Consistency,
however, isn’t one of the strongest attributes of UK politicians, and the
Foreign Secretary was resolute in demanding international support for the
continued independence of the Ukraine.
Unity and size are only important ‘domestically’, it would appear.
Boundaries
between states in Europe have changed continually over the centuries. States – not always contiguous with nations,
of course – have emerged and disappeared, and been carved out and carved up as
empires have been founded and destroyed.
Usually, the process has been a sad and bloody one, although in recent
decades, we have at last started to see some peaceful changes reflecting
popular will.
Two things
stand out for me as being consistent.
The first is that change is always happening. Boundaries and states are human
constructions, and there is nothing permanent or inviolable about any of them.
The second is
that, at any given point in history, those in power act and talk as though
permanence of ‘their’ world is the natural order of things, and history can be
frozen at a moment in time. In that
context, the position adopted by Hague and the rest of the UK Government isn’t
as inconsistent as it might otherwise appear.
The Ukraine exists as an independent country and must continue to do so;
Scotland doesn’t and shouldn’t. All arguments
about size and strength – like much else which is said by “Better Together” -
are really just about rationalising and defending the status quo.
I don’t know
whether Scotland will vote ‘yes’ or not at this stage. At the outset, I rather expected that the
first independence referendum would fail, to be followed by a second in a
decade or two; but it now looks increasingly possible that it might just happen
this year after all. European history is
on the side of change, not permanence. Whether in Scotland or the Ukraine, merely arguing that what is must continue to be will never be enough.
Posts
5 comments:
In truth, the Scots have got everything the wrong way round. Yes, Scotland might well achieve independence. But, for sure, this will quickly be followed by calls of separation from various regions of this newly formed country. One wonders for how many years will such voices be denied an equally lawful right of self-determination?
Before Wales embarks upon such a journey it might be wise to ask each region whether it would really wish to join a newly independent Wales or, alternatively, retain its ties with England.
I think we are in for fun times ahead. Cannot wait!
"But, for sure, this will quickly be followed by calls of separation from various regions"
I don't think that such an outcome is as certain as you suggest; but it's obviously a possibility. And for those of us who believe that sovereignty grows from the bottom up, it's hard to argue that there could be grounds for denying any such wish if clearly expressed by the majority of the people in any area.
"... it might be wise to ask each region whether it would really wish to join a newly independent Wales or, alternatively, retain its ties with England"
I certainly cannot rationally argue for the absolute right of people in any area to reclaim their sovereignty and decide for themselves how they wish to be governed (subject only to accepting the responsibilities which accompany such rights, and honouring obligations to the wider international community), and then also argue that such a right only applies to those areas which I define by lines on a map, such as Wales or Scotland. (Be careful though about referring to 'regions' of either Scotland or Wales. How do you define them; what lines do you draw on a map to hold such separate plebiscites, which don't raise exactly the same problem of incorporated minority views - on a different level?)
Ultimately, such concepts as nationality or identity are subjective, even if collectively so, and remain valid only for so long as they command popular support. That's one of the reasons why all boundaries and borders are, in essence, temporary. So if people in any part of Wales want to campaign for unity with England, they are as entitled to do so as I am to campaign for independence for Wales. They 'merely' face the same problem as I do - convincing others to agree with them.
Quite so. How do you define a region? Or indeed the territory of a new nation state? You can't. But people like Alex Salmond and Leanne Wood seem to think you can.
I suspect Britain is due for a prolonged period of civil strife if not outright war.
It serves us right for not for not outing the cancer that has lurked within our society for too tong.
Anon,
I agree with Alex and Leanne - of course you can define a region or a territory; it's something that humanity has done for a long long time. My point is not that you can't; it's rather that any such definition is in essence temporary, and will always contain within it at least an element who think that the lines should be drawn in a different way. Change happens when a minority in an area becomes a majority, and such change is entirely normal and natural. It does, though, create new minorities... And so ad infinitum.
In your last para you state
“I rather expected that the first independence referendum would fail, to be followed by a second in a decade or two”
I disagree, I think it will be within five years of a Yes vote.
Whatever , Scotland is going to get a shed load of money from HM Treasury in an attempt to buy off this next vote ,just as Northern Ireland has had money not to shoot at HM Forces.
Post a Comment