When the idea of independence becomes mainstream, as we’ve seen in Scotland, it’s a dangerous time socially, economically and politically,
This is far from harmless fun for constitutional anoraks, it’s a recipe for anarchy.
Wales Office Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies
13 comments:
Once again, for you own benefit -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with arguing for independence. It is not inherently dangerous. It has some compelling arguments going for it. Demonising and trying to allude to some vague "danger" will not work, whether you are a random blogger or a Minister of state.
There is no inherent moral superiority of Union. Both Unionism and Nationalism are ultimately simply propose ways of organising government. Both have had linkages with ideas and actions modern times would tend not to like. If you value the Union highly, then you'll have to work out your own arguments for it, and appropriate ways of communicating it.
I don't particularly believe "We get a disproportionate amount of public sector jobs" is a particularly good one, by the by. But then, we live in interesting economic times, so perhaps it is.
Irranca-Davies is a very entertaining MP.
Last week he called the Plaid Cymru leader deluded for saying that the Tories were odds-on to win the next election and that this was a bad thing for Wales! Since there's no doubt that the Tories are odds-on to win is this Labour minister saying that it's deluded to think the Tories will be bad for Wales? :-D
These are welcome words, if he actually meant them. For too long the debate about independence has been about emotional comments (on both sides) such as "we'll turn into a soviet country" or some suggestion it would be an utopia. Seeing as how Huw used the word "dangerous" though I guess he's still clinging to the old syle of debating the topic.
Once again, for you own benefit -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with arguing for independence. It is not inherently dangerous
People have been arguing for independence in Scotland and Wales since time immemorial, as long as it is kept within the political sphere, there is nothing whatsoever dangerous or wrong about that. What I think Irannca-Davies is arguing (and I'd agree) is that when, as has happened in Scotland, independence becomes a part of the mainstream political debate, then naturally that causes political and economic instability. Companies will factor that uncertainty into their equation about whether to commit themselves for long-term investment, politically surely no on would argue that we're in a constitutional mess at the minute which is doing nothing for overall governance. I don't live in Scotland or Wales but socially, I don't think it has really caused (apart from a few random loons in newspaper comments zones) that much problems...yet. But as the debate on independence intensifies, there naturally will be splits and fissures appearing between pro-Union and pro-nationalist factions inside families, friend circles, workplaces and the wider society.
There is no inherent moral superiority of Union.
As a Unionist, I naturally believe there is, but it is only one of the many advantages I see to maintaining the Union and one on which we will not win the argument amongst the undecided and waverers.
Both Unionism and Nationalism are ultimately simply propose ways of organising government.
It goes much deeper than that; it's deciding the real and abstract boundaries of which nation you belong to and also who comprises its inhabitants.
If you value the Union highly, then you'll have to work out your own arguments for it, and appropriate ways of communicating it.
Yep, that's the main weakness at the moment. The Union is being sold solely on a cultural and social level by the political establishment- it's not enough.
“I hope that after the heady nationalistic froth of Plaid Cymru’s conference, Ieuan Wyn will get back to reality.
“His comments this week have laid bare the soul of Plaid Cymru, and most people in Wales will not like what they have seen, as the nationalists lick their lips over the possibility of a Conservative government in Wales.”
HF I took his reality comment as meaning the "reality" of how the Welsh electorate would take PC supporting the prospoect of a Tory govt...could be wrong though, it's a bit unclear from the report.
For too long the debate about independence has been about emotional comments (on both sides) such as "we'll turn into a soviet country" or some suggestion it would be an utopia.
Strangely enough I agree with you;) and as I implied in my comment above, it's an argument that can cannot be won (by unionists) on emotion alone.
What I think Irannca-Davies is arguing (and I'd agree) is that when, as has happened in Scotland, independence becomes a part of the mainstream political debate, then naturally that causes political and economic instability.
So.. you can argue for independence in the corner, over there, but if it actually makes mainstream debate suddenly it's evil and dangerous? Jesus H Christ. It's all I can muster.
Companies will factor that uncertainty into their equation about whether to commit themselves for long-term investment, politically surely no on would argue that we're in a constitutional mess at the minute which is doing nothing for overall governance.
