Is there a case for the union? 7: Not without change

Tweet

 

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.

Is there a case for the Union? 6: Culture

Tweet

 

The last of the usual arguments for the continuation of the union considered in this series of articles is to do with the culture of these islands. It is true that, in the widest sense of culture and human knowledge the world has gained much from the efforts of the peoples of these islands, particularly in the field of science and understanding. The problem, though, is that the nationalist proponents of this argument usually fall back on two major things (it's a bit of an oversimplification, but not that much of one) – Shakespeare and the English language. The importance of Shakespeare and his contribution to English culture should not be underestimated, but he was writing at a time before the UK existed. He was a product of England (into which Wales had already been incorporated) rather than of Britain, and the continued emphasis on him as some sort of ‘British’ icon is both historically inaccurate and dismissive of the work of Welsh, Scottish, and Irish writers. Indeed, more generally the emphasis on English language culture as ‘the’ culture of the British Isles ignores the parallel cultures of those speaking the other native languages of Britain. What they present as ‘British’ culture looks, all too often, as simply rebadged English culture. And they don’t even realise that.

It’s true that the English language (or as many increasingly call it, American) has come to dominate the world for many purposes, not least trade. But that didn’t come about because ‘we’ generously ‘gave’ it to the world; it came about because it was imposed on conquered peoples in colonised territories by force. And the same goes for those parts of the UK where other languages were universally spoken before English was imposed. Whilst being a native speaker of what has become the most widely spoken commercial language certainly bestows many advantages, that doesn’t make the language in some way ‘superior’ to others. Assuming that we should take pride in the outcome whilst ignoring the process is an unrealistic ask of those within these islands who still use other native, and historically persecuted, languages, to identify just one group.

It would be possible to develop a view of ‘British’ culture which was more inclusive and less jingoistic, and which recognised that ‘British’ culture is neither homogeneous nor the same thing as English culture. But that would mean, in effect, that the Anglo-British defenders of the union would have to change their view of what the UK is rather than simply demand that we all accept and buy into their view. It’s an impossible ask. If I were looking for a strong argument for the union, I wouldn’t try and base it on the imposition of English culture.

Statistics, damned statistics, and Lib Dem statistics

Tweet

 

It is often suggested that 87.6% of all statistics quoted by politicians are made up on the spot. The MUF-87.6 virus, as it is known, afflicts most politicians, but some seem to catch a more severe infection than others. Boris Johnson suffers from a very serious infection but, in fairness, that’s been exacerbated by his inability to understand what a statistic is or that numbers have meaning. Amongst the worst affected are that endangered species, the Welsh Lib Dems, where the proportion has been known to go as high as 110%. Unlikely, one might think – but they have a wide range of bar charts to prove it.

Their leader illustrated the point over the weekend when she claimed that Welsh independence “…would be 10 times more complex and 10 times more painful than Brexit”. Not 9, not 11, but precisely 10. This particular figure was based not on any careful analysis or consideration of the issue (that would require time and effort to carry out, and there aren’t enough of them left to do that) but on the need for a dramatic sounding figure to include in a speech to what remains of the party faithful. Oh, and an eye to what an uncritical media would faithfully use for a headline or two as though it had some basis in fact.

The biggest problem with her plucked-out-of-the-air number is that it makes unstated assumptions; and it completely overlooks the main reason why Brexit has been so complex and painful. That the economic impact of Brexit was always going to be negative, whatever form it took, was obvious from the outset, despite the promises to the contrary. But the degree of complexity and pain is a direct result of a deliberate decision by the UK government to distance the UK as much as possible from the EU. There was a much easier and less painful option available (remaining inside the single market and customs union whilst opting out of the political union), but in pursuit of some illusory ideas about sovereignty and greatness the UK rejected them. To make independence ten times as complex and painful assumes that any Welsh government negotiating that independence would be ten times as incompetent and irrational as Boris Johnson. A government that monumentally stupid may appear to be a realistic prospect to a Lib Dem, but my problem is that, however hard I try, I really cannot conceive of Wales electing a Lib Dem government. Whatever the bar charts show.

