If Scotland Becomes “Independent”, Will England Be A One-Party State?

Analysis

There now seems at least a possibility (again) that Scotland might withdraw from the United Kingdom. Leaving aside what “Independence” means for Scotland in this context, let us examine what it means in practical political terms for England and the rest of the British Isles.

The present House of Commons has 650 Members (to be reduced to 600, possibly by 2020). 330 are Conservatives, 230 Labour (229+1 vacant seat last held by Labour), SNP 54, Liberal Democrats 9, Democratic Unionist 8, Sinn Fein 4 (in abstention; do not vote), Plaid Cymru 3, SDLP 3, Ulster Unionists 2, UKIP 1, Green 1, “Independent” 4 (being MPs such as Simon Danczuk who have had the whip withdrawn), Speaker 1.

It will be seen that while the present Conservative majority is notionally 11 (leaving aside the Speaker, who votes only when there is a tie), Sinn Fein do not attend or vote, so the real majority is 15.

If Scotland leaves the Union, the 650 MPs in the House of Commons will have their number reduced by 59, of which 54 are SNP, 2 SNP  MPS but who are suspended (and under police investigation) and 3 LibLabCon (1 each). It can be seen that, on the pure mathematical basis, that would mean that the Conservatives would have, on present figures, 329, with all other MPs (except Sinn Fein and the Speaker) numbering 257: Conservative majority 72.

Most of the Westminster seats presently occupied by SNP MPs were, until 2015, Labour seats, so it can be seen what a mountain Labour would have to climb to replicate its Commons strength or anything like it were Scotland to break away from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

That, however, is not the end of Labour’s catastrophe. The reduction of Commons seats from 650 to 600 is expected to reduce Labour numbers by as much as 30 in any case and to almost wipe out the Liberal Democrats. If that were to be so and if the 59 Scottish MPs were not there, then the Commons would be 541 and might be about 310 Conservative, 200 Labour, 26 others (plus Sinn Fein -4- and the Speaker). Effective Conservative majority of 74.

Labour is at present polling at about 25%. There is no obvious reason why Labour should do markedly better any time soon and certainly none to expect a vote percentage much above 30%. That would, on the new boundaries, probably give Labour about 150 seats, possibly far fewer. It is not impossible that Labour could end up with as few as 100 seats out of 541. However, even if Labour were to have 150 seats out of 541 (effectively, out of 536), that would make Labour little more than a niche party, albeit with the title “the Opposition”.

The existence of the SNP in the House of Commons gives declining Labour the hope that the next general election might provide at least the possibility for a Labour minority government of some kind, with tacit SNP support, assuming that Labour could at least somewhat improve its position electorally. Without SNP MPs in the Commons, that slim hope is dashed and Labour broken with it.

Speculation and Hope

If, sometime around 2020, the Conservative Party has maybe 350 MPs in a 541-MP post-boundary changes, post-Scottish Independence, post-Brexit House of Commons, England (plus Wales etc) becomes a one-party state in all but name. Elected dictatorship. The only hope then for positive change will be the emergence of a new movement based on social nationalism, the only ideology which can unite England as a country and as a people, meaning at least the 85+% who are white Northern Europeans, together with those willing to accept European culture.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “If Scotland Becomes “Independent”, Will England Be A One-Party State?”

  1. You clearly seem to be unaware that the Rothschilds bought Jerusalem in 1829, just three years after they started issuing all British currency on behalf of the Crown.

    Also, I suspect, that you are unaware that it was the Rothschilds who bribed the British Establishment that unless they signed the Balfour Declaration, they would prevent the US from entering the war and therefore not only would Britain lose WWI but also their Empire.

    Since Rothschild’s wealth was built almost entirely upon control of the world’s drug supply, and for as long as it lasted, control of slavery to the Americas, by extrapolation Jerusalem was bought as the foundation of a criminal enterprise for the Edomite and Kazzarian mafias.

