Thursday, December 3, 2009

The Unionist responsibility

Three related pieces coming from three different parts of the United Kingdom;
Plaid Cymru:
Plaid Cymru has called on the Tories to give a 'cast iron commitment' that they will provide fair funding for Wales if they win the next Westminster election. Ahead of a Tory debate on Wednesday afternoon, Plaid’s Gareth Jones AM said that no Conservative spending promises would be credible without a clear promise that they would stop the cuts to the Welsh budget and revamp the way Wales is funded.

The BBC, via the Campaign for an English Parliament:
Police forces in England and Wales have been told to make annual savings of more than £500m by 2014.

A government White Paper says forces should pool resources in forensic work and procurement to save cash.

Senior officers have warned against plans to save £70m by cutting "vital" overtime.

Simon Hamilton of the DUP:
"Speculation is rife that Northern Ireland’s budget could face cuts of 10% or even higher in the next CSR. Such savage cuts implemented by either a Labour or a Tory Administration could have a devastating effect on Northern Ireland, our economy and our public services.

Cutting our block grant by 10% could plunge Northern Ireland into a longer and deeper downturn than other parts of the United Kingdom."
All related because they all deal with the effects of the world economic crisis on their part of the United Kingdom and more specifically, how the effects of government policy on dealing with that crisis will affect their particuliar region.

But as the "United" in the "United Kingdom" suggests, those regions do not exist in isolation from the other parts of the nation. Money added to (or not cut from) our particuliar region's budget must come from somewhere else- the United Kingdom's financial resources are obviously finite as well as stretched to the limit at the minute.

The CEP, Plaid Cymru and the SNP need only concentrate on England, Wales and Scotland, indeed, as nationalists, that's their job. Unionists, however, whose first allegiance (theoretically at least) must be to the greater whole also have a responsibility to that greater whole. So whenever a Unionist in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales "demands" preference for their part of the United Kingdom, they also have the responsibility to outline how the granting of that preference can be achieved with the least possible damage to the greater whole.
How often do you hear that happening?
"...irresponsible criticism - the eagerness to expose and publicise a problem, unmatched by the willingness to propose feasible solutions - is perhaps the most common form of dishonesty in politics."

Alexsander Kwasniewski, President of Poland 1995-2005
Far too many dishonest Unionists about I'm afraid.

4 comments:

fair_deal said...

"So whenever a Unionist in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales "demands" preference for their part of the United Kingdom, they also have the responsibility to outline how the granting of that preference can be achieved with the least possible damage to the greater whole."

Why a one-domensional demand? There is a contradiction that someone presenting a regional case has an extra burden to provide an answer while a person providing a supposed 'national' policy doesn't have to take account or explain the significantly differential impact of that policy on large swathes of the country whether it be northern england or northern Ireland and "causing damage to the greater whole".

Struggling to find answers to complex policy issues is not dishonesty nor is it restricted to the regions as Labour and Tory confusion over the deficit shows.

O'Neill said...

"There is a contradiction that someone presenting a regional case has an extra burden to provide an answer while a person providing a supposed 'national' policy doesn't have to take account or explain the significantly differential impact of that policy on large swathes of the country whether it be northern england or northern Ireland and "causing damage to the greater whole".


Except for one or two exceptions, each member of the government is also an MP, representing his or her own constituency. So on a personal level, that question of how national policy affects his own constituency or region is an important one for his own career prospects.

That balancing of the regional and greater whole *should* be what diffentiates the Unionist MP from his nationalist counterpart. By and large in NI it doesn't- all our MPs could be accurately described as "regionalists".

fair_deal said...

That is surely a repeat of your original point rather than a response to mine.

O'Neill said...

I don't think so because the contradiction you mentioned doesn't exist. The vast majority of a UK government exist not only as national politicians but also MPs in their own constituencies. They do need to consider the national and local picture; Unionist MPs should do also.