A couple of things - and they will be the last you hear from me this week. 1. The article I've just sent out about English independence was written in my personal capacity, not as Director of the Libertarian Alliance. I don't think we take any collective view on the breakup of the United Kingdom. It went out by accident under the LA logo. Apologies for any confusion. By the way, it's on the LA Blog, if you want to leave a comment. 2. However, here is our latest publication, a de luxe appreciation of Thomas Jefferson, written by Peter Richards. We take pleasure in sharing it with the widest audience possible. 3. Here is a very interesting essay posted on the LA Blog by David Webb, all about cultural pessimism. I can't recall if I sent this out last week. If so, more apologies. However, it is well worth reading. 4. Here is a peculiar short essay about Mr Fred Goodwin, written by Percival Glyde. I still can't decide whether Mr Glyde behaved with complete propriety. As ever, you are welcome to express your own opinion. 5. Here is an essay on Chris Huhn by David Webb. In my view, the man is trash, and deserves every kicking he gets from the blogging community. Others disagree. 6. I know it's just a repost, but I do urge you to look at Keith Preston's essay, Should Libertarianism be Cultural Leftism without the State?. It is a very impressive piece of writing. 7. I did send it out earlier, but here is a link to Mr Preston's long radio interview with me. You can leave whatever comments you see fit. 8. And I did try to add a discreet PayPal button to the foot of my last posting. Sadly, this came though inactive. The Libertarian Alliance has no corporate sponsorship, and functions purely on the generosity of its supporters. This allows us to keep up our stream of commentary and propaganda, and to keep at bay the general notion that libertarianism is a dead force in the United Kingdom. Do you remember the instant rebuttal I was able to get into The Guardian last December, when George Monbiot made one of his attacks on libertarianism? I got an unedited letter published because The Guardian takes the LA seriously. So does the BBC. So does the rest of the media. I do urge you to consider enabling this happy state of affairs to continue. Libertarian Alliance The normal English response to Scottish nationalism is to ignore it, or to see it as an irritation, or to try shouting it down with reminders of all that shared history, or to point out the value of English subsidies and to wait for common sense to win the argument. None of these, I suggest, is an appropriate response. None takes into account that England and Scotland are different nations, and that the loudest and most energetic part of the Scottish nation has decided that the current union of the nations is not in Scottish interests. This does not make it inevitable that the union will be dissolved. It does, however, make this desirable. Scotland may or may not have suffered from the union. But the union has done much to bring England to the point of collapse, and it strikes me as reasonable to say that England can never be safe while there are Scottish members in the Westminster Parliament. Let us take the New Labour revolution as evidence for this. Since 1997, England has been largely remodelled. There are few institutions, or administrative and legal forms, or even assumptions, from before 1997 that now make sense to anyone who has grown up since then. The gutting of the House of Lords, the altered functions of the judges, the laws to regulate political parties, and that allow unelected officials to supervise and even unseat elected representatives, the new criminal laws and new modes of criminal and civil procedure, the appointment of commissar units in every government agencies and most private corporations to impose the totalitarian ideologies of political correctness – these and many others combine to make present life in England very different from anything known before. There is also our continued and even accelerated integration into the European Union. And there has been the state-sponsored settlement of England by millions who are alien in their appearance and their ways. Every thread of continuity between the English present and past that could easily be snapped has been snapped. Of course, this creeping revolution did not begin in 1997 – it became undeniably evident when Margaret Thatcher was in office. Nor has it been confined to England – every other civilised country has fallen into the hands of a totalitarian elite. There is an attack on bourgeois civilisation in every place where it exists, and the attack is led by those who were young in the 1970s, and has the support of a mass of economic and other interest groups. But, this being said, just think how many of the Labour ministers were Scottish. There was Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, John Reid, George Robertson, Wendy Alexander, Yvette Cooper, Doug Henderson, and so on and so forth. Below the leadership, an astonishing number of Labour members of parliament or Labour Party officials had Scottish accents. The Labour Party that emerged from its troubles of the 1980s was disproportionately Scottish – and assertively Scottish. Their political ambitions lay in the Labour Party, and not in the Scottish National Party. This did not give them other than a very weak sense of British identity, and gave them no observable understanding of or liking for the English. Now, the central fact of Scottish history has been English domination. Since the eleventh century, England has been a rich and powerful and unified nation, loyal to a government that, broadly speaking, has been accountable to it. For most of the past thousand years, Scotland has been sparsely populated and without trade. Its people have been divided by language and culture, and by political allegiance, and sometimes by religion. It would be a miracle had Scotland ever managed real independence in these circumstances. It almost never has. The 1707 political union put Scotland under an almost purely English Parliament. The 1603 union of the crowns gave Scotland, after one reign, an English