"A Very British Transition" - A Post-Junta Britain TL

I presume the social reforms of the 1960s here never happened or were repealed? But Tatchell as HS means that at least the ban on homosexuality has been lifted for some time. So when would have these reforms occurred (specifically talking about the end of the death penalty plus legalisation of abortion and homosexuality) in this universe? 1990s?
 
I've been really enjoying the timeline so far Powerab! I think writing it is a far harder needle to thread than your previous timeline, given that we are 'missing' 30-40 years of history rather than only a few years as was the case in your previous work. Nevertheless, I think you've done a really good job and the timeline thus far is a fun and interesting read.

However, I have some problems with the Scottish section of chapter 5. In it, you state that there is a desire by the body politic in Scotland to see a united Scottish parliament but that Westminster politicians overrule this and instead grant protections to previously violent groups and grant rights and protections for Scottish Gaelic including 'mandating the Scottish Gaelic be taught in Scottish schools'. In reaction to this announcement, you state that although the body politic in Scotland presumably isn't overjoyed, 'SNP national leader John Swinney hailed the result as a “historic day for Scotland’s native tongue”.' You also said that the suggested that the Scottish extremist groups were operating out of the Highlands and were Gaelic in nature.

Okay, so there are five problems with this:
  1. It is factually wrong to call Gaelic Scotland's historical language and John Swinny would never say that
  2. It would exacerbate the situation to announce language rights but fail to address political rights
  3. The current debate around the Gaelic language in Scotland is the result of very specific political circumstances that would not be replicated in TTL
  4. Thinking the body politic in Scotland would be happy with cultural rights without political rights shows a complete misunderstanding of the Scottish mindset and
  5. Scottish extremist groups are far more likely to be city-based than rural-based.
John Swinney is factually wrong when he calls Gaelic Scotland's native tongue and I don't think he'd ever say that because it would piss off Scots and Doric speakers who are far more common than Gaelic speakers.


Secondly, if the UK gov in this TL did announce that Gaelic language rights were the main/only measure they were taking to address Scottish desires for self-determination and cultural expression you're going to get folk doubling down on extremism rather than rowing back from it. It comes off as a token measure (as you said, Gaelic speakers make up a tiny percentage of Scotland's population) and it also harks to a kind of divide and rule mentality, giving a small subsection of the Scottish population additional rights and mandating the learning of that language while ignoring the desires of the majority of the body politics and, by extension, the population is not going to go down well. Unless of course in reaction to the Junta the notion of what being 'Scottish' means changes to include fluency in the Gaelic language, but I think that is extremely unlikely.

Thirdly, the current debate and reinforcement of Gaelic speaking in Scotland comes from the fact it's one of the few areas left that the SNP can attempt to reinforce an aspect of Scottish identity with the powers the Scottish government currently has. Basically, they've done almost all they can do to reinforce a distinctly Scottish identity with the powers they have and it's the last wee thing they can do. It's not a massive vote winner, only really mattering to folk in the Western Highlands and some of the more hardcore Nats.

Alright, your references to the Scottish political mindset is unrealistic. I suspect this is because it's hard for folk from large nations (England, France, US, etc) to imagine what it's like to be from a small nation with large neighbours. Where did the desire for Scottish self-determination in OTL come from? The collapse of the Empire and the rise of the English conservative state, as exemplified by Thatcher's government. Scotland is a small nation of roughly 5 million people. Like all small nations, we have two routes to survival, international cooperation with others or for the state to maximize the use of the minimal resources available to allow for the defense of their interests. The collapse of the Empire led to Scots being unable to rely upon international cooperation, while the rise of the English conservative state resulted in the desire for a Scottish parliament to maximise Scottish state power.

In the past, the empire represented the way in which Scotland could use international cooperation with others to prevent its domination by a foreign power. Okay, so in present-day England makes up 84% of the UK population and so Scottish folk feel in the minority and threatened, but back in 1900 or 1800 you could be British and live in Australia, Canada, Kenya, etc. So England made up a far smaller proportion of the UK's population in 1900 than it does now and therefore was less of a big, scary neighbor for Scottish folk. Fast forward to the present day and you get the main reason Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Just look at the political clout EU membership gave Ireland during Brexit. Right now Scotland's stuck next to a neighbor 10 times its size and is fearful. I see no reason why this attitude wouldn't also exist in TTL and in fact be even more prominent given the fact there was an English-dominated military dictatorship conducting military operations in Scotland. You can bet your arse the Scottish body politic are going to be desperate to join the EU ITL. Hopefully, this will be useful for you when writing your TL.

