A speech was delivered at a Pageant held at St Katherine Cree Church in the City of London on 14th June 2008

Today is the 26th anniversary of the surrender of all Argentine forces on the Falklands to the British Army.

That great victory in which all parts of the United Kingdom were fully represented – the Blues and Royals on Harriet, the Scots Guards on Tumbledown, the Welsh Guards on Sapper Hill, HMS Antrim, HMS Glamorgan, HMS Yarmouth, Glasgow, Sheffield, to name but a few, supporting the Army’s advance, brought near universal joy to all our people – and gratitude to our armed forces who made it happen.

The Regiments of the British Army represent the longest continuing military force on land in (modern) history, starting with the Honourable Artillery Company originating in 1537, the First Regiment of Foot (the Royal Scots) in 1633; the Monmouthshire Trained Bands (1577) precursor of the South Wales Borderers of Rorke’s Drift fame, the Royal Irish Rangers (1700), on the Somme in 1916, serving in Afghanistan today – as always in service and sacrifice for the Crown.

The Royal Navy with its origins in King Alfred’s time (897 –  over 1100 years ago) vanquishing the Spanish Armada in 1588, the French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar in 1805, the huge victories over the German submarine menace in two world wars, and the triumph of the Falklands Campaign itself, are only some of the outstanding victories among many other British triumphs (and defeats also let it be said) in which pride is shared by all the peoples of the United Kingdom.

The Royal Air Force, founded in 1918 from the Royal Flying Corps, with its bases throughout the UK and across the world has always been a British and indeed British Empire force, supremely so in those great air battles of the Second World War – the Battle of Britain and the Bomber Offensive over Germany.

The United Kingdom’s achievements are not just military, of course.  The historic and world-shaping deeds of the British Empire now being brought to the public by modern historians like Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts, (but without the relentless dirge of carping criticism by lefty historians and self-publicists of the 50 years after 1945) are achievements of all our peoples: most notably in North America, Australasia, India, and the spread of the English language itself.  The energy for all this came from enterprising spirits and dedicated souls (and some rogues too.)  This combination shows up in the Industrial Revolution, the greatest change in human existence since the the beginnings of agriculture and cities, in effect the creation of the modern world.  James Watt from Glasgow, partnering Mathew Boulton in Birmingham, John Dunlop in Belfast are among many British iconic names in industry, in steam power and locomotion, which will stand for all time.

But why then, with these huge achievements in the recent as well as the distant past, are some people questioning the very existence of the United Kingdom?  Why has a political party in one of our ancient nations garnered about 25% of the vote there on a platform of separation?  Why are some people in England – with 85% of the UK’s population – murmuring  that the political arrangements in the UK are unfair to them and they would not be so sad if Scotland were to separate?

Are people really aware of what separation would mean – the break-up of the Armed Forces among so many other institutions, our coastal and air security put at risk, families split by conflicts of identity and loyalty?

The answer to these questions is that the present constitutional set-up as brought into being by this present wretched Labour government with only half-hearted opposition from the other main parties – is unfair to England and lackis any sort of symmetry  and consistency between the four countries of the Kingdom – and because of this it will fail and be replaced by something else.

It behoves all of us today to do everything we can to see that what replaces this spatchcock mess – created by Labour politicians purely to secure themselves a realistic chance of power at Westminster – is NOT separation but a NEW Constitutional Settlement comparable in importance with that which was constructed between the Glorious Revolution in 1689 and the Union of Parliaments in 1707.

We are told, chiefly by contemporary politicians, that the British “don’t do constitutions” (though we have written at least 100 for all the former territories of the British Empire).

Certainly we are not going to imitate our Continental neighbours with their lust for new constitutions every 3 or 4 years.  Someone once asked in the London Library in the 1880s for a copy of the French Constitution to be told, “Sorry Sir, we don’t stock periodicals”.

But a revised Constitutional Settlement ever 300 years is hardly a periodical, but should be a practical reflection of the tremendous changes of those 300 years.  Such a settlement would need to be agreed to individually by each of the four countries of the UK and as such be fair to each of them.  [I personally believe this can only be on the basis of four parliaments with broadly similar powers over internal affairs, plus a UK parliament drawn from the members of these four parliaments, i.e. NOT an additional bunch of politicians.  The UK parliament would be responsible for all external affairs and those internal institutions and systems like major trunk roads and railways which are essentially island-wide.]  The United Kingdom would be strengthened thereby.

Away with defeatism; let us as a practical people give ourselves a decent constitution, and go forward together into the future with all its external uncertainties, but with the internal certainty of a truly United Kingdom, having our 1200 year old Monarchy as its symbolic head.