And does it matter anyway? The questions
were prompted by this
report last week about the establishment of the Northern Independence Party
to campaign for an independent Northumbria. It’s an interesting development, to
say the least, although whether anything will come of it in the long term is
another question. Certainly, if different parts of what we today call ‘England’
were to successfully dissociate themselves from Westminster and become
independent states, the possibility that the federalism fairy is anything more
than, well, a fairy tale, becomes a little more real, although it’s a very big ‘if’,
and it would be foolish for anyone to start making plans around such an outcome.
Many will respond by arguing that
Northumbria is not a nation, merely a region of England (a fairly arbitrarily-defined
one at that, on the basis of the NIP’s proposals), and that the right of all
nations to self-determination therefore doesn’t apply. But if we stop and think
for a moment, isn’t that almost exactly what British nationalists also say
about Wales, or Scotland, claiming in effect that both are part of the ‘British’ nation,
and therefore already enjoy the right to national self-determination? Nationality
is not an easily defined concept. I’ve never seen, nor been able to devise, an
entirely satisfactory and objective definition of what constitutes a ‘nation’, not
least since most of what makes people feel that they belong to nation X or
nation Y is about a subjective identification with other people who happen to
live in the same defined geographical area.
If the people living in Northumbria
(however the area is defined on a map) come to consider themselves a nation
over the coming years, there is no obvious basis on which anyone else can tell
them that they’re wrong. And that applies whether they consider the new
national identity to supplant or merely supplement their existing English/
British identity. Some nationalists in Wales attempt to tell people that they
can’t be members of two overlapping nations, both Welsh and British, but
telling what is probably a majority that they can’t be what they quite comfortably
feel themselves to be has never struck me as a particularly productive approach
to discourse.
Does it matter, though? One of the reasons
for preferring the term independentista to nationalist is that it avoids
the question of what a nation is or isn’t and simply affirms that the people
living in any defined area have the right to decide collectively how they wish
to be governed. That surely applies as much to ‘Northumbria’ as it does to
Wales or Scotland. Ultimately the difference in viewpoint owes less to any
sense of nationality or nationalism than it does to the simple belief that
sovereignty starts with the people rather than the monarch (or God, to be strictly
accurate in terms of the English constitution). ‘England’ as an entity came
into existence in the same way as the UK – kingdoms and territories were
conquered and assimilated. ‘England’ has no more of an absolute claim to be treated
now and forever as a single entity than does any other state. The ultimate
triumph of the ‘English’ nationalists now running the UK is that their ‘Englishness’
is increasingly being seen to be relevant to only part of ‘England’; their
assumption that they can simply impose their own version of Englishness on the
rest is leading many to question whether the entity known as England serves
their interests. There would be a certain irony if the term ‘Little England’ came to be seen as a geographical
term as well as one describing an attitude.
Posts
15 comments:
Apart from Wales, Scotland and North Ireland there are probably 3 or 4 distinct regions of England that have already developed a grudging dislike, possibly hatred, towards the dominant, smug Londonistan and its environs. Even within the South East there are large numbers who only go to London as a last resort. Maybe the solution is to cut London adrift, tow it into the North Sea and sink the bloody thing with all of Parliament, the Palaces and the grasping City types. No malice intended.
"One of the reasons for preferring the term independentista to nationalist is that it avoids the question of what a nation is or isn’t and simply affirms that the people living in any defined area have the right to decide collectively how they wish to be governed."
I can see that the use of the term "Independentista" might be a way of combating the use of "Nationlist" as a toxic term by Unionists.
But the principle behind it seems to be a two edged sword that will inevitably be used against Welsh independence by Unionists. Deeside, Powys or say Ceredigion Independentistas might well want to be independent of Cymru preferring to be part of an independent England. There is precedent for this regarding Northern Ireland choosing to be independent of the Republic of Ireland and being part of a rump UK.
Regarding a definition of what a nation is, in a nation state sense at least it is perhaps what defines, in terms of creating and maintaining, the nation that is important.
Basically - Might is Right.
