After ruling out all the usual arguments,
what is left for the unionists to deploy? If I wanted to make an argument for
the continuation of the UK which might appeal to those currently inclined to
support independence, on what would I try to base it? It’s not a pointless
question, and it’s one to which some of the more thoughtful unionists, like
David Melding AS, have given a great deal of consideration. The problem,
though, which they seem to struggle to accept, is that they are fringe elements
within their parties and within unionism in general, in recognising that the
union must change if it is to survive. That’s simply not the way that the
people actually in charge of the unionist parties and the UK as a whole see
things. As Martin Kettle pointed out in this
article in the Guardian this morning, people like Johnson see only one way
of running the union, and that is the centre imposing its will on the rest. My
own starting point would be to look at the deficiencies of the way the union
operates today and at what could be done to make it work better:
·
Making a serious attempt at social solidarity is
fundamental: not just vague waffle and spin about ‘levelling up’, but a serious
attempt to spread wealth more evenly, starting from the basis that all citizens
should benefit from a country’s economic success, rather than some having to
beg for crumbs. It requires a recognition that massive inequality is incompatible
with maintaining cohesion, and a recognition that the concentration of wealth
in one small corner is damaging.
·
Developing a more inclusive way of regarding
history and culture, one which recognises that the UK is not a homogeneous whole,
but an agglomeration of parts with different histories and perspectives. There
isn’t just one history of the UK and attempting to impose one to shore up the
institution itself is counterproductive. Britain and England aren’t the same
thing, and don’t even need to be seen as such to preserve the union.
·
Revitalising democracy, abolishing unelected lawmakers,
and implementing an electoral system which enables different views and
perspectives to be more accurately reflected. Gifting absolute power to a party
which wins only a minority of the votes in just one of the parts of the union
will always be resented by the other parts.
·
Strengthening devolution, making it more
uniform across the three devolved administrations, and recognising the absolute
right of those administrations to legislate in devolved areas with no
interference from the centre, something which the Scottish Lib Dems amongst
others have called
for.
It probably requires a written constitution because, under the existing
constitution, any legislation to renounce the right to make laws in devolved
areas can be repealed at whim.
·
Ensuring that the rule of law applies to all
equally and that transgressions are dealt with, whoever commits them.
And, to add a primarily emotional rather
than merely practical appeal:
·
Recognising and celebrating the inter-family
links across these islands which have resulted from centuries of intermixing, and
which often translate into a sense of commonality which transcends many of the
more transactional arguments. As a result of internal migration within the UK,
to say nothing of marriages and other relationships, there are large numbers of
families in all parts of the UK which have relatives in others. That provides
an emotional basis, even if it will never be enough in itself to overcome the
practical failings.
There are two obvious things to note about
the first five items on this list:
1. They
are not quick fixes. Trying to ‘sell’ the existing structures and processes
instead of reforming them is like putting lipstick on the proverbial pig, yet
that’s the unionists’ starting point. No matter how slick their campaign (and
they’re having problems enough with that), they are still trying to sell a pig.
A PR exercise just isn’t enough. It’s a point which Mark
Drakeford at least understands – the union cannot and will not
survive in its current form. The leap which he has yet to make, however, is to
understand that the changes which he identifies as being necessary for the
union to survive cannot and will not be delivered by either the English
Conservative Party or the English Labour Party, because:
2. The
Anglo-British nationalists of both parties are ideologically and emotionally
incapable of doing any of them. When you ‘know’,
with absolute and unshakeable certainty, that “the United Kingdom is the
most successful political and economic union the world has ever seen”, it’s
difficult to see why anything might need to change. Ever. Something which is
the bestest and perfectest known to mankind throughout the whole of history doesn’t
need to change. It’s an astonishing, exceptionalist claim (which I’ve heard in different
forms from Labour politicians as well as Tories – the words could have tripped
off the tongue of Gordon Brown as easily as that of Boris Johnson) based on
outright jingoism unsupported by hard facts or analysis, but one which they
genuinely seem to believe, and they are unable to understand why everyone
doesn’t accept it as truth.
It’s not that it has become wholly
impossible to persuade people that maintaining the unity of the UK is
worthwhile, it is that most of those currently in power are so blinded by their
own dogma and ideology that they are incapable of doing those things which
would be required to achieve their aim. The UK is doomed, not primarily by
those of us who seek to dismember it, but by the failure of comprehension of most
of its own ‘supporters’, who are incapable of even understanding why structures
developed centuries ago are no longer suitable today.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment