“The United Kingdom in its current form is unjust and unsustainable”. Rhun ap Iorwerth (First Minister of Wales and leader of Plaid Cymru) and John Swinney (First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party) not only stated but also set out in a joint memorandum, supported by Michelle O’Neill (First Minister of Northern Ireland and Deputy President of the all-Ireland Sinn Féin) and Mary Lou McDonald (leader of that party and Leader of the Opposition in the Republic of Ireland). The agreement was quickly named the Celtic Alliance and its signing on 14th September 2026 in Cardiff briefly revived global public interest in the prospect of the UK’s disintegration. Yet, despite pledges of cooperation among the mainstream pro-independence parties of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, the British strategy regarding these nations’ aspirations remains unchanged: divide and… and let them think they are in charge of something.
„The Brits won”?
There are some important differences in the strategies considered in Belfast, Dublin, Edinburgh, and Cardiff. In both parts of Ireland, Sinn Féin invokes the provisions of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which ended the Troubles in the occupied part of Ulster. On this basis, the Irish believed that they had the right to a unification referendum, additionally strengthened by Brexit and the change in the legal and international status of the UK. In such circumstances appropriate procedure expected by Sinn Fein would be completed by 2030. The only thing is, PM Andy Burnham has already made it clear that the British interpretation of obligations regarding Northern Ireland is completely different, and the requested referendum is by no means automatic. The Good Friday Agreement was thus blithely cast aside, based on the evident assumption that the modern level of surveillance, along with the disarmament of the Northern Irish population, not merely in military but especially in psychological terms, would effectively prevent any resumption of armed conflict. The recently passed legendary IRA sniper, Billy ‘Blue’ Kelly, who in the 1980s formed the Irish republicans alliance with Colonel Gaddafi, in a posthumously published interview, briefly described it as “the Brits won”, at the same time condemning the dormancy of the Northern Irish movement, whose fat cats built impressive houses and, with full bank accounts, integrated into the new establishment of the occupied part of the country.
Nevertheless, it is Ireland that remains the central problem in London’s (anti-)Celtic puzzle, primarily due to the interstate nature of the Irish question and the constant threat of United States involvement. Typically for him Donald Trump himself poured whiskey into the fire by innocently remarking during his visit to the Irish Republic on 12th September 2026, that he does not want to “cause any problems” but he “would love to see [Ireland] unified”. It would be a “great thing” he said. Also Joe Biden has previously spoken about “Irish-American unity” and however we may be sure that both American political lobbies love more the US aircrafts landing at Shannon Airport than céilí dancing or St. Patrick’s Day festivities, this still means a staking out of territory. It is sending a message to the British: Watch our, the American bulldog has own interests on the Emerald Isle too!
Chained by the energy
For Westminster the most straightforward seems to be the situation in Wales. While support for independence has reached there a record 32 percent, Plaid Cymru’s realistic goal remains expanding the scope of autonomy to at least the Scottish level. Mr Burnham’s Government has a ready answer to this proposing the further devolution for the entire UK, that is, the declared transfer of decision-making power down to local bodies (it should be noted, however, that British councils are local governments in name only, serving merely as a democratic façade for bureaucratic rule). The Welsh are also being enticed by the prospect of an enhanced economic standing, supposedly stemming from their role as one of two suppliers (alongside Scotland) of renewable energy to England. The only thing is (as industry experts know) the solar and wind energy market is in fact a buyer’s market, not a producer’s one. It is the receiver who determines the price of energy when producers are forced to dump excess supply during peak periods; meanwhile, England, possessing a reserve of nuclear power capacity, can maintain system stability and make up for off-peak shortfalls experienced by its neighbours. An additional paradox is that Wales could actually be energy self-sufficient, but returning to coal, much like Scotland, which possesses vast reserves of natural gas and oil, unfortunately exploited by the British companies and not expanded.
The fact that both Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party are at the forefront of the energy transition only reinforces the economic chain binding the nations that are theoretically and to a limited extent governed by these pro-independence parties, while the true independence comes from economic standing, which in turn depends, among other things, on the degree of energy self-sufficiency. Nowadays this is even more evident than ever.
Home Rule for Scotland?
Devolution but in the max version also remains the British offer to Scotland, where the independence movement led by the SNP is effectively spinning its wheels, churning out successive declarations devoid of legal force while still hesitating to organise a de facto referendum (held without Westminster’s consent), what is a move supported even by growing number of members of the gradualist Scottish National Party.
