| « Piracy Is Theft | No Pope In Our Town » |
The Triple-Threat of Nationalism
by beano 
on 17 Nov 2006 at 11:31. Categories: United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Guest Posts EU's third guest post sees Paul of N. Irish Magyar fame once again returning with his thoughts on some of the different nationalisms found on the Celtic fringe of the United Kingdom.
The continuing diversity of the United Kingdom is today threatened by primarily three types of nationalism from within its borders; Irish, Ulster and Scottish. All three have the capability, given the correct circumstances, of destroying the Union.
You may find surprising for me to say, but I suspect that Irish nationalism is the version which poses the least danger. If the last decade or so, since the cessation of the IRA's campaign, have shown anything, it is that Irish nationalism/republicanism have as little idea as political unionism about how to garner electoral support beyond its own narrow voter-base to build a political movement which can genuinely appeal beyond the traditional religious and communal borders. Their present tactics appear to have dual focus, the demoralization of the unionist population and working with the two governments above the heads of the population of Northern Ireland in order to create an "All-Ireland" framework. Both tactics have no chance of achieving a true United Ireland, that of all its people, as opposed to the territory, they also ignore the fact that the real battle is that to be fought for the increasingly apathetic centre, the 35% or so who no, longer vote but who are becoming unionists (with a definite small 'u' ) by economic default in absence of anything more constructive being offered by Irish nationalism. The "Ack sure it’ll all fall into place when we get our Fourth Field back†school of economics is making very little headway in 2006 amongst this cynical hard-bitten sector of the electorate.
Ironically, Ulster nationalism in its most basic (and crudest) mono-ethnic/religious form poses a much greater threat to Northern Ireland’s place within and the wider concept of the Union. It refuses to countenance any deviance form the "No Surrender", "No Pope Here" brand of Pseudo-Unionism until very recently exemplified perfectly by the DUP's head honcho. This threat, and the necessity of Unionism embracing diversity, we'll deal with in a subsequent post.
The third and most immediate threat to the unity of the UK is that presented by Scottish nationalism.
Next May will see the elections to the Scottish parliament. If present opinion polls are to be believed then, not only will the SNP be forming a government (probably in coalition with the political prostitutes of the Liberal Democrats) but also a majority of Scots favour the complete independence option.
So will next year (the 300th anniversary of The Act of Union as it just so happens) see the beginning of the end of our nation?
I think not and I also believe it’s also in the interests of unionists throughout the UK that the SNP do win next year and that the referendum on Scottish Independence is called for as soon as possible.
The large reason for the growth in support for the SNP is because of disillusionment with the effects of devolution and also the unpopularity of the present Labour Executive. But their (the SNP's) policies have, as a consequence, slipped from public consciousness and if and when they do get power, the "one-trick pony" nature of the party will be revealed and as a result, I'm convinced that both the SNP and their fundamental raison d’etre will face closer scrutiny. In other words, give the SNP short-term power and let's see what happens to the public's support for Scottish independence...
If the referendum does happen, then the economic consequences of leaving the UK, for example, will come to the forefront of the debate. Could an independent Scotland survive on its own? Yes, but minus the annual £20 billion from the central Exchequer, not in the manner to which its citizens have become accustomed. Of course, there is always the hope, as an independent country, of attracting increased EU funding, but with most of eastern European and two of the Balkan countries also competing for this money, it's not a very realistic one.
And would multinationals be more or less likely to set up in a country which has cut itself adrift from the 5th biggest economy and third biggest financial centre in the world?
An independent Scotland, I'd guess, would fit in somewhere below Greece and a little above Slovakia in the EU Economic table, would that be good enough for the "average" Scot?
