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

It is true the Junta did set up an oil fund.

This would be a disaster for pro-union groups. Scotland has about 90% of the oil reserves in the UK. If you have a large fund, getting larger every year, shared across the UK but 90% of the revenue is coming from Scotland, that's going to make things very difficult for Westminster. In OTL London could obfuscate as to how much the North Sea was bringing in, but with a separate dedicated oil fund? It's much harder to hide.

And what happens if Scotland does become independent ITTL and sues the UK government for 90% of the sovereign wealth fund? A sovereign wealth fund would be a disaster for the UK because unlike Norway the UK has a lot more internal divisions and I think the planners in Whitehall would know this. Esp if there is an armed struggle in Scotland at the time when decisions are being made!

Could I recommend retconning this and instead having the junta use the income from oil and gas to make up for the diminished access to world trade as a result of lack of membership of the common market and embargos? You could also say that some of it was allocated towards increased defence and security expenditure.

Edit: I loved the update! The world you're building is fascinating.
 
Last edited:
Collins in trouble as Tories lag behind in polls, Tania Branigan, The Guardian (2006)
So Nationals are nicknamed Tories like Conservatives IOTL?
Also it’s interesting see UK reapproaching to international community, could you provide a list of alternate foreign leaders (mainly France, Germany, Italy, European Union, Canada,... as US seems to be similar to HL)?
 
This would be a disaster for pro-union groups. Scotland has about 90% of the oil reserves in the UK. If you have a large fund, getting larger every year, shared across the UK but 90% of the revenue is coming from Scotland, that's going to make things very difficult for Westminster. In OTL London could obfuscate as to how much the North Sea was bringing in, but with a separate dedicated oil fund? It's much harder to hide.

And what happens if Scotland does become independent ITTL and sues the UK government for 90% of the sovereign wealth fund? A sovereign wealth fund would be a disaster for the UK because unlike Norway the UK has a lot more internal divisions and I think the planners in Whitehall would know this. Esp if there is an armed struggle in Scotland at the time when decisions are being made!

Could I recommend retconning this and instead having the junta use the income from oil and gas to make up for the diminished access to world trade as a result of lack of membership of the common market and embargos? You could also say that some of it was allocated towards increased defence and security expenditure.

Edit: I loved the update! The world you're building is fascinating.
For the Junta Government they don't accept Scotland could ever be independent and don't even recognise it as a separate politically entity. For them they saw as much chance of Scotland taking the SWF as Northumberland Council.

The SWF is by no means as extensive as Norways and your right much of the wealth from North Sea has been spent keeping the Junta afloat and purchasing weapons.
 
So Nationals are nicknamed Tories like Conservatives IOTL?
Also it’s interesting see UK reapproaching to international community, could you provide a list of alternate foreign leaders (mainly France, Germany, Italy, European Union, Canada,... as US seems to be similar to HL)?
The Guardian's trying to make it a thing but it's not really working. Only left-wingers refer to National as Tories. Unlike OTL where even Conservatives call themselves Tories.

Most of the western world is fairly similar to OTL, it's only in Europe where the knock-on effects of things like the accession talk collapse have affected modern politics. Italy, the US and Canada all have the same leadership as OTL.

Non-OTL leaders are as follows:
France - Édouard Balladur
Germany - Otto Schilly
EU - Margot Wallström
 
Chapter 13: On Your Left
1624461578619.png

Johnson's plans to liberalise Britain's economy brought him into clashes with organised labour

“I want an open society with rules; one that delights in its tolerance and pursues justice not only within our borders but outside them. Protectionism in the economy; isolation in world affairs; nativism in society; means weakness in the face of challenge. We can be strong. We can overcome the challenge of global change; better, we can relish its possibilities. Over the coming months, we will be conducting this debate and refining policy on the basis of it. Take part in it. Organised labour has a crucial role to play. It is exactly where modern trade unionism should be. And if we can shape the debate in the right way, and get solutions that are fair and practical, we will do well by the count. We will show that politics, true politics can deliver the progress we all want to see.”
- Prime Minister Alan Johnson’s speech to the TUC (2006)

The SDP was the unions and the unions were the SDP, at least that’s what National said. Sometimes this benefited Alan Johnson, like when he spoke at the TUC conference. Today, not so much. As part of reforms to target Britain’s bloated public sector and to pull Britain closer to the EU, Johnson had taken the knife to the one place the Junta dared not touch, public sector pensions. The reforms included raising the retirement age for public sector workers and scrapping the “80 rule”, which allowed local government workers to retire early if their age and years of service combined exceeded 80. With state contributions to public sector pensions reaching nearly £10 billion, Johnson saw a place to make cutbacks.

