Just reminded me of a DBWI I came up with in my head the other day, where the Junta was able to survive the events that bought it down, only for those events to come back with a fucking vengeance in the wake of the Arap Spring, the obvious name that came with it was "A Very British Spring"
"A Very British Transition" - A Post-Junta Britain TL
- Thread starter powerab
- Start date
Is Prime Minister's Questions no longer a thing post-Junta? Just wondering how Hague would be able to avoid answering before Parliament. I would think that if there were regular PMQs, this would be the topic of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth question from Miliband.
The fact that the UK is poorer and more closed off would make Ireland a better choice for companies setting up in Europe. Large job creators like manufacturing companies may decide that the conflict ridden UK is too risky to set up in and move to Ireland.That doesn't really make sense. While the Ireland has benefitted as a gateway for American companies to enter the UK that actually doesn't generate that many jobs though it does generate quite a lot of tax, despite the very low rates. The broader Irish economy is massively exposed to the British economy especially with regards to agricultural exports, tourism and remittances, a poorer, more closed Britain will seriously derail the Celtic Tiger.
‘Rural Ireland would not have survived’ without money being sent home by emigrants
‘Disappointment’ from Irish emigrant groups at Noel Grealish’s comments on immigrants sending money homewww.irishtimes.com
Ireland Remittances, percent of GDP - data, chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com
Ireland: Remittances as percent of GDP: The latest value from 2023 is 0.08 percent, unchanged from 0.08 percent in 2022. In comparison, the world average is 5.13 percent, based on data from 174 countries. Historically, the average for Ireland from 1990 to 2023 is 0.29 percent. The minimum value...www.theglobaleconomy.com
The British exiles would also give Ireland a larger population, with many lawyers, journalists, artists, etc ( that one especially would help Ireland film and music industry which would help tourism as well).
All of this would have an exponential effect on the economy as more more people means more business and more tax. A better economy then means less emigration and more domestic tax payers and consumers.
is it wrong that my first thought when I read the bit about Jeremy doing the press rounds was Hague shouting this (sorry about the crappy quality)
Hague's diary has been mysteriously full for the last two weeks with major meetings and international visits all taking part at the same time as PMQs, poor Theresa May has been sent out to bat at PMQs
Chapter 67: Goldilocks
The rift between Miliband and Sugar was an open secret in Westminster
“The SDP is blaming a "fat-finger trade" error for the leaking of an email trail in which a senior official in David Miliband's office described Alan Sugar as a "nightmare". Andrew Harrop, Miliband's adviser, mistakenly sent the emails to the National MP James Morris, rather than to the SDP pollster of the same name. The emails, which were sent last Wednesday, were published in the Mail on Sunday under the headline: "Nightmare! He refuses to obey orders." The exchanges revolved around the SDP's response to an upbeat economic forecast by the Bank of England's inflation report where Sugar appeared to go off-script. The emails highlighted an open secret at Westminster: there is little love lost between the Miliband and Sugar teams. But sources dismissed speculation that the emails were deliberately leaked.” - Miliband office's 'fat-finger' email reveals trouble with Alan Sugar, Nicholas Watt, The Guardian (2013)
Alan Sugar did not like being humiliated. After coming third in the SDP’s leadership election, he entered into what one SDP MP described as “the mother of all sulks”. During the election Sugar had refused to take part in any national campaigning, despite the fact he was the Chancellor and it was a recession. He was barely on speaking terms with David Miliband and facing deselection threats from his provincial party. Sugar was also outraged that Hague had agreed to a referendum on Scottish autonomy, and that David Miliband had announced the Social Democrats would be campaigning in favour of a Scottish Parliament in the referendum. With Reform firmly in bed with National, Sugar saw a clear gap in the patriotic centre ground of British politics.
On the 1st of April, Alan Sugar announced he would be leaving the Social Democrats and forming a new party “Unity”. Sugar’s defection became known as the Sutton House declaration, after Sutton House in Hackney where the party was established. Sugar was joined by two other Social Democrat MPs; Martin Taylor and Ian Hislop, as well as Ruth Davidson from Reform. Davidson was a particular victory for Sugar, a founding member of Reform Davidson was an ultra-unionist, and enraged that the party would vote in favour of an autonomy referendum. Davidson was quickly announced as Unity’s deputy leader. Sugar promised Unity would stand against the corruption of the two major parties, declaring Unity to be the true party of business, best placed to revive Britain’s flagging economy.