And "might" need not be military "might" may be due to for example - culture, economics, identity, demographics
Rory Stewart MP once did a very interesting tv documentary on, essentially, Northumbria. His Tory, John Buchan type, background did not hold him back from recognising a reality and may have underlined it. Afghanistan is a natural for a Federal System. It just needs enough Northumbrians to support their Indy. They got a Wales 1979 style response in the last referendum there.
The NIP had me worried when I looked at their map and saw it included Liverpool, where I now am. Liverpool should not be part of the- or a- North. Liverpool should be like Hansestadt Bremen or Hansestadt Hamburg, a Land/State which is substantially an independent port city state. Like Singapore is, Genoa was, the Hanseatic Cities were.
I am not hung up on Wales or Liverpool or Northumbria STEPPING UP to Land/State/Federal/Dominion status asap. Its not a bar to full Indy, it is the practice run and a vital stepping stone (like Ireland etc etc etc etc)
CapM,
"Deeside, Powys or say Ceredigion Independentistas might well want to be independent of Cymru preferring to be part of an independent England. " Well, yes, they might. I think it's highly unlikely, but let's take it as a hypothetical. If the principle is that those who live in a defined area can decide for themselves, on what basis should they be refused 'permission', and by whom? What is the principle that allows someone outside any area to say 'no'? What's the difference between London saying 'no' to Wales, and Cardiff saying 'no' to Ceredigion? It seem to me that the latter position can only be sustained by an appeal to a preconception that the 'nation' is Wales (or 'the UK' in the case of the former). And the point about the term independentista isn't as simple as avoiding the possible toxicity around the word 'nationalist', it's also about divorcing the right of the people in any territory to decide for themselves from a largely subjective and arbitrary decision about nationality, often based on a set of boundaries which do little more than represent where the fighting stopped. For those who have a preconception that Wales and England are nations, refusing the right of parts of those territories to seek independence follows naturally - an independent Ceredigion or Northumbria are therefore axiomatically not allowed. But shed that preconception and the result is that a nation-state exists - and can continue to exist - only by the consent and buy-in of its citizens. That's why the UK is a doomed nation-state - and the way its leaders seem determined to revert to coercion only hastens its failure. Wales, in its current boundaries and with its current populace, is also likely to fail in the long term if it is based on an insistence by government that people must assume a particular identity and that territorial integrity can be maintained by imposition. Building a newly independent nation is about much more than winning a simple majority in one vote on one day. And even whilst accepting that 'might' isn't just military, I disagree strongly with any suggestion that 'might is right' is a suitable foundation.
Jonathan,
"Liverpool should be like Hansestadt Bremen or Hansestadt Hamburg, a Land/State which is substantially an independent port city state. Like Singapore is, Genoa was, the Hanseatic Cities were" It's one possibility - but ultimately it's up to them. I don't propose to dictate to any part of England what status it should seek - it's a matter for the relevant population to decide. As a general rule, I favour smaller units over larger, and I favour drawing boundaries in a way which matches the way people self-identify as far as possible. But circumstances change, requirements change - one of the problems with Anglo-British nationalism is the underlying assumption that what might conceivably have been a sensible approach a century or two ago ago (and there's ample scope for debate around that!) is therefore right for all time. Put in those terms, it's a spectacularly stupid assumption.
John Dixon
Hypothetical? Northern Ireland is a real world example and the demographic changes happening in parts of Cymru only point towards the possibility becoming less hypothetical.
You refer to permission I'd say it is more to do with constraint which can of course be self imposed. I might fancy declaring my house an independent state but the reason I don't has more to do with recognizing the constraints on implementing that aim rather than someone denying me permission. However if I had sufficient "might" constraints are lifted.
"maintained by imposition."
All nation states are maintained by imposition except for those where 100% of the population are of one accord and there is zero effort made to maintain that accord. I can't imagine one exists or has existed. So it's down to how much imposition wea are ok with imposing on who and how many.
"Building a newly independent nation is about much more than winning a simple majority in one vote on one day."
Absolutely.
" And even whilst accepting that 'might' isn't just military, I disagree strongly with any suggestion that 'might is right' is a suitable foundation."