This put Johnson on a collision course with the Association of Government Workers, one of the largest and most powerful trade unions in post-transition Britain, representing middle and lower government workers including local civil servants. The AGW, alongside several smaller public sector unions voted to strike and over a million public sector workers walked out of their jobs. Teachers, librarians and sports centre workers all took to their local town halls to march and share their grievances. The AGW’s pension action was the largest example of industrial action since the General Strike that helped topple the Junta in 2003.

"Jonathon Riley, the architect of trade union autocracy, was dropped as minister. This marked a liberalizing turn that recognized the need to trade to meet the basic needs of the population. The postal strike and the general strike that followed, contributed to this restructuring. Though many more arduous protests would be mounted before democracy came to Britain, the strike marked a turning point. It signaled a shift from the brutal military-fascism of the 1970s and 80s, to a more rational-bureaucratic Junta in the 2000s. As well as the growth of a ‘social opposition’ base. The grandiose Junta and all its repressive effects to which Hill-Norton clung was dissolved after 2003. The mystique of the 68 coup, the main formative influence of the regime, was diluted." - The British General Strike of 2003, Peter Catterall (2009)

1624461475246.png

The AGW had helped to topple one government not long ago

Alan Johnson was used to organising strikes, not being on their receiving end, considering all his government had done the unions had been extraordinarily patient. Not only did the AGW lead workers in walking out, but they also announced they would suspend donations to the SDP until an agreement was made. The AGW formed the SDP’s second largest donor and with an expensive EU referendum a few months away the SDP couldn’t afford the hit to their coffers. One would expect in these situations the radical left Socialist Alternative to benefit from the SDP’s woes, but despite the fact they voted against pension reforms, they did provide the SDP with confidence and supply. For many trade unionists, the SA’s hands were dipped in the blood, even more reason for John McDonnell’s internal opponents to sharpen their knives..

Now there was the question of what to do with all the librarians running amok. In the good old days you’d send the boys in blue to beat them up, or failing that the boys in green, but in the new democratic Britain sending soldiers to beat up Mildred the librarian was generally frowned upon. The Government had to embark on the long forgotten dark arts of union negotiation. Somewhere deep in the Department of Industry civil servants were opening negotiation handbooks that had been shut for 40 years. The situation was no less strange to the trade unions, who until recently had operated underground, and then under strict supervision, making demands to the government was unheard of.

1624461697967.png

Negotiations in plush offices had replaced clashes on the picket line

The strike would continue for several months, going well into May, local swimming pools would remain shut for the Easter school holidays as angry constituents wrote to their MPs. The striking AGW workers showed iron discipline, many of them had been beaten or shot at before, a snide comment from their managers was nothing. Their General Secretary Keith Sonnet ran circles around the Industry Secretary Chris Huhne. A former writer on economics, Huhne was used to the warm cushion of theory rather than the cut and thrust of trade union relations. Under mounting pressure an agreement was finally reached in a humiliation for the Government. The Johnson administration was forced to accept a much smaller cut in pension contributions, with the retirement age, most importantly the 85 rule, left untouched.

The strike also demonstrated the great strength of Britain’s public sector, and the unions that organised within them. Years of repression had made Britain’s trade union movement militant and fearless. Whilst Johnson had been forced to back down this time, the trade union movement wasn’t just something he could ignore, not with the whole world watching. For now this was a fight that could wait until after Britain was safely in the European Union. The pension reforms had failed, all they had achieved was breaking any trust left between the Johnson administration and the union leadership.