Belgium doesn't have a government. That's a constitutional crisis. Whatever the outcome, Scotland will remain a relatively stable Western capitalist democracy, despite the scaremongering most likely in the EU. The unis, the schools aren't going anywhere. I don't think it's any issue yet. When business wants it sorted you'll hear the howls fast, loud and repetitious. It's not entirely clear which side it would like, either. There are pros and cons.
as the debate on independence intensifies, there naturally will be splits and fissures appearing between pro-Union and pro-nationalist factions inside families, friend circles, workplaces and the wider society.
We're not about to see a rerun of the Irish Civil War. And hardly fair to level it all at the nasty nationalists for wanting to change things,is it?
As a Unionist, I naturally believe there is, but it is only one of the many advantages I see to maintaining the Union and one on which we will not win the argument amongst the undecided and waverers.
Moral superiority? Really?
You might argue economic superiority, or better governance, or a raft of other things, but arguing moral superiority implies speaking from a higher plain, and that other options should be treated with contempt.
There were poitns int he past, in less democratic ages I believe Republicanism could have made that claim. But those arguments are much weakened. Arguing inherent moral superiority is counter productive, and deadening. It takes the eye off the real issues. I don't recommend it.
It goes much deeper than that; it's deciding the real and abstract boundaries of which nation you belong to and also who comprises its inhabitants.
Wrong. You can draw those boundaries where you like. You cannot draw a line anywhere that will make me British. You cannot force me into a nation I am not part of. I am and will always remain an Irish Republican. No more, no less.
What can be affected is who makes the law, who enforces the law, and what legal expression my membership of the Irish nation has. That is what pertains to Unionism and Nationalism. Yes they m,ay have things to say about nations and people. But they cannot create them.
So.. you can argue for independence in the corner, over there, but if it actually makes mainstream debate suddenly it's evil and dangerous?
No, but it naturally causes political and economic instability.Questions will obviously start to be asked of economic and political consequences in the event of independence; that is not a recipe for stability.
We're not about to see a rerun of the Irish Civil War.
No, but there will be social consequences to be suffered in the event of Scottish independence.
And hardly fair to level it all at the nasty nationalists for wanting to change things,is it?
Well, in the event of independence occuring and if those problems do arise who else should we blame?
Moral superiority? Really?
It’s an element in any political philosophy be it socialism, liberalism or conservatism- all who believe firmly and wholly in a political ideal do it for more reasons than just the purely objective ones you mentioned. True Unionism believes, as the name implies, in the unity of diverse peoples, of all races, cultures and creeds under the umbrella of one nation- nationalism, in a UK context anyway, does not offer that diversity, in my opinion.
What can be affected is who makes the law, who enforces the law, and what legal expression my membership of the Irish nation has. That is what pertains to Unionism and Nationalism.
Unionism and nationalism are not governing systems, they’re political philosophies both operating under the rules of a western democracy. You do not need any legal expression, for example, to belong to any nation and Irish nationalism as a political philosophy can not solely deliver that membership- it was the governments of the Uk, ROI and I suppose the electorates of NI and ROI which gave you that legal expression under the terms of the GFA.
Unionism and nationalism, as with any other political philosophy, cannot create a people, however they can create the frameworks within which those people can define their national identity.
No, but it naturally causes political and economic instability.Questions will obviously start to be asked of economic and political consequences in the event of independence; that is not a recipe for stability.
Neither is talk of withdrawing from the EU or renegotiating treaties. Presumably you believe those positions have the right to advocated and discussed, even in the "mainstream". This is a truly poor argument: we should never change for fear of rocking the boat.
No, but there will be social consequences to be suffered in the event of Scottish independence.
"Consequences" carries negative connotations. There will certainly be changes. Many could well be good ones.
Well, in the event of independence occuring and if those problems do arise who else should we blame?
If, and it's entirely supposition, then sure, finger then. But that isn't what you are arguing. You are arguing it is their fault for any instability caused by having the debate., You could equally say that is Unionism's fault for refusing to roll over.
It’s an element in any political philosophy be it socialism, liberalism or conservatism
If it exists, the it is negative except in the cases where a coherent and strong argument can be made for it. Democracy is clearly morally superior than apartheid. But claiming moral hazard closes minds and cuts down debate and produces ashrill piety that does no one any good.