Is there a case for the Union? 5: A shared history

Tweet

 

Next up in the pantheon of arguments for perpetuating the UK is the idea that these islands have a long, shared history. It’s an argument that has the merit of being superficially true. There can be no argument that – even before the union with Wales, let alone those with Scotland and Ireland – the history of the people of these islands was intimately intertwined. Rivalries over land, wealth and power were no respecters of borders, and neither borders nor nations had anything like the meaning that they have today. Although, in strict legal terms, the unions between England, Scotland, and Ireland were based on parliamentary consent, whilst the incorporation of Wales was more blatantly based on military conquest, the reality is that ‘consent’ was given in a context where there had long been military conflict and conquest. Even England, as a construct, is based on the outcome of wars between different kingdoms within the territory recognised as England today. Having an intertwined history isn’t the same thing as having a common history. Whilst the events surrounding any military conquest might be undisputed, the conqueror will always interpret those events in a very different way to the conquered. At its simplest, was the bringing together of the peoples of these islands a process of unification and merger, or was it a process of conquest and subjection?

That is in the distant past, of course, even if the echoes still reverberate today. Since the union, there is much more of a common history isn’t there? Well, in some ways yes, in others no. It’s true that many Welsh and Scots played their role in the collective effort which built an empire, and in the numerous wars which the rulers of that empire started or participated in across the globe. It would be a mistake to overlook the fact that many in Wales and Scotland have bought in to the myth of military glory and splendid island isolation which typifies the ‘standard’ view of ‘British’ history. And yet the basic rule – that the same events can appear very different from different perspectives – still holds true. When politicians (and this applies to Welsh and Scottish ones, as well as English or ‘British’ ones) talk about wanting to teach children their history, they usually seem to talk about making sure that children know about key events, largely ignoring the fact that what is more important is how those events are interpreted and placed into an overall narrative. It’s as if they don’t understand that the events which they select, and the importance they ascribe to those events, are neither absolute not objective; they stem from the perspective of the speaker.

The list of kings and queens of England (a classic example of the history which 'British' nationalists want children to be taught) is exactly what it says it is, and treating it as though it’s a list of kings and queens of the UK ignores the fact that many of them never ruled Wales, fewer ruled Scotland, and even fewer ruled Ireland. The way in which supporters of the union conflate English and British history is not only wrong in perception, it is wrong as a matter of fact. It might be possible to develop an interpretation of history which recognised difference, and didn’t seek to impose a single version on everyone, but that would be anathema to unionists, who would see it as weakening rather than strengthening their case. Basing their case on a common history requires everyone else to accept a particular version of history, but the days when history could be dictated are long gone. If I were looking for a strong argument for the union which would appeal to those currently inclined to support independence, I wouldn’t base it on trying to impose a narrow and Anglicised view of history.

Is there a case for the Union? 4: Shared institutions and symbols

Tweet

 

Another argument made by unionists for the continuation of the UK is that there are UK-wide institutions which we share and which bind us together. It was a central part of the pitch made by Andrew RT Davies in an article in the National this week. It is, though, a very narrow range of institutions which they normally refer to – the armed forces usually top the list, followed by the monarchy, the flag, the NHS, and the BBC. Well, maybe not the BBC so much these days, given that the current government seem determined to control and neuter the organisation’s so-called ‘independence’. And using the NHS as a symbol of ‘unity’ whilst failing to adequately fund it or pay the staff what most people feel they deserve isn’t the brightest of ideas. Whilst people in general might well feel pride in the NHS, it's not a pride which is obviously reflected in government actions towards the institution.

There are certainly those who see the monarchy as something quintessentially British, a living link to a long history. It depends on a rather selective interpretation of a somewhat inglorious record of infighting, murder, and treachery, but there are three rather more important difficulties. The first is that many of those who support the monarchy are already on the unionist side: they aren’t the ones they need to convince. The second is that, from a Scottish perspective if not a Welsh one, the Scottish Crown, both legally and conceptually, isn’t the same as the English Crown. Historically, the union of the crowns and the union of the parliaments were two entirely separate events; reversing them separately is not at all the strange concept which it appears to be from the perspective of the English establishment. And thirdly, there are plenty of independent countries in the world which have, for various reasons, chosen to retain England’s monarch as Head of State. It is, therefore, perfectly possible to be a supporter of the monarchy, and even the present incumbent, and still advocate independence. The institution does not depend on the structure of the union.