This brings me on to the second part of understanding the Scottish (or any small nations) mindset. If you have a big neighbour who you're afraid of and you can't rely upon international cooperation to temper them then what can you do? You can use the state to maximise the resources available to allow you to better defend your interests. Why do Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Estonia have conscription and large states? Because they're right next to Russia. If you're the United States you can afford to be inefficient because you're the top dog but if you're Canada you have to have a larger government presence to ensure that you look unappetising should your large neighbour look North. It's the same with Scotland, the rise of the English conservative state in the 1980s produced the Scottish parliament in 1999. It's why Scotland has a larger state than England and why some Scottish MPs have called for Scotland to have a form of national conscription post-independence. Now OTL's 1980s English state scared Scottish folk and produced OTL's Scottish parliament. What would this TTL's English military dictatorship result in and what would it take to keep Scots in the union and from violent succession? That's what you need to be asking yourself. I think if Scotland had been through an English military dictatorship but was still at the point where you have people who remember the 1960s welfare state around then a fully fiscally autonomous Scotland might do it but obv it's up to you.

Last point, whatever most Americans might think Scotland is an urban society and we're not all highland teuchters running around in kilts. If you're going to have an insurgency against an English military dictatorship in Scotland it's going to come from Motherwell, Glasgow, Dundee, and the like. Look at those areas with the largest pro-indy support in OTL, those are where your insurgencies will be based. Also, my last point on this is that it'd actually be really easy to pacify the Highlands. Most of the forests are gone so there's nowhere to hide, you can have the collaboration of large landowners, there's good infrastructure in the region precisely for this reason (see road and canal building in the Highlands post-Jacobite rising) and the area is massively depopulated (thank you Highland clearances). The British state spent a lot of money in the 1800s to ensure there'd never be another rising in the Highlands and they did a really good job. If you want to occupy Scotland it's the inner cities and ex-industrial areas you need to worry about.

One last final, final point. I imagine there's been even more emigration from Scotland in TTL and you might want to comment on that. As I love to point out 'Scotland's population decreased in size by 150,000 from 1971 to 2001'. On the upside in TTL, there will be less deindustrialization than OTL but on the downside, you know...military dictatorship. Actually, it's worth noting that Scotland's population only started to grow again once the new Scottish parliament was established. It does however make one sad when you read the debate in Hansard on the Scottish Home Rule Bill on 1913 and see William Cowan, the MP for Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire Eastern, state Scotland needed home rule because 'Scotland has become a reservoir for the filling up of Canada.' How little changes.
I imagine the main thing keeping Scotland from violent secession TTL is the British military.

Also a little silly to attribute Scotland's population rise to having a parliament - when it was obviously due to Blair opening up the UK to mass immigration intentionally (not saying that that was right or wrong)
 
I presume the social reforms of the 1960s here never happened or were repealed? But Tatchell as HS means that at least the ban on homosexuality has been lifted for some time. So when would have these reforms occurred (specifically talking about the end of the death penalty plus legalisation of abortion and homosexuality) in this universe? 1990s?
The main social liberalisations of the 60s (decriminalising homosexuality, abortion, ending death penalty ect) all happened before the coup in 68. Unlike coups in Spain/Portugal/Greece the Church didn't play a major role so apart from a few hardliners most of the Junta were secular protestants. The Junta didn't waste political capital rolling back socially liberal reforms that they weren't really fussed about. So whilst British society is less permissive than OTL, there's no legal enforcements.

This isn't to say Britain was all sunshine and rainbows for LGBT people or women who chose to get an abortion, but it was much better than in Francoist Spain.

As for Tatchell he was imprisoned for his various political/pro-democratic campaigns rather than directly for his sexuality (although it didn't help him)
 
Last edited:
Did the Greek coup still take place? Could Constantine keep his throne, with some help from Phillip?
I don't know much about Greek history to be honest apart from the research I've done for this TL, but I imagine the Greek coup would still take place ITTL.
 
What happened to the Commonwealth immigrants that came to Britain before the junta? Did most of them decided to head back home or stay put?
A fair few headed home but this was mostly for economic reasons. The Junta wasn't a full on fascist one like in Spain, more authoritarian one-nation conservatives, so there was no mass campaign of deportation or anything like that. Britain's immigrant population is lower than OTL, but that's a mix of Britain being economically weaker, the people being generally less permissive/accepting of outsiders, stricter border controls and no EU membership.

Since Britain never joined the EU large scale migration from Europe never happened, so Britain's immigrant population remains mostly Commonwealth migrants and migrants from Hong Kong/China, so the migrant population is much more ethnically diverse.
 
Last edited:
Since the House of Lords was abolished, does that mean that peers are free to run for and sit in the Commons?

Also, what does "Mountbattenism" specifically refer to in this TL? Did the Junta regime try to enforce some sort of state ideology?
 
Since the House of Lords was abolished, does that mean that peers are free to run for and sit in the Commons?

Also, what does "Mountbattenism" specifically refer to in this TL? Did the Junta regime try to enforce some sort of state ideology?
It seems like it's just a term the Media made up ITTL.
 
