Don't get me wrong about Scottish nationalism. As someone who is quietly proud of being an Irish as well as a UK citizen, and who is a republican at heart, I understand all the reasons why many in Scotland may want to be independent of the rest of the UK. And I think Scotland may well be an entirely viable self-governing country - without being a tax haven (heaven forbid).
But I'm also deeply worried about Salmond's plans. If Scotland is independent the case for the remaining union with Northern Ireland is weak and I fear that leads to trouble.
And, candidly selfishly, the idea of England and Wales as a permanent Tory fiefdom scares me rigid, and leaves me wondering if there would then be any constraint on the City and its madness.
So whilst I see all the appeal of Scottish independence for the Scottish I do really rather hope they don't, whilst accepting all the biases and prejudices that saying so involves.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“permanent Tory fiefdom”
This is much exaggerated-apparently only in 1974 would the election results have been different if there had been no Scottish MPs.
Certainly, even the most cursory examination reveals that the Labour Party had more MPs than the Tories in ENGLAND ALONE in all of the elections of 2005, 2001 and 1997.
I stand corrected!
Thanks
Would an independent Scotland be given a AAA rating?
An AAA rating for an independent Scotland?
Here’s your answer …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9008246/An-independent-Scotland-would-struggle-for-AAA-rating.html
Calling England and Wales a Tory fiefdom does rather insult the will and power of the electorate – we are still a democracy, of sorts.
I acknowledged all my prejudices
Don’t the Welsh also want to split from the English?
Sorry Richard but Yorkshire comes first on the list of seceding countries seeking independence from the UK. This potentially self-governing jurisdiction has a far more realistic claim to autonomy than Scotland being self-sufficient in both North Sea oil deposits off the Scarborough coast, huge export potential for its famous national dish of Yorkshire Puddings and a major producer of rhubarb. It even has its own language.
The only thing that has prevented Yorkshire from breaking away is the real concern that “nationalism” is divisive and likely to create a “xenophobic” domino effect which will spread across the UK with other jurisdictions (such as North Devon) raising their own volunteer armies to defend their frontiers against neighbouring invaders.
We live in a world which should seek greater cooperation and brotherly love between ALL mankind – and not creating unnecessary barriers which can not be justified politically or economically and serve only to create tension and discord Even Tory fiefdoms would be preferable to nationalistic feudal states driven by bigotry and political zealots such as Salmond.
Stop this nonsense before it becomes a dangerous menace to the safety of all UK citizens.
Richard, I share your concerns about a Tory hegemony (that really IS a reasonable word, rather than fiefdom) in England and Wales – and enlisting support from the election results of 1997 and 2001 is pretty ireelevant, since in those two General Elections the Labour MAJORITY was larger than the total number of Tory MPs – clearly a highly abnormal result, a “Black Swan” in fact!
However, three questions/scenarios arise, (in addition to others already noted) in the event of a successful secession by Scotland:
1. What of Wales? I’m damn sure that if Scotland breaks free, so will Wales – I’m half Welsh, and would love Wales to have its own Parliament, rather than just an Assembly.(Note, incidentally, that the Tories are bent on fixing/gerrymandering things there too, reducing the number of MP’s = re-inforcing the chance of a Tory hegemony being translated into a Tory government across the UK).
2. If Scotland breaks free, surely both Scotland, and the resultant England and Wales entity will BOTH have to re-negotiate their accessin to the EU (an independent Wales would certainly, have to, since it hasn’t been a separate entity in international law since Edward l’s reign, despite the high hopes of the Owain Glendower attempt at independence in Henry lV’s reign)
3. If Scotland broke away, (and even more so, if Wales followed), surely “England” could not lay claim to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and certainly could not claim to exercise any power of veto over UN Resolutions?
All seem plausible to me
And an independent Wales provides another option for exile…
And is this the considered verdict of you all, PSG? Or has an individual spokesperson gone off on one in the name of the PSG? I’m afraid spluttering name-calling (nationalistic, feudal, bigotry, zealots, dangerous menace?) is just so wrong and unreal about the issues, the motives, and the possibilities as to be indicative of nothing but its author’s emotive state of mind on this issue (just this issue, I would guess, other stuff from PSG always good in my book). Richard alas seems to be venture somwehere down the same road and into the same trap on this issue, but is more temperate and recognises and worries about where he may be coming from. I think I recognise an old, familiar, unconscious, emotional condition – English patriotism and feeling sailing under false colours.