I believe Republicanism is morally superior to monarchy, even in its watered down form, but Unionism and Nationalism? I believe Unionism is inferior on rational grounds, not on a moral basis.
Unionism and nationalism are not governing systems, they’re political philosophies both operating under the rules of a western democracy.
Political philsophies that that translate directly into systems of government. Communism is all emcompassing, but is primarily a system of economics. Nationalism and Unionism aren't. They are primarily prescriptions for arranging government.
You do not need any legal expression, for example, to belong to any nation and Irish nationalism as a political philosophy can not solely deliver that membership- it was the governments of the Uk, ROI and I suppose the electorates of NI and ROI which gave you that legal expression under the terms of the GFA.
You seem to be talked yourself in knots, there.
Unionism and nationalism, as with any other political philosophy, cannot create a people, however they can create the frameworks within which those people can define their national identity.
I don't believe they can "create" them except under exceptional circumstance. An identity must have an organic basis to grow. Well there is a self reinforcing element, I believe in a system where the people shape the state, and not vice versa.
Neither is talk of withdrawing from the EU or renegotiating treaties. Presumably you believe those positions have the right to advocated and discussed, even in the "mainstream".
When talk of withdrawing of the EU becomes mainstream (none of the main parties are presently advocating it) then it will also have the same destablishing influence. But to confirm, in case there was any doubt, imo positions have “the right” to be discussed and advocated; there is also a right to point out that you feel the movement of the topics into the mainstream is destablishing. You’re overestimating my or any politicians power if you think we can restrict such a movement of debate. The electorate ultimately will make their own judgement who’s telling the truth
"Consequences" carries negative connotations. There will certainly be changes. Many could well be good ones.
The fact being that we don’t know; uncertainty, instability.
You are arguing it is their fault for any instability caused by having the debate., You could equally say that is Unionism's fault for refusing to roll over.
The fact that the debate (in the wider UK context) and the resulting instabiltiy now exists is down to the nationalists instigating that debate…Unionism (which was a very fuzzy concept anyway in the rest of the Uk prior to 98) didn’t need that debate to maintain it’s main objective, the Union.
If it exists, the it is negative except in the cases where a coherent and strong argument can be made for it. Democracy is clearly morally superior than apartheid. But claiming moral hazard closes minds and cuts down debate and produces ashrill piety that does no one any good.
I’ll agree that political arguments cannot be won on the grounds of subjective definitions of morality, it is on their rational grounds that you persuade people…but if I didn’t believe there was a strong enough moral basis behind my political philosophy, no amount of good objective advantages would persuade me to continue believing in (and promoting) it.
Nationalism and Unionism aren't. They are primarily prescriptions for arranging government.
Unionism (again in the UK context) perhaps, although even there there is a very wide range of choice ranging from a very loose federalism to complete integration. But nationalism? What’s the ultimate target of a Nationalist? Depending on that answer (and I think it varies immensely even within a particular nationalist group) is whether or not is delivered a recipe for arranging a governmental system.
You seem to be talked yourself in knots, there.
Ok, another way. Why do you consider yourself a member of the Irish nation? What gives you the legal right to belong to that nation?
When talk of withdrawing of the EU becomes mainstream (none of the main parties are presently advocating it) then it will also have the same destablishing influence.
Tories floating it repeatedly.
But to confirm, in case there was any doubt, imo positions have “the right” to be discussed and advocated; there is also a right to point out that you feel the movement of the topics into the mainstream is destablishing. You’re overestimating my or any politicians power if you think we can restrict such a movement of debate. The electorate ultimately will make their own judgement who’s telling the truth
Indeed. But you aren't "pointing out". You are scaremongering in an attempt to close off the debate. That is your goal. Taken it's logically conclusion, the first cell should not have bothered splitting into two. the process is unstable.
The fact being that we don’t know; uncertainty, instability.
We can make an educated guess. Scotland is not a less diverse place since devolution, in fact it made some headway with sectarianism.