“Alan Milburn has called for a sweeping overhaul of party funding which will curb the influence of the unions over the SDP, MPs were told last night. Under Mr Milburn's plan union members would be required to agree to annual donations to the party through their unions. The total donation made by each union would also be subject to a cap. Milburn is consulting on whether to propose a cap of £50,000 a year although one source said last night that the limit could go as high as £250,000. Publication of his report into democratic party financing, scheduled for this month, has been delayed until the new year. The current lack of rules enable union leaders to wield considerable financial clout - and political pressure. But MPs believe Milburn will propose "individualisation", where each union member opts in or out of contributing.” - Milburn supports plan to weaken unions' grip on party, MPs told, Will Woodward, The Guardian (2006)

1624461527361.png

Figures on the trade union left like Prescott would not allow any weakening of the SDP's alliance with the unions
 
Chapter 14: Quality Polis
1625054096283.png

Junta policing in Scotland had been particularly violent, Johnson hoped to change that

“The recent change in government is unlikely to make a significant difference to the state’s response to Scotland. Central to Britain’s mode of power has been its readiness to resort to ‘exceptional’ measures. A hallmark of the junta was the imposition of state of emergency powers to legitimate extreme police powers and the arbitrary use of force. This is the same logic we find in the imposition of the Scottish Civil Guard: an exceptional juridical solution – that lasted 40 years. A culture of extraordinary measures and emergency powers may become permanent, even post-Junta. The sovereign power – Britain - has before invoked the capacity to reduce its opponents to subjects with no rights. Once its opponents are excluded from the protection of the law, they can be beaten, denigrated and harassed.”
- The Struggle for Scotland, David Whyte (2020)

In the Junta’s time, the more problematic parts of the Union saw “special attention” from the Home Office under Civil Guard units, specialised police units who temporarily took charge over local policing under periods of heavy terrorist activity. The most notorious of these units was the Scottish Civil Guard (SCG), the SCG had been known for numerous human rights offences, including torture and kidnapping, whilst the SCG had calmed down as the Junta’s power waned, it still remained a firmly sectarian unionist organisation and was incredibly unpopular north of the border. If the Johnson administration hoped to calm separatist sentiments and prevent a return to violence, then the SCG had to go.

Scotland’s policing would instead be devolved between the four provincial administrations, put under the command of Scotland's four provincial Presidents, all of whom were separatists. The Central Government mandated that all new recruits to the Scottish would be under a 50/50 quota of separatists and unionists (despite polls showing 65% of Scots identified as separatists). Steps were also taken to retire more hard-line senior police officers and purge those associated with groups such as Civil Assistance. Above all Home Secretary Peter Tatchell pledged a new era of policing in Scotland where a culture of “respect and equality” could flourish.

“Scottish youngsters are developing cultured capacities out of which will construct their adult lives. Whether the cultural consumerism of human rights ideas will be a feature of future generations of Scottish policing has yet to be seen. The idea of a culture of human rights in the police can only come to fruition as these ideas embed themselves in the wider cultural environment. We see now this is something that human rights activists in Scotland are turning their attention to. There is no doubt that the human rights changes that have already taken place in Scottish policing have been far reaching. However, it is too early to say how a real ‘culture’ of human rights can be embedded or how long it may take.” - Transforming Policing in Scotland, Lecture by Michele Lamb, University of Essex (2016)

1625053854464.png

Reorganising and de-Mountbattenism policing would take a long time

This culture of respect meant forcibly retiring older senior officials to make way for more democratic “new blood”. Controversy was stirred when investigative journalists found some of the retired senior police officers were paid up members of Civil Assistance. Whilst Scotland’s die-hard unionist community was fairly small compared to somewhere like Wales, those unionists who remained had become increasingly militant as Civil Assistance grew it’s operations in Scotland. In working class areas of Glasgow and Edinburgh, Civil Assistance and RISE Party youths would be involved in violent clashes, occasionally with weapons being drawn. Some in the upper echelons worried that cutting loose extremists from the army and the police would only provide fresh bodies for various paramilitary organisations.

The various new Chief Constables had quite a job on their hands, not only did they need to coordinate across four squabbling provincial governments, they had to rebuild Scottish trust in policing and crack down on political violence across the nation. Things weren’t helped when David Strang, Chief Constable of Eastern Scotland, was shot dead by an unknown gunman. Strang had been shot on the steps of East Scotland’s Legislative Assembly, the Old Royal High School, traveling to a hearing of local legislators. Strang wouldn’t be the last officer killed in the line of duty, within the first month of the new regional police forces, nearly a dozen officers had been killed, either from paramilitaries or good old fashioned drug gangs.

