6 June 1997 Edition
Unpicking the kingdom
As the British government prepares to launch its devolution policy in Scotland and Wales, Nick Martin-Clarke argues that republicans should look more closely at the British constitution.
Policy on the Union will be made from the country at the centre, from England, so how does the Union look from here? And how does it look to those within the Blair circle who enjoy the rare privilege of being able to make policy on the back of an impregnable majority?
English people are of course aware that they are part of a political entity that unites three other peoples besides themselves but as a practical matter it impinges little on their lives. Unless they have spent much time in Scotland, Wales or Ireland, they will have no real appreciation of the otherness of those identities. For them we're all British and Britain is basically England. Few of them feel more than casually attached to aspects of their lives that they would identify as specifically English. To them the passionate identification of Scots with things Scottish is bizarre. To them such an attitude appears almost uncivilised. Their reaction to Welsh nationalism is likely to be similar and it goes without saying that this has been true of attitudes towards Ireland.
The break-up of the UK would provide the Six Counties with an exit from the Union but it is a very long shot and to count on it would be an exercise in futility
Once Scotland was crushed in the Jacobite uprisings and the assault on everything Gaelic that followed, the English proceeded to ignore the country until, with Sir Walter Scott, the Victorians took a renewed interest in what was essentially the first fashionable `ethnic' culture. Nowadays it might be the Tibetans.
This fundamentally patronising attitude is at the root of the Union's current difficulties. Just as in a one-sided marriage one partner can take the other for granted and remain unaware of how things look from the other's perspective until one fine day the whole thing just falls apart, much to their bewilderment. So the English are likely to say ``strains within the Union, what strains?''.
The English have prospered under the Union. They're basically happy with it and they don't want it to change. In ways subtle and unsubtle most English people have a vested interest in the dominance of their country. Just think of the diminished importance of London if Edinburgh became a political centre of the importance of Stockholm and Cardiff the equivalent of Oslo. It is hard to imagine England alone with a seat at the G7 or on the Security Council. Financially, the argument over whether Scotland is a net beneficiary from the Union will continue to rage. Politically it is clear that in crude terms England could only be the loser in a break-up which would damage her prestige without any compensation from the rediscovery of independence.
This perhaps explains why English people have not tended, at least until now, to take the question of the Union very seriously. It would be wrong at assume that because the constitution was the only area in which clear blue water opened up between the parties in the British general election it was the most crucial of the campaign issues. On the contrary in fact, the areas of superficial consensus such as tax or Europe were those that proved decisive.
However, now that a Labour government committed to devolution has come to power the question of the Union will become higher-profile.
It matters that the only treaty between the English and the Irish was the treaty of bloody sword and axe. It matters that the imperial presence there lacks the legitimacy it has in Scotland or Wales
It is almost certainly wrong to just dismiss devolution as an unworkable solution, severe though the difficulties within the Union are. Of course there are problems with it, most of which are well-rehearsed. Yes, the West Lothian question is a teaser. Yes, there is potential for conflict between the two Parliaments. Yes, the SNP will be pressing for complete independence. Yes, it may well be a parliamentary nightmare getting the legislation through and yes, a federal solution looks a whole lot neater.
But none of this is to say that devolution won't actually happen or last. To imagine that just because a solution is awkward and unwieldy it won't survive flies in the face of history. More soberingly it flies in the face of the strength of Unionism. Unwelcome though that may be it is better to be a realist. The durability of political institutions is not determined by how pretty they look as blueprints but by how well they embody a compromise between key interests. If the compromise works it will last as long as the interests. Britain at least claims to be good at this sort of thing. It is possible that fifty years from now the Tories will be singing the praises of a Scottish Parliament just as they now back the NHS (at least officially). If devolution fails it won't be because it is awkward - the concept of a United Kingdom is already awkward and that has lasted a while - but more likely because of divergent attitudes towards Europe.
Whatever the answer to that there is something that stands out here from a republican point of view. It is this: the break-up of the UK would provide the Six Counties with an exit from the Union but it is a very long shot and to count on it would be an exercise in futility. It is not in the interests of republicans to seek to link the destiny of Ireland to that of Scotland nor to portray the two countries as being in the same boat. They would do better to focus upon the different positions and histories the two countries have enjoyed within the Union.
Historically there was a large measure of consent and legitimacy in the Union between England and Scotland even if matters became very confused after 1688. At present the English queen is also separately queen of Scotland. North of the border she is strictly Elizabeth the First. Ireland was conquered and settled. It is an imperial possession much like Canada, Australia or New Zealand, only closer to home. Elizabeth has no more claim to be queen of the Irish than to be queen of the Maoris. In fact less as there was in fact historically a treaty between the Maoris and the English throne. Similarly Wales is a principality and Elizabeth is not queen there. The Welsh owe her their allegiance (in theory) because they first owe allegiance to her son.
To jaundiced republican eyes these distinctions will no doubt seem so much flummery. No doubt there is a temptation to regard all such niceties as the playground antics of a ruling public schoolboy elite irrelevant to the real issues on the ground. But republicans have the most to gain from an insistence on the historical record - it is so unflattering to the English.
It is in republican interests to respect the quirks of a different tradition provided it is clear that they are not going to be foisted upon anyone whose identity is different. This has to be part of the essential process of building bridges between the different parties involved without which there will be no progress. After all, if the British are to leave it will have to be on a handshake if not a smile. Again, those who understand the British constitution best are best placed to deal with it. To see it as a living tissue of habit, inspiration and contradiction, is to attempt to engage with it on its own terms without abandoning one's own. It is possible to speak the language of constitutional politics without surrendering to it or compromising essential principles.
There is a lot of scope for a reasoned picking and pulling at the general threads that make up the current British position. For instance, the proper treatment of minorities is clear to many in Britain who consider themselves democrats. Does the DUP believe in it? Equally, the notion of government by consent is part and parcel of daily life for many. But how does that play for communities that don't feel represented by British institutions? Similarly, the British clearly have obligations towards their kith and kin across the Irish sea - but do those extend as far as military occupation? Sinn Féin has a very good case and at the moment it is not being heard.
To ignore the subtleties of the British constitution is to play into the hands of those who maintain that Britain is a unitary state and the Six Counties just part of it like any other. It is to collude with an element of trickery at the heart of the British constitution. There is no queen of Great Britain, let alone of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The queen is crowned in Westminster Abbey by the head of the Church of England not by representatives from all over Britain. The political entity born of the union between two kingdoms, a principality and part of another province of another country should not by rights be itself called a kingdom. ``The kingdom of Britain'' just sounds strange. Again one might hope that all kingdoms would be united. The opposite of a united kingdom is civil war not two kingdoms.
The unified state - a strong political entity held together by disparate allegiance to a single crown - is not a united kingdom but a united empire. As Britain to the wider Empire so England to the Union, the kernel of both is the powerful logic of a strong centre, an imperial logic that established a single course of sovereignty to preside over a disparate collection of territories. There is no ``British people'' in the sense that there is a French one. That is part of the myth that underpins the status quo in the Six Counties.
It is within this context that the case is best argued. This is not ``divide and rule'' but ``divide and prosper''. It matters that the only treaty between the English and the Irish was the treaty of bloody sword and axe. It matters that the imperial presence there lacks the legitimacy it has in Scotland or Wales.
The Union between the Scots and the English may well have many decades in it yet and their relationship is a very different one to that between Ireland and Britain. Republicans do not have an interest in undermining the Union per se but only that part of it which is strained irremediably by a history of injustice and coercion. For all the faults in the relationship between England and Scotland divorce would be felt by many to be an extreme remedy for the current tensions. But Ireland is a case apart. If Scotland is a marriage, Ireland was a rape.
Policy on the Union will be made from the country at the centre, from England, so how does the Union look from here? And how does it look to those within the Blair circle who enjoy the rare privilege of being able to make policy on the back of an impregnable majority?
English people are of course aware that they are part of a political entity that unites three other peoples besides themselves but as a practical matter it impinges little on their lives. Unless they have spent much time in Scotland, Wales or Ireland, they will have no real appreciation of the otherness of those identities. For them we're all British and Britain is basically England. Few of them feel more than casually attached to aspects of their lives that they would identify as specifically English. To them the passionate identification of Scots with things Scottish is bizarre. To them such an attitude appears almost uncivilised. Their reaction to Welsh nationalism is likely to be similar and it goes without saying that this has been true of attitudes towards Ireland.
The break-up of the UK would provide the Six Counties with an exit from the Union but it is a very long shot and to count on it would be an exercise in futility
Once Scotland was crushed in the Jacobite uprisings and the assault on everything Gaelic that followed, the English proceeded to ignore the country until, with Sir Walter Scott, the Victorians took a renewed interest in what was essentially the first fashionable `ethnic' culture. Nowadays it might be the Tibetans.
This fundamentally patronising attitude is at the root of the Union's current difficulties. Just as in a one-sided marriage one partner can take the other for granted and remain unaware of how things look from the other's perspective until one fine day the whole thing just falls apart, much to their bewilderment. So the English are likely to say ``strains within the Union, what strains?''.
The English have prospered under the Union. They're basically happy with it and they don't want it to change. In ways subtle and unsubtle most English people have a vested interest in the dominance of their country. Just think of the diminished importance of London if Edinburgh became a political centre of the importance of Stockholm and Cardiff the equivalent of Oslo. It is hard to imagine England alone with a seat at the G7 or on the Security Council. Financially, the argument over whether Scotland is a net beneficiary from the Union will continue to rage. Politically it is clear that in crude terms England could only be the loser in a break-up which would damage her prestige without any compensation from the rediscovery of independence.
This perhaps explains why English people have not tended, at least until now, to take the question of the Union very seriously. It would be wrong at assume that because the constitution was the only area in which clear blue water opened up between the parties in the British general election it was the most crucial of the campaign issues. On the contrary in fact, the areas of superficial consensus such as tax or Europe were those that proved decisive.
However, now that a Labour government committed to devolution has come to power the question of the Union will become higher-profile.
It matters that the only treaty between the English and the Irish was the treaty of bloody sword and axe. It matters that the imperial presence there lacks the legitimacy it has in Scotland or Wales
It is almost certainly wrong to just dismiss devolution as an unworkable solution, severe though the difficulties within the Union are. Of course there are problems with it, most of which are well-rehearsed. Yes, the West Lothian question is a teaser. Yes, there is potential for conflict between the two Parliaments. Yes, the SNP will be pressing for complete independence. Yes, it may well be a parliamentary nightmare getting the legislation through and yes, a federal solution looks a whole lot neater.
But none of this is to say that devolution won't actually happen or last. To imagine that just because a solution is awkward and unwieldy it won't survive flies in the face of history. More soberingly it flies in the face of the strength of Unionism. Unwelcome though that may be it is better to be a realist. The durability of political institutions is not determined by how pretty they look as blueprints but by how well they embody a compromise between key interests. If the compromise works it will last as long as the interests. Britain at least claims to be good at this sort of thing. It is possible that fifty years from now the Tories will be singing the praises of a Scottish Parliament just as they now back the NHS (at least officially). If devolution fails it won't be because it is awkward - the concept of a United Kingdom is already awkward and that has lasted a while - but more likely because of divergent attitudes towards Europe.
Whatever the answer to that there is something that stands out here from a republican point of view. It is this: the break-up of the UK would provide the Six Counties with an exit from the Union but it is a very long shot and to count on it would be an exercise in futility. It is not in the interests of republicans to seek to link the destiny of Ireland to that of Scotland nor to portray the two countries as being in the same boat. They would do better to focus upon the different positions and histories the two countries have enjoyed within the Union.
Historically there was a large measure of consent and legitimacy in the Union between England and Scotland even if matters became very confused after 1688. At present the English queen is also separately queen of Scotland. North of the border she is strictly Elizabeth the First. Ireland was conquered and settled. It is an imperial possession much like Canada, Australia or New Zealand, only closer to home. Elizabeth has no more claim to be queen of the Irish than to be queen of the Maoris. In fact less as there was in fact historically a treaty between the Maoris and the English throne. Similarly Wales is a principality and Elizabeth is not queen there. The Welsh owe her their allegiance (in theory) because they first owe allegiance to her son.
To jaundiced republican eyes these distinctions will no doubt seem so much flummery. No doubt there is a temptation to regard all such niceties as the playground antics of a ruling public schoolboy elite irrelevant to the real issues on the ground. But republicans have the most to gain from an insistence on the historical record - it is so unflattering to the English.
It is in republican interests to respect the quirks of a different tradition provided it is clear that they are not going to be foisted upon anyone whose identity is different. This has to be part of the essential process of building bridges between the different parties involved without which there will be no progress. After all, if the British are to leave it will have to be on a handshake if not a smile. Again, those who understand the British constitution best are best placed to deal with it. To see it as a living tissue of habit, inspiration and contradiction, is to attempt to engage with it on its own terms without abandoning one's own. It is possible to speak the language of constitutional politics without surrendering to it or compromising essential principles.
There is a lot of scope for a reasoned picking and pulling at the general threads that make up the current British position. For instance, the proper treatment of minorities is clear to many in Britain who consider themselves democrats. Does the DUP believe in it? Equally, the notion of government by consent is part and parcel of daily life for many. But how does that play for communities that don't feel represented by British institutions? Similarly, the British clearly have obligations towards their kith and kin across the Irish sea - but do those extend as far as military occupation? Sinn Féin has a very good case and at the moment it is not being heard.
To ignore the subtleties of the British constitution is to play into the hands of those who maintain that Britain is a unitary state and the Six Counties just part of it like any other. It is to collude with an element of trickery at the heart of the British constitution. There is no queen of Great Britain, let alone of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The queen is crowned in Westminster Abbey by the head of the Church of England not by representatives from all over Britain. The political entity born of the union between two kingdoms, a principality and part of another province of another country should not by rights be itself called a kingdom. ``The kingdom of Britain'' just sounds strange. Again one might hope that all kingdoms would be united. The opposite of a united kingdom is civil war not two kingdoms.
The unified state - a strong political entity held together by disparate allegiance to a single crown - is not a united kingdom but a united empire. As Britain to the wider Empire so England to the Union, the kernel of both is the powerful logic of a strong centre, an imperial logic that established a single course of sovereignty to preside over a disparate collection of territories. There is no ``British people'' in the sense that there is a French one. That is part of the myth that underpins the status quo in the Six Counties.
It is within this context that the case is best argued. This is not ``divide and rule'' but ``divide and prosper''. It matters that the only treaty between the English and the Irish was the treaty of bloody sword and axe. It matters that the imperial presence there lacks the legitimacy it has in Scotland or Wales.
The Union between the Scots and the English may well have many decades in it yet and their relationship is a very different one to that between Ireland and Britain. Republicans do not have an interest in undermining the Union per se but only that part of it which is strained irremediably by a history of injustice and coercion. For all the faults in the relationship between England and Scotland divorce would be felt by many to be an extreme remedy for the current tensions. But Ireland is a case apart. If Scotland is a marriage, Ireland was a rape.