The fact that the debate (in the wider UK context) and the resulting instabiltiy now exists is down to the nationalists instigating that debate…Unionism (which was a very fuzzy concept anyway in the rest of the Uk prior to 98) didn’t need that debate to maintain it’s main objective, the Union.
Thanks for repeating what I said. See above.
I’ll agree that political arguments cannot be won on the grounds of subjective definitions of morality, it is on their rational grounds that you persuade people…but if I didn’t believe there was a strong enough moral basis behind my political philosophy, no amount of good objective advantages would persuade me to continue believing in (and promoting) it.
Which is where you start running into problems. The moralising tone through the site really will turn people off.
Hypothetically, you'd like to convince some Nationalists to be Unionists, or at least acquiesce. Is telling them their ideas are, in fact, morally wrong going to fly with them?
Unionism (again in the UK context) perhaps, although even there there is a very wide range of choice ranging from a very loose federalism to complete integration. But nationalism? What’s the ultimate target of a Nationalist? Depending on that answer (and I think it varies immensely even within a particular nationalist group) is whether or not is delivered a recipe for arranging a governmental system.
Nationalism is as loose a term as Unionism. I am a Nationalist and a Republican, by the by.
Ok, another way. Why do you consider yourself a member of the Irish nation? What gives you the legal right to belong to that nation?
It's shared history, shared culture, shared goals, shared institutions. Part of it is "ethnic", in that a lot of what is shared is handed down, just as you are Unionist partly because your forefathers were.
The legal right is conferred by Bunreacht na hEireann, and no one else.
None of that is prescriptive per se. The definitions can all expand. And that idea has been there for a long time cf The Young Irelanders
Nationality is their first object—a nationality which will not only raise our people from their poverty, by securing to them the blessings of a domestic legislature, but inflame and purify them with a lofty and heroic love of country—a nationality of the spirit as well as the letter—a nationality which may come to be stamped upon our manners, our literature, and our deeds—a nationality which may embrace Protestant, Catholic, and Dissenter, Milesian and Cromwellian, the Irishman of a hundred generations, and the stranger who is within our gates; not a nationality which would preclude civil war, but which would establish internal union and external independence—a nationality which would be recognised by the world, and sanctified by wisdom, virtue, and time
EU. Withdrawal is not official Tory policy, if it becomes so (and thus mainstream) then you’ll see the mother of all instabilities.
Setting out an opinion (whether others may deem it scaremongering or not) does not physically close down the debate- this thread is surely proof of that?
"Scotland is not a less diverse place since devolution, in fact it made some headway with sectarianism."
Again, very difficult to put an objective measurement on that. There appears to be more reported examples of anti-English bigotry (eg several attacks prior to the last World Cup) That's not down to devolution obviously, but it does point to a lingering problem that the devolved govt has not succeeded in removing.
Which is where you start running into problems. The moralising tone through the site really will turn people off.
If people want a neutral, stand-offish view on things, then, yes, they won't be reading this blog. But I didn't set it up to give a neutral, stad-offish view- that’s supposedly the job of our state broadcaster… or the Belfast Telegraph
Hypothetically, you'd like to convince some Nationalists to be Unionists, or at least acquiesce.
No. The value of debating with the more intelligent wing of nationalism is that:
1.It helps me to focus on and fine-tune my opinions and arguments.
2.It gives me an additional platform to try to persuade the undecided or waverers over to my point of view.
But unless I can deliver a killer fact which totally rocks the whole foundations on which their political belief is founded, then there is next to no chance of switching a nationalist over to my way of thinking.
Re your definition of why you belong to the Irish Nation:
It's shared history, shared culture, shared goals, shared institutions. Part of it is "ethnic", in that a lot of what is shared is handed down, just as you are Unionist partly because your forefathers were.
Remember that unless you’re directly descended from the Tuatha Dé Danann, our forefathers in all probability where born in the same place, they experienced the same history and were governed by the same institutions; there’s also a reasonable chance that they may have even shared the same culture. So, that only leaves the goals- and that’s where the ethnic element comes into Irish nationalism
EU. Withdrawal is not official Tory policy, if it becomes so (and thus mainstream) then you’ll see the mother of all instabilities.
Pffff. The Tories don't have official policies. They flirt with some kind of pull back. In opposition, at least. Government seems to have a way of concentrating minds on Europe.
