"Good old Britishness has had such a battering in the past few decades that there are times when it is possible to think the game really is up."
But I really do believe the fightback has begun in earnest and whereas in the past it was the Unionists of Northern Ireland who were at the vanguard to save (or at least, their part in) the Union, in all four parts of the United Kingdom now there are an increasing number of people waking up to the fact that their nation is facing its greatest danger to its integrity in their life-time. And personally, as an atheist Irish unionist, it’s great to see the debate on "Britishness" and "national identity" move out of the sectarian sewer that is the Northern Irish political stage and onto a much bigger and secular stage.
The two quotes above are from a rip-roaring article delivered by Iain Martin in today’s Daily Telegraph today, which I apologise in advance for quoting liberally from, but it encapsulates the three fundamentals behind this blog:
"Of course, the advocates of devolution were sincere in the promotion of their schemes. They told themselves they were pushing home rule to defeat nationalism, a policy that has been so successful in Scotland that the SNP is now in power.
They refused to listen to warnings from those who said that constitutional meddling in the name of progress would have, as it usually does, unintended consequences.
The resulting stresses placed on the superstructure of the British state have been severe."
Make no mistake, the UK isn’t in its precarious position today because of an upsurge in a desire for independence in Scotland and Wales, the opinion polls show that figure has remained pretty constant over the last three decades, but always below 30%. The IRA’s 30 year terror campaign against the Britishness of Northern Ireland likewise has not made that much of a dent in the percentage of those who wish to continue the link with the rest of the UK; the provos’ political wing and the SDLP also appear completely incapable of reaching out to those who are "passive" unionists or the "uncommitteds" in the centre.
No, as Martin states, it is the devolving of powers in the late 90s by Brown and Co which set a process in motion causing the biggest constitutional crisis in the UK for over a hundred years. And that is principally because the lion of English nationalism, which prior to 1997 was almost comatose, has been awoken and further provoked by the injustices brought about by the asymmetrical devolution system. UK Unionism is also unfortunate that it faces one very astute operator, Alex Salmond (by a long shot the most devious and downright smartest politician in UK today), a politician who has managed very skillfully to exploit this rising tide of resentment in the biggest part of the nation, England.
Cameron and the Tories should therefore not be playing into the separatists’ hands by advocating the devolution of further powers away from what should be the UK’s sovereign and sole parliament at Westminster. And let’s face it, given their present low position in both countries, the Scottish and Welsh Tories have got absolutely nothing to lose by stopping their nationalist-lite pretense and recovering their traditional unionist roots.
The Devolution Experiment has not and cannot strengthen the Union, that’s the fact that the Tories, Labour and all those who profess to be Unionists in Northern Ireland need to acknowledge and start working to correct.
"English, Scottish, Welsh and Ulster identities are important but it is our national good fortune to have all-encompassing Britishness, too, and we should not lose it by default."
Not really a good deal needs adding here.
I’m proud to be an Irishmen from NE Ulster.
But I also consider myself very lucky to be a very small part of the larger, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi- faith British jigsaw.
(I also consider myself part of the larger European family, but I don’t think Mr. Martin would probably agree with me there, so we’ll leave that one for the time being;))
"Unionists have to get better at taking their chances when they are presented.
It is still within our control as a nation to will Britain's survival but only if we as free individuals - and our political leaders and national institutions - make the case in a strong, calm manner for a sustained period."
Northern Irish Unionists are traditionally crap at PR, but we are working with many more resources and with a much bigger UK-wide team than before. We should therefore be playing our part in the bigger struggle, as it’s most definitely not in Stormont or any longer on the streets of Ulster that the United Kingdom will be won or lost. In the wider picture, the "separatist ideal" is still very much a minority one in all four parts of the UK; the Unionists in all four parts of the UK should now therefore be going on the offensive and pressing their nationalist counterparts to fully outline their economic plans in the event of independence. We should be calling their bluff and pressing for referendums in all four parts of the Kingdom on full independence...ASAP..now..today.
Finally, we should be welcoming the present "constitutional" debate not running away from it nor taking the easy option of hiding behind (like Mr. Brown) the Union Jack when confronted with those uncomfortable questions thrown up by our nationalist opponents.
Ever heard the Prime-Minister or any of the Nulabour shower outline the economic, political or cultural reasons why we should maintain the Union? No, me neither and it’s high time, he, they and the rest of us got off our complacent backsides and started making our, the Union’s "case in a strong, calm manner for a sustained period" whilst we still have the opportunity to do so.
11 comments:
Really, who are you trying to convince? The Union as it stands is dead in the long run, I feel. It seems inconceivable that the devolution settlement could be undone without merely hastening the destruction of the Union.