    The only remaining genuine Judean Jews were exterminated by Rothschild in the early genocide of Palestinians. So now you have the correct timeline.

    1829 Rothschild Bank buys Jerusalem,
    1917 Rothschild forces Britain to cede Palestine to the Rothschild Bank…
    and you know the rest.
    Israel is just a front for Rothschild Criminal Enterprises.
    Just as the ECB which issues the Euro and runs the EU and the EU army/navy /airforce is a private corporation run by Goldman Sacks.

    It’s not just that Israel is a front for Rothchild Criminal Enterprises but the EU is a front for Goldman Sacks Criminal Enterpises…just as the City of London is the money laundering branch of Rothschild Criminal Enterprises.

    And sixty six and two thirds percent of the Fed is owned equally between Goldman Sacks and Rothschilds. So add in the rogue CIA Rothschild’s private army and the US military and that is all Rothschilds and Goldman Sacks joint Criminal Enterprises.

    But it all really started with the 1829 purchase of Jerusalem.

    You legal eagles do a year of financial study so you can work out all the rest yourself!

    Like

  2. What is not well known is that during the 1930’s and 1940’s, key leaders of the Scottish National Party such as Arthur Donaldson, Hugh MacDiarmid and Douglas Young (and Plaid Cymru leader Saunders Lewis and also Irish Republican leader Sean Russell) wanted an alliance and peace with Germany and Italy (the founder and leader of Sinn Fein, Arthur Griffith opposed Jewish immigration into Ireland). The ethno-nationalist roots of the SNP, PC, SF and the Mebyon Kernow party in Cornwall are now forgotten as they become ever increasingly left-wing and multi-culturalist.

    http://cornishnationalmovement.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/cornish-nationalism-past-present-and.html

    Like

    1. I do not know about them in detail, but I know that they had a limited or local success at one time in Doncaster. I saw their leader on BBC Daily Politics about a year or so ago. Basically Conservative nationalists or English non-UK UKIP. As with other small parties of the sort, the System and the mainstream media tolerate them with amused indifference (as it does UKIP now that UKIP is obviously going nowhere). They are not anti-Zionist (probably the reverse, at a guess). Little more than a hobby-politics party, I imagine. Nothing wrong with the basic policies you mention, but policies are only half the story.

      Like

  3. Unfortunately the secession of Scotland would not herald the end of the Labour Party as a party of power. In the 1997 general election, Labour won constituencies across the south of England where it would not normally have. They would just adapt their strategy to the times. Demographic changes, including more non-whites and the diffusion of the non-white population into previously heavily-white constituencies, would also assist.

    Like

    1. I stand by my analysis. The 40-50 former Scottish Labour seats are key. Labour now has 229-230 Westminster seats out of 650. On that basis, to gain a bare majority, Labour has to win a further 70 seats and retain those that it has. I do not think that likely or even more than theoretically possible. The Scottish seats are gone forever, Independence or no.

      The idea that Labour can adapt its policies to appeal again to bits of Southern and Midland Britain, in the manner of Blair, is not very realistic. Apart from that, it is clear that only about 15% of people think that Corbyn is fit to be PM. Rarely spoken out loud in msm is the other factor, that Corbyn as PM means Diane Abbott as Home Secretary, Angela Rayner as Education Secretary, Nia “who she? Griffith as Defence Secretary. Need I go on?

      Like

      1. Oh yes, I do take on board your points. But Labour can change their leaders, and that can happen very quickly. We should never underestimate the chameleon potential of the mainstream parties – Conservative, Labour, Lib Dems. All are capable of reversing their entire prospectus on a sixpence in order to win power, and they will do so with the full (albeit grudging) support of their activists. That’s exactly what happened in 1989 and 1994 in the Labour Party.

        I have a pet theory that an evolutionary template can be applied to political parties. These are biological entities that set out to achieve change in societies for their own selfish ends. They will change in the way they need to in order to survive.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s