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.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)