If you are serious about keeping "the Union", then you are going to have to recognise it's going to have to change or die under the weight of its own contradictions. Moaning that devolution was implemented and you said this all along isn't going to help (and I think the assumption that there wouldn't have been ructions if it hadn't happened is also flawed). Ignoring English claims of unfair treatment isn't going to help. Fighting against the inevitable expansion of confidence in devolved institution isn't going to help either.
The Union was founded on
1. Protestantism
2. Colonies and access to external markets (later Empire)
3. Common external threat
All faded or gone. You'll need to find something else.
Also, apparently all Unionists are bad at PR. Great for me. Equally, the assumption that the Union isn't under threat and things here are somehow settled are also great for me. I love complacency. One goal up before you start.
The problem is for you Unionists, that, as far as I can see, any move to reform the current set up seems to push in a separatist direction. People still want the Union, but that will change, to me it seems inevitable.
Devolution on the whole has been a success for Wales and Scotland it seems (looking from England). Either the status quo remains, in which case the English will become increasingly unhappy. Or more power is devolved to England (more devolution). Or power is taken back from the devolved assemblies, which annoys the people of those regions. No one gets happier without more devolution.
Northern Ireland is of course a different and difficult case which I wouldn't presume to comment on. It is ironic that the only part of the UK not on the island of Great Britain feels the most British though!
the secret person: Sadly, it's always the more distant parts of Britain that feel the most loyal to the nation state. Visit Gibraltar and the like to see what I mean. Most people I know here in England consider themselves English. British is just another thing on their passport. But in Northern Ireland, Gib, St Helena and the Falklands people seem proud of their culture in a way that they no longer are on the mainland.
The Union was founded on
1. Protestantism
2. Colonies and access to external markets (later Empire)
3. Common external threat
Scotland originally asked to join up with England because it was on the verge of bankrupcy, that was the basis behind the 1708 Act of Union between the two countries, religion didn't come into, there has also never been a strong religious connection between Wales and England. NI, you could argue that the original reason it was formed was to protect "protestantism" in Ireland, but apart from a few of the more traditional Conservative Unionists that asn't the driving factor behind NI's creation.
The Union benefited from the Empire, but it would have existed even if there had never been one, it wasn't dependant on the empire.
"Common external threat"
Don't really get that one, for most of history, up until 1708, on the contrary elements in Scotland (and Ireland) had regularly conspired with England's enemies.
"All faded or gone. You'll need to find something else."
Just for arguments sake say that the union was based on those three factors you mentioned. With the poss exception of NI (and the "protestantism") after WW1 they, to all intents and purpose, no longer existed. The empire was an economic strain not benefit, religion was on decline. Yet despite all that the Union survived the 20th century. It did so because people want(ed) it to survive and the increasing amount of debate on the subject is a welcome thing because it is starting to make people think exactly why they would lose if the Uk were to split up.
"Scotland originally asked to join up with England because it was on the verge of bankrupcy, that was the basis behind the 1708 Act of Union between the two countries, religion didn't come into, there has also never been a strong religious connection between Wales and England. NI, you could argue that the original reason it was formed was to protect "protestantism" in Ireland, but apart from a few of the more traditional Conservative Unionists that asn't the driving factor behind NI's creation."
It was a little more complex than simply the failure of the Darien expedition. Yes, the fact that it bankrupted Scotland was an important driver. That'd fall under access to colonies and external markets. But instability in Scotland increased risks of a Jacobite Rebellion and Scottish-French that was the real driver for England. That's external threat and Protestantism. Yes, the Protestantism is different in England and Scotland but it's the anti-Catholicism that binds them together.
"The Union benefited from the Empire, but it would have existed even if there had never been one, it wasn't dependant on the empire."
Would it have lasted without tangible benefits? That's a question we'll never know the answer to. The politics of the moment, however, says perhaps not.
"Don't really get that one, for most of history, up until 1708, on the contrary elements in Scotland (and Ireland) had regularly conspired with England's enemies."
The Union made it easier to deal with those elements.
I suggest you read up on the period. England feared a resurgence of the "Auld Alliance" at a time it was fighting Spain.
"Just for arguments sake say that the union was based on those three factors you mentioned. With the poss exception of NI (and the "protestantism") after WW1 they, to all intents and purpose, no longer existed. The empire was an economic strain not benefit, religion was on decline. Yet despite all that the Union survived the 20th century. It did so because people want(ed) it to survive and the increasing amount of debate on the subject is a welcome thing because it is starting to make people think exactly why they would lose if the Uk were to split up."