Since the House of Lords was abolished, does that mean that peers are free to run for and sit in the Commons?

Also, what does "Mountbattenism" specifically refer to in this TL? Did the Junta regime try to enforce some sort of state ideology?
Yes, peers are free to run for a House of Commons seats, several leading National MPs are former peers.

It's mostly a media term, the regime didn't try to enforce a strict ideology, it's mostly a mix of authoritarian one-nation conservatism (reverence for the military and the establishment, controlled media, social prudishness, anti-trade unionism, mixed economy etc) with maybe a dash of Peronism.
 
Last edited:
Chapter 7: The Purse Strings
1623405320260.png

Australia, Britain's "favourite son" had taken it's fathers place on the G8

"It is our view that the United Kingdom has not yet reached standards of economic progress, human development and political stability required for membership of the G8. This isn't to say Britain could never join the G8, but there is a long way to go. We still have significant concerns around the prevalence of political violence. We look forward to working with the United Kingdom as a close and proactive member of the G21. We in the G8 continue to give the British people our full support during this difficult transition to democracy. In our talks we agreed with Prime Minister Johnson and Chancellor Hughes comprehensive packages of trade and investment to help jump-start Britain and bring her back into the international economic order.”
- Statement by G8 Chair John Howard (2005)

In a humiliating turn of events, Britain's application to join the G8 was rejected, further rubbing salt in the wounds, the rejection was delivered by Australian PM John Howard, who had taken Britain’s place on the G8. The rejection showed how far Britain had fallen in 40 years, with an international community still keeping the pariah nation at an arm’s length a simple change in management wouldn’t be enough to bring Britain back to the top table, it would take years of reform and hard work to drag Britain back to its pre-Junta level of economic power and international prestige.

The Nottingham summit didn’t bring entirely bad news, several of the G8 powers welcomed new policies for external investment into the United Kingdom. With Chancellor Simon Hughes working to open up the British economy to external investors, private companies, especially those from the States, were eager to exploit this new opening in the market. Johnson managed to sign favourable agreements with US President Bush and German Chancellor Otto Schily. Whilst the blow to Britain’s ego was heavy, the SDP Government hoped that the promise of new jobs and economic growth could offset the political damage they took.

1623405136510.png

After a honeymoon in the polls, the SDP's momentum was beginning to slow

“Alan Johnson is nothing if not an optimist. His thesis that Britain must join with the international community to face great threats of the day has been tested to destruction. Relations between the UK and the US were ripped apart by London's decision to withdraw from Iraq. European governments remain suspicious of US intentions towards the UK. And in spite of improvements in the relationship, the list of issues dividing the US and UK has not diminished. Yet Mr Johnson has not given up the goal of dragging Britain back to the top table. "What I am trying to get to is to develop an agenda of consensus," he says. "There is the possibility of that consensus." The key, he suggests, is as the Junta regime comes to an end - there is a change in emphasis in Whitehall that "has been under- estimated by people."
- Johnson hails UK goal of expanding freedom, Andrew Gowers, Financial Times (2005)

With new G8 investment, the SDP Government could now begin on the first democratic budget in British history. The budget represented a political minefield for Johnson, the European Union expected Britain to open it’s economy often closed under the Junta’s control. The British state was old, inefficient and prohibitively expensive. Johnson, Hughes and Milburn wanted to bring in a raft of privatisations but knew this would be opposed by the trade union wing of the SDP as well as their confidence and supply partners in the Socialist Alternative. Thus the privatisations began locally, mostly focused on transport. National transport subsidies to provincial governments were severely cut, with the central administration “encouraging” provincial governments to sell on their transport network, this led to the privatisation of most local bus services. The Johnson Government also began to sell smaller regional airports like Tees Valley Airport, Leeds Airport and Newcastle Airport as well as National Air Traffic Control Services.

1623405385415.png

Loss-making regional airports had been kept in state hands by the Junta for strategic reasons

After taking power the Junta had built dozens of military installations up and down the country, many were operating at a loss with little tangible benefit to the British people besides extra jobs in the military and more money for the Junta. Much to the anger of the military, several of these loss making installations were sold-off or privatised. The most notable military privatisation was the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, the military’s main research agency. The DERA became Quintex, a private research and military contracting company. Several trust ports and old naval bases were also privatised.

Overall the reforms made in the Hughes 2005 budget represented a cut of over 5% in British public spending. Due to fear of a backlash from the Socialist Alternative, larger loss-making national agencies such as British Coal and British Energy were left alone, with the brunt of cuts hitting either the overfed military or in cuts to provincial funding. This “stealth privatisation” gave the SDP plausible deniability and garnered them a majority in the House of Commons. Whilst unions were annoyed at Johnson’s reforms, he had enough good will and political capital to keep them from dissenting openly. Whilst some SDP politicians had feared industrial unrest, Britain’s exhausted organised Labour simply didn’t have the resources to resist.

