Post-Iraq, after the Hutton and Butler reports, and with the details of 25 million British citizens lost in the post, there is something fundamentally amiss at the heart of the British state.
There is something "fundamentally amiss" in the British state today, but I guess my interpretation what that "something" is would be different to Mr Hassan’s.
Thus, we have had a programme of constitutional reform which has been unloved by Labour. We have seen the rise of new institutions in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast and the emergence of judicial reviews and Europe as ever more powerful factors in politics.
And that last sentence encapsulates exactly what is "fundamentally amiss" in the British state, but to say that the "programme of constitutional reform" has been "unloved by Labour" is quite wrong; they (Brown & Co) were, after all, the architects of the devolution experiment back in the 90s. It’s perhaps truer to say that the results of their constitutional wrecking spree haven’t been quite what they expected.....
Anyway, Hassan sets out in the article his belief that "The old British story is over and it is up to the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England to imagine a new one" and then goes on to state that there are…
a number of dynamics (which) have been unleashed by the changes of the last decade which are going to significantly shape the politics of the future.
I’ll leave his first “dynamic” to the end as it is really the only one with any validity, the others he list have rather,to say the least, dodgy foundations:
Secondly, there is the Northern Ireland peace process. Eventually there is going to be a referendum on reunification of the North with the Republic of Ireland and there is a high chance those seeking reunification will win
Really? Yes, I’m sure we’ll get that referendum sooner or later, but most Northern Unionists would welcome that fact, I wonder why? The proportion of the electorate voting for those parties favouring Irish unity has stabilized in the last ten years at around 25%. Opinion polls constantly state that a majority of at least 20% of the population would prefer the Union to continue. I can’t predict the future any better than Mr Hassan can, but I’d still be very interested to see what he bases that bold assertion on.
This will have significant consequences for the rest of the Union.
This might upset some NI Unionists, but I think he’s wrong here. N.Ireland (or Wales for that matter) is not what we should be worrying about at this present moment. The battlefield has moved on and it’s the relationship between Scotland and England that we, as Unionists, really need to be concentrating on now.
Thirdly, there is the question of the European dimension, which has already radically altered British politics, the state and law- making. This will continue, while the degree of Euroscepticism in English politics and the press will have a wider impact including the reaction it produces in Scotland, Wales and Northern Irish political elites. They are going to see such English convulsions as a further reason for distancing themselves even more from Westminster.
A very weak argument. So “Euroscepticism” is confined to England? That’ll be news to Jim Allister, one of NI’s 3 MEPs presently being courted by the UKIP. Apart from the farmers and a small liberal Belfast-centric elite, there is no great love of the EU in Northern Ireland. The Scottish parliament has voted for a referendum on the the new EU treaty/constitution knowing full well that the answer from the electorate would be a big fat “no”. Also, there appear to be constant battles with the Eu-cracy over Scottish fishing rights etc, so I’m assuming that the average Scot isn’t that offended when the Daily Mail etc launches into one of its tiresome Brussels-bashing rants.
Fourthly, the Welsh are in the near future going to be pushing for more devolved powers for their Assembly along the lines of the Scottish Parliament. This catch-up in the devolution process will have wider consequences for the debate north of the Border on the Scottish Parliament accruing more power and responsibility.
It is by no means certain that Wales will get those extra devolved powers (which, remember, will only bring it level with NI and Scotland anyway) but if they do, why exactly would that have “wider consequences for the debate north of the Border on the Scottish Parliament accruing more power and responsibility”? Hassan, not surprisingly, doesn’t elaborate.
Finally, there is the Scottish dimension. This will coalesce around the desirability of the parliament gaining more powers and moving from a "pork barrel" institution to one which has more fiscal and political autonomy. At some point in the near future Scotland will hold a referendum on whether it wishes to be in or out of the Union.
Yes, but how does that strengthen your argument about the UK falling apart at its seams?
The sooner we get that independence referendum, the better as far as I am concerned because the opinion polls (apart from one or two recent blips) show a constant large majority against separation. And if the result goes the way expected, then what?
The one dynamic which Hassan lists which must be considered is his first one:
Firstly, there is the English question post-devolution. With Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having devolution who speaks for England? What happens if a future Tory government introduces "English votes for English laws"? Such a proposal would introduce two classes of MP (English and non-English) and could even result in a situation with one parliament and two governments (a Labour UK and Conservative English government in the same parliament).
All valid questions.
My own opinion is that the day we get an English parliament is the day that we effectively wave goodbye to the UK as a viable, workable entity.
I also believe that when it registers with the average English voter that this will be the consequence of their voting for such an institution, we will get a much more educated and intellectual debate on the whole future of our nation that we the one we’re presently suffering. Unionism can win that debate on logical, objective grounds but its political,elite are going to have to forget about appealing to peoples’ emotional “Britishness” because, quite frankly, the various shades of nationalism are winning that battle of the hearts hands down at the minute.
What in solid economic, political and cultural terms will the people of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales lose when they surrender the United Kingdom, their Britishness and decide to go it alone? That’s the question Unionism needs to concentrate on and pull the debate towards.
Finally and hopefully (regarding the peaceful nature of whatever future change takes place), I think Hassan is right with at least part of his summary:
The foreseeable future of the United Kingdom will be a bit of a bumpy ride with change, tension and a degree of discomfort. But you know what? We are going to manage to live through this. Kenya or Pakistan this isn't.
It will be difficult at points. No one party or institution is in total control of the processes remaking and challenging the Union. This is thus about a set of dynamics and changing relationships, and a range of imponderables, some of which we can only guess at.
