A thought that has occured to me recently.Is the existence of the UK political union is the only conduit which British identity hinges upon?
If the Scottish identity, or Catalan identity, or English identity can manage without a political state of its own, why can't the British one? Could one be a Scot and a Brit in a Scotland that was not part of the United Kingdom? In other words could a British identity sustain itself outside its life support mechanism that is the UK political union?
I don't see why the answer to any of those questions should be in the negative. I've blogged before on how independence is primarily a function of the changing governance of Scotland as opposed to anything else. Personally, I don't believe governance should be the sticking plaster that needs to make a national identity cohesive - where a national identity exists.
In reality I'm not comfortable using identity as a mechanism to argue a particular viewpoint with regards to the constitutional question. It doesn't add anything to the flavour of the debate only laying bare the subjective opinions on how they view themselves. And it is a complex area.
But, there is no question that the idea of "nationalism" plays a part in how we argue our standpoints on this issue. One of the (many) myths of British Unionism is that it is above all that nationalist rhetoric and nonsense of those separatists. That Britishness is seen, not a nationalism, it is a civilisation - a refined, liberal, suave and sophisticated viewpoint. This is a ridiculous and intellectually dishonest proposition to hold, let alone expound upon. Unionism is a branch of nationalism, where the United Kingdom is held as the primary nation state to attach itself to. It clearly is a nationalism that is expressed differently to the variant that exists in Scotland. But then that could be said about Australian nationalism, Quebec nationalism, American nationalism or Italian nationalism.
2 comments:
Interesting post - but based, I think, on a false premise. There is a huge difference between merely recognising the existence of nations and full-blown nationalism!
Britishness doesn't deny the nationhood of England, Scotland etc. Rather, it is about recognising the ties that bind within a formal union structure. Whether sub- or supra-national is in a sense immaterial, although many of the most highly regarded UK institutions are of course institutions of state.
Thanks for the comment.
But I find your point(s) inherently confused and contradictory. You state that nationalism and recognising the existence of nations are two separate things. I completely disagree. Nationalism stems directly and explicitly from recognising the existence of nations. You can't have one without the other! It would logically invalidate one's position to claim not to be a nationalist but "recognise the existence of nations"!
I would also caution against packaging "full blown" nationalism into a catch-all ideological label - and I would include myself in this, as I do it too. There are many variants on the sliding scale from just existing and recognising the existence of nations (a mild form of nationalism) - to some of the more extreme elements that we've witnessed in human history. I would think my own "nationalism" (quotation marks appropriate) is certainly at the milder end of the spectrum.
This is the same with most major political ideologies. Liberal nationalism, for example, has given the world some of its most important and cherished values and contributed a great deal to the history of human liberty.
Your second point is extremely close to what I was arguing in this post, albeit from a different angle. I argued that a nascent British identity could emerge and be forged around the continuing shared monarchy and existing social union. I don't see political independence disrupting either of those elements.
But what I think confused me in you second point is your promotion of Britishness, and how that fits in with your first point. What is Britishness if it isn't a nationalism? I don't think Britishness is any more superior in the nationalism stakes because it recognises the existence of Scottish, English and Welsh nationalism. As I argued, independence is purely a change to the structure of governance of how Scotland is governed - little else.
I don't see why Britishness couldn't co-exist alongside Scottishness with a politically independent Scotland - for those who wish to partake (as I believe such things are best left to personal choice). If Scottishness can exist without a political state of its own, why couldn't Britishness? What's so special about it, that it needs a unitary political state to be its major driving force and conduit?
Post a Comment