Reforms support for National had angered centre-left voters
Comparisons were immediately drawn to Sivlio Berlusconi, the charismatic Italian millionaire who set up and bankrolled his own party only to become Prime Minister in a matter of months. Some predicted Unity would become the “Alternative of the right” offering an anti-establishment, anti corruption ticket for centrist and right wing voters. Unity was certainly well funded, having the deep pockets of not only Sugar, but several other leading business figures to grow it’s war chest. In his speech at the party’s launch Sugar declared “the old rules have been broken, rather than voting for the SDP or National voters have a choice between change - or more of the same”.
“Much of the discussion in the aftermath of the British general election has focused on the surge in support for the Alternative. But the founding of another smaller party, Unity, has raised the prospect of British politics becoming a four party race. Voters are increasingly split between the SA, Unity/Reform and the two dominant parties in British politics, the SDP and National. The moderate agenda pursued by Unity is likely to give them a chance of shaping the actions of future governments. Unity is attracting disenchanted centre-left and centre-right voters. Their ‘sensible change’ slogan offers a middle ground between the continuation of the system, and radical change proposed by the Alternative. Thus, if the Socialists offer a revolution, Unity promises an evolution.” - Former Foreign Secretary Tony Blair in a Talk with LSE Students (2013)
To its critics Unity was a billionaire funded Sugar vanity project, there was already a liberal unionist party in the form of Reform that Sugar could have joined, but that would require him playing second fiddle - instead Sugar would rather be the biggest fish in his own private pond. Unity initially landed with a thud, receiving only 1% in the polls on it’s launch day, but through Davidson’s defection, and some high profile interviews, Sugar managed to entrench the party at around 4-5% in the polls. Whilst this wouldn’t be enough to make Unity a major player, it would allow Sugar to secure half a dozen MPs if he could concentrate this support into a province or two. Sugar managed to employ the services of Joe Trippi as the party’s Director. Trippi had a solid history of organising in the US Democratic Party, and Unity hoped some of his magic would rub off on the fledgling party.
Disgraced former Foreign Secretary Tony Blair would be another card in Sugar's hand
Unity’s first test would be the Scottish Autonomy referendum, scheduled for just a few months' time. Whilst a Yes vote was a foregone conclusion, Sugar believed Unity could displace Reform and the SDP, establishing itself as the leading party of Scottish unionism. The party could then build on this position in any future Scottish Parliament election, as well as European Elections scheduled for 2014. With both major parties losing public trusts, and voters on the right increasingly weary of a Socialist Alternative Government, Sugar believed Unity could be that bulwark for middle-class Brits, picking up the pieces when the two party system inevitably collapsed. Sugar condemned the OutRage protest, especially some of the more extreme “Scratch” protests outside politicians homes; he declared the two main parties had failed to uphold the law, losing control of Britain’s streets. The counter revolutionaries had their new hero.
Unity had quite clearly defined itself in a reactionary sense, there was a long list of things Sugar didn’t like, from unruly protests, to Scottish nationalists to euroscepticism. But to be a true political force Unity would have to define what it was for as well. Whilst voters were uncomfortable with William Hague and David Miliband, they weren’t quite ready to take the plunge with a brand new untested party. Still, Unity was the latest in a long line of splits and defections plaguing the House of Commons in the world’s most pompous game of musical chairs. Whether Unity turned out to be a blip or not was irrelevant, for most political scientists Unity represented another chip in the foundation of Britain’s fast collapsing two party system. If Sugar could make it on his own, other MPs would surely follow.
