There have been
suggestions in the past that Scotland could overcome the Labour-Tory Westminster
blockage of a new referendum on independence if an election resulted in a
majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament and that parliament then
declared Scotland to be an independent country. There is no legal requirement
for a referendum before independence; many of the UK’s former colonies never
bothered with such niceties. Some fought for their independence, others negotiated
for it, some (perhaps most notably the USA) simply declared themselves
independent. But one of the most important tests of whether a country can become independent without the consent of the state currently in control is the
question of international recognition. A declaration of independence which no
other state recognised could turn out to be pretty meaningless, leaving the
administration unable to trade effectively or make any other sort of
international agreements, which is a major reason for the SNP having avoided
trying it to date.
Sir Starmer is right
to understand the importance of international recognition in the process of
establishing a Palestinian state, and were the other essentials of statehood in
place, it would be a powerful step to take. The problem is that they are not –
and Israel is in the process of making sure that their absence is as irrevocable
as possible. Between clearing large parts of Gaza of its population, and
encouraging settlers to force Palestinians from their land in the West Bank,
there are no longer any clear boundaries for a Palestinian State. There may be
internationally agreed lines on a map, but they are largely meaningless. Nor is
there much by way of a functioning administration, which could be recognised as the ‘government’ of the new state, in large parts of the territory.
Recognition is
symbolic, but of little real effect compared to the other steps that the UK
could take in terms of sanctions and cessation of military exports. And delayed
recognition is even less effective – merely giving the Israeli government a
clear timeline in which it needs to complete the elimination of any viable Palestinian
state. But then, symbolism is probably all Sir Starmer really wants: the
appearance of action without making any real difference. In fact, that phrase (“the
appearance of action without making any real difference”) could well come to be
the defining characteristic of Starmer’s Labour. And not just in relation to
Palestine.
Posts
4 comments:
Borthlas, you made a sincere and important contribuion to Plaid over the years, including in Carmarthenshire. But Plaid could not get you over the line and elected, which led to me giving up on the party. I don't think Plaid did its homework and let you and others down. I'd like your comments on why.....
Here's what I mean:
There are 2 ways to get Indy. First is the New Zealand way. This might suit Wales. It consists of being loyal and pleasant to England, but with iron-hard determination to get Indy bit by bit. You have to be ready with physical force. NZ did this the postive way via solid contributions including ANZAC/Gallipoli etc and HMS Achilles (of Graf Spee fame). I have never heard any Welsh Nat articulate this. And I don't detect any Welsh iron-hard determination to get Indy.
The other way is to copy Ireland. Lets deal with the physical force aspect. It ALWAYS plays a part in English Imperial thinking. It played a part in Ireland (and the USA and Gandhi's India). I do not like it, but have to face history. Force apart, you must have the peaceful alternative lined up, starting with that iron-hard determination. Plaid never has. Ireland had Michael Collins who led Ireland through Dominion Status, the Four Courts incident with the new Irish Army etc. And the financial experts did a job on the British Treasury. All difficult to do but it was done and it did achieve Irish Indy relatively fast. Recognition as a State is key of course. So you have to line up UK recognition as part of the deal. Or get the USA to lead the world in recognition. What you do not do is
- rely on holding a Referendum with no homework
- fluff the 'Andrew Neil' currency question, which the Scots did in 2014.
- be completely ignorant of the historical significance to England of the 'Dominion Status' passport to Indy.
As one who was there, did Plaid leaders not know this stuff? Or did they just not care? Or, what was their plan if indeed they had one?
Your question implies that there was rather more deliberation and debate than actually happened. I don't think we ever really had any sort of detailed plan - and I'm not convinced that there is one now, either. In the 1970s, there was a simplistic belief that 'all' that was needed was to win a majority of seats and independence would follow. And, in fairness, that seemed to be the view of unionists as well, even if it was a view adopted mostly by default in the expectation that it was setting an impossible barrier. In truth (and despite repeated claims that independence was only 15 years away), such a scenario was indeed vanishingly unlikely. In later years, that route was effectively superseded by the idea of winning a majority for independence in a referendum, although I cannot escape the conclusion that - at least until the recent surge in support for independence - that was also a highly unlikely event.
Couple that with a leadership which was at times, shall we say, lukewarm on the whole idea of independence, and you have a perfect recipe for avoiding the development of a serious plan. Those of us who supported independence tended to see the issue as being one of needing to convince people that independence was a desirable outcome (compared to which the route to bring it about is an interesting but somewhat academic matter), and those who didn't were content to kick the route, along with the aim, into the long grass.
Diolch, Borthlas. Yes, I think " the recent surge in support for independence" is what is causing me concern. The fear is that the surge will not get us Indy because the actual "route to bring it about is (a) somewhat academic matter" and not thought to be "interesting" at all. Wales has not nurtured an intellectual armoury, unlike the US Founding Fathers, Ireland or India. So Wales will fail again. The best we can hope for is to drift slowly on the NZ model. When the time comes to up the intellectual game, the talent will be there. But the Welsh attitude to Welsh talent (unless you happen to be Michael Sheen) is to behave like Welsh lobsters. Depressing...
In case you misinterpret me, I'm not at all sure that the route to independence is still a somewhat academic matter: I was responding to your question about what happened in the past. When support for the idea of independence was so low, the most important task was to increase the level of that support rather than to map out the details of how it might happen, which would be a bit like planning how to cook the chickens before the eggs had been laid, and a diversion from the real priority. As the level of support grows, the question about how we get there becomes much more salient. Which is not to say that it's getting much more attention these days than it did in the past.
Post a Comment