Empire's decline: Britain is close to collapse


On May 18, Nicola Sturgeon was officially re-elected as First Minister of Scotland. Her second term was the result of past elections in which the Scottish National Party (SNP), led by Sturgeon, won 64 of 129 seats in the Scottish parliament.


In general, the victory was expected, as was the fact that the undisputed leader of the SNP will again take the chair of the head of the second most important public entity in the United Kingdom. Another thing is important - by voting for Sturgeon and her party, the Scottish voters, in fact, made it clear that the issue of holding a new referendum on independence could not be “shelved, and Great Britain in its present form could soon face collapse.

London's official position on the Scottish Question has changed little in recent years. The desire to keep the northern neighbors within the United Kingdom is one of the key priorities of the British domestic policy not the first century. This is especially true today in the context of Brexit, the impact of which on the situation can hardly be overestimated. In addition, it is important to take into account the "sovereign" aspect. Once claiming world domination and occupying an area of ​​more than 30 million square kilometers, Britain today retained less than 1% of its former possessions. The wave of decolonization that unfolded in the XNUMXth century left from the once truly Great Britain - "an empire over which the sun does not set", only the island of the same name off the coast of Western Europe, Northern Ireland and a handful of small pieces of land scattered around the globe. Many of the latter, by the way, are in a very controversial status. Take, for example, the Falklands, which became the reason for the war with Argentina, or Gibraltar, because of which disputes with Spain have not stopped for many years.

In general, it is rather strange why so many countries were so eager to get out of the wise rule of the British crown. Indeed, unlike other European colonialists, the share of the British in the same Australia was several times higher than, for example, the French in Chad. The USA, Australia, New Zealand are all newly founded states that have decided to get out of the direct control of the British crown. Some are peaceful, and some, like the United States, are military. And if the desire of the same India for independence is quite natural and understandable, given that this is, in fact, a people conquered by the British Empire, then in these cases a fair question arises. If the British are the core of British culture, they are so good at managing and possess such developed institutions of civil society, then why have even their own fellow citizens tried to escape from under their influence at all times?

As you know, history has a tendency to repeat itself. The first time is like a tragedy, the second time is like a farce. It is such a farce that the attempts of official London to contain the final disintegration of the British state to the historical region inhabited by the Anglo-Saxons - the territory of modern England - look like. The Irish, Scottish, and more recently the Welsh question are consistently trying to remove from the agenda, drown out, distort. All in order to leave Britain unified and avoid the declaration of these countries of independence, which many of them have been waiting for generations.

In order to understand what independence means for the Scottish people, it is enough to turn to history. Devastating wars, coups d'états and brutally suppressed uprisings - London's relations with its northern neighbors have always been far from good-neighborly. However, one way or another, but the ambitions of the British for sole dominance on their island were nevertheless satisfied at the beginning of the 18th century, when Scotland de jure became part of a union state with the capital in London. Scotland's loss of sovereignty began with the signing of the Union Act in 1707, by which the Scottish Parliament ceased to exist in favor of a unified legislature in London. Ironically, today it was the Scotland's parliament, re-established almost 300 years later in 1999, that became the heart of the revived struggle for independence.

A little over a decade since the restoration of the Scottish Parliament in the early 2010s, two issues have characterized British politics. The first is about revising the terms of membership in the European Union and the second is about the independence of Scotland. And here the British government showed extremely cold calculation, extracting the maximum political benefit from the situation. The issue with the EU was temporarily postponed, and the Scots were offered to hold a referendum on independence. It is important to conduct it once a generation, i.e. "Close the issue" for at least the next twenty years.

One of the key arguments of the “No” campaign led by British Prime Minister Cameron (“No” - the answer to the bulletin's question whether Scotland should become independent) was that, having seceded from the United Kingdom, Scotland would at the same time cease to be part of the European Union, which, of course, will have a negative impact on the economy countries. Moreover, it was obvious that, given the then wide influence of Britain in the EU, the question of the Scots joining the union would meet, if not resistance, then a complete lack of enthusiasm on the part of European officials.