When it comes to the armed forces, it is true that there is a long-standing, albeit often vague, sense of loyalty. However, in Scotland that is often to traditional Scottish regiments rather than the armed forces as a whole and those regiments have suffered cuts and mergers over decades at the hands of the London government. Scots might reasonably be excused for thinking that the bit of the armed forces to which they feel the greatest loyalty and attachment might be better protected under independence. There are also generational differences: even amongst the older generations ‘the war’ is now outside the experience of most, and whilst many unionists seem to see it as ‘the’ defining characteristic of the UK, for younger people it’s now almost ancient history.  It’s true that, partly because of its possession of nuclear weapons, the UK’s armed forces remain amongst the deadliest in the world, but whether that’s a matter for pride or not depends on perspective. The unionist argument depends on an assumption that their perspective is widely shared, which is, like many of the assumptions they make, increasingly out of kilter with the twenty-first century UK.

That leaves us with the biggest and most obvious symbol of all: the Union Flag. There really does seem to be a prevalent belief amongst the unionists that simply plastering the flag on anything and everything will somehow engender a pride in Britishness and a feeling of being together. There was a time when it might have been true – it was the union flag rather than the cross of St George which was flown for the English world cup team just 55 years ago, and it felt like a British, rather than simply English, victory at the time. But things have changed, and clocks can’t be reversed. What was entirely natural just half a century ago jars today. The one echo of 1966 which still has resonance today is the reverse of what it was in 1966, and it’s a negative one for the union. It is that the union flag represents England, rather than the whole UK. That in turn means that trying to replace saltires and dragons with union flags has, for many, precisely the opposite effect to that intended; rather than strengthening a feeling of union, it strengthens a feeling that English people conflate England and Britain. If I were looking for a strong argument for the union which would appeal to those currently inclined to support independence, I wouldn't try  and base it on a particularly English interpretation of institutions and symbols.

Look out for the big warning sign

Tweet

 

According to Benjamin Franklin, “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”, although, as is often the case with the most famous quotes, he may well have lifted the phrase from earlier writers. In politics, there is another apparent certainty: any politician who utters a phrase along the lines of “I want to be honest with you” is erecting a great big warning sign covered in flashing lights saying that (s)he is about to utter a major, galactic level, lie. In his budget on Wednesday, Rishi Sunak proved himself no exception. And what a whopper it was.

This particular big lie is, of course, the one about the need to increase taxes and/or cut spending in order to pay for the costs of the pandemic. In practice, the costs of dealing with the pandemic (and they are truly enormous, even if the money spent has been inadequate and misdirected in several respects) have been met by the creation of new money rather than by new borrowing. In accounting terms, it looks like borrowing since the government has sold more bonds to raise the money. But those bonds have been bought by the ‘independent’ Bank of England which has simply created enough new money, with a few strokes on a keyboard, to buy all those extra bonds. So, to the extent that the government owes this money, it owes it to the Bank of England. It also pays interest on that debt (albeit at a very low rate), and that interest is paid to the Bank of England as well. But who owns the Bank of England? The answer, of course, is the UK government. Whilst one part of the government owes money and pays interest on it, another part of the government is owed the money and receives the interest. The consolidated accounts of the UK government and all its subsidiaries and holdings would therefore show, in effect, that the UK government owes the money to itself and pays the interest to itself. The idea that we ‘must’ rapidly repay this ‘debt’ amounts to claiming that one arm of the government is setting the debt collectors on another arm of the government to transfer money from the left hand to the right. And because the interest on this element of the debt is paid by the government to itself, it doesn’t even matter whether the interest rate goes up or not – because interest payments would still be exactly balanced by interest receipts (although why the government would want to increase the interest rate on fixed interest bonds which it has sold to itself is another little mystery). It’s all part of the wonder of double-entry book-keeping.

The idea that ‘debt’ must be repaid is a seductive one for most of us, because it reflects the reality of the world in which we live. It doesn’t reflect reality, however, for a state which controls, and borrows mostly in, its own fiat currency. Such Governments rarely, if ever, repay their debts, and those to whom the money is owed rarely, if ever, demand repayment. Indeed, most of the time, people are queuing up to lend more by buying government bonds and savings vehicles, not asking for their money back. The UK has had a continuous national debt since 1694 and has never repaid it. Some individual elements of the debt appear to have been repaid, of course. There was something of a milestone in 2006 when the debt from the second world war was finally ‘repaid’, to give just one example. But in 2006, the UK’s total borrowing increased, rather than decreased. Effectively, the UK, as it has done historically, simply took out new loans to pay off the old ones – that isn’t the same as paying off debt. Professor Richard Murphy has calculated that for every pound which the UK has borrowed since the end of the second world war only 1.7p has actually been paid off. And it isn’t a problem.