King. Even before then, the most important commoner in Edinburgh had almost always been the English ambassador. Even when there was no English army stationed there, Scotland was subject to varying degrees of rule from London. In no meaningful sense, therefore, can Scotland be independent so long as it has England as its neighbour. And this is the main significance of the New Labour Revolution, and of the disproportionate Scottish contribution to New Labour. Undeniably, this was part of an overall project to destroy bourgeois civilisation, and understanding it requires a reading of Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci and Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault, and all the others. At the same time, it was an attempt to make Scottish independence possible by destroying England. Divide England into half a dozen Euro-regions; set these in competition with each other for money and privilege from Brussels; fill the country with ten or twenty million aliens; make it illegal, or at least in poor taste, to refer to an English identity – and the way is cleared for Scotland to be as independent as any other small nation can be. This would explain the rising levels of Scottish hatred seen by many English visitors. When I visited Glasgow in 1994, there was much good-natured mockery of the English. When I was there again in 1997, I was driven from a coffee bar by the hostility even of the staff. In 2000, a taxi driver had the nerve to claim he was unable to understand my accent. In 2002, when I replied to hatred with hatred, another taxi driver tried to get me arrested for unspecified drug offences. Scottish politicians and administrators cooperate in discriminating against the English. The Scottish lower classes are best avoided. The reason is simple. If you hate someone, you may want to destroy him. But, if you want to destroy someone, it is nearly always necessary to hate him. The Scottish claim to hate us for what we have done to them. In truth, they hate us for what they want to do to us. Bearing in mind that the Labour Party remains a Scottish front, and that the Conservatives might lose the next election, the 1707 union is actually more dangerous for England than membership of the European Union. I will ask in passing why so many English Conservatives disagree with this analysis. One reason is a sentimental attachment to facts that have ceased to exist. This leads to what I find the most bizarre claims from Conservative supporters– for example, that the European Union wants to dissolve the United Kingdom in order to absorb England, whereas the European Union is simply part of the Scottish attack on England. A less creditable motive is that many of the Conservative leaders are themselves Scottish, and an ending of the union would reveal them as foreigners in England, and confirm them as unelectable in Scotland. Most importantly, there are the electoral considerations. In the short term, removal of the Scottish members would bring about a Conservative domination of Parliament. In the longer term, however, removal of the Labour threat would mean that English conservatives were no longer locked into voting Conservative. I do not believe that many of those who voted Conservative in 2010 felt the slightest enthusiasm for David Cameron and William Hague and George Osborne. These got into office only because a majority of the English people feared and hated the Labour Party. Take away the Labour threat, and there would be the freedom to vote other than Conservative in general as well as in European election. Obviously, union with Scotland benefits the Labour Party. But it also benefits the Conservatives by keeping alive the Labour bogeyman. I say, then, that the union between England and Scotland should be wholly severed. I say that there should be no customs union or common currency, no rights of movement or of settlement, no shared head of state, no coordination of foreign policy or defence. Scotland and its citizens should become as alien, under English law, as Uruguay now is. This might not suit the interests of the Scottish people, as reasonably considered. But that is not my concern. It should certainly be English policy to prevent the sort of instability north of the border that might encourage foreign – and therefore hostile – intervention, or that might cause mobs of starving refugees to press against the border fences. But, once the union has been severed, I shall be inflexibly opposed to any structure of shared institutions between England and Scotland. England requires no less. Perhaps, all things considered, Scotland deserves no less. Sean Gabb February 9, 2012 Keith Preston interviews Dr. Sean Gabb. Topics include: Dr. Sean Gabb is the director of the Libertarian Alliance, a British free market and civil liberties think-tank. Sean Gabb joined the Libertarian Alliance in 1979. He graduated in History from the University of York in 1982. In 1998 he gained a PhD in Political and Intellectual History from the University of Middlesex. He became the Director of the Libertarian Alliance in 2006, shortly before the death of its founder Chris Tame. 13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.
Contact Details: Dr Sean Gabb
07956 472 199, sean@libertarian.co.uk
Director, The Libertarian Alliance (Carbon Positive since 1979)
sean@libertarian.co.uk Tel: 07956 472 199
Postal Address: Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1J 6HL, England
http://www.libertarian.co.uk
http://www2.libertarian.co.uk
http://www.seangabb.co.uk
http://richardblake.me.uk/
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com
http://www.facebook.com/sean.gabb
http://vimeo.com/seangabb
Wikipedia EntryAttack the System: Interview with Sean Gabb
Email Keith:
kppgarv@mindspring.com
Sunday, 12 February 2012
Libertarian Alliance
Contact Details: Dr Sean Gabb
07956 472 199, sean@libertarian.co.uk
Sean Gabb
Director, The Libertarian Alliance (Carbon Positive since 1979)
sean@libertarian.co.uk Tel: 07956 472 199
Postal Address: Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1J 6HL, England
A Brief Argument for English Independence
by Sean Gabb
Posts