1625054186633.png

The deaths of police officers created a sense the Government was losing control

Traditional crime had also become a problem in Scotland, the SNLA and it’s various splinter groups had led to an influx of weapons arriving on Scotland's shores. Whilst armed crime had increased in Britain over the Junta years it was particularly bad in Scotland due to the density of weapons and solid organisation of organised crime groups such as the Thompson Family who continued operating long after the death of their “godfather”. Whilst these issues were by no means exclusive to Scotland (other heavily oppressed areas such as Merseyside and East London had seen an explosion in organised crime under the Junta), it reached headline news due to these policing reforms.

For National the disbandment of the SCG and the violence in Scotland went hand in hand. Shadow Home Secretary Ian Blair denounced the SDP Government for putting “policy before policing”, warning the liberal instincts of Home Secretary Peter Tatchell were putting the British people in danger. Leader of the far-right NPP Godfrey Bloom went even further, in an expletive loaded interview he claimed Tatchell’s focus on LGBT rights had directly led to the death of the Scottish officers. Whilst Bloom was a fringe figure, National’s attacks of being soft on crime were finally starting to stick to the SDP. With Johnson and Tatchell already clashing regularly, Tatchell’s political capital was running out. Tatchell had already completed his political life’s goal by liberalising the Junta’s strict social legislation, for many in Britain's various underrepresented communities he was a hero. Friends whispered Tatchell was already sick of frontline politics and wanted to return to the world of writing and journalism, the door was beckoning, and Johnson was in no mood to try and stop him.

“A gay democrat under the Junta, Tatchell has depended on bull-headed obduracy and a refusal to accept life's reversals to get to where he has. It would be crass to say that Mr Tatchell's sexuality may also be what saves him. But the difficulties he has overcome have created a nagging suspicion, shared even by those who detest his liberalism, that he is a great man. The admiration at Westminster for his achievements has meant that the pack usually found in pursuit of wounded ministers has been muted. That will help him in the difficult days to come. So too will his importance to a government short of the passion and the authenticity that he brings to politics. But it is hard to escape the feeling that a tragedy is being played out. For once, to describe a political drama as Shakespearean is to give it no less than its due.” - The agony of Peter Tatchell, The Economist (2006)

1625054004015.png

Tatchell continued to give PM Johnson headaches
 
Last edited:
Love the latest update!

Your section about organised crime in Scotland reminds me of a guy I knew from school who was a low level dealer. He eventually ended up being sectioned for schizophrenia. A mate of mine, who knew him from when they'd gone to boxing together as kids, visited him when he was sectioned and said he was talking about having been kidnapped off the street and tortured. I thought it was just the schizophrenia talking but another mate of mine told me about the Devlin brothers, twins who also went to our school, who kidnapped rival dealers and tortured them to get them off their turf. Apparently they used to like beating folk with bike chains or braided ropes. Pretty messed up, apparently they're both in prison now. Glad I don't have to go to school in TTL!
 
Last edited:
Wikibox: The Death of Mountbatten
1625066292063.png

The Death of Mountbatten is a 2017 political satire black comedy film written and directed by Armando Iannucci. The film depicts the internal power struggle among the British Junta following the death of Louis Mountbatten. The British-French-Belgian co-production stars an ensemble cast. Including: Charles Dance, Steve Buscemi, Simon Russell Beale, Paddy Considine, Rupert Friend and Jason Isaacs.

The Death of Mountbatten was screened at the Toronto Film Festival and received critical acclaim. It was released in the United Kingdom by Entertainment One Films on 20 October 2017, in France on 4 April 2018 and in Belgium on 18 April 2018. The film was criticised by some politicians in Britain for allegedly mocking the countries' past and making fun of its leaders. It received various awards including two British Academy Film Award nominations.

1625066364705.png

Charles Dance as Mountbatten
 
Last edited:
But it is hard to escape the feeling that a tragedy is being played out. For once, to describe a political drama as Shakespearean is to give it no less than its due.” - The agony of Peter Tatchell, The Economist (2006)
One can always count on The Economist for the most refined, cultured, highbrow approach to rough and tumble punch 'em in the nose stab 'em in the back whatever works reactionary agenda advancement. The masses must suffer for the most exquisitely esoteric greater good; give the radical devils their due even as one crucifies them. For reasons of greatest necessity of course, not out of any malice...
 
I know this was probably mentioned before, but I can't begin to imagine, just how much this coup has probably soured the Euro-American relationship. It's almost a miracle NATO didn't collapse after the Cold War in TTL. Or did it?
 