It's how things are though and it applies at every level from USSR through UK, Cymru, Deeside (region of England)mini states like San Marino/Monaco down to Republic of CapM.
CapM,
"Hypothetical? Northern Ireland is a real world example and the demographic changes happening in parts of Cymru only point towards the possibility becoming less hypothetical." True, but how can / should we respond? There are all sorts of reasons why the mix of national identities in an area changes, from the plantations in Northern Ireland, to empire and colonisation, to slow and subtle migration and cultural change. We could argue about whether these changes should have been allowed, and whether they are right or just, but we can't pretend that they haven't happened. We can't (or at least, I don't think we can!) simply remove 'interlopers' from their homes and land, and we can't force them to adopt a national identity if they don't want to. We can encourage and facilitate assimiliation, but we can't force people to adopt a nationality if they don't want to - if they and their antecedents have lived in a territory for generations, that's a fact we have to work with.
"You refer to permission I'd say it is more to do with constraint which can of course be self imposed. I might fancy declaring my house an independent state but the reason I don't has more to do with recognizing the constraints on implementing that aim rather than someone denying me permission. However if I had sufficient "might" constraints are lifted." I don't think we disagree about the practical issues here, but I was looking for the principle which allows us to reject the idea of even very small areas becoming independent. I can find plenty of practical reasons why it's a very bad idea, and I can see no reason why the wider territory around such tiny statelets should go out of its way to make their life easy in terms of access to services etc., but I can't find an issue of principle which allows them to forbid it.
"All nation states are maintained by imposition except for those where 100% of the population are of one accord and there is zero effort made to maintain that accord. I can't imagine one exists or has existed. So it's down to how much imposition we are ok with imposing on who and how many." And I almost agree with that as well. There is, though, a difference between a minority spread across a territory which disagrees with the sovereign status of that territory and a minority concentrated in a smaller area within which they form a majority. Unless I'm misreading what you are saying here, the only 'principle' on which you can call to insist that that minority have no right to break away is the principle of the national unity of the wider territory. And isn't the national unity of Spain, or the national unity of the UK ultimately the reaason why those states try to deny the right of Catalonia or Wales to become independent? Aren't you seeking to apply the same rule to Wales as the Anglo-British nationalists apply to the UK? And doesn't that, inevitably, stem from a preconception about what a nationality is and what is its territory? If one could define, in entirely objective terms, what a 'nation' is, then it might be sustainable - but I can't. If nationality is, ultimately, something subjective rather than objective, then the nation exists only for as long as the majority believe it to exist. Hence my comment about building a nation involving much more than achieving a simple majority on a specific date. It's a simple statement which is very far-reaching.
"It's how things are though..." Well, yes - but aren't we about changing 'the way things are'?
John Dixon
"but we can't force people to adopt a nationality if they don't want to "
People can and are forced to adopt a nationality they don't want to. In our case we are both forced to adopt UK nationality. The "force" being applied manifesting as the preference for UK nationality by a large majority of the people of Cymru.
"- if they and their antecedents have lived in a territory for generations, that's a fact we have to work with."
I think the fact we have to work with is mainly the current generation not past ones. The current one votes.
"but I can't find an issue of principle which allows them to forbid it."
What's the principle that allows it other than ultimately it's expressed as- every person is an island.
Or does the principle identify a level of geography or number of people when the establishment of a nation is forbidden.
I don't therefore think the "principle" is useful and what we are faced with is a formula
might > constraints = nationhood created and or maintained
"then the nation exists only for as long as the majority believe it to exist."
Which by definition leaves us with a minority that are imposed upon. You seem to be saying that your principle of self determination only applies to that minority if they are concentrated in particular location. In which case I'd say my formula comes into effect.
" Hence my comment about building a nation involving much more than achieving a simple majority on a specific date. "
I think we agree on the importance of not seeing a referendum result as the job done.
I don't think talking of "rights" are that useful either because both sides have them and can argue why they should be honoured. The UK exercised it's right to give Scotland an opportunity for independence. Spain exercised it's right to deny Catalunia a similar opportunity.