9 comments:
The majority of people in the United Kingdom support the continuation of the Union. This is the case also within each of its constituent parts. Garry Hassan suggests however that unionists in Britain lack confidence, a shared vocabulary or emotional sway.
Unionism in Britain certainly has not had to develop as a distinct set of values and philosophies to the same extent as has been necessary in Northern Ireland. That is largely a result of its constitutional basis being accepted as settled. Most people’s unionism has gone without saying.
I think the interesting question arising from this article is nothing to do with the wild speculation he indulges in. Rather it is whether it is necessary for unionism to develop much further as a stand-alone political philosophy in Great Britain to counter the challenge of nationalism.
Is there a necessity for those who identify themselves as unionists in Britain to make more of an effort to explain exactly what this means and do delineate themselves from nationalists?
I’d argue that there is. It is in raising and arguing out this constitutional issue that unionists will secure the future of the union.
Chekov,
Garry Hassan suggests however that unionists in Britain lack confidence, a shared vocabulary or emotional sway.
I think there is the germ of a worthwhile article there with that point as its basis, it's just a pity he doesn't look to develop what you've mentioned and instead moves into unsubstantiated and fanciful theories.
I also agree that Unionists need to sit back and analyse much more deeply why exactly the Union still makes sense and develop a self-confidence from those basic economic, political and social arguments.
Where I'd differ from Hassan is in the importance for having an "emotional sway" or "gut feeling" for the Union. This is what Brown, New labour and the Daily telegraph are trying to do at the minute, build up an "emotional", "from the heart" argument for "Britishness", but by doing so they are competing on a battlefield of the various nationalists' choosing.
They should be instead relying on the cold, logical, objective case for the Union. It was interesting last year that the two times SNP and SF really struggled was when exposed to this line of attack: SF's *economic* policy was ripped to shreds and laughed out of the Republic's election and the SNP made themselves look stupid when confronted with the very strong possibility that an independent Scotland would not get automatic re-entry to the EU.
Support Free Europe Constitution by voting YES at www.FreeEurope.info!
"What in solid economic, political and cultural terms will the people of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales lose when they surrender the United Kingdom, their Britishness and decide to go it alone? That’s the question Unionism needs to concentrate on and pull the debate towards."
Which is exactly the argument British Nationalists are so keen on avoiding. Labour and the Conservatives have always refused to move the debate onto actual reasoned arguments, always wanting to keep the debate at the petty squabbling by issuing the "racism" and "balkanisation" cards anytime someone mentions seperation.
The fact that the unionist parties are trying their very best to avoid the actual economic and cultural arguments makes someone very suspicious of what such a debate would reveal.
I'm quite happy to keep asking what happens economically the day (or more practically the 12 months) after Scotland, wWles get their independence and we in NI join our friends in the south. To date I haven't got very reassuring answers...(or in the case of the Irish nationalist parties any answers whatsoever).
But you're quite right that the unionist parties have not made the economic and cultural argument and instead relied on the "you're all British because we say so, now shut up" approach.
In the case of the Brown regime I'd put this down to sheer incompetence/arrogance rather than a deliberate attempt to avoid the econ/cultural separatist argument.
In the case of the Tories, I fear, it's been more of a case of patting the One-Nation wing of the party on the head with pro-Union platitudes, whilst conspiring to play the English-card sometime this year.
A lot of nationalists have tried to begin that argument (I know of one welsh blod which has gone into a lot of detail on the matter).
The problem is that, until and unless the British government are ready to join the debate then all we can do is guesstimate.
While it may be different in Scotland it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to work out Wales' tax income. The reason for this is that the Treasury have always refused to publish the figures for Wales.
When I pay my Income tax in North West Wales, the tax office is in Liverpool or Manchester or somewhere like that, so my tax income is counted as English (!).
The same is true of corporation tax and VAT. Since most of the big firms and shops are UK wide, their HQ's are in London. That measn that every penny they make in Wales is taxed in London, again bein g counted as English tax.
Until the Treasury is brave enough to publish tax income figures for each country, the economic debate is a non-starter.
Oops, that above post is mine, no idea why it called me Gribin!
A lot of nationalists have tried to begin that argument (I know of one welsh blod which has gone into a lot of detail on the matter).
Could you point me in their direction?
While it may be different in Scotland it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to work out Wales' tax income. The reason for this is that the Treasury have always refused to publish the figures for Wales.
In your opinion, why?
Having said that the population of the country is known, the number of taxpayers can be reasonably accurately estimated and we know all the other economic/social indicators, shouldn't be that difficult to have a stab at it, surely?
Could you point me in their direction?
http://independent-wales.blogspot.com/search/label/economic
Long series of posts there
Having said that the population of the country is known, the number of taxpayers can be reasonably accurately estimated and we know all the other economic/social indicators, shouldn't be that difficult to have a stab at it, surely?
Oh absolutely, and many have had a stab. The thing is, when you have to guesstimate figures they are easily massaged to show whichever point you wish to mae. Brit Nats will come up with results showing independence would be economic ruin while celtic nationalists will come up with results showing the total opposite.
Not only do you have to guesstimate the income figures, but you also have to try and figure expenditure. Do you just take a % of UK figures along with population? Or do you amend them according to what a Welsh government is liekly to do (e.g. less military spending). The above blog does try and weigh all such factors, but it's still totally guesstimatin.
Why don't the Treasury publish the figures? Who knows. Could be lazyness, could not want to anger the English by showing they're paying for us, could be not wanting to fuel Celtic nationalism by showing there would be no econimc ill effects to independence.
Post a Comment