Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Monday, 22 October 2012

Rajoy faces Basque / Catalan secession

As El Pais reports this morning, a collapse of some 10% in the socialist vote has enabled Rajoy to hold Galicia, but has also produced a Basque majority for secession, and at a time with no ETA action or intimidation. Catalunya goes to the polls in a month's time, and the prediction is that the two regions, with almost a quarter of Spain's population, will now move towards independence.

Sword-rattling by Spain's army chiefs in the run up to the polls didn't dent the PHV / EH BILDU voting block - and indeed, given Basque bloody-mindedness, may even have enhanced it. The date being mooted for a referendum on independence is 2015. We have also remarked how intense pressure from the Berlaymont to keep Spain intact has led to an explicit statement that a new Basque or Catalunyan nation would be treated as newly-joining nations - to Salmond's great discomfort, as such a stance would put an independent Scotland right back on the starting line.


Anonymous said...

So... Everything is going to plan then... sneaky laughter...

Doesn't the EU thrive on dividing the old nation states into regions?


Pity 'bout him.

Peter Whale said...

As for the UK? what do we become if Scotland leaves the union. The Ununited Kingdom? The lesser Great Britain? England plus others? and with a bit of luck we then are automatically thrown out of the EU.

Anonymous said...

If Scotland leaves the union what's left will probably lose it's place at the biggest international 'tables'.

English Pensioner said...

a new Basque or Catalunyan nation would be treated as newly-joining nations
It would be great if they said "we don't want to be treated as newly-joining nations because we don't wish to join"!

Edward Spalton said...

Britain's system of "asymetric" (i.e. deliberately unfair) devolution has been very successful, not only in fostering Scottish separatism but also creating a rather nasty, anti Scottish, football terrace sort of anti Scottish feeling in England. This can only help Mr. Salmond.

I am sure that this was intentional from the start. Both the separatists and those responding in a basically racist ("rebuild Hadrian's wall") way are either conscious agents or "useful idiots" to gladden hearts in Brussels and Berlin. Every would-be dominant European power since 1707 has tried to destroy the United Kingdom.

It is perhaps twenty two years ago now that I got wind of it. I noticed that my membership card no longer was for the "Conservative and Unionist Party".
Being married to a Scottish lady, I asked the party agent what this was about and received a very brusque and offhand answer - basically to the effect that I should leave that sort of thing to my betters.

Twelve years later, I received confirmation of my suspicions from a 1971 Foreign Office document, released under the thirty year rule (FCO 30/1048
of 1971)
"The transfer of major executive responsibility to the bureaucratic commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feelings of alienation from government. To counter this feeling , strengthened local and regional democratic processes within member states and effective Community economic and social policies will be essential...."

The fraud is implicit. The "democratic processes" will only exist to enforce "Community" (EU) policies. "Regions" which become "independent" in Europe will be no better off - but there will be better pickings for the political class. If Mr Salmond is successful, the Scots will find that there is little difference between Edinburgh-sub-Brussels and Westminster-sub-Brussels.

The plan has been around for a long time. The Gestapo handbook for occupied Britain envisaged such "independent" entities and, of course, the French protege for the throne of the three kingdoms, Charles Edward Stuart, had a similar programme (at any rate for the benefit of the Scots who followed him) in 1745. He got as far as my home town of Derby and might have succeeded if a Hanoverian government agent had not persuaded his generals of the existence of an entirely mythical army waiting for him at Northampton.

Anonymous said...

This is the result of the EU's and the UN's regionalisation plan. Scotland is to break away and it can't be long before the Netherlands splits.

Given that in 2014, almost every competence will be presided over by QMV, and given Germany's doubling in size, it's plain to see that the breaking up of countries gives the Germans greater relative voting power.

Is it any wonder that the EU wants an independent Scotland to re-apply for EU membership?

G. Tingey said...

Except that Scotland is not going to vote for complete independance, not now, given the EU's stance.
Devo-max WOULD have got a majority (I think) but that option is not now available.

Demetrius said...

Don't put all your Basques in one exit.

Budgie said...

That can't be followed, Demetrius.

Wildgoose said...

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket" - "Don't put all your Basques in one exit".

I thought it was quite witty personally. :-)

As for Edward's comment about "a rather nasty, anti Scottish, football terrace sort of anti Scottish feeling in England" - what, you mean there is finally a mirror to the exact kind of anti-English attitudes we have always seen in the "Celtic Fringe"?

After all, it is only the English who don't have their own Parliament for matters that affect only them.

It is only the English that pay the most tax, get the least benefit via the Barnett Formula and then find their kids are actively discriminated against with £9,000 University fees, which are free in Scotland, and a third of that in Northern Ireland and Wales.

The English get all the abuse and disadvantages of the Union, but none of the advantages. Our so-called "partners" only remain within the Union because they are paid to do so - surveys have shown that two-thirds of Scots would leave if it made them as little as £500 a year better off. Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?

So I genuinely ask. Never mind what is in it for everyone else - what is in the Union for the English that we couldn't achieve more cheaply for ourselves as an independent state?

Edward Spalton said...

Wild goose ,
Who produced the situation you describe? The EU-subservient Westminster political class .