Ultimately the formula trumps any rights or principles and I expect shapes any rights and principles that are applied.
CapM,
"People can and are forced to adopt a nationality they don't want to." This is down to my own sloppy use of words, but we should avoid confusing 'nationality' with 'national identity' - I really meant the latter here. 'Nationality' as a legal concept and fact is, of course, 'imposed' as a result of the laws of the state of birth and/or residence, but as we know in Wales it isn't the same as national identity.
"I think the fact we have to work with is mainly the current generation not past ones." And I agree. The reference to previous generations was really aimed more at emphasising that people with long term roots cannot simply be treated as outsiders whose views don't count. (In fact, I don't think recent immigrants should be treated that way either, but I can see why some might want to make a distinction.) When a country has a large number of people born outside its borders, or descended from people born outside its borders, that can create difficulties in terms of national identity and a feeling of nationhood, but it's a fact we have to live with.
"What's the principle that allows it other than ultimately it's expressed as- every person is an island. Or does the principle identify a level of geography or number of people when the establishment of a nation is forbidden." The point that I was trying to make, but perhaps not very well, is that I start from the very simple basis that self-determination is something to which the inhabitants of a defined area are entitled, and which doesn't, ultimately, depend on nationality or national identity, or even whether a nation exists or not. So, if the people of Northumbria, however defined (to return to the original post) want to be independent, the fact that they are currently regarded as English and their territory as part of England is not adequate reason for the rest of England to tell them they can't. In the same way, if the people of Ceredigion want to become independent of the rest of Wales (and whether they use that independence to become part of England as you suggested is irrelevant - they would have to become nominally independent first), the fact that they are currently regarded as Welsh is not adequate reason for the rest of Wales to tell them they can't. (I hope Ceredigion would not decide that, but that's another debate.)
The argument that anyone outside an area seeking independence can decide whether or not to permit it (or even to permit them to debate and vote on it) depends ultimately, it seems to me, on an appeal to one or both of two things: a definition of the nation which axiomatically precludes any idea that other 'nationalities' can exist within it (everyone in Spain is Spanish; everyone in the UK is British) coupled with an assumption that only 'nations' can seek self-determination, or the permanence of current borders, however they were originally set. If we reject both of those (as I do), then there is no remaining basis for denying independence to Northumbria, Catalonia, Wales, Ceredigion or even CapM mansion. There is only debate about practicality and desirability; hence my emphasis on persuasion and buy-in. I am concerned that arguing for the indivisibility of the Welsh nation existing in the currently defined territory (although I suspect we'd be in agreement about the desirability of that as an objective) is applying the British perspective to the Welsh situation and merely replicating the same type of outdated nationalism. Starting with the assumption that being part of the nation (any nation) is essentially an entirely voluntary act is, in my view, a much healthier way of collectively building a different future.
I understand the logic of your argument and can't disagree with it. However, I fear that if there ever were to be a vote for independence in Wales, as a principle it would be weaponised against us, with proposed referendums all along the border in areas which didn't vote for independence arguing that these areas should have the choice of joining England. How much of Wales would be left at the end of such a process and wouldn't it almost certainly lead to conflict and violence?
"However, I fear that if there ever were to be a vote for independence in Wales, as a principle it would be weaponised against us, with proposed referendums all along the border in areas which didn't vote for independence arguing that these areas should have the choice of joining England." There's a danger of trying to cross bridges before we reach them. There are all sorts of hypothetical situations which one can postulate: it's not unthinkable, for instance, that some parts of northern England might agitate to join an independent Scotland! But my real response is to underline the point I've made a few times above - the idea that independence for Wales depends solely on a simple majority vote at a single point in time is a dangerous delusion harboured by some independentistas, based on a concept of nationhood which assumes that Wales can and must always be treated as a single and indivisible whole. Partly because of the long and porous borders, and taking into account the proportion of people born outside Wales, there's much more to building a nation than holding a referendum. If what you suggest should come to pass, it would be the failure of the independence movement, not the success of its opponents which was to blame.
