Liberty, Nationalism and a new England

Cruachan · Liberty, Nationalism and a new England

Article via the Witanagemot site. Impressive, well argued case for a new kind of England. Worth a look.

http://britologywatch.wordpress.c...ionalists-must-make-common-cause/

Dave Coull · Re: Liberty, Nationalism and a new England

Cruachan wrote "Impressive, well argued case for a new kind of England. Worth a look."

Okay, so I took a look, and it's interesting, but, let's be clear about this, a lot of it is a reaction to what WE have been doing.

"we should have the confidence to celebrate the fact that a leading politician is taking issues of principle and government to the people, irrespective of his party politics".

That would be all very well if David Davies had shown a consistently libertarian attitude, but he hasn't. He's just a professional politician, maybe a bit of a maverick on some issues, but not consistently on the side of liberty.

"the break down of the unitary state that the Labour government itself initiated through devolution"

It wasn't the Labour government which initiated devolution, they merely codified it. The breakdown of the unitary state started with the anti-poll-tax movement's resistance to Maggie Thatcher's attempt to impose a centralising uniformity which had not existed before. This led to a realisation amongst many Scots that, if we were to avoid future British governments riding roughshod over Scottish sensibilities, then a Scottish Parliament was essential. The experience of the anti-poll-tax movement, a movement which was not under the control of any political party, was crucial. You got mass demonstrations for a Scottish Parliament, which involved not just the SNP and maverick Labourites like George Galloway, but also folk who had not previously been involved in such activity, including Trotskyist and Anarchist elements with experience of the anti-poll-tax movement. You also got a "Democracy For Scotland" permanent picket/vigil in Edinburgh, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, which was only called off when the new Labour government actually introduced its devolution legislation. If the Labour government had not done that, there were tentative plans (no, not by the SNP) for going in the direction of making Scotland ungovernable. It was THAT possibility which initiated the break down of the unitary state through devolution.

"we need a new constitutional settlement for England. Forget about the British dimension for the moment; that’s out of our hands – ‘our hands’ meaning, of course, the hands of the English. As English people, we have to seek a democratic solution for England, and leave the Scots and Welsh to work out their own destiny. What we can do, however – and this is perhaps the only chance for any British state to survive – is frame our new constitution in such a way that the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish can choose to join us or not."

Although the writer says "forget about the British dimension for the moment", they propose a specifically English initiative and yet, nevertheless, express a hope that there could be a chance of the Scots following this specifically English initiative into a federal system. Forget that. Maybe the Welsh might, maybe the Northern Irish might. But Scotland is already headed along its own road.

"we – the English people – could devise a federal, Britain-wide system that could accommodate the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish if they wished to be part of it."

See the comment above.

"the important point is that the formulation and realisation of this new federal system of governance should be driven primarily by the English"

Even if this was to happen, it would take quite a few years for it to happen. In the meantime, while the pressure for change in England is gradually developing, Scotland is already well along its own distinctive road, and not likely to hang about waiting.

"it’s down to us, the English people, to seize the initiative and set the agenda".

They've left it a bit late for that.

Holebender · Re: Liberty, Nationalism and a new England

Dave Coull

Coming back to this idea "the break down of the unitary state that the Labour government itself initiated through devolution".

The idea that it was the Labour government which initiated this process is widespread amongst folk who actually know very little about the process. I have already indicated that in my view popular reaction against Maggie Thatcher, and in particular the experience of the anti-poll-tax movement, had more to do with initiating devolution than the Labour Party did.

One of the most important things about the anti-poll-tax movement was that it wasn't party political, and it wasn't led by politicians. Yes, it is true that Tommy Sheridan and some others later built a political career out of their prominence in that movement, but they were certainly not generally acknowledged as leaders of the movement, by those involved in it, at the time.

A crucial element of the anti-poll-tax movement was the idea of ordinary folk being involved in direct action. For anarchists, this idea was as natural as breathing, and Marxists also were in favour of the working class taking the initiative (under the correct leadership of course......)

However, this idea was an uncomfortable one for many in political parties, both the Labour Party and the SNP. The Labour Party's response to the poll tax was utterly pathetic. But the SNP's response was also inadequate.

Yes, Scottish Nationalists have taken part in direct action. One example of Scot Nat direct action which I remember very well was when the Stone of Destiny was taken. I was just a young laddie at the time. Just a few months after the Stone was returned, at Arbroath Abbey, my father took me along to a packed meeting in the Fisherman's Hall, in the village of Ferryden, near Montrose, to hear one of the students involved in that episode, I think it may have been Ian Hamilton. I think that was the very first public meeting I ever attended, and I remember being tremendously inspired. But although it was inspiring, there wasn't actually anything that ordinary folk like us were being asked to do about the Stone of Destiny.

If we consider the SNP's response to the poll tax, they called for selective non-payment by a very limited number of prominent, and quite wealthy, Nationalists. The idea was that this selected group would act on our behalf, and they positively discouraged the idea of MASS non-payment. In contrast, the wider anti-poll-tax movement positively encouraged absolutely everybody to refuse payment, and promised to try to support everybody and anybody in doing so.

What gave a new impetus to the demand for a Scottish Parliament was the experience of the anti-poll-tax movement, and some folk on the "far left" becoming aware that the way to stop a new Maggie Thatcher riding roughshod over Scottish sensibilities was to bring government nearer home. At least, if government was in Edinburgh, you wouldn't have to travel so far to demonstrate against it!

There were some demonstrations, culminating in the big "democracy march" in Edinburgh. There was also, like I said, the more-or-less permanent "Democracy For Scotland" vigil in Edinburgh. Some might dispute how big the movement was, but what you have to realise is that it would have gone on growing, and would have gone on becoming more militant. THAT was why the Labour Party had to commit itself to a Scottish Parliament, and THAT was why Tony Blair, who would have dearly loved to wriggle out of the commitment, had no choice but to press ahead with devolution when they were in government.

Cruachan

cornubian

My response to Britology Watch: http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog...nd-nationalists-make-common-cause

Blackleaf

Typical Scottish nationalist. He doesn't even live in Scotland.

Holebender

So... you think the "typical Scottish nationalist" doesn't live in Scotland?

Dave Coull

Blackleaf wrote “Typical Scottish nationalist. He doesn't even live in Scotland”.

Holebender asks “So... you think the ‘typical Scottish nationalist’ doesn't live in Scotland?”

That Glasgow election must have been a fraud! The SNP must have temporarily imported thousands of Scottish nationalists into the east end of Glasgow, from foreign parts (no, not just from Bellshill, or even Edinburgh, REALLY foreign), and disguised their appearance and their accents so cunningly the Glasgow locals didn’t even notice! The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives must demand a public enquiry into this case of massive and fraudulent foreign intervention into the British electoral system!

Alasdair

Rinty

I have real problems with all of this. Follow their links and you come to the 'campaign for an english parliament' and 'justice for england' which doesnt amount to much more than an anti-scottish site, where every problem of the English taxpayer is down to the scots milking their taxes.

There is even a demand for equal spending on health! How can any country, Uk, Enmgland OR Scotland, spend the same on a healthy person's health than they do on an unhealthy person? The same with countries or regions the spending on health is direvtly related to the health of that area. Health in Hull is worse than in Hampshire.

Most of it based on half-truths and anti-scottish spinning of parliamentray decisions and local NHS decisions. They talk about the medicaines that can be prosribed in Scotland but not in England but dont talk about the many drugs and medical services that are vaiable in England and not in Scotland.

They lie about the funding for pensioners between the nations.

This is the ugly side of nationalism and not the sort of people I would want to get involved with. Genuine democrats who are looking at a post-union arrangement yes, base nationalist propaganda no.

Pip

Rinty

Scotland has certain drugs more widely available because the NHs in Scotland decide to allocate funds this way, just as England has drugs and services that we cant get.

The 'per head' spending overall on health being more than England is simply a question of Scotlands overall health being worse and having so few people living in such a large area. We have 90% of the UK's inhabited islands, third of the UK landmass and half of its coastline.

Concentrating on these issues means it is a campaign based on lies. They say that in a nursng home over the border in Berwick, old english people have to sell their houses while the scots get everything paid for. This is nonsense, the limits on savings, assets etc being counted against benefits is the same across the UK and Scottish pensioners dont have a different deal on whether they need to sell their house or not.

I dont see the grievances Pip, I only see people manipulating figures to invent grievances.

Holebender

It's Unionist chickens coming home to roost; for years the Unionist politicians have told the Scots they get a subsidy, etc. in order to convince them they have a lot to lose by even daring to think of independence, without ever considering the impact of these lies south of the border. As far as I'm concerned these sorts of things are examples of Unionists being hoist by their own petard.

We will only know the real truth after independence.

Cruachan

Liberty, Nationalism and a new England

Re: Liberty, Nationalism and a new England

Re: Liberty, Nationalism and a new England