How much is the "average" Scot prepared to sacrifice financially for independence?I believe that such a referendum would also galvanise the Labour Party in Britain as a whole; strange as it may seem for Northern Irish readers, for purely party political reasons it makes sense for Labour to become more pro-active in supporting the Union and ensuring Scotland remains a part of the UK. Labour in Scotland struggled in the last General Election, winning only 41 instead of the usual 50-55 seats. But with Labour under new management and the Conservative Party, at last, starting to wake up and giving an appearance of being capable of winning again at the ballot box, then those Scottish seats could well be the deciding factor whether Labour stays in power at Westminster or not. Additionally, for the Labour Party in Scotland, fighting to ensure a Labour Scottish PM at Number 10 must be a very tempting one. Also, once Scotland had left the UK, the temptation for the Tories to play the English nationalist card would only become stronger, leading to… who know what? The prospect of employment controls on Scots working in England and much stronger economic competition between the two new "states"? There would be only one winner in such a competition.
So, for the three reasons outlined above, I believe that a SNP victory and the subsequent debate on independence prior to any referendum would give the Scottish people the chance to assess the benefits and costs they receive and incur from being part of the UK and more specifically, what they would have to sacrifice in event of full independence. After this assessment, I'm confident that a majority of at least 15% will be in favour of remaining a part of a multicultural and diverse UK. And this surely would be the final nail in the coffin for the Scottish separatist movement...
The Scottish people have always boxed above their weight within the United Kingdom, it's in both Scotland's and the nation's long-term interest that this situation continues.
I personally found the omission of English nationalism, in my view one of the fastest growing threats to the Union, interesting. Whether it's based on the apparent growing resentment among many English folk about subsidising the often soviet-like Celtic periphery, and the apparent disparity brought to the fore by devolution to Scotland and Wales (and maybe us too), or based on a backlash against the perception of modern Britishness as inherently multicultural (and therefore not definitive enough for some), English nationalism seems to be on the rise and, given that England forms the largest part of this Union, could pose the biggest threat of all IMHO.
Trackback address for this post
17 comments
Not so much that, but we have had the taster and now we want the full thing. Devolution does not bring us (the Scots) the power that we want.
"the “one-trick pony” nature of the party"
Well, the SNP do have a broad range of policies. So I'd hardly categorise them as a one-trick-pony.
"it makes sense for Labour to become more pro-active in supporting the Union and ensuring Scotland remains a part of the UK"
Only because they would lose power otherwise, not becuase of any overriding love of the union.
"The prospect of employment controls on Scots working in England and much stronger economic competition between the two new “states”? There would be only one winner in such a competition."
I don't know - Competition is good. And I think Scotland would do well with it.
"The Scottish people have always boxed above their weight within the United Kingdom, it’s in both Scotland’s and the nation’s long-term interest that this situation continues."
But, we've boxed severely under our weight in the world. And quite frankly, I'd rather be boxing on the world stage rather than in some parrocial regional constest.
I feel confident that Scotland will win her independence. Too much has happened over the last 20 to 30 years that "Britain" did that was not in Scotland's interest. Scotland needs its own voice.
I left it out for the reason that you've implied; I believe English nationalism to be largely reactionary.
Partly it's an (understandable) reaction to the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and poss. NI and the fact that the central Exchequer is still coughing up large amount of money to all 3 places.
"Why should the English subsidise the 3 other countries, when they have an ever decreasing say in how those countries use their money?"
I'm confident that as the dissatisfaction with the results of devolution within Scot. Wales and NI grows in the next few years the separatist pressure within the Uk and its resultant English nationalism will decrease.
Devolution does not bring us (the Scots) the power that we want
If the Scottish Labour Party had performed better (in the public perception), do you believe that the SNP would have had a better or worse chance of winning power next year?
Well, the SNP do have a broad range of policies. So I'd hardly categorise them as a one-trick-pony.
The name of the party gives it away, it’s a party whose primary aim is independence, everything else is secondary to that aim.
But of course, they’re a political party, they must have policies. But to date, their feasibility hasn’t been examined and having had a quick look, for example, at the row over their education policy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6075088.stm
I’m not sure it’s in their or Scotland’s interest that they ever get the chance to carry out their policies.
Only because they (Labour)would lose power otherwise, not becuase of any overriding love of the union.
I fully realize that they are not committed to the Union for the “right” reasons. But so what? As I pointed out in my piece, Unionists can take advantage of NuLabour’s complete lack of principles in this case.
I don't know - Competition is good. And I think Scotland would do well with it.
Competition is good as long as both sides have at least a reasonable chance of winning at least some kind of benefit from the competition.
Given the financial strength of England, it’s much larger population and the fact that most of the larger businesses have their headquarters s of the border, I really think you would struggle to attract new and exploit existing business opportunities. You should also read the Economist article I posted, it’s not very positive about the structural weaknesses within the Scottish economy. I don’t know how independence would solve these core problems.
But, we've boxed severely under our weight in the world. And quite frankly, I'd rather be boxing on the world stage rather than in some parrocial regional constest
I don’t think that you have. The UK’s economic and political strength has given Scottish people to perform well outside the UK,albeit as British rather than Scottish. Without that backup, it would be much harder to push their way onto the world stage
I feel confident that Scotland will win her independence
For the reasons I gave in my post, I think if SNP get power next year, then a much more realistic appraisal of what independence would entail will follow. Open debate is always good, but I’m still confident that after that debate, the Union will be with us for a bit longer!
Must agree about English nationalism, As a Paddy (their term not mine) I worked in a pub near Trafalgar Sq. on the day of the Sweet Chariot parade, when England won the rugby world cup. One of the best days of my life, the craic was unbelievable, it was a pleasure to be behind the bar serving a crowd of well mannered, polite, pissed as f**k Englishmen supporting the fact that their team had beaten all. Funny thing was, no supremacy, no right wing bollocks, just English people enjoying their Englishness, if that is English nationalism, I am all for it, St. Patricks day with cask bitter and pasties, rather than stout and curry chips,
Thank f**k it wasn't soccer! I'd have been killed.
Is that all we are? a fringe? time to seek an independant Republic then so,
poor choice of words Beano, I for one will not be happy to remain part of the UK if all I am is a FRINGE MEMBER.
My nationality stands, you sir, have made a faux pas.
The Scots Nats aren't a "Soviet" style party - they're led by a ex merchant banker and their preferred constitutional settlement is commonwealth membership with the Queen as head of state.
Your stereotyping of Scotiish economic disposition is based on observation of the corrupting influence of Labour in buying the votes of Scots with what we're told is a disproportionate share of National finances which themselves are skewed by centuries of centralisation and home counties biased public investment.
It isn't bigotry to want to take care of yourself and to represent yourself in the world. It's maturity.
When asked to justify their optimism all Scots Nats have to do is point right and left, to the Nordics and the Republic of Ireland to show the improved efficiency and effectiveness of small northern european democracies running their own affairs rather than being part of out-dated multilayered port-imperial conglomerations.
To achieve such "improved efficiency and effectiveness" doesn't happen overnight, it would involve a complete overhaul of the complete structure of the Scottish economy with inevitable job losses. The point of my post is that I belive the SNP would find it very hard to sell this inevitability in the event of a referendum on independence.
The Scots Nats aren't a "Soviet" style party - they're led by a ex merchant banker and their preferred constitutional settlement is commonwealth membership with the Queen as head of state."
I think Beano was referring to the state of the Celtic economies rather than the nationalist parties themselves, i.e. enormous public sectors, subsidising of loss-making industries etc etc.
It isn't bigotry to want to take care of yourself and to represent yourself in the world. It's maturity
Scottish nationalism (like it's Irish version) is a political philosophy, nothing more, nothing less. How some people express both forms of nationalism however sometimes is racist/sectarian.
It is the territory that makes or breaks the Union however. And with 40%+ and growing voting for UI parties, this is a real and present challenge to the Union.
"they also ignore the fact that the real battle is that to be fought for the increasingly apathetic centre, the 35% or so who no, longer vote but who are becoming unionists (with a definite small 'u' ) by economic default in absence of anything more constructive being offered by Irish nationalism. "
You also assume that those people will be bothered either way in a referendum. They probably won't be. There is also a compelling economic case to be put; if the Northern parties can't, it is likely that Southern parties could in a serious election campaign. I agree that Nationalism needs to broaden it's base, but it is an opportunity. Decreased ties cut both ways.
"The "Ack sure it’ll all fall into place when we get our Fourth Field back” school of economics is making very little headway in 2006 amongst this cynical hard-bitten sector of the electorate."
No one is making that argument. They are pointing to the success of the Republic and saying it was only possible through independence.
" If the referendum does happen, then the economic consequences of leaving the UK, for example, will come to the forefront of the debate. Could an independent Scotland survive on its own? Yes, but minus the annual £20 billion from the central Exchequer, not in the manner to which its citizens have become accustomed. Of course, there is always the hope, as an independent country, of attracting increased EU funding, but with most of eastern European and two of the Balkan countries also competing for this money, it's not a very realistic one."
Dependence mentality. Scotland has advantages those other countries don't. English speaking populations, some very strong universities and the fact a large number of companies are already there. Ally that to a good fiscal framework within the Euro and there is no reason they can't excel. It will be medium to long term though.
That case can be made. And people can follow it and are perfectly prepared to run with that, when you ally it to the other advantages of Independence. The problem for me is that the SNP doesn't make that case. It argues the oil plugs the gap, which is the wrong argument to make.
"And would multinationals be more or less likely to set up in a country which has cut itself adrift from the 5th biggest economy and third biggest financial centre in the world?"
Multinationals are already there, and if Scotland can get the right framework then yes, of course they would. It would be within the EU, probably the Eurozone and could probably act, ironically, as a cheaper alternative to Ireland in the short term, doing similar things. They have a serious competitive advantage in wages, destroy by UK tax rates.
A united territory in the end does not make a united nation, a united people do, or at least a vast majority of people feeling comfortable or safe within that nation, on reflection, loyalty to the “nation” is less important.
You could say Yugoslavia pre 1990 was united territory, but it never contained a united people and in the 1990s when its various citizens no longer felt comfortable or safe within the federation you got the inevitable results.
Also, I’m not sure about a growing vote for UI parties, since 2000 in every election the nationalist/republican vote has remained stable or even declined slightly.
You also assume that those people will be bothered either way in a referendum. They probably won't be.
I agree, they’re won’t be bothered for political reasons about what state they are part of.
“ There is also a compelling economic case to be put; if the Northern parties can't, it is likely that Southern parties could in a serious election campaign.”
There’s an economic case to be put for Irish Unity certainly, but it’s not compelling. If it were, the 65% of the electorate who don’t vote Unionist would be putting a lot more pressure on our lords and masters to bring it about.
There has never been an independent cost and benefits analysis of a UI carried out by any of the irish nationalist parties for the simple resain that in the short-term the very strong likelihood would be increased unemployment (with a reduced public sector) and increased taxes for people from the ROI.
In the medium and long-term, who knows whether being governed from Dublin,London or belfast would bring the best results.
ne is making that argument. They are pointing to the success of the Republic and saying it was only possible through independence.
Independence itself didn’t bring about prosperity, the ROI was an economic backwater until the mid 80s. An intelligent fiscal policy, EUfunding and good luck brought about the results.
y that to a good fiscal framework within the Euro and there is no reason they can't excel. It will be medium to long term though.
And would people voting in the referendum be looking to the short-term losses or medium/long term gains before voting? Lose your job today (Scotland’s reliance on the public sector and the central exchequer is almost as bad as ours), possibly gain something better in 5 to 10 years time-it would be ahard argument to win.