John dixon
"So, if the people of Northumbria, [same goes for Ceredigion-Cymru]however defined ... want to be independent, the fact that they are currently regarded as English and their territory as part of England is not adequate reason for the rest of England to tell them they can't."
Well we agree there but if the people of Northumbria (or Ceredigion)wish to take it any further than wanting to be independent/co joined with Scotland ((or England) they will come up against the reality of the formula and the sum of the broad and multiple forms of might will determine the outcome rather than a principle recognised by one side and not the other.
"my emphasis on persuasion and buy-in."
I agree. In the case of Cymru those are a prerequisite for independence. We need the numbers.
For the Baltic states neither was a prerequisite for independence. They already had the numbers.
I can see the fairness of the principle you're advocating but again referring to reality not everyone "fights" fairly. Any independence decision must be all in or nothing. if based on a principle that areas can opt out when they wish is just adding to the challenges and efforts of nation building.
The border of Cymru is not in dispute, that's a blessing many countries envy. We shouldn't risk that for the sake of a principle that as far as I can work out seems to have more philosophical value than practical value.
"...a principle that as far as I can work out seems to have more philosophical value than practical value.". Maybe, maybe not. I accept your basic point that what actually happens owes more to power relationships than principles, although I'd reiterate my point that I want to change the basis on which things happen rather than accept current reality as an absolute given for all time.
To return to the point of the original post: the question I was raising was about what are the principles and rights which should be considered when a territory which most people consider to be part of a nation wants to break away and determine its own future, with particular relation to the proposed Northumbria. My (and I'll accept that this is simplistic) starting point is that 'sovereignty' (logically and argued from first principles, rather than based on currently applicable law) belongs to the people of any defined area of territory, and that the people living in that territory cannot legitimately (even if the law and power relationships state otherwise) be denied the right to govern their own territory (accepting that there are implications and responsibilities as well as rights involved here). That is the basis on which Wales, Scotland, or Northumbria can seek and justify independence from the UK. And it's the only basis that they need, once we accept that sovereignty belongs to the people; they don't need to meet any definition of 'nationhood'.
Depending on 'nationhood' means depending on a concept which is hard to define objectively - you and I would agree that Wales is a nation, but others certainly disagree, and argue that Britain is a nation. I see no problem with national identity being complex and overlapping; others insist that people can have only one national identity and must choose. There is no satisfactory objective definition which resolves that disagreement. Basing the argument on nationhood justifies the positions of both unionists and independentistas; they're just defining 'the nation' in different ways. The problem with my starting point (as you identified, quite rightly, in your first comment) is that it leads to some very uncomfortable conclusions about any areas of Wales where the population might prefer to be part of England (or independent themselves) rather than part of Wales. But no matter how uncomfortable that might be, I can't see any honest basis on which I can justify both opposing a decision by England to deny independence to, say, Northumbria and supporting a decision by Wales to deny independence to, say, Ceredigion. My only 'solution' to this conundrum is to emphasise, once again, that a nation-state remains a nation-state only by the consent of its citizens. It's a point of which UK centralists have lost sight, but which Welsh independentistas need to keep very much in mind. For those who believe that sovereignty is vested in the monarch by god, the people's consent is an optional extra, but it isn't for those who see sovereignty as belonging to the people. We do, as you say, start with the advantage that "The border of Cymru is not in dispute, that's a blessing many countries envy.", but I fear that some think that that allows us to decide the future of this territory by simple majority in a one-off referendum.
John Dixon
" but I fear that some think that that allows us to decide the future of this territory by simple majority in a one-off referendum."
If I have a fear regarding a successful independence referendum it's that a significant number of yes voters will have been "sold" independence as a way to realize a Cymru suited to their own particular and myriad preferences.
And on that we can agree. There is a real danger that people fixated on the idea that all they need is a majority of 1 on a particular date will encourage voters to believe that their own preferences are all best served by independence. It really isn't the same thing as buy-in to the concept, it's more akin to seeing politics in transactional terms. Independence is the hard choice, not the easy one.
Post a Comment