You are wrong. The decline of all those things really didn't start to happen until the 50's. And it took a long time. In fact, it's still working itself out now.
Anyhow, it suits me if you pull the bury your head in the sand. Happy to see the Union in the bin.
Latest Scottish poll showed support 40%-44% on Independence-Union.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1907907.0.0.php
Still bouncing about all over the show.
Speaking as an Englishman, I feel sad that the Union that I grew up with and was immensely proud of is finished.
But finished it is.
Name one politician in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland who is seriously outraged about the damage NuLabour's assymmetric devolution has done to England and the English because they are "fellow Britons".
I can't and I bet you can't either.
You might be able to name someone who is worried about the risks to the Union and how it might affect their fellow Scots/Welsh/Northern Irish, but it will be their non-English fellows they will be concerned about. They don't give a damn about the English, and we English are waking up to that fact.
And that's why the Union is finished - there is nobody in a position of power who is prepared to fight ENGLAND's corner.
And so given the choice between walking away from the abusive marriage that is the "Union" and continuing to be used and abused we're simply walking away.
Speaking as an Englishman, I feel sad that the Union that I grew up with and was immensely proud of is finished.
But finished it is.
It isn’t finished until we, the British electorate, say it is.
Name one politician in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland who is seriously outraged about the damage NuLabour's assymmetric devolution has done to England and the English because they are "fellow Britons".
Devolution has not only damaged England, it’s weakened the United Kingdom as a whole, but I agree with you, there isn’t one leading politician brave enough to point out this obvious fact. Those “politicians” in NI, Scotland and Wales are too busy with their noses in the trough to look beyond their own expenses-claims and that goes for those who would describe themselves as unionists
But the fact that a group of parish-pump politicians aren’t aware of the bigger picture that doesn’t mean that the concept of Britishness isn’t still worth fighting for, surely?
You might be able to name someone who is worried about the risks to the Union and how it might affect their fellow Scots/Welsh/Northern Irish, but it will be their non-English fellows they will be concerned about. They don't give a damn about the English, and we English are waking up to that fact.
And that's why the Union is finished - there is nobody in a position of power who is prepared to fight ENGLAND's corner.
Then use your vote next time to make sure that you are represented by someone who’s prepared to fight your corner. And if enough English people feel as strong enough about it as you do then the situation will improve.
And so given the choice between walking away from the abusive marriage that is the "Union" and continuing to be used and abused we're simply walking away
Do you think the majority of English people really want to walk away from their Britishness?
"Do you think the majority of English people really want to walk away from their Britishness?"
Increasingly yes, but I accept the majority still don't - but we aren't been given any choice in the matter.
Faced with the choice between a subservient despised role in the UK, treated as a cash cow by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and with mass uncontrolled immigration whilst anything that is overtly English is immediately put down as unacceptable - then Yes, we don't really have a choice do we?
Which is why more and more former Unionists like myself have had enough.
And like 5/6ths of the population I live in a safe seat - my vote is almost worthless, all I use it for is to try and save the deposit of the UKIP candidate.
Faced with the choice between a subservient despised role in the UK, treated as a cash cow by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and with mass uncontrolled immigration whilst anything that is overtly English is immediately put down as unacceptable - then Yes, we don't really have a choice do we?
"Mass uncontrolled immigration" is not a problem that would disappear with an English parliament. Also, the SE of England has, to an extent, subsidised the rest of the UK(including places like the NE and Merseyside), all that's changed now is that the separatists like Salmond are much more blatant and canny in a publicising this fact.
Regarding "not having a choice", if the majority of the population feel strongly about something the modern populist-driven politicians tend to listen, not always a good thing, but that's the fact. If enough people stand up for their "Englishness", then you'll soon find politicians sensing an electoral opportunity and joining your battles.
And like 5/6ths of the population I live in a safe seat - my vote is almost worthless, all I use it for is to try and save the deposit of the UKIP candidate.
Seats are only "safe" because people are happy enough with their present MP not to change him and unless we move onto the Swiss system of referendum democracy that's going to stay the same. Re wasting your vote, even voting for the UKIP means your voice is being heard. A big enough vote for the UKIP, then the other mainstream parties will start stealing their policies. UKIP are a Unionist party though aren't they? By voting for them, you aren't really going to register your disapproval of the present constitutional position are you?
Yes UKIP are a Unionist Party. But at the next General Election I intend standing as a candidate for the English Democrats Party. Putting my money where my mouth is and giving a louder voice to English dissatisfaction.
Oh, and helping the tipping point get closer...
Well, the fair play to you and despite our one main poltical difference, I wish you the best of luck.
Post a Comment