As the head of the European Commission (2004-2014) Jose Manuel Barroso stated:

If a new country appears, a new state that has seceded from one of the current EU member states, this country will have to submit a new application for membership ... And of course, it will be extremely difficult to get the approval of all EU members for the accession of a country that has separated from another country. member of the EU.


Simply put, Scotland made it clear that if it leaves the United Kingdom, if it will enter the EU, it will not be very soon and with the maximum amount of bureaucratic delays. Given the fact that few were talking about a real exit from the European Union in public British politics, Scottish voters still chose not to leave the United Kingdom.

And then the Scots, in the language of the characters of the famous British director Guy Ritchie, were "simply thrown." How else to perceive the fact that less than two years after the referendum on the independence of Scotland - on May 27, 2016, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain announces that Britain is waiting for a new referendum. Now about EU membership. Yes, the very membership that de facto convinced the Scottish voter to accept the arguments of official London and stay.

By the way, an important point is that it was the queen who announced the referendum. A key feature of the British political system is that the classical scheme of constitutional monarchy is in fact not as constitutional as it seems, and the influence of the royal family on British politics is much higher than it seems at first glance.

Thus, the sensational investigation of the British newspaper "Guardian" demonstrated evidence of direct influence on British lawmaking by Elizabeth II. As the publication found out, the so-called "royal consent", perceived as a formal tool and a legacy of the absolutist past, in fact allows the royal lawyers to effectively lobby for the necessary, from the point of view of the Crown, changes in British legislation.

The Guardian's investigation found that Elizabeth II and Prince Charles vetoed more than 1000 laws through the use of "royal assent". Among them, including, and laws on inheritance, land policy, and who would have thought about Brexit!

But, of course, the fact that the Scottish referendum will eventually be held first is pure coincidence. The government will certainly support the subsequent Brexit referendum. In preparation for the vote, Prime Minister David Cameron, of course, will once again take an emphatically unionist stance, this time towards the EU. 51.9 percent of voters will vote for the exit, and he will defiantly leave his post in the best traditions of the British establishment. Which, however, will have almost no effect on the vertical of power, because the leader of the party that won the elections becomes prime minister in Britain. In the event of his early resignation, the new head of the cabinet can be determined by a simple internal party vote. This is exactly how Teresa May, who replaced Cameron, became them. The ruling conservative party has not lost power. No new elections have been scheduled.

Regarding Cameron's resignation, there is another insignificant, but worth mentioning detail, replicated by the world's leading publications. After announcing his resignation from the porch of his Downing Street residence, he forgot about the microphone on and began humming on his way to the door. Entering the residence, he said two more words under his breath: “Right. Okay". You can assess this as you like, but what it is most unlikely is the victim of the biggest defeat in his career as a politician. On the contrary, it looks as if he somehow, without a doubt, incredibly knew in advance how the Brexit referendum would end and wanted to resign as soon as possible and move on.

Although for the Scots, 62 percent of whom voted to stay in the EU (the maximum among the countries of the United Kingdom), this was not a move forward, but a real deception.

In addition, if the prerequisites for the Scottish referendum are quite natural, given the long history of Scotland's struggle for independence, then the decision to leave Britain from the EU looks at least artificial, descended from the top down, imposed on the people by the ruling class. However, as practice has shown, belonging to the political elite does not mean the ability to think strategically. The cunning calculation with two referendums did not come true. The Brexit process dragged on. Relations with the EU have deteriorated. The economy sank. And the Scots realized that they were being tricked and demand satisfaction.

It is also important to note that according to the results of Brexit, the same Northern Ireland de facto remained part of the EU, and there are no borders or customs controls between it and the rest of Ireland. On the contrary, goods going to Northern Ireland from Great Britain began to be inspected. Given the historical background, such a precedent only adds fuel to the fire, again raising the topic of the unification of Ireland. And, given the scale of the conflict between the IRA and official London in the XNUMXth century, the establishment of a "hard border" between the British and Irish parts of the island may be a decisive factor for Ireland to finally become unified. Indeed, today all the prerequisites for this are taking shape. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has already been warned of a "dangerous political vacuum" in Northern Ireland in a letter signed by four former representatives of the region to the British government. This happened after a massive wave of protests swept across Ulster in April. Too many locals felt that London had betrayed them with a Brexit deal with Brussels.