That wasn't the question. A United Ireland isn't a panacea, merely a better framework for solving problems. But if the question is "What would it take to break the Union?" the answer is "50%+1 vote for it in a referendum". The problems afterwards are no longer the Union's.
"There’s an economic case to be put for Irish Unity certainly, but it’s not compelling. If it were, the 65% of the electorate who don’t vote Unionist would be putting a lot more pressure on our lords and masters to bring it about."
Incumbency has it's own logic. If there ever is a close run referendum to break the Union here or in Scotland, I guarantee that the year after another 10% would open up.
I don't think that case has been made pretty well. There are also factors beyond the mere economic that cannot be discounted.
"There has never been an independent cost and benefits analysis of a UI carried out by any of the irish nationalist parties for the simple resain that in the short-term the very strong likelihood would be increased unemployment (with a reduced public sector) and increased taxes for people from the ROI."
Almost certainly there would be job losses. They are totally necessary.Repeat after me over 70% dependence on the public sector! Over 70% dependence on the public sector!
Even for a social democrat like me, that is utterly unacceptable.
The subvention works out to be equal to about a third of the NDP so achievable with painful if not paralyzing cuts. Of course, there'd be cuts, some money from Britain, some money from the EU and a lot of goodwill and drive for investment meaning it wouldn't even be close to all that.
"In the medium and long-term, who knows whether being governed from Dublin,London or belfast would bring the best results."
Well, in only two of those three options do we get any say with what goes on. Are you content having no voice?
Also - which is the only region on the two islands to compete with the SE of England in the past 15 years. Answers on a postcard, please.
"Independence itself didn’t bring about prosperity, the ROI was an economic backwater until the mid 80s. An intelligent fiscal policy, EUfunding and good luck brought about the results."
Independence was a necessary but not sufficient condition for that success. The role of EU funding is massively overplayed. The importance of the EU was giving access to those markets and more recently a stable currency by possibly a factor of a thousand
over funding which was not for nothing - fishing rights were given up, remember. Intelligent policy is another factor. Luck? there si always that. Good policy tends to keep you luckier, longer though.
Personally, I reckon Scotland could make a killing in the short run if Independent as it could place itself as a similar but lower cost alternative to Ireland; many of the same advantages, some very good unis and much lower wages. As could the North, if given fiscal independence or reunited with the rest of the island.
"And would people voting in the referendum be looking to the short-term losses or medium/long term gains before voting? Lose your job today (Scotland’s reliance on the public sector and the central exchequer is almost as bad as ours), possibly gain something better in 5 to 10 years time-it would be a hard argument to win."
I don't think so. People know that things don't come off overnight and would be prepared to give it time, provided it can shown the pain would not be overwhelming. That should be where the Oil comes in - in that it mitigates some of that pain, even if it only overcomes 50% of it.
And it also comes down to what type of country you want. Scotland has fundamentally different ideas to England about that, as an be shown by the parties it votes for. It is simply wrong that it should overwhelmed by England's size. There is a horrible asymmetry. It's miles worse here though, where even if every man jack one of us opposed something it wouldn't register beyond the margin of error in an opinion poll.
"Well, in only two of those three options do we get any say with what goes on. Are you content having no voice?"
It doesn't matter how often you repeat it, this is still a ridiculous statement. The argument you're making here is sound, but it is for locally-based/decentralised government, not Irish unification. It all just depends where you draw the lines.
The people of Newtownabbey wouldn't have a say that would register beyond the margin of error in a united Ireland. As has been pointed out many times before, a Belfast citizen has marginally more of a say than one in Cornwall over what happens. The idea of not having control is a simple result of living in a larger administrative region, in this case the UK. In effect, by your logic an independent Northern Ireland would be more appropriate as we'd have 100% of the say, particularly with all this UK and EU funding you want to keep it afloat.
