If England was a sovereign state again

For  England  it  is difficult to  envisage  any  insuperable disadvantage  in  the break up of the UK,  but  easy  to  see definite and  substantial  advantages. Most importantly,  England would be able to act wholeheartedly in her own interests. Her  considerable population,  wealth and general sophistication  would  ensure that   she could maintain without any real   difficulty   the present levels of government provision from the welfare state to  the  military.  The powers vital to a sovereign state – the ability to control immigration, trade and the laws of the land – would be once again in English hands.  Acting within the confines of the nation would allow  meaningful democratic control to once again be exercised over parliament as politicians could no longer act as Quislings in the service of globalism because they would have to account .  

England would  no longer  pay subsidies to  the Celtic Fringe. These  currently total  around £16 billion as there are around 10 million Celts and each receives from the Treasury  approximately £1,600 per head more than  the English receive. In addition, the tax take in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales is less per capita than in England and the take-up of benefits higher (benefits are not devolved).  Consequently, England has to pay disproportionately more of the UK benefits cost than her share of the UK population.   The same applies to other non-devolved areas such as defence and foreign policy.

England’s removal from the EU  would save around £5-6 billions just on the net difference between what is paid to Brussels and what  Britain gets back.   Much, probably most,  of the remaining money is ill-spent because it can only be used in ways sanctioned by the EU. Most of the Dangeld paid to Brussels  is paid by England.  That burden would be removed  from the English taxpayer.   Further savings would come from removing the dead hand of EU directives from  Britain, the  cost of which is overwhelming borne by England.

Billions more can be saved by ending foreign Aid. This is currently around £9 billion pa. It will rise in the next few years to between £11-12 billion because of Gordon Brown’s committment to donating the UN’s  target figure of 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2014.  Most of this money is paid by the English taxpayer.

The only important disadvantages for England could be balance of payments deficits (primarily from the loss of oil, gas and whiskey  production)  and  ructions  in  the   international institutional  sphere.  Happily,  adverse  balances of  trade are  (eventually) self-correcting even if the correction,  as is the case with America,  can seem an age coming.  Moreover, with the free global currency market and a floating pound, an          adverse  balance of trade does not hold the horrors  it  once did, for international borrowing is infinitely easier than it was  and   devaluation of the currency is not  viewed  as  a  national  humiliation.    England   might   be   temporarily embarrassed  by a substantially increased trade deficit,  but there  is no reason to believe that it would be prolonged  or seriously affect the English economy.

As  for  international  upheaval,  it  is  conceivable that England  would  be unable to sustain  a  claim  to  Britain’s  privileged  position on international bodies such as  the  UN Security  Council  and  the board of IMF.  However,  this  is  unlikely for a number of reasons. To begin with there is  the precedent  of Russia which assumed all of the Soviet  Union’s international  entitlements.   Britain  is  also  the  United States’   only  halfway  reliable  ally  on  most  of   these       international  boards.    To  this  may  be  added  Britain’s position  as one of the larger international  paymasters  and providers  of reliable military muscle.  None of these  facts need essentially change with the substitution of England  for Britain.  Perhaps most importantly,  the denial to England of any of Britain’s institutional places  would pose the awkward question of who was to take any vacant position.  This  could (and almost certainly would) in turn raise the whole question of  whether  the  constitutions  of  most  world  bodies  are equitable or suited to the modern world.  (The  constitutions were after all created approximately fifty years ago and  are in  no  sense  equitable).  To deny England  would  mean  the opening of a can of worms.

Conversely, it could be plausibly  argued  that membership of such international bodies represents a liability rather  than   an advantage and England would be well shot of them.