“Habits, practices, and values of workers shape their decisions to join trade unions. The growth of organised labour has coincided with the growth of civic participation among the post-Junta working class. Trade unions not only help workers gain higher wages, but also help workers gain a ‘collective voice’ over important issues. Recall that the desire to take part in decision making processes—to have one’s voice heard—is a paradigmatic post-materialist value. Given that unions help workers to influence policy, unions attract workers with post-materialist values. Hence, different aspects of trade unionism appeal to different value orientations. Materialists favouring the monetary benefits and post-materialists favouring the collective voice benefits.” - Why Workers Join Labour Unions, Christopher Kollmeyer (2010)

1623405243919.png

Many in the trade union community were relieved not to be facing the jackboot, and were willing to give the SDP the benefit of the doubt for now
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many members of the military will join the Private Military Contractors? Will the government also sell off excess equipment and arms to raise money?
 
I wonder how many members of the military will join the Private Military Contractors? Will the government also sell off excess equipment and arms to raise money?
A considerable number of soldiers have gone private. Some of Britain's arm stockpile has been sold on but the country still has a large surplus
 
Wikibox: Social Democratic Party
1623424297807.png

The Social Democratic Party; SDP is a social-democratic political party in the United Kingdom. The SDP is currently the incumbent party of the United Kingdom. The party is seen as the successor to the banned Labour Party. It's current leader is East Yorkshire MP Alan Johnson

The SDP was founded after the legalisation of opposition parties in 2004. The SDP played a key role during the transition to democracy, leading the first post-Junta elected government from 2005. Whilst it is descended from the socialist Labour Party it does not consider itself socialist, although there is a socialist minority faction.

The SDP has three major internal tendencies, the dominant tendency is the traditionalist tendency of social democratic/trade unionist figures such as leader Alan Johnson and Development Secretary Jack Straw. This tendency supports strong ties with the trade union movement and moderate economic reforms. To the right of the traditionalist tendency is the liberal tendency, made up of middle-class intellectuals such as Deputy General Secretary Alan Milburn and Chancellor Simon Hughes. This tendency supports moving away from the trade unions and embracing more neo-liberal economics. The smallest tendency is the soft left democratic socialist tendency of figures such as Home Secretary Peter Tatchell and Education Secretary Glenda Jackson. This tendency supports strong trade union links, a mixed economy and cooperation with other left wing parties like the Socialist Alternative.

The SDP has had strong ties with the trade union movement, especially Amicus. Affiliated trade union membership is a requirement for SDP membership. The SDP has been considered by experts to embrace a positive outlook towards EU membership.

The SDP is a member of the Party of European Socialists, Progressive Alliance and the Socialist International.
 
Last edited:
Great update so far. Just wondering about the privatizations - I'm loath to use Wiki as a source here, but if it's true, could it be possible to imitate OTL India's model? That is, waiting until a firm regulatory framework is in place before gradually divesting from public enterprises? Obviously there would be some that would remain under central control (such as the railways and the BBC, for example - maybe others), but it could provide them with an opportunity to reform themselves and provide a fresh public face.

EDIT - The Wiki article links to this source, so it may be of some help for future research, if this is the path you want to go:
 
Last edited:
Great update so far. Just wondering about the privatizations - I'm loath to use Wiki as a source here, but if it's true, could it be possible to imitate OTL India's model? That is, waiting until a firm regulatory framework is in place before gradually divesting from public enterprises? Obviously there would be some that would remain under central control (such as the railways and the BBC, for example - maybe others), but it could provide them with an opportunity to reform themselves and provide a fresh public face.
Something along those lines, obviously it wont be as fast or as cut throat as the Thatcher privatisations, with major industries remaining in house and divestment mostly being devolved via regional cuts, with the trade unions and SA behind him there's only so far and so aggressively Johnson can make reforms, so it is likely to be similar to India's model.
 
I wonder what kind of military equipment has been sold and who has bought it... I suppose it would be old stuff, be it tanks, ships or planes.
 
I wonder what kind of military equipment has been sold and who has bought it... I suppose it would be old stuff, be it tanks, ships or planes.
Yes mostly out of date stuff sold to developing western/commonwealth aligned nations. Indonesia for examples a big buyer of British military kit
 
I suspect the SDP is bulldog-eager to sell off military kit. Saves the cost of stockpiling it, gets a bit of cash, helps build international relations and, perhaps most crucially, gets it out of the country in a politically difficult to object to way.

There's probably a very real fear in the Government that if they don't sell it, someone else will. Or that orders to destroy stockpiles will 'somehow' turn into 'orders' to 'disperse' them.
 
Top