People are fed up with Westminster-sub-Brussels. Mr Salmond's fraud is to present Edinburgh-sub-Brussels as an attractive alternative and, at present, most people in Scotland are not convinced.

The ambition of breaking up larger EU member states into bite-sized smaller entities, incapable of self defence has been around for a long time.

The break up of the UK would render these Islands indefensible. A Franco-German fleet invited into Scottish ports by an "independent in Europe" Scottish government could throttle us in very short order. In a sly gradual way, we are being nudged in the same direction as Yugoslavia -and for the same reasons.

If you want to help that process, there will be joy in Brussels and Berlin.

The history section in the German website gives useful background on this. Many translated reports of that site are available on

When faced with a highly nationalist Scot, I have found it invariable effective to say "That WILL be right " which is polite Glaswegian for "You're talking utter rubbish" . They don't know quite what to make of you after that!

Wildgoose said...

Quote: <>

Yes and No. If it really were an existential threat then we are still a nuclear power and would have no difficulty in threatening equal destruction upon any belligerents.

But that's not exactly what I would describe as a realistic possibility.

Whereas what I am complaining about is not just a vague possibility, it is a substantial actuality.

The UK Parliament is made up of British and Nationalist MPs. The Nationalist MPs obvious include the overtly Nationalist parties, but also include Scottish Labour and also the Northern Irish "Unionist" Parties who would be far better described as "Ulster Nationalists" (as opposed to "Irish Nationalists").

These nationalist MPs are always looking after the interests of their "nation" - and it is Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, not "Britain". The "British" MPs are primarily returned in England, but they don't look after England's needs - indeed, many MPs for English constituencies are actually Scottish, etc., in any event.

Why else are the bulk of the cuts being meted out in England? Cameron has even gone to Wales to boast that at the end of this Parliament, spending in England will be even lower in comparison to Wales than it already is.

I have to pay for my asthma medication - but there are no prescription fees elsewhere in the "United" Kingdom. My three children face ruinous tuition fees - but they are manageable or even non-existent elsewhere in the "United" Kingdom. My father-in-law has Alzheimer's. In Scotland there would be much better home care available for him than is available in England.

I pay my taxes only to see constant discrimination against me and mine simply because we are English.

I ask again, what benefit does England really get from being in this massively unbalanced so-called "Union"? Quite frankly, the term "abusive marriage" would be far more accurate.

Wildgoose said...

Sorry, my quote comment above was referring to Edward's assertion that The break up of the UK would render these Islands indefensible. A Franco-German fleet invited into Scottish ports by an "independent in Europe" Scottish government could throttle us in very short order.

Edward Spalton said...

Dear Wildgoose,

The only explanation for the sort of treatment we are getting is that it is INTENDED to make you feel like you do and to break up the UK, permanently, destroying the political cohesion and capacity for self defence of these islands.

I got a whiff of this in the late eighties when the Conservative party ceased to be Unionist on its membership cards. It was confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt by the 1971 advice of the Foreign Office which came into the public domain in 2002.

It's the old biblical business of no man being able to serve two masters "for he will love one and hate the other". Our political class has decided to "love" the EU above the UK, regardless of sometimes posing as sceptic for the easily fooled punters.

Other countries are experiencing the same results of this top-down treason. There is a new report on the Spanish situation on

I have known Horst Teubert, the editor of this site, for over 10 years. He is a very conscientious journalist and a gentle, pacifist, left of centre sort of chap. His speech in the House of Commons "Germany's Bid for Great Power Status through the EU" is in the "European Voices" section on

Wildgoose said...

I am quite prepared to believe you Edward - my generation grew up proud to be British, but my family and friends are pretty much all now English because that is how we are seen, and that is the basis upon which we are discriminated against.

I believe it could be righted by the creation of an English Parliament and an explicitly federal United Kingdom - but that option is explicitly rejected by all the main political parties who prefer to keep England as an underdog and under their thumb.

We have to work with the world as it is, not as it used to be or we would wish it to be. They have succeeded in destroying the unity of the United Kingdom, it is now up to people like myself to ensure they don't do the same (via "regionalisation") to the essential unity of England itself.

Edward Spalton said...


They're working on that one too!
There are moves afoot to revive the Prescott project of regionalism - although it may not be necessary with large urban areas populated by non-indigenous people. This has happened much more to England than the other parts of the kingdom. Andrew Neather's revelations showed that it was Labour's deliberate intention to cause an irreversible demographic shift.
Although Miliband has half apologised for letting third world immigration rip, Mr Cameron won't reverse it.
They are actually busy "electing a new people" - at least enough seats to decide a close-fought election.

In evidence to the House of Lords, Peter Sutherland (ex.EU Commissioner, ex head of WTO, Goldman Sachs multi millionaire, Bilderberger etc, etc) called for more immigration to destroy national "homogeneity". A population divided into mutually suspicious "communities" is easier to divide and rule, as is happening between the different parts of our country.

Budgie said...

Demetrius said: "Don't put all your Basques in one exit."

Budgie said: "That can't be followed, Demetrius."

Wildgoose said: "I thought it was quite witty personally. :-)"

Yes, indeed; I meant it was so good that no-one could better it. I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding.