Why Tory support for the Union?

The Tory party are pretty strongly unionist. However, this appears to make no sense on the face of it: the Tory heartland is England whereas Labour is more or less propped up by support in Scotland and the north of England. Without their Scottish MPs, Labour become far less potent a threat to the Tory party.

Further, I reasoned it could be a matter of prestige. However, would the rump UK’s image really suffer that much on the world stage? London has a larger population than the whole of Scotland combined, and the City’s banks pay more in income tax than all of Scottish industry. An independent Scotland isn’t going to turn the rump UK into the equivalent of Tuvalu: we’d still have a huge GDP.

So, why the Tory support for the union? Why not back the SNP in their calls for the referendum on independence instead of opposing along with Labour and the Liberal Democrats?

Perhaps nationalism is a selling point for their English support?

The same reason why I as a conservative Republican would be opposed to a New England secession movement or a California secession movement.

For us Yanks, what does unionism mean in your context? I do know it goes way back; there’s a Wodehouse story from 1910 where a character is running for office as a Unionist candidate.

They were opposed to Irish Home Rule in that case. Sigh…I wish they had prevailed.

Well this hasn’t always been the case. The Tories have, in the past, been incredibly strong in Scotland - it was under the rule of the Wicked Witch of Finchley that the Scots Conservative and Unionist Party went into steep decline. The SNP themselves were for many years a right wing party - the Tartan Tories.

Thatcher though despised the old paternalist Conservatives who made up a large part of the Scottish contingent. She also was responsible for such moves as the destruction of Ravenscraig as a going concern, for the purpose of attacking unions (and unionism has always been strong in certain areas of Scotland).

As to why they don’t shift now? It would be a huge backdown, and it would also alienate the Rule Britannia element of the party, which is still massively important. And the Army would be savaged, as the Scots have always punched significantly above their weight in the British Army.

Yes, the world would be a much better place if the majority population of Ireland had been compelled to remain under unpopular British rule. Nice to see you are willing to piss on the rights of self-determination of people you know nothing about.

Yeah, and it’s too bad Japan isn’t still ruling Korea and China. Things would be all squared away today.

Support for the union between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to form the United Kingdom.

They did prevail: the Home Rule Bill was never put into operation, and Ireland as a whole never gained home rule within the United Kingdom.

In effect, the Unionists prevented home rule at the cost of the Union. D’oh!

And since the 1880s it’s often also meant opposition to “home rule” or “devolution” as a perceived threat to the future continuance of that union.

North Sea Oil.

Historically the Scottish nationalist position has been based on claiming ownership of up to 98% of North Sea oil revenues.

There was a very real fear throughout the 1970s and 1980s that an independent Scotland would insist on these oil rights, putting a huge dent in Whitehall finances.

This hangover has persisted into the 1990s / 2000s.

More background on Wikipedia: It's Scotland's oil - Wikipedia

Ironically, the devolution process looks likely to save the union!

Why?

Those were nothing alike. The Irish had representation in Parliament and were basically another part of the UK.

Catholics could not sit in Parliament.

That was the early 19th Century, but by the 1850s and onwards they could and did.

More room for them then, would teach them a lesson or two in “Protestant work ethics”.

That isn’t entirely correct. After the passing of the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 Catholics were allowed become MPs.

I stand corrected. Thank you.