“There is a correlation between the legitimacy of the political system and the stability of political parties. In countries where satisfaction with democracy is high, the stability of parties is also high. But, when satisfaction is low, the party systems tend to be unstable. This relationship is understandable: people do not trust party systems, only political systems. As a result of this, party systems can be vested with stability. It is not plausible to conclude that citizens provide legitimacy to party systems. Citizens confer legitimacy to the political system where party systems belong to. Thus, legitimacy can be shown as a variable depicting party stability.” - Patterns of party system institutionalisation in new democracies, Eduardo Concha, University of Manchester (2015)
Personal brands became more important than party labels
Chapter 68: The Iron Lady
The last Mountbattenite left the board
“Margaret Thatcher - the last surviving senior politician from Admiral Mountbatten's era in Britain - has died at her home in London aged 87. Ms Thatcher died of heart failure, a family member was quoted as saying. She was Home, and then Foreign Secretary under the Junta, but then played a key role in the transition to democracy after Hill-Norton's death in 2003. Ms Thatcher helped to write the country's constitution and reformed the party that is today the ruling National Party. Speaking at a public event in 2011, Ms Thatcher made no apology for being a minister in Admiral Mountbatten's cabinet. "One cannot choose the period of history in which one lives,'' she said. A hero to many, an authoritarian relic to others, she counted Ronald Regan among her friends.” - UK Mountbatten-era politician Thatcher dies, aged 87, Daniel Wools, Boston Globe (2013)
Margaret Thatcher died of a stroke on the 8th of April 2013, leaving mixed feelings among the British population. When the coup occurred in 1968, Thatcher was one of the first civilian politicians to get on board with the new regime, and she was rewarded handsomely for this. Serving as both Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary during the Junta, she was one of the regime’s great survivors, spending 30 years at the top in a Junta famous for infighting and backbiting. Thatcher was somewhat of a enigma during the Junta years, she started out as a hardcore Mountbattenite and her time as Home Secretary was famous for brutal crackdowns. After Mountbatten’s death she was one of the leading candidates to replace the First Lord but ended up throwing her lot in with Peter Hill-Norton, rewarded with the job of Foreign Secretary.
Thatcher would reinvent herself as a reformist on the foreign stage during her time as Foreign Secretary, becoming the human face of the Junta abroad and helping to rebuild relations with the democratic world through a close personal friendship with Ronald Reagan. By the time Thatcher left office in the mid-90s she had fully turned to the ways of democracy, calling on the Junta to liberalise in her writings and openly supporting the Cardiff Accords. She would briefly return to frontline politics for a few months in 2003 after Hill-Norton’s death, serving as Deputy Prime Minister to Mike Jackson’s Transitional Government. In the transition era Thatcher would become a godmother to the reformed National Party and would frequently go out on the airwaves in support of Tim Collins, one of her proteges.
Thatcher was loyal to Mountbatten till the end
Thatcher’s death represented the last senior Mountbattenite Minister to pass on, her legacy deeply dividing civil society. To the right Thatcher was an eminent stateswoman who had helped to reform Mountbattenism and lay the groundwork for a democratic Britain. Thatcher was held up by some in National as proof that many regime figures were secret democrats obliged to compromise their ideals as they worked towards freeing Britain from its Mountbattenite straightjacket. The left remembered her as an aggressive old fascist, unapologetic around her role in the Junta. Thatcher still spoke positively around Mountbatten calling him one of Britain’s “best rulers”.
“No doubt Thatcher played a role in getting the right to accept democracy, when she saw that the new way was irreversible. Don't forget that in the first democratic elections she gave outspoken backing to National. Indeed the Social Democrats may thank her for this. Alan Johnson could hardly have imagined being up against a rival so unpalatable to the electorate. The farewell to Thatcher has reminded us of the weight of certain taboos that date from the transition to democracy. We are still afraid of speaking ill of evil, of calling the dictatorship by its name. In the funeral eulogies we have been hearing, clever euphemisms for dictatorship abound. Indeed Thatcher is a sort of symbol of a democracy hobbled by its inability to face the past.” - Right back to the past, Channel 4 News (2013)
In an obituary to Thatcher in Parliament Hague said Thatcher “characterised the path of the nation as it turned itself into a country of liberty.” David Miliband also avoided speaking ill of the dead, describing Thatcher as “a politician who defined her age”. Not all were so respectful , Alternative MP Bob Crow drew fierce criticism by suggesting people should celebrate news of Thatcher's death with champagne. Meacher was a bit more couth, giving a nuanced eulogy where she described Thatcher as “very right wing, very authoritarian ... but later played a positive role in having the constitution approved.” In cities that suffered the worst under Mountbatten and Thatcher, such as Liverpool, impromptu street parties broke out late into the night. In Sheffield a giant effigy of Thatcher was set alight as protesters chanted “Fash Fash Fash”.
Britain's inner cities had great fun
Hundreds of mourners would attend Thatcher’s funeral in central London, met by several thousand protesters. Fighters from Civil Assistance would provide unwanted “security” for the event leading to sporadic fights between the paramilitaries and left-wing protests. Most protests however were peaceful, with activists shouting “fascist scum” and “shame on you” at the procession. The military was also out in force at the protest, with armed soldiers helping to escort the coffin. Leaks from the Ministry of Defence showed the military had sent a great deal more soldiers to provide “security” than Defence Secretary Soames had requested, further signs that the military was not entirely healed. To those in Britain’s armed forces Thatcher had stood beside them whilst most civilian politicians had turned on them.
