of successive Westminster governments to the thought of independance perhaps there is some truth in this. Dear old Maggie was not known for her largesse towards any one she considered a scrounger.

Peter
Maxi,

Barnett formula is a key indicator of who receives what funding from the national pot. Not at simple as this, however, and I suppose the key question is "what is the relative contribution to GDP of each of the contributing members, and what proportion of GDP is then allocated to each of them?"

PAW
 
#11
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Not at simple as this, however, and I suppose the key question is "what is the relative contribution to GDP of each of the contributing members, and what proportion of GDP is then allocated to each of them?"

PAW
Exactly and it depends on whom you listen to quite how the balance works out, and as I said the fact that Maggie did every thing to disuade the Scots from the independance route to my mind means that she saw a benefit for Westminster in retaining the Scvots revenues.

Peter
 
#12
"Perhaps it is not until you've had the experience of being told to get back where you come from (in my case, Finsbury Park actually), that you fully understand why an inclusive Britishness is so precious,"

Ah, Mr P. has clearly spent a lot of time in Islington, La La Land and not other parts of the Union. Along with many others I have had the experience of being told (or had it heavily implied) that I should to get back where I come from (in my case, England actually) in Scotland and Wales.

Which is rather more than slightly annoying as my wife is Welsh & both my parents are Scottish.

The break up of the Union has long had the hidden agenda amongst Labour "thinkers" because it was part of their dream to reform (i.e abolish) the House of Lords by creating a House of Representatives in which "Representatives" of Regional Assemblies, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament would hold forth.

People in the North East voted "no" in a referendum on whether to set up an elected regional assembly. John Prescott admitted his plans for regional devolution had suffered an "emphatic defeat" (78%) against,(22%) for.

"The North East public have answered in an emphatic way. I am a democrat and I accept that." said he. Oh really. That would be why the following bodies still exist eating up taxpayers money and with no plans to scrap them:

East of England Regional Assembly
East Midlands Regional Assembly
London Assembly
North East Assembly
North West Regional Assembly
South East England Regional Assembly
South West Regional Assembly
West Midlands Regional Assembly
Yorkshire and Humber Assembly

There was also a view held by some that it did not really matter because we are all serfs of the EU so if the UK got broken down into Regions directly accountable to Brussels so much the better because the UK parliament just got in the way.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top