Whilst in
principle, the idea that we can more effectively tackle problems
collectively using the strength of the whole, is entirely credible, the notion
is fatally undermined by the empirical evidence, which is that the problems are
simply not being tackled. Staying
together means being bound to an economy which is heavily biased towards the
south east; and a mere change of government (Labour’s sub-text to this
argument) doesn’t seem to make any difference in practice.
A variation on
the argument is that put forward by Douglas Alexander last week, who said:
“The Nationalists peddle a misplaced
cultural conceit that holds that everyone south of the Solway Firth is an
austerity loving Tory. Our friends, family
and comrades in Wales, Northern Ireland and in great cities like Liverpool, Newcastle
and Manchester find no place in this notion.”
Leaving aside
the gratuitous reference to cultural conceit, the underlying point is a valid
one – England is not a homogeneous austerity loving country. And perhaps nationalists should put up our
hands to the occasional over-simplistic reference to ‘England’ as a whole, as
though it was homogeneous. It isn’t –
but then neither are Wales and Scotland – and it’s a mistake to pretend that it
is. And there are plenty of supporters
of austerity to be found easily enough in Wales and Scotland too.
What is true
though is that, aggregated up to a total using the national boundaries within
the UK, the English majority are rather more supportive of austerity than are
the Welsh and Scottish majorities. And
that is reflected in election results.
It means that parts of the UK opposed to austerity can be, and are,
outvoted by its supporters. Part of the
price which any of the UK’s countries or regions pays for remaining part of the
union is an acceptance that we will often be outvoted.
But there’s something
else in this argument as well, even if not always expressed quite as openly as
this – is it right for Scotland to walk away from the problems of Wales,
Northern Ireland and Northern England rather than working with them to seek
change from which all of them will benefit?
It’s an interesting moral question, but there’s a danger that it ends up
being an argument that Scots should not take responsibility for solving their
own problems out of solidarity for those elsewhere who cannot or will not do
likewise. It's a bit like arguing that we must all drown together.
In any event –
what would give most hope to those other parts of the UK: for Scotland to stay
put so that all sink together in comradeship and solidarity, or for Scotland to
demonstrate that there is another way?
Posts
9 comments:
' ... an economy which is heavily biased towards the southeast'. Perhaps so. But you could and perhaps should have said, an economy driven by capitalist principles rather socialist ones.
The economies of Wales and Scotland are largely public sector orientated. Too small to take risks with full blown capitalism and yet not entrepreneurial enough to be self-sustaining (unless oil is discovered).
Generally people choose to live together in relative harmony because they know the alternative is a whole lot worse. Ask the Palestinians. Or the Israeli's.
I suspect it's time we brought an end to this dreamt up concept of 'Welsh and Welshness' and all went back to just being plain old British (of Great Britain if you will, for all those not offended by the history of these islands) living in Wales (or anywhere for that matter).
Just maybe we'd be a whole lot more content!
Clear and apt
Anon,
So as long as we believe ourselves to be British we'll all be content; it's only our stupid insistence on choosing some other variant of identity which leads to discontent?
Usual drivel from Anon. All we need to do is "jolly well stop being beastly and complaining and accept your lot with a good dose of british stiff upper lip." Whatever way the economies of the "colonies" are constructed is due entirely on the mismanagement of consecutive Westminster governments. As is the fact that Great Britain is one of the most unequal societies in the western world.
Scotland will become independent in the not too distant future and Wales and Cornwall will follow it is just a matter of time.
14:49, any insistence on choosing some other variant of identity is done solely for the purpose of gain.
But this is no way to gain.
Gain from hard work, not the charity of others!
Anon,
I'm extremely reluctant to start blocking comments; I've never liked censorship nor been frightened of debate. But there really is more to intelligent debate than simply making wild assertions.
06:42, A 'wild assertion' to one is simple, plain common sense to another.
But it is your blog. Granted.
John;
I believe I have mentioned before that I enjoy and appreciate your blog for your insightful comments on the shenanigans back home. I include your blog in my regular reading of News of Wales.
I usually ignore the anonymous one but on this occasion he may have something to talk about.
He, or she, contends that we should all be British. That raises the question; What is British?
The third generation of Polish immigrants who speak Polish among their family and friends and attend an Orthodox Church, are they British. The Moslem wearing clothes that distinguish them from the majority of people, the Hindu who will not allow his children to marry outside of their religion, are they British?
What of the people of the regions of England? British means something very different to the Geordie, the Yorkshireman and the inhabitants of Kensington or Sloane Square. This without touching on the cultural and linguistic differences occurring among the Welsh, Scottish and Irish populations.
Let's all be British, but what is British?
'British' means civilised, tolerant and educated.
'Being' English, Scottish or Welsh is just like supporting a favourite football team, it is a matter of sporting, political, cultural, religious or linguistic choice. Do if you fancy, don't if you don't.
Post a Comment