Where is the demand for debt repayment coming from? Are pension funds demanding to cash in their bonds? Are the overseas countries with holdings in sterling to facilitate trade with the UK demanding their money back? Are holders of Premium Bonds and other NS&I savings products demanding to cash them in? The answer is ‘none of the above’. The demand that debt be repaid comes solely from an ideological standpoint which demands a small state and hates public spending even more than it hates taxes. The demand for repayment is coming from the debtor, not the creditors. If the public sector did manage to eliminate the budget deficit and run a regular surplus which was used to reduce the national debt, it would mean that the private sector had to build up a corresponding debt, because (that wondrous double-entry book-keeping system once again), a surplus in one sector must always be balanced by a deficit in another. Since ‘debt’ is simply another word for ‘money’, there are only two ways of getting rid of it – by cancelling money or by transferring the debt to someone else. Neither of those are what the economy currently needs.

That brings us to a second important lie in what the Chancellor said. He claimed that he was protecting people from the economic effects of the pandemic, yet his demand that the UK ‘repay’ the non-existent ‘debt’ arising from QE, through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts in a few years’ time, isn’t protecting people from the impact at all. It’s merely deferring the impact and spreading it over a longer period. And, as ever, the approach chosen by a Tory Chancellor is to make sure that the impact falls most heavily on those who can least afford it. Attacking the pay of popular public sector employees in the process looks tone-deaf to most of us, but 'Richi' Sunak and his ilk didn’t get to be as 'richi' as they are by promoting fairness.

Is there a case for the Union? 3: Solidarity

Tweet

 

One of the other arguments often used in support of the continuation of the UK is the idea that the parts of the UK are economically stronger together; that any weakness in some parts can be addressed by fiscal transfers from other parts. In theory, it’s a good argument, based on the concept of social solidarity under which no part of the population should be allowed to fall behind. It’s a point which Wales’ First Minister majored on in an article for the National this week. The weakness of the argument is that it reflects what they want us to believe, rather than what actually happens. Drakeford was reduced to talking about what he believes should happen rather than reflecting the objective reality. If I wanted to use that argument to bolster the union, I wouldn’t start by diverting funds away from Wales and Scotland.

In practice, we have an economy which sucks the lifeblood out of most parts of the UK in order to feed the greed of one small corner. This is nothing new; the difference in wealth levels between London and the South-East on the one hand and most of the rest of the UK on the other isn’t a ‘bug’ of the economic system, it’s an inherent feature. It’s tempting for independentistas to see this as about England on the one hand vs Wales and Scotland on the other, but it isn’t as simple as that. The differences between the regions of England are also enormous, and even within London – nominally the richest part of the UK – there are significant pockets of serious poverty. Inequality is baked into the way in which the UK operates.

Labour tell us that we simply need to replace a Tory government with a Labour one, but decades of experience shows that that makes little difference. This isn’t just about a lack of political will, important though that is. It’s about an economic system which naturally concentrates wealth in the hands of a few based predominantly in one part of the country and which necessarily requires the relative impoverishment of others for its ‘successful’ operation. That isn’t something which can be ‘solved’ by electing a different party in England, it’s a fundamental characteristic of the whole economic system. Even to the limited extent that there is any effort to spread the wealth outwards, there is an accompanying expectation that those left in a relatively impoverished position show their ‘gratitude’ for the crumbs they are given, making it look and feel more like charity than solidarity. If I were looking for a strong argument for the union which would appeal to those currently inclined to support independence, I wouldn’t try and base it on any theoretical concept of social solidarity across the UK, at least not until I’d been able to demonstrate that it actually works in practice.

Hunting the sixth man

Tweet

 

The hunt for the sixth person who tested positive for the Brazil variant has been turned into something of a drama. One day, perhaps they’ll turn it into a film pitting the scientists, statisticians and politicians against a deadly virus carried by one unwitting member of the public who returned an anonymous positive test for analysis. To keep it simple, the plot will revolve solely around tracking down the infamous six, ignoring the wider pandemic raging at the time. For added drama, the film version will differ from reality by having the scientists’ hunt obstructed and complicated by a bumbling politician who insists that there isn’t a problem and that if there is it’s nothing to do with him. On second thoughts, that last bit might not require any great feat of imagination at all.

It is all a bit of a diversion, though, which ignores a few key facts. The first of those is that there aren’t only six people in the UK with the Brazil variant. What we know is that, of those who have tested positive for Covid and whose samples have been subjected to genome sequencing, there are six identified cases of the variant. But that sentence includes two significant filters. The first is that not everyone suffers symptoms and even amongst those who do, if the symptoms are minor, there’s no guarantee that they will be tested at all. There will be people in these categories who have the Brazil variant and who are wandering around in complete ignorance of the fact. The second is that, even amongst the positive tests carried out, not all the genomes are sequenced. As at December last year, the proportion of tests being genome sequenced was around 10% (meaning that which variant was being carried by the other 90% was unknown). With the number of positive tests having fallen rapidly since then, the proportion being sequenced will have risen (it’s a capacity issue not a percentage one), but it’s still not 100%.

So, there is still some way to go before we can be certain that we are identifying anywhere near 100% of the cases of any new variant of concern. In the meantime there are two things that could be done to lessen the risk. The first of those is to reduce the extent to which the virus is circulating within the UK – the smaller the pool, the lower the likelihood of dangerous mutations. The second is to prevent new versions being imported by people entering the country. On the first, government policy is, however they attempt to spin it, tantamount to vaccinating the vulnerable as rapidly as possible and then reopening the economy whilst the remainder are still being vaccinated. This is a recipe for leaving a significant pool of virus in the economy for several months to come. It’s a gamble, and not necessarily a carefully calculated one. On the second, government policy is to quarantine only around 1% of those entering the country, and only those arriving directly from only some of the countries where the new virus has been detected. All other arrivals are allowed to leave airports and get onto public transport, and then trusted to self-isolate on arrival at their final destination (a trust which we know to be completely misplaced) whilst the PM regularly stands up in Parliament and repeats the outright lie that the UK system of border controls for Covid is one of the tightest in the world.

Those writing the screenplay will have little difficulty mocking the politicians whilst making the scientists look good. They might, though, struggle to find a way of engineering that essential happy ending where thousands of extra and unnecessary early deaths are prevented. However, Hollywood is like the current PM in one key respect – truth will never be allowed to get in the way of a good story. It just means that the final screenplay may need to rewrite the reality of the next few months.

Is there a case for the Union? 2: Great British Values

Tweet

 

One of the favourite arguments of unionists is that the UK is held together by a strong set of uniquely British values. On closer examination, these turn out to be not uniquely British at all. Precisely what these values are is generally left vague, but it seems to include things like democracy, rule of law, fair play, and linking rewards to merit. That there is nothing uniquely British about any of these should be obvious, but somehow seems not to be to many. Worse still is that the claimed values aren’t even adhered to much of the time. Earlier this week, in response to the government’s decision to drastically reduce aid to Yemen, Jeremy Hunt said that "…abandoning a forgotten country and people is inconsistent with our values”. Whilst it’s true that it goes against what he wants us to believe the UK’s values are, it is in fact entirely consistent with the UK’s practiced values. It isn’t the first time that the UK has abandoned a forgotten country and people, as the Kurds, to name just one example, could readily attest. Yesterday, we saw the former president of France sentenced to a term in jail for dishonesty in office - can anyone seriously imagine that happening to the UK's current cabinet, where the rule of law is also supposed to be the norm?

It isn’t just in the field of foreign policy that the UK’s stated values and its displayed values are at odds.  We know that the majority of the UK’s lawmakers are unelected and hold their positions by dint of government appointment, heredity, or high office in one particular English Christian denomination. We have a compulsive and inveterate liar at the head of the UK government, and ministers who breach the law with impunity. Bullying is acceptable, and awarding jobs and contracts to individuals and companies with no open procurement process has become almost the norm. Inequality is significant and growing. More resources are devoted to tackling benefit fraud than tax avoidance and evasion, although it is the latter which has the greater cost.

An objective observer would rapidly conclude that the following are closer to being key British values than those generally claimed:

·        Autocracy is better than democracy.

·        Lies are worth more than honesty and truthfulness.

·        Poverty is the fault of the poor themselves, but those who already have plenty should receive more whether they work for it or not. And money made through speculation against the interests of the majority of citizens is the most highly-prized of all.

·        Inequality is a good thing, and the more unequal people are the better.

