The article
penned by Max Hastings a few days ago has come in for a lot of criticism for
its dismissive and arrogant remarks about the Welsh language in particular. His
ignorance shines through, but perhaps we should acknowledge that he just can’t
help it. He is from a background which simply does not and cannot understand
that the UK isn’t the monocultural and monolingual society in which he fondly
believes himself to have been born and raised. I was reminded of the time I
spent a couple of years working in Solihull, and one of the people with whom I
worked was astounded at the idea that Welsh was a living language, used daily
by hundreds of thousands as naturally as he used English. He had, until that
point, genuinely believed that Welsh was akin to Latin, in the sense that it
was only used on ceremonial occasions like the Eisteddfod (the way Latin is
used in some religious and academic rites), but was otherwise a dead language,
existing only in written form, a relic of the past. Now this wasn’t a
particularly stupid example of an Englishman; he was otherwise intelligent,
educated, and sensible. He was just completely ignorant of the fact that Wales
wasn’t just like a westward extension of England with some odd (and to him,
unpronounceable) place names. I have always been completely sure that he’s not
untypical, and for someone like that, the idea that a few Welsh people might
revert to their quaint ceremonial tongue when an Englishman walks into a pub is
entirely credible. He was, in essence, simply ignorant, not in the pejorative sense
in which the word is often used, but in the rather more neutral sense of simply
being unknowing. Criticising people for what they don’t know, and have no
reason to know, is a bit like criticising a tiger for sporting stripes.
In the case of Hastings, the situation of the
Welsh language isn’t the only matter on which he’s ignorant. He also succeeded
in making it quite clear that he doesn’t understand government finances, such
as the way in which the finances of Wales and Scotland are tightly controlled
by the centre, to say nothing of the problems with the figures he quotes or the
way in which governments finance deficits. But the curate’s
egg has its redeeming features, even if one has to look very hard and be
very polite to find them. In his ignorance, he suggests that the Welsh and
Scottish deficits are paid for by generous subsidies from England. In reality,
England also runs a deficit which it covers by a combination of borrowing and (particularly
recently) by creating new money, two things which neither Wales nor Scotland
are currently allowed to do. But if the money raised by borrowing and Quantitative
Easing is all English, and that which is passed to Wales and Scotland is a generous
(albeit not appreciated in the way he might like) gift – which is clearly his
implication – then all the debt accumulated in the process also belongs to
England. An independent Wales and Scotland wouldn't owe a penny of it on this model. And the good
news is that his view is uncritically (and ignorantly) shared by much of the
English establishment. What’s not to like about that?
Posts
10 comments:
If independence took place in any orderly manner at all then the entire UK national debt would inevitably have to be serviced by England as only her central bank (i.e. the old lady) would have the necessary, immediate, market credibility to simply roll the debt over. Clearly there would be a quid pro quo, but it might not be fiscal. Like Ukraine, an independent Scotland if it happens suddenly would be a de facto nuclear weapon state. Coulport/Faslane will be a massive card.
Democritus,
"the entire UK national debt would inevitably have to be serviced by England" I agree, and the Bank of England said as much at the time of the first indy referendum in Scotland. It's unusual, though, for English politicians or political commentators to admit this - they prefer to try and weaponise the 'debt'.
"Coulport/Faslane will be a massive card." Maybe. But that depends on how much the forces of independence leave themselves - or even want to leave themselves - any wiggle room on the question of site closure. If post-independence closure is as certain as it appears to be, then rather than becoming a big card in negotiations, it becomes an even bigger card in terms of unionist motivation to prevent independence.
Likes of Max Hastings does a fair job of churning out detailed histories of past conflicts between "Great Powers"- never does he analyse the motives of those Powers or the consequences of conflicts. Essentially a "status quo" thinker, defender of the London centric orthodoxy, not unusual as most Englishmen display a similar arrogance. Even their Lefties can't bring themselves to extend their urge to liberate the rest of the world to that little country that is closest to them. Odd people indeed. We've cut them a lot of slack over the years, time maybe to stop the nice stuff and get serious.