England is not the UK, and it is an English vice not to realise that. It may be that the roots of some English feelings of loyalty to the UK relate to ancient pride in England as a great Imperial power, now outdated but still manifested as unconscious nostalgia, coupled with the rather widespread and ignorant ignorant English habit of (as here) of believing Scotland to be merely another English county with some comic characteristics and comical pretensions – like Yorkshire, say.
The Yookay as a nation is of course, just one imagined community among the several that exist in the a geographical area we know as the British Isles. The Yookay’s concrete reality, the bit to worry about, is a constitutional settlement of comparitively recent establishment, put in place to serve a set of political interests, continuing to serve regressive established interests. The biggest political problem facing the British people the extent to which its political institutions are so thoroughly in the keeping of, captured and mangaged by, regressive interests. A matter of particular pain and concern to those British Islanders with progressive or social democratic hopes. The Yookay was not created to help the cause of social democracy. Today it is just one of the bricks in the wall erected against it. We British Islanders could constitute ourselves differently, and better, in a variety of possible ways, perhaps to the advantage of aspirations to social democracy. Many who favour Scottish nationalism (I do, I’m Scots born, Anglicised, British), see it as breaking a British political paralyisis, opening a progressive road, undermining the grip of many sectional and regressive interests, freeing up movement on the question of citizenship (as opposed to subjecthood), etc, etc. Many Scots nationalists (yes, Salmond) think like this. The Scots are a naturally social democratic people in outlook and behaviour. The SNP is an S-D party (Salmond articulately made it so), hence its success. As Salmond knows and says, most Scot nationalists see this as a difficult challenge, requiring considered, clever, subtle, finessed, discussions; with many different good outcomes possible across the board.
So let’s ask ourselves – why are Cameronn and Millibend so frightened, why (typical anti-S-D politics) so determined to bump everybody into a rushed, crude, playground, infantile ‘make your mind up fast, now, at once, yes or no, black or white’ decision? Anything that scares the bejeesus out of Cameron and Miliband simultaneously, bringing out the worst in Cameroonian spin and underhand political tacics, must have something progressive going for it, must it not?
Also of psychological interest is the frequent use of the loaded, emotive and negative phrase ‘break up of the United kingdom’. Is that an S-D reaction? Did we use that sort of negative emotional language ove the “break-up” of Checkoslavakia? Or were we with Havel and Social Democracy?
Scottish nationalism has provided, is providing, a golden opportunity for the English centre-left to reshape English and British politics. Get on board, people, get constructive. Another chance to break the mould.
(PS to Richard, be on board, as a friend of the larger radical project, to argue against a Scottish tax haven future. Of course its a possibility to be fought – but modestly, now, remembering that the Yookay/British Isles as they stand are already replete with tax havens, some of the worst, (the City is in England), it woulld’t be a new evil, just the one we’ve already got and trying to deal with.)
Your point and that of others on a comment I let through – and which is now the focus of too many other comments to take down – is accepted.
I hope my own mixed feelings were apparent
Your points are well made
@James Alexander
Forgive the delay in reply to your rather long validation of the concept of nationalism. You will appreciate that it is necessary to obtain PSG consensus on such a controversial issue and avoid, as you suggest, the emotional state of mind of any single person.
Disregarding your rant about the British Empire, (which was British and not English) and the English regarding Scotland as another county of England both highly questionable contentions and both unrelated to this issue of Scottish nationalism per se.
Nationalism should never to be confused with patriotism. Although both words are frequently used in an confusing way, making rigid definition liable to challenge, it is vital to draw a distinction between them, since two totally different and even opposing ideologies are involved.
“Patriotism” can be defined by a devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which a person believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is by its very nature peaceful from both a military and cultural perspective.
“Nationalism” on the other hand is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not just for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
Salmond has carefully constructed a modern civic brand of “nationalism” with no reliance on race, blood, soil, faith or fatherland in its rhetoric or indeed little evidence of the Scottish highland dress! So perhaps his new nationalistic Scotland will not rely on “patriotism” to garner favor with the voters (who consistently vote in opinion poles against independence for Scotland.) but rather on an out and out nationalistic lust for power based on what he believes to be good for Scotland with hidden agendas or even, heaven forbid, the “regressive interests”you plainly fear…
The PSG looses your argument when you claim that the UK was not created to help the cause of social democracy nor can it be bothered to argue your ridiculous claim that Scottish nationalism will provide a golden opportunity for the English centre-left to reshape English and British politics.
In short the PSG does not shift from its original position; Increased “nationalism” is not what the world needs right now — and people should learn to live together in brotherly love and in a state of harmony which excludes creating unnecessary barriers which can never be justified politically or economically — but serve only to create “nationalistic” friction and discord.
The PSG seeks more integration, particularly of the Crown Dependencies not divisive “nationalism” which could result in the destruction of the United Kingdom.
So no apology from the PSG other than to admit including the words “bigotry” and “zealot” (which mean “prejudice” and “supporter” respectively and neither out of context in a the matter of “nationalism”) in the same sentence as Mr. Salmond may have been a bit rich for the less robust contributors to Richard’s excellent blog.
Re. premier shareholders’ comment about Yorkshire.
Several Yorkshiremen i know think that not only is God an Englishman, but a Yorkshireman as well.
I have tried to imagine God with the Garden of Eden looking like Yorkshire. But Genesis 3 verse 8 defeats my imagination. God walked in the garden in the cool of the evening.
‘Cool’ not bleeding freezing!
Now to return to serious comments.
I actually agree that the PSG comment was(largely) tongue in cheek-especially as the real thing that would prevented Yorkshire from breaking away was common sense! In the case of Scotland,the right of a nation to self determination if wanted, could not reasonably be denied.
I`m not sure about Richards comment on Ireland tho,for who would want to make the decision to re-unify – the Republic or Northern Ireland? The Protestant majority in the North surely not-and the Republic has now removed the idea from it`s Constitution.Oh, I grant you,there would be probably be trouble – but Northern Ireland out of the Union with the UK?
I`m from a Cornish family – there another,if relatively minor problem looming? I jest,I think!
Richard, I would have hoped you would have moderated the inaccurate, ignorant and offensive contribution by Premier Shareholders Group. Straightforward hate-speech.
We’ll no doubt need to get used to the uglier side of English nationalism though.
I believed it was not serious – but tongue in cheek, hence allowed it
It doesn’t mean I agree with it. Despite suggestions to the contrary, I allow dissent here
“nationalistic feudal states driven by bigotry and political zealots such as Salmond” – tongue-in-cheek? Dissent is fine, but abuse?
OK, I accept over the top
I’ll take more care
Thanks! I wish I’d been as eloquent as James Alexander; he pretty much reflects my own views, but better than I could, sadly.
@Robbie Pennington
Gosh! Lighten up man!
Though the PSG is no stranger to invective it always attempts to justify words such as “inaccurate”, “ignorant”, “offensive” and a “straightforward hate-speech” with specific reference to the difference in opinion.
The PSG holds Tax Research UK in the highest regard it has and never will never act as Richard Murphy’s lap dog preferring instead to use a mixture of slapstick and farce on the rare occasions it disagrees with him.
Regrettably some have difficulty appreciating this “humour”.
Why doesn’t Cameron call a referendum in the OTHER countries of the UK – Wales, England and Northern .Ireland – to decide if they wish to continue subsidising the Scots? Or indeed if they have a majority ambition to also gain “independence”?
This would appear to offer an impartial resolution for all.
NB; All available figures to discount “the subsidy” allegation fully appreciated. This email is composed by the PSG team on rota on the 11th of January 2012. No Scottish Nationalists present.
PSG
You might like to start by trying to justify…
“nationalistic feudal states driven by bigotry and political zealots such as Salmond”.
By the way, the humour stopped at the end of the second paragraph, and I seem not to be alone in seeing your comments as “over the top”.
(Sorry Richard; last intervention from me, don’t want to abuse your hospitality with what would inevitably be an endless spat).
I think it will be extremely interesting to see whether Cameron or Salmond win this battle of wills about the need for, structure of the question and date of the referendum. Salmond is a shrewd operator as Labour has discovered in the past in Scotland and Cameron will be guided no doubt by his ‘young turk’ advisors who may not be able to match his political skills. Actually I would like to reside in Scotland but unfortunately the weather is rather too cold for me, seriously I wonder if this should be a priority in the light of our economic difficulties. Maybe it will be a welcome diversion for Cameron et al from all the bad economic news and then they can blame the Scots for all our problems (it will make a change from the EU). I really am becoming so cynical but I think it was Chomsky who said that there is always a hidden agenda.
Might be a healthy thing for england to have their political culture shaken up a bit. Might even develop an opposition party.
I don’t understand your comment about Northern Ireland Richard. Maybe I’m mistaken but I’ve always assumed that you would support Irish unity.
In principle I would
But I fear the possibility of more Trouble
That’s what taints the issue
Uniting while Ireland is a troika colony would seem to be very unattractive.
Cameron will win the battle but Labour will lose the war for Westminster seats.
Incidentally, “nationalistic feudal states driven by bigotry and political zealots such as Salmond” applies perfectly to Ireland, which left the UK in 1922, and look what has become of it.