·        Obeying the law is optional for governments and the privileged, and not paying taxes is acceptable as long as you’re rich. Donating lots of money to the governing party can help with both of these.

·        Foreigners are to be looked down on and kept out.

·        Awarding jobs and contracts to friends is easier than assessing merit.

·        Britain is superior to all other countries in all respects, and others should know their place.

In fairness, most of the above list (apart from the last) aren’t actually uniquely British either, but the combination does more to define the 21st Century UK than the pretend values so often mouthed by its leaders. If I were looking for a strong argument for the union which would appeal to those currently inclined to support independence, I wouldn't try and base it on some vague reference to abstract and theoretical 'British' values which aren’t even the ones by which the country lives.

Is there a case for the Union? 1: The Unionists' failure of understanding

Tweet

 

Whilst Boris Johnson and his motley crew seem to be realising, albeit very belatedly, that they need to do something if the UK is to continue to exist, it seems that they are struggling to decide which strategy to adopt. Whilst some want to be aggressively anti-SNP, others think that Project Love might be more productive than Project Fear. The confusion looks set to run and run, with the likeliest outcome being two camps following two different strategies at the same time. They’re not really concerned about Wales at all, only Scotland (and that looks like a mistake in itself – the reason that they are in such a hole over what to do in Scotland is, at least in part, that they didn’t see any need to act sooner), but even there, they seem to be starting from an assumption that there are no fundamental problems with the way the union works, it’s just a question of finding the best marketing strategy. It is the very superficiality of that approach which dooms it to failure.

Some of the most successful marketing campaigns are those which attempt to sell Brand X instead of Brand Y, where the two products are basically very similar, and the demand is well established. Sadly, the political battle between Labour and the Tories in EnglandandWales has long been reduced to that sort of marketing exercise – two very similar products each trying to persuade customers that they are the best or cheapest. But reducing the choice to Brand X cornflakes or Brand Y cornflakes presupposes that the punters want to buy cornflakes in the first place. The problem that the unionists are facing is that most Scots have decided that they don’t want cornflakes, and aren’t even sure that they want any other type of cereal either. Trying to sell the merits of a particular brand of cornflakes to an audience which has gone off the whole concept of breakfast is an entirely different project, and probably an impossible one for people who can’t even imagine what the world might be like without breakfast.

Successful marketing requires an understanding of the mindset of the target audience, and the most successful businesses are those which, having understood their audience, adapt their product where necessary to suit the market rather than assuming that they can adapt the market to suit their product. And that, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem that the unionists face. So convinced are most of them that their product in its current form is indispensable to every household that they cannot even conceive of any way in which it might be improved. From their perspective, there is nothing in any way deficient about their product, and no need to change it. If people have stopped buying it, it’s because those people are wrong-headed and stupid. It’s easy to see how anyone starting from that viewpoint might believe that bullying, cajoling, or even bribing people into buying makes sense. But businesses which behave in that fashion invariably go bust, and there’s no reason to suppose the outcome for unionists will be any different.

The second big problem which they face is their own inability to distinguish between outcomes and structures. The union, as a structure, has value for its parts only to the extent that it delivers outcomes which could not be delivered without it. The suggestion is that ‘Project Love’ will concentrate on perceived successes, such as the vaccination programme and the furlough scheme. There are, in truth, problems with both, but let’s leave those problems aside and assume that these schemes can indeed be considered successes for the government. Whether they are also advantages of being in a union depends not on the degree of success achieved but on whether an equal degree of success could have been achieved had the UK already been dissolved into its constituent parts. Considered from that point of view, there is absolutely no demonstrable reason why Scotland, Wales, and England could not have individually achieved the same outcomes. (Whether they would have done so or not is a different question, to which the answer is unknowable, but it depends more on the competence of the governments elected than on the constitutional position of the countries concerned.) Claiming the successes, such as they are, of a particular government at a particular time to be successes of the constitutional structure under which it operates is a category error, pure and simple.

None of the above is intended to suggest that there is no case for the union. There is a case to be made, just as there is a case for independence, and people will have different opinions on the relative merits and strengths of those cases. It’s just not the same case that the unionists are making. A defensible case for the union isn’t about marketing and spin, or about misrepresenting apparent successes as being due to the union. I’ll return to what the case for the union might be in due course, but first it’s worth examining, over the coming days, some of the problems with the case usually being put forward.