It does also apply to an independent Northern Ireland. But I would argue that there are other reasons why a UI is preferable. An independent NI is somewhat small and there is no shared "Northern Irish" identity as a basis for statehood. There are a lot things that make sense, and make savings when run on an All Ireland basis. I also would worry about a race to the bottom style competition that does neither side any good. A UI still gives the six counties an immense say in the running of things. And obviously there are cultural and historic reasons for Nationalism as to why that is preferable.
"The people of Newtownabbey wouldn't have a say that would register beyond the margin of error in a united Ireland. As has been pointed out many times before, a Belfast citizen has marginally more of a say than one in Cornwall over what happens."
No they don't. A Belfast citizen cannot vote for a party that can form the government for a start. The example doesn't work, either. NI and England are supposedly equivalent entities. Newtonabbey and Ireland are not.
"The idea of not having control is a simple result of living in a larger administrative region, in this case the UK."
My preference, oddly enough, is not to live an bigger administrative region where my laws are based on the needs of a whole different country. The argument stands. Your influence is diluted.
"In effect, by your logic an independent Northern Ireland would be more appropriate as we'd have 100% of the say, particularly with all this UK and EU funding you want to keep it afloat."
See above. Money from the UK/EU would also be short term, obviously, and it wouldn't cover the entire shortfall but it would be there.
There is indeed, more than one way to skin a cat. An independent NI might be just about workable. More decentralization is needed whether NI or Scotland leaves the Union or not. But those options have other difficulties. I am not arguing that a UI is the only way to solve those problems. I am arguing that 1. the current situation is really shit and 2. on the whole a UI is the best solution.
Actually, on Wednesday I probably will vote for a party that can form the government. The unfortunate truth is that most people in Northern Ireland aren't interested in doing so. I dare say if Labour and the Lib Dems thought they had a chance of winning any votes they would suddenly be much less opposed to organising here, however it seems most of us prefer the sectarian headcount.
"The example doesn't work, either. NI and England are supposedly equivalent entities. Newtonabbey and Ireland are not."
I'm not sure NI and England are "equivalent" given the differences in size. Perhaps NI and the "north-west" of England or East Anglia. The point is, a Northern Irish British citizen is completely equal to an English British Citizen, no matter which region of England you choose them from.
"My preference, oddly enough, is not to live an bigger administrative region where my laws are based on the needs of a whole different country."
Like I said, it just depends where you draw the lines. To me, Cork is a much moreso a different country than Edinburgh or Newcastle.
"A UI still gives the six counties an immense say in the running of things. And obviously there are cultural and historic reasons for Nationalism as to why that is preferable."
We could go round in circles here forever, suffice to say there are "cultural and historic reasons" for Unionism why either the status quo or independence would be preferable.
Good god. The Union is meant to be the Union of fourth separate entities - England, Scotland, Wales and NI. What type of mentality comes up with the type of deference you are displaying?
The US is also a Union of states, though not quite in the same way. there is very strong local government, and at a federal level, the Senate heavily favours smaller states to avoid these sorts of problems. Even with the Assembly, we don't really have the former, nevermind the later.
The point is that your laws are not made for you. They are made for the vastly, vastly larger England, and that is probably a bad thing, since this country (either Ireland or NI, whichever way your dick hangs) has different ideas about what sort of policy they like, and different actual needs. The same is true for Scotland. What England wants, and increasingly what SE England wants, England gets.
"Like I said, it just depends where you draw the lines. To me, Cork is a much moreso a different country than Edinburgh or Newcastle."
Cork is a different country to most people
. I like Edinburgh, but I am aware I'm in a different country, what with all those Scottish flags and all, and London has always left me totally cold. But I am not sure "feeling" in a different country wasn't really the point I was trying to make. "We could go round in circles here forever, suffice to say there are "cultural and historic reasons" for Unionism why either the status quo or independence would be preferable."
We could, but I think Unionism has one up on Nationalism in this regard. Unionists keep telling me they have an Irish identity, whereas Nationalists mostly don't have a British one.
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