Setting out an opinion (whether others may deem it scaremongering or not) does not physically close down the debate- this thread is surely proof of that?
Only because absolutely no one buys it. It's still the aim. Scaremonger a bit, try to silence people, try to frighten them.
Again, very difficult to put an objective measurement on that. There appears to be more reported examples of anti-English bigotry (eg several attacks prior to the last World Cup) That's not down to devolution obviously, but it does point to a lingering problem that the devolved govt has not succeeded in removing.
Yes, very hard to pin down. Anti-English sentiment could simply have been more highlighted after devolution. It's hardly new. Very hard to get objective data. I'll go with my gut: there isn't a wild lot of difference. Old firm sectarianism has been made a tad more unacceptable, but hardly gone away. Perhaps a touch more acceptable to pick on the English. But not really significantly different place in the evil stakes.
If people want a neutral, stand-offish view on things, then, yes, they won't be reading this blog. But I didn't set it up to give a neutral, stad-offish view- that’s supposedly the job of our state broadcaster… or the Belfast Telegraph
Who said you had to be neutral or stand offish. You just don't have to claim moral superiority. I don't really mind. You'll come across like Gregory claiming proclaiming the All Ireland and international competition,a nd people will switch off or get their backs up. I'm only telling you for your own good.
No. The value of debating with the more intelligent wing of nationalism is that:
1.It helps me to focus on and fine-tune my opinions and arguments.
2.It gives me an additional platform to try to persuade the undecided or waverers over to my point of view.
Undecideds are limited. Almost everyone here is some shade of one or t'other, at a minimum in a cultural sense.
But unless I can deliver a killer fact which totally rocks the whole foundations on which their political belief is founded, then there is next to no chance of switching a nationalist over to my way of thinking.
This is a micro level argument. You need to think statistically. Last week McCain and Obama had a neck and neck lead. Now Obama is anything up to 9 points ahead. That didn't happen because of one thing, and not every one of those people that changed their minds were "waverers".
Remember that unless you’re directly descended from the Tuatha Dé Danann, our forefathers in all probability where born in the same place, they experienced the same history and were governed by the same institutions; there’s also a reasonable chance that they may have even shared the same culture. So, that only leaves the goals- and that’s where the ethnic element comes into Irish nationalism
it depends how far back you go. Go back far enough, and we're all doing our cousins. That really isn't the point. My father is a Nationalist and Republican. So were my grandfathers. I was extremely likely to be a Nationalist and Republican. We'd all like to believe we come independently to our own conclusions, and sure, our thing is the bestest, but in good part we are shaped heavily by those that came before, and we bend our logic to it. I simply acknowledge that aspect.
We are currently governed by the same institutions. But in a real sense the communities here live very separate lives here. The institutions, or even part thereof that their life revolves around, that they come in contact to every day are significantly different.
Republicanism isn't ethnic, no matter how hard you want it to be. Irish patriotism does not have to be ethnic either, though in part it is.
I think we are starting to go round in circles with the other points so you’ve had the last word on them.
However, there’s a couple of more things about the bit about persuading your opponents.
Undecideds are limited. Almost everyone here is some shade of one or t'other, at a minimum in a cultural sense.
I think it lies between 30-35% of the electorate in NI who don’t vote, 5% of that figure would be enough to turn over the present status-quo. In the end obviously the undecideds/don’t vote is a finite figure but it is much more important to attempt to persuade them to the ballot box than consolidate your own side or take the time required ro convert even one of your opponents. And in Eng, Scot and Wales the figure undecided or apathetic on the Union is much bigger.
This is a micro level argument. You need to think statistically. Last week McCain and Obama had a neck and neck lead. Now Obama is anything up to 9 points ahead. That didn't happen because of one thing, and not every one of those people that changed their minds were "waverers".
I haven’t followed it that closlely over the last fortnight or so, but whilst not all ofthem will have been waverers, a lot less will have been convinced Republicans switching over.
There’s a couple of articles here on the subject which you might find interesting (don’t let the Neo-Con or Libertarian label put you off!)
http://neoneocon.com/2008/07/08/arguing-politics/
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/tactn/tactn010.htm
Post a Comment