Above all, Thatcher's death broke the stiff-up lip of British political discourse. Politicians from both sides had tried to leave the crimes of the Junta in the past, but Thatcher’s funeral reopened these old wounds. People from left-wing cities who remembered Thatcher’s brutal crackdowns were aghast at the fawning obituaries held for her. In Glasgow, RISE Leader Patrick Harvie organised a parallel protest funeral for the nearly 10,000 Scots killed or disappeared during the occupation of Scotland and actions during military actions against the SNLA. Harvie said he hoped the death of Thatcher could “open a new chapter” for Scotland, allowing it’s people to mourn and move on in peace.
“Whilst John Swinney has opted for a more neutral message, highlighting her role in drafting the Constitution and saying the pain Thatcher caused to Scotland as "something we do not want to put into discussion today." RISE has been more critical. Secretary General Patrick Harvie, has stated that "the role that Thatcher played during the transition does not compensate for what she did. Someone who never condemned Mountbatten cannot pass as a hero of democracy". Alternative spokesperson for Scotland Katy Clark tweeted "Thatcher reformist? If it were up to her, neither transition, nor legalisation of the Alternative would happen.” RISE's, Dennis Canavan has also expressed anger at the "historical revisionism" of Thatcher's legacy.” - Scottish MP’s criticise Thatcher’s legacy, BBC Scotland Bulletin (2013)
Scottish separatists would join the heckles at Thatcher's funeral
2013 Scottish Autonomy Referendum, Part 1
Ex political prisoner Gordon Wilson was named head of the Yes Campaign
“People such as MP Patrick Harvie, who have already waited decades for history to move in their direction and can afford to wait a decade or two longer. He sees the referendum not as a decisive moment but yet another skirmish in a struggle that spans generations. If London oversteps, another few thousand Scots will become convinced that their future lies in an independent state. If the Scots hold firm, support for secession will finally break through the 50 per cent threshold. How many people do you need, how many votes do you need, before London and its European allies finally give way? Will 55 per cent be enough? Sixty per cent? Harvie won’t say. These are tense times, and there is an official line to take. But as we leave his office, he makes clear that for him the struggle for independence will never end.” - Scotland’s referendum exposes a divided Kingdom, NPR News (2013)
The Scottish Referendum was in many ways a foregone conclusion. Polls showed over two thirds of Scots planning to vote in favour, with all four Scottish premiers and 33 of the 43 Scottish MPs being from separatist parties. Many voters considered the whole referendum a tremendous waste of time and money. This presented a problem for the separatists, campaign leaders feared if separatist voters believed the result was a foregone conclusion, they might stay home. Instead of being around votes the campaign became a battle for turnout, with the Yes campaign wanting a landslide result, giving a powerful mandate for Scottish separatism.
The No campaign also knew the Referendum was unwinnable, for William Hague the Referendum was an internal party management exercise, rather than an honest political debate. With the SDP and Alternative in favour of devolution, National keeping the referendum at an arm’s length, and Reform discredited for their Confidence and Supply deal, the No campaign was increasingly rudderless. Annabel Goldie, the Chair of the No Campaign, had very little support from the national parties, and lacked the personal profile or gravitas to lead an effective campaign. This void at the top of the No campaign allowed the new Unity Party space to take over. Sugar, and his popular Deputy Ruth Davidson would cross the nation making the argument against autonomy. Whilst they were booed and heckled most places they went, they got plenty of air-time as the only politicians making a strong argument against autonomy.
Infighting hobbled the Yes Campaign
Yes would suffer from an opposite problem, their huge breath of support meant the campaign was unwieldy, pulling in dozens of different directions. The SDP, Alternative, SNP, RISE, Workers Party and Ecologists all gave their support to a campaign spanning conservative nationalists to full blown Marxist-Leninists. Whilst former political prisoner Gordon Wilson, famed for his hunger strikes in Belmarsh, was the party’s chair, his three vice-chairs: John Swinney, Patrick Harvie and Yvette Cooper held much of the real power in the campaign, spending most of the referendum jostling with each other for control. In one outburst secretly recorded at a board meeting Harvie accused Swinney of wanting devolution so he could wield the “axe of austerity”.