Dafis and Democritus are right. It is time to get serious. Faslane etc are serious cards to play for Scotland. Pacifism and wokery are all very well, but lets consider realpolitik. Why has Ireland got 100 years ahead of Wales and Scotland and actually got Indy? Partly (like many former British Colonies eg 13 US ones) they weren't squeamish about violence. Neither was London - see Culloden. But the real basis of Irish success is that they are as tough as nails, and very well informed on how to get and run an independent country. When the Irish did the deal with the Old Lady of Threadneedle St, they played all their cards with finesse. See https://academic.oup.com/ereh/article/24/4/818/5827947 Sadly, Wales is way behind.
If the immediate effect of Scots independence were to be to force unilateral nuclear disarmament on the remaining UK then it would be a dramatic non-speakers form of Hard Scexit essentially guaranteeing English bitterness and kissing goodbye to a harmonious future relationship with the USA or other NATO powers. The RUK conventional defence posture would shit from the futile and no longer deliverable defence of Norway that of Newcastle. Scotland would become a pariah republic (no question of sharing a head of state; taxation of dual nationals will be tricky enough for commoners). Lack of cooperation on nuclear matters alone would create serious issues for Scotland safely dismantling the redundant civilian and military infrastructure left behind. The Royal Navy loathe the idea of Treaty Ports following the 1938 Irish experience where you are deprived of them the moment international tensions reach the point where the protection of shipping lanes becomes imperative; US Navy has a very different perspective - maybe they could lease it for NATO?
Consider a complex divorce involving a family home that doubles as a trading business (eg a farm) such that there is no question of simply liquidating & splitting the cash. The joint mortgage is effectively the national debt. The obligations can be restructured to reflect both parties estimated individual incomes post separation provided there is a lender willing to finance the new arrangement by taking over the outstanding mortgage(s). Complex as they maybe to resolve to all parties satisfaction any divorce professional will agree that disputes over money generally pale in significance in terms of ill feeling & ongoing recrimination when set beside the related negotiations around ongoing access requirements.
Continuing the domestic divorce theme, assuming a clear mutual desire to seek termination a professional could identify 2 clearly possible and relatively straightforward avenues to resolution - (a) an amicable agreement to formally separate going forward but with minimal impact on existing commitments (let's assume these people might live forever, like states do); or (b) both sides lawyer up for a bareknuckle fight that will be costly and may well undermine the effective running of the enterprise on which both ultimately depend. Refinancing the mortgage for example is much more straightforward under scenario a than it is under b. Generally the closer on the spectrum the parties feel able to get to (a) the better off both will be.
If the union must end then it is a huge advantage that the UK is not encumbered in seccession matters by a written constitution as Spain or the USA are (does the US Constitution formally prohibit secession? discuss.). It's entirely possible we could work it all out pretty neatly. Trouble is that while it is fairly clear what the Scots don't want (for Boris Johnson or any party dependent almost entirely on votes from outside Scotland governing them) it is far less clear what they sense their ultimate destination to be.
Democritus,
"If the immediate effect of Scots independence were to be to force unilateral nuclear disarmament on the remaining UK then it would [guarantee] English bitterness and [kiss] goodbye to a harmonious future relationship with the USA or other NATO powers. ... Scotland would become a pariah republic (no question of sharing a head of state; taxation of dual nationals will be tricky enough for commoners)."
You make it sound very dramatic, but I don't think that things are by any means as certain as this. There are increasing numbers of people in the English establishment who recognise the folly of continued possession of nuclear weapons and who might actually be rather glad to be forced into doing something which they don't have the courage to propose directly. And it would certainly let the Labour Party (whose members and activists are largely anti-nuclear weapons) off the hook. As for relationships with other NATO powers - of the 30 members, only three possess nuclear weapons; it's unclear to me why a reduction to 2 in that number would make the others see England / the UK as some sort of pariah. As for sharing a head of state - don't underestimate the desire of the current head of state to retain a nominal role in as many countries as possible, regardless of the nature of their regimes or policies. (Although whether that's actually a good thing for Scotland is far more debateable.) Don't get me wrong - I fully understand how, theoretically at least, the future of Faslane could be a good bargaining card for the Scottish independentistas; I just think it's one that they've already decided not to use, and that a change of position on that would seriously damage the independence movement.
