Free The British Isles

 

I once would have been horrified at the idea of the UK breaking up. But today I look forward to it, because I know it will be better for all the nations involved. I am the Son of an Englishman, I want to see the Englishman live free again, but as long as he seeks to dominate other nations, the law of imperial decline with rot England to the core.

Here is a comment I wrote about a similar issue which serves to explain why I celebrate this. Ireland should be ruled by and for the Irish. Scotland by and for the Scots. Wales by and for the Welsh, and England by and for the English. Empire which is what Colonialism is, always ends with the core nation suffering the loss of its identity. I was asked if I made any distinction between the Colonialism of the English compared to the more violent conquests of the ancient Greeks, Mongols and other societies. Here is my response, which is relevant to this discussion:

I would say the difference is more one of degree. Colonialism is not new. The Greeks had both connected and independent colonies that went up into what is today modern Russia in the B.C. era. In fact, it is incredible how far the Greeks spread out. It was not always through violent conquest, like with Alexander, but sometimes they set up trade cities and the like along ancient trade or sea routes. Their most successful trade city, Byzantium, became Constantinople a city as famous and powerful as Rome, in its own way.

So, I would say some empires and some colonial efforts are more violent than others. The ancient Persians were less vicious than the Assyrians and Babylonians, especially the Assyrians who were famous for their cruelty even in the ancient world where cruelty was more common. The Mongol invasions were more vicious than most. If you had to choose between English conquest and Mongol conquest, I would choose the English variety.

Settling barely populated or unpopulated islands in the pacific is obviously very different to defeating and taking control of another settled society. Completely unpopulated islands are up for grabs really, though you will find yourself in territorial disputes with other nations over time. But the impacts of empire/colonialism always create the same results.

The cycle goes like this: A nation becomes prosperous and militarily adventurous. It then seeks to take over trade routes, and in turn it then seeks to dominate countries along those trade routes. Settlers follow the military and they take varying degrees of control over other nations, and this sends wealth back to the core nation. This leads to success and this success attracts people from across the empire back to the core. As a result, the core nation loses its national identity increasingly over time. Over time more and more foreigners rise to power and direct the resources of the core to their preferred interests, and the natives of the core nation are increasingly sidelined. The core degrades as resources are directed elsewhere and it loses its importance, as this happens the empire degrades, and another rises to take its place. This is a consistent cycle.

This is so consistent we could call it, if such a thing exists, a law of history. Because of how God refers to it in the Bible, I see this as a spiritual punishment for a nation arrogating itself over other nations. Every nation that so arrogates itself does so primarily for their own interests, which leads to varying degrees of oppression over other peoples.

Of course, this does not mean everything these empires do is bad. Rome bought roads and civil law and structure over most of Europe. Greece bought advanced philosophy and a common tongue. Britain brought English understandings of natural rights and justice to many peoples, and broke with world convention by seeking to end things like the slave trade, a truly marvellous act. But the end results always finish up in a bad place for the host nation.

Hence, a massively declining empire like Britian should learn from this and give up what it does not need and focus on the core people's their state exists to serve. There is nothing wrong with letting a former colony stand on its own two feet. This is how many nations have been born.

In fact, homogenous nations usually lead to some form of success over time, then become heterogenous empires and then those empires break down into new and constituted homogenous nations. It is a cycle of history. It is better to relinquish power than be forced into submission, which has happened to many empires.

Of course, in the past there has been great efforts to keep the United Kingdom together. I hope that whichever way this goes, that these nations would rise again to greatness under the banner of the Lord Jesus Christ.  

Update: they have met and have demanded independence referendums.