It is not known whether this was an attempt to pursue a more independent policy or to get closer to the United States, moving away from the EU, but the fact remains: Britain left the European Union. And most likely it will cost her at least Scotland. Brexit, in fact, is another example of how politicians themselves are destroying their country, pursuing goals known to them alone. As practice shows, the EU's influence on domestic political stability in Britain was radically underestimated, and the focus with the Scottish referendum in London will undoubtedly still be remembered. However, in this case it is an internal matter of Great Britain. So let her deal with it herself. None of her seemingly numerous allies, as it turned out, intend to help her in this.
24 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kim Rum Eun Offline Kim Rum Eun
    Kim Rum Eun (Kim Rum Yn) 22 May 2021 08: 38
    -4
    Empire's decline: Britain is close to collapse

    The British Empire collapsed in recent history with the withdrawal of India from it, so the title is controversial.

    If we resort to analogies with Russian history, it turns out quite interesting.
    There was once the Russian Empire, which ceased to exist in 1917.
    In 1922, the USSR was formed, minus Poland and Finland, temporarily the Baltic states, Bessarabia, which were picked up in 1940-44.
    In 1991, the USSR killed itself, losing the territories of both the former Empire and the USSR.

    Question: Is it legitimate to assume, taking into account the two Chechen wars of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, that Russia will soon "fall apart" and become in area like the Moscow principality of the 15th century?
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 22 May 2021 09: 43
      +8
      Question: Is it legitimate to assume, taking into account the two Chechen wars of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, that Russia will soon "fall apart" and become in area like the Moscow principality of the 15th century?

      Answer: Your assumption is not correct and has no foundation. The analogies are far-fetched.
      You are not looking at the current state of affairs, but a situation 20 years ago. Why not the fall of 1941? smile Unlike England, Russia has passed its "crisis", the world is in Chechnya and it is not Yakutia that announces a referendum on withdrawal, but Scotland. The British are not doing well right now, they have left the EU, and besides Scotland, there is also northern Ireland, which is not satisfied with this. Separatist sentiments are quite strong.
      For example, Ukraine can really return to the borders of the XNUMXth century, there are prerequisites.
      1. Kim Rum Eun Offline Kim Rum Eun
        Kim Rum Eun (Kim Rum Yn) 22 May 2021 10: 42
        -7
        1) Personally, I didn't ask you anything at all. There is a rhetorical question, so with your illiterate propaganda, you can be free.
        2) It has been proven here more than once that you do not know the Russian language, history, or elementary arithmetic.
        3) This is confirmed by the fact that there was no "Ukraine" in the XNUMXth century at all. Even such a place name was completely absent.
        Go study.
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 22 May 2021 10: 51
          +7
          1) Personally, I didn't ask you anything at all. There is a rhetorical question, so with your illiterate propaganda, you can be free.

          Personally, I answered rhetorically. Not satisfied, next time think rhetorically, it is not necessary to pronounce it out loud. So with your liberoid propaganda, you can blame fellow

          2) It has been proven here more than once that you do not know the Russian language, history, or elementary arithmetic.

          What an interesting statement smile By whom and what exactly was proved, you certainly will not specify?
          Or maybe it has already been proved more than once that you do not understand anything at all and are talking nonsense, arithmetic is too complicated for you, would you first make friends with ordinary common sense?

          3) This is confirmed by the fact that there was no "Ukraine" in the XNUMXth century at all. Even such a place name was completely absent.

          And what doesn't suit you? Exactly the same thing can happen to her in the foreseeable future. Something like this ... there is no state, no borders. The map is still over, but the meaning is clear.

          15th century - states in the place of modern Ukraine


          Go study.

          Do you have something? lol
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2021 14: 01
            -1
            What an interesting statement smile By whom and what exactly was proved, you certainly will not specify?