A further expanding of autonomy, often referred to in political commentary as Home Rule for Scotland (following the 19th century Irish cause), could be the Westminster response probably when the share of independence supporters rise from the current 54 percent to over 60 percent. Even critics of the gradual path to Scottish independence note that the historical Irish example is interesting in this respect, because Home Rule for Ireland, a postulate of independence minimalists, was rejected several times by the British Parliament. Nevertheless, when it was finally accepted by the British side, the international situation and the political (and, in terms of propaganda, even armed) activity of the Irish themselves rendered the hard-won compromise deeply unsatisfactory, ultimately leading to Irish independence, which, however, would not have come about without the discreet but firm support of the USA.
Meanwhile, instead of making further concessions, the British government is actually planning to weaken its Scottish opponents, as the British devolution in Scotland is intended to entail decentralisation from Edinburgh, including the strengthening of the councils where Unionists still has noticeable support, like from the Aberdeenshire farmers or the English moving in large numbers to the Scottish Borders. Also immigrants, usually referred to as asylum seekers, who are being sent in the massive number from England to Glasgow and Aberdeen, can also be viewed as a secret weapon for the Unionists, being a group alien to the Scottish cause yet dependent on British benefits and migration policy regime.
China syndrom
For the Scots, much like the Irish, there remains one further path (in fact also historically Irish) namely, i.e. seeking international support, primarily in America (which may be psychologically difficult), but also in the exact opposite direction, in… China, what it turn would require stepping out of the comfort zone of peripherality.
Unlike the Irish, the Scottish diaspora is not politically nor especially financially organised. The Scots en masse also reject in advance any potential US support if it comes from the Donald Trump’s administration, even though it might be the only power centre across the Atlantic interested in reining in the Perfidious Albion, which chose an alliance with globalists and the European Union over a strategic partnership with Washington. Meanwhile, the price of an awkward US-Scottish alliance might not necessarily be Scotland’s NATO membership; still it would almost certainly be contingent upon maintaining a US military presence—including nuclear forces —on Scottish soil, a condition that appears to be a red line for the majority of independence supporters.
In these circumstances, the Chinese option could prove far more attractive, avoiding the associated ethical and aesthetic dilemmas. Indeed, Scotland is already part of the US-China rivalry over the Northern Passage, much like Canada, Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Ireland (which is also a key trans-Atlantic optical fibre hub). Already the Tories’ governments have launched the Green Freeports project on the Scottish coast, comprising large duty-free zones with transport infrastructure that were effectively removed from Scottish jurisdiction. The project has drawn widespread criticism as a curtailment of autonomy, yet it is also viewed as a pre-emptive move against the traditional Chinese strategy of expanding influence through infrastructure and trade investments, specifically in ports. Thus, although the official propaganda of British unionists detects Vladimir Putin’s hand behind every move made by Celtic independence advocates, it is Beijing—not Moscow—that has far more reason to take an interest in the land of Braveheart, Bonnie Prince Charlie, John Maclean and Winnie Ewing.
In today’s great games, after all, it is just as important to secure footholds and influence as also to ensure that no one else gains them. The contest over Scotland may well be a game of precisely this kind, even if stubborn Scottish highlanders insist on their own charming locality. The world did not stop, but Scotland got on board long ago, even if the Scots themselves might not have noticed.
The UK’s funeral or WW3 and lot of funerals?
We may assume that most of the world nations would not directly attend the UK’s funeral but for sure they would send some nice letters of approval. Unfortunately so far there is no need to rush with this ceremony and reports of the UK’s imminent death are a wee exaggerated. It is true, however, that the United Kingdom is today the sick man of Europe, torn apart by the belated ethnogenesis of Celtic nations, devastated by immigration and economic policies (particularly regarding the energy transition) that have been disastrous for ordinary residents, and consumed by the endless necessity of feeding the tapeworm that is the City of London. And yet, the financial and transformative potential of this latter centre, its capacity for adaptation as well as for inspiring subsequent stages of capitalism, indicates that Britain has not yet lost all ability to defend its pathological political system. Especially since, apart from the constitutional manipulations, Westminster always has recourse to an instrument that is as universal as tried-and-tested: war—preferably a world war.
The fact that the UK is in no way militarily prepared for it poses no obstacle. After all, that too would be very traditional, and tradition used to be the holy thing. Besides, the English fight best when others are the first to die in battle.
British greedy hyena of the world still has the ability to bite.
Konrad Rekas