It's all posturing at the moment. I don't personally consider nuclear deterrence worth the opportunity costs, but with new Vanguard replacements now entering service there may be little in way of major new investment urgently needed for a decade or three. The SNP position is confused and nobody should be surprised if it were revisited radically following a narrow referendum mandate for Indy. Scotland (not simply the SNP) would need to decide whether they oppose domestic possession nuclear weapons (i.e. an English, or even an independent Scottish bomb) or all nuclear weapons per se. The later position scuppers any possibility of NATO membership and must lead to neutrality on Irish model as only other security solution tolerable to London.
Dual monarchy ties into the questions around the armed forces future post independence more generally, but the primary reason for proposing it is that the SNP are trying to accomplish independence in advance of drafting a proper new constitution for Scotland. If sentimentality were the prime driver there's surely still a Stuart pretender floating about? Trouble is that ultimately the Crown will and must always follow the advice of the UK PM over that of any other commonwealth PM. Practically speaking it would render it impossible for Scotland to pursue any genuinely distinct foreign relations policy; such as staying apart from England's wars.
"with new Vanguard replacements now entering service there may be little in way of major new investment urgently needed for a decade or three." That's not exactly accurate. The Dreadnought submarines are due to enter service in the 2030s - now is precisely the time when major (and still cancellable) investment is taking place. Assuming that independence doesn't fully happen for a few years might reduce the extent of avoidability of cost.
"Scotland (not simply the SNP) would need to decide..." True, of course. But the other pro-indy parties in Scotland are even more opposed to nuclear weapons than is the SNP. Ultimately, of course, it's a matter for the post-independence government to decide, and whilst an SNP government looks likeliest at present, that could, obviously, change.
"Practically speaking [dual monarchy] would render it impossible for Scotland to pursue any genuinely distinct foreign relations policy; such as staying apart from England's wars." I'm not at all convinced that the one follows from the other. Other countries which retain the English monarch as Head of State are not obliged to follow England into wars - why would that be true uniquely for Scotland? That's not to say that I'm a fan of the SNP pledge to retain the monarchy. Of course I can understand the political driver to avoid changing everything at once and leave an impression of stability and continuity, but monarchies are not the most obvious choice for modern social democracies.
Should not have mentioned commonwealth. India is a member, as is Ireland, both republics. I think it's more complex in Scotland situation than Australia's; but not to say it couldn't be finessed. Clearly what dual monarchy averts is immediate fundamental restructuring of the army, civil service and judiciary as individuals decide which new master they will serve.
I think the ship sailed on cancelling the Dreadnought programme in 2015/17/19 GEs where Labour was led by people sympathetically disposed to the concept even if the manifesto's were formally multilateralist.
I'm intrigued by your suggestion that the UK PM might opt for the opposite negotiating strategy of not begging for a leaseback but saying in diplomatic language "OK Jock. Cheerio then. We'll be off. Please don't fire the bombs. Don't forget to close the door on your way out. I'm late or my flight to Kirkwall to recognise the Orcadian provisional government..." it would be novel and certainly would leave a highly radioactive problem in Edinburgh's lap!
Were I a social democrat I guess i'd be asking what any of this does to address inequality or raise GDP across the board?
"what dual monarchy averts is immediate fundamental restructuring of the army, civil service and judiciary as individuals decide which new master they will serve." I don't buy any of that. Clearly there will be, as part of the negotiation, a need to agree on what happens to the army and civil service but the judiciary is already separate, and the presence or absence of dual monarchy has no impact on such negotiations. WWhilst the army and civil service are notionally loyal to the monarch, in practice they answer to the executive. And I'm far from sure that individuals will get to decide which master they serve - that isn't the way in which reorganisations normally work.
I'm intrigued by your suggestion that the UK PM might opt for the opposite negotiating strategy of not begging for a leaseback but saying in diplomatic language "OK Jock. Cheerio then. We'll be off. Please don't fire the bombs. Don't forget to close the door on your way out. I'm late or my flight to Kirkwall to recognise the Orcadian provisional government..." And I'm intrigued to know where and how you think I said that! I don't think that they will beg for a leaseback, largely because people who think that they're entitled to something are unlikely to think they need even to ask. They're more likely to start from an assumption of superiority which fails to recognise the rights of a newly independent Scotland, just as they failed to understand that becoming a third party to the EU might just mean that they'd be treated like a third party.
Post a Comment