That’s not to
say that I haven’t met people over the years who do hate their ‘neighbours’,
sometimes with a passion which is incomprehensible to me. And that doesn’t simply apply to Wales and
England; I’ve canvassed many who hate all Germans (mostly this applies to
people of a certain generation, which makes it at least explicable, even if not
entirely rational and understandable), or (rather less explicably) ‘the French’.
Whether all the
people hating their neighbours would consider themselves to be ‘nationalists’
is another question entirely, however. To
the extent that they are, they’re more British nationalists than Welsh ones (although
that’s a term that I generally prefer to avoid because it’s another of those
labels which avoids debate).
But what’s at
work here has nothing to do with rational debate; it is, rather, an attempt to
do two things. And whilst I’m picking on
Farron in this case, I do so only because he’s put what many other UK politicians
have been saying into one pithy sentence.
(Although there is something very illiberal about claiming that anyone
who takes a particular view on the future of his country hates his neighbours.) It doesn’t only apply to the question of
Welsh and Scottish nationalism; they do the same thing in other contexts as
well.
The first thing
they’re trying to do is to take a word, and insist that it has the meaning
which they ascribe to it, and that no other meaning is allowable or conceivable. Once they’ve done that, from that point on,
the debate is framed in their terms.
It leads to a
situation where people who clearly do support the idea of Welsh or Scottish
independence (which is all I mean when I say that I’m a nationalist) become so
afraid of the connotations put on the word by others that they end up being
frightened to use the word themselves. I can certainly think of individuals who regularly proclaim that they are
not nationalists, despite supporting independence. There is a danger that this reluctance to
embrace a word succeeds only in strengthening the narrative of their opponents.
The second
thing that they are trying to do is to avoid debate by the simple expedient of branding
people with the negative label which they have created. After all, there’s nothing to be gained by
debating with people once you have defined them as having an irrational hatred
of others, is there?
This isn’t a
one-sided process either, sadly – over the years, I’ve seen attempts to label
those who oppose independence as unpatriotic or worse, but I see nothing
treacherous or unpatriotic about a belief that Wales is better off as things
are than being independent, even if it’s not a view with which I agree.
Labelling is no
substitute for debate, and the future is too important to be left in the hands
of simplistic sloganeers.
2 comments:
John
I not one either but if we truly believe in a United Kingdom or even a Great Britain how can televised debates specifically related to the election of our MPs in Westminster in 2015 be limited to Cameron. Milliband, Clegg and now Farrage
Ive got it Scotland, Wales and Northern Eire are now fully independent counties. We will have our own debates
Spot on.
Glyn Erasmus
Post a Comment