I know this was probably mentioned before, but I can't begin to imagine, just how much this coup has probably soured the Euro-American relationship. It's almost a miracle NATO didn't collapse after the Cold War in TTL. Or did it?
NATO remains but held together with spit and duct tape. However it's in a much weaker state, France is showing no signs of rejoining anytime soon and the Eastern European expansions of the early 2000s haven't happened. The UK is a major non-NATO ally of the US, but not a full NATO member
 
NATO remains but held together with spit and duct tape. However it's in a much weaker state, France is showing no signs of rejoining anytime soon and the Eastern European expansions of the early 2000s haven't happened. The UK is a major non-NATO ally of the US, but not a full NATO member
So the Brits have also partly left? It's interesting, since unlike the EU, NATO was never too averse to having dictatorships in its midsts: Portugal, Greece, Turkey, they all were autocratic when they joined. What made Britain shift in status with NATO? Was it of their own accord too?
 
So the Brits have also partly left? It's interesting, since unlike the EU, NATO was never too averse to having dictatorships in its midsts: Portugal, Greece, Turkey, they all were autocratic when they joined. What made Britain shift in status with NATO? Was it of their own accord too?
Despite the fact the US privately backed the coup they had to chuck the UK out of NATO to save face and keep other NATO members like West Germany and Canada from kicking off. Despite this the UK remained a major non-NATO partner and was strongly in the US orbit.

I think the difference between the UK and Portugal etc was that these countries entered as dictatorships but democratised over time, whereas the UK went the other way, becoming a dictatorship.
 
Can I ask why the 1968 was chosen in your TL ?
1968 was when Cecil King approached Mountbatten first floating the idea of a coup OTL. The last 60s were also the peak of paranoia around Soviet infiltration of the Labour Party with several high-profile iron curtain defectors claiming as such.

Finally this was when things first started to fall apart for the Wilson Government with the devaluation. In this TL, Wilson remains his 50s Bevanite self rather than moderating across the 60s, so a more radical Wilson is unable to get help from other western powers and the devaluation economic crash is a lot worse.
 
1968 was when Cecil King approached Mountbatten first floating the idea of a coup OTL. The last 60s were also the peak of paranoia around Soviet infiltration of the Labour Party with several high-profile iron curtain defectors claiming as such.

Finally this was when things first started to fall apart for the Wilson Government with the devaluation. In this TL, Wilson remains his 50s Bevanite self rather than moderating across the 60s, so a more radical Wilson is unable to get help from other western powers and the devaluation economic crash is a lot worse.
Much as I enjoy the TL, I still think the timing is a bit unfortunate. It is not so much that Lyndon Johnson would not be a monster of ego (I gather from another TL going on that he was deeply at odds with the Canadian premier at the time, largely because Canada was reluctant to go all in on Vietnam and harbored refugees from the US Army draft) as that I don't think fostering a coup of this type in a developed democratic major power was quite his style. Sure, the Republic of Vietnam itself was quite a caricature of democracy, and there were things like the invasion of the Dominican Republic, but by and large I just don't think the US foreign policy establishment would operate smoothly enough to foster and assist a coup in a nation like Britain (or France, or even say West Germany) without stumbling and blowing the whole operation wide open--it might manage to take power, harshly and brutally, in the UK, but US complicity up to our eyebrows would be written all over it and the US would become as much of a pariah as the British Junta. Conceivably leading, if not to open civil war (I fear neither the anti-war movement nor the Civil Rights movement put together would command enough support to amount to a left-wing insurgency with any hope of victory) then a worse and plainer Junta rule in the USA itself. Which even so might not put an end to NATO; such nations as West Germany, the low countries, Norway and Denmark and Italy, might prefer an openly dictatorial Uncle Sam to risking Soviet aggression if we were shown the door to Europe. But goodbye the scenario of an ATL much like OTL outside Britain! the whole West might go fascist in a series of dominos with DeGaulle opting for an authoritarian death grip and West Germany and Italy also falling to strongman rule (perhaps by committee) in the general emergency. Even the Czechoslovakian crisis would not look like the WP was also tottering; Brezhnev might look all the more threatening given the USA along with UK reeling around drunkenly.

In fact general World War Three might be a more likely outcome than the Junta being limited just to Britain.

Now on the other hand if some jiggery-pokery could push the UK crisis in the form of an apparently overweening British left off a few years, into Nixon's terms, I suppose Tricky Dick might pull it off with greater plausible deniability.
 
Top