“Thousands took to the streets of Edinburgh on Sunday, to oppose moves for Scottish Autonomy. Less than a month from a 18th June referendum date for a vote on autonomy, some 30,000 people demonstrated in the Scottish capital. Waving British and Scottish flags, the crowd chanted: “Swinney, resign!”, a jab at SNP Leader John Swinney. “I want the freedom to be both British and Scottish at the same time,” Jack Patterson, 23, told the BBC. “They can’t take that away from me.” The rally, organised by the No Campaign under the slogan of “Britain for All”, is the latest in a series of rallies by advocates of both sides of the issue. “What we want is an end to this division and to the conflict,” rally organiser Nathan Wilson said at the Edinburgh demo.” - Thousands rally in Edinburgh against autonomy, BBC Scotland News Bulletin (2013)
Swinney, Harvie and to a lesser extent Cooper all had their eyes on the Presidency when a Scottish Parliament passed. Whilst the No Campaign was mostly about internal party management, the Yes Campaign consisted of shadow boxing between the parties, each having an eye on a future Scottish Parliament election, rather than the referendum at hand. Polls for a hypothetical Scottish Parliament election showed RISE and the SNP neck and neck, with many Scots feeling betrayed by Swinney’s deal with Hague. This led to the Yes Campaign often fighting with two separate messages, with RISE hoping to seize upon the anti-austerity populist message of the OutRage protests, whilst the SNP tried to prove it could govern competently.
The real fight would be the Scottish Parliament election
Despite the infighting within the Yes Campaign’s officer class, in the trenches the mood was optimistic, grassroots Yes groups would hold impromptu festivals in the streets, with new forms of bottom-up campaigning. The young especially took to the campaign with gusto, with some polls showing over 80% of Scots under 25 in favour of autonomy. Many of these young people had joined in the student protests against the 2011 coup attempt and had marched with the Outrage protests, whilst they were seasoned campaigners this represented their first real outing into electoral politics. Yes Campaign Secretary Alex Neil hailed the young activists as the “heroes of the campaign”.
The No campaign on the other side mostly ran on fear, aside from the energetic campaign of Unity. The No campaign warned of the irreversible nature of an autonomy vote, with the slogan “Think Again”. Most No politicians warned a vote for autonomy would embolden calls for unilateral independence. Home Secretary Steven Woolfe was roundly condemned after claiming that a Yes vote would embolden the continuity SNLA and a strong vote in favour of autonomy could lead to a return to violence. William Hague’s attempted visits were all met with hostility by voters angered by his austerity politics, with some snap polls showing support for a Yes vote went up after a visit by Hague to Edinburgh. The Yes campaign’s momentum seemed unstoppable as voters went to the polls.
“Scots are expected to deliver a massive Yes vote to their new autonomy charter at a referendum tomorrow. This comes despite claims from conservative opposition groups that it represents a first step in the disintegration of Britain. After months of wrangling over what is being billed as Scotland's constitution, the main concern is about voter turnout. The government's own poll last week predicted 75% of voters would say yes to a charter that defines Scotland's position within Britain. Britain is divided into 40 provinces, each with a degree of self-government. A Scottish yes vote was expected to start a rush by other provinces to revise their charters as well. In every case they are expected to demand extra powers, draining London's control over public spending.” - Scots head for resounding yes vote in autonomy poll, Al Jazeera (2013)
The youth came out to vote in their droves
Last edited:
I'm really liking the fact Yvette Cooper is Scottish in this-minor details like that are a hallmark of a really well researched TL for me.
I’m pondering if Scottish nationalism is more Eurosceptic then IOTL. Without Brexit and with all the weight of a Troika-imposed Austerity on their shoulders, I can see many (especially in RISE ranks) proposing a “free from London, free from Bruxelles” Scottish Independence.
Also, if Scotland get his Parliament how much before Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall’s voices grew louder?
Also, if Scotland get his Parliament how much before Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall’s voices grew louder?
That's very kind thank you, especially considering the excellent research you conduct. One of my pals ended up becoming a Respect MP in your TL, when I showed it to them they said they could definitely see it happening!
RISE is currently a pro-EU party, similar to other left wing Nationalist parties within the EU. The first article of RISE's constitution states that it "Advocates the unity and independence of the Scottish Provinces, to build its own state within the European framework. Together with an ideological position of the left that takes the defence of democracy, the environment and human rights. Based in the ideology of social progress and solidarity."
There is a eurosceptic minority faction in RISE through figures such as Alex Neil and Colin Fox. The more hardline Workers Party of Scotland takes a more Eurosceptic free from London and Brussels approach.