            Specifically, this proposal of yours proves that you do not know the rules of the Russian language, yes :)
        2. smit.johnnysmit1 (John Smith) 22 May 2021 11: 15
          +3
          Hmm. Unreasonably boorish answer to the correspondent under the nickname 123.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Sergey39 Offline Sergey39
    Sergey39 (Sergei) 22 May 2021 10: 17
    +4
    The British Empire officially ceased to exist in 1997 with the withdrawal from Hong Kong. So now we are talking about the collapse of Britain itself.
    1. Kim Rum Eun Offline Kim Rum Eun
      Kim Rum Eun (Kim Rum Yn) 22 May 2021 10: 50
      -7
      So now we are talking about the disintegration of Britain itself

      Yes, yes, and they began to rot in the 60s of the last century. And now they will fall apart. And the dollar will collapse!
      Here is some kind of sect of witnesses of the collapse of America, the dollar and the collapse of Britain :))
  3. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 22 May 2021 12: 34
    -2
    And, another "imminent collapse".
    About YUSA already tired of writing, about Ukrov also stopped, now about the Saxons will start ...
    1. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
      Just a cat (Bayun) 22 May 2021 13: 15
      -1
      You can write about the intellectual level of individual commentators laughing

    2. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 22 May 2021 20: 31
      -1
      My friend Sergey! What country are we posting from?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 22 May 2021 21: 04
          0
          I actually asked Latyshev ... Did you answer for him?

          Oh well...
          1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
            Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 22 May 2021 21: 33
            -1
            I am tormented by reasonable suspicions about you ...
            You have already asked me about this 3 times, at least 1 time you got naughty and once you have already managed to verbally ignore me ...

            And here again ....

            Have you earned everyone to sign comments everywhere?
            1. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 22 May 2021 21: 38
              +1
              Khokhlo Nazi will not say bad things .. fellow
              1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
                Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 22 May 2021 21: 42
                -1
                Quote: Petr Vladimirovich
                Khokhlo Nazi will not say bad things .. fellow

                It's good that you confessed.
                But I am not on my way with the hohlonats ...
  4. Alexander K_2 Offline Alexander K_2
    Alexander K_2 (Alexander K) 22 May 2021 20: 09
    +1
    CheVo-That England fall apart? And where the children will live and Russia’s money needs to go somewhere, and there are houses there, there are apartments, but it’s not possible for the "guys" to move to Syria! "acquired good!
  5. Gosha Smirnov Offline Gosha Smirnov
    Gosha Smirnov (Smirnov) 23 May 2021 01: 23
    -6
    If only the Russian Federation would have such a collapse with the highest standard of living as in "wretched Britain." All this is a struggle of Nanai boys about nothing. Britain is still quite successfully building a new axis and a banal change and renewal of management models is taking place. All these pseudo-collapse of empires, etc. ... there is a banal change in the forms of dominance over territories according to the current trends of the time. Great Britain, as it was at the top of the pyramid of the world system of division of labor, has remained on it, only slightly lower in status than the United States. Nothing is a topic and wet dreams of someone's demise ...
  6. Radziminsky Victor (Radziminsky Victor) 23 May 2021 18: 24
    +1
    The world is not governed by territories, but by banks and special services.
  7. Ivancarafuto Offline Ivancarafuto
    Ivancarafuto (Ivan) 23 May 2021 18: 48
    0
    I understand it is about England. This country has long been no longer an empire, it is called Britain by inertia or habit, or by fans. In fact, the British Empire ended in 1943-1945, when it became an unsinkable American aircraft carrier, and incurred exorbitant US debt. Now this is what the Americans call her "old mother". And we call one of the "tobacco jackals" spinning on the parcels of the sick Sherkhan.
    1. Miffer Offline Miffer
      Miffer (Sam Miffers) 24 May 2021 20: 03
      +1
      I understand it is about England.

      Not. You have not understood anything at all. This can be seen from one sentence.
  8. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 24 May 2021 11: 14
    +1
    If Ukraine is not Russia, then Scotland is not Britain!
  9. igornet Offline igornet
    igornet (Igor) 26 May 2021 15: 36
    +1
    This suicidal process began immediately after the First World War.
    Its apogee was the collapse of the British Empire due to the "wise" leadership of the country.
    Winston Churchill.
  10. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 27 May 2021 23: 43
    0
  11. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 28 May 2021 10: 11
    +1
    The Netherlands and Spain are also close to disintegration, and the Russian Federation?