![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In case you missed the news, yesterday marked three hundred years of the act of Union between England and Scotland. This has been marked with a mixture of mostly ambivalence, a little recognition of the immense good the act has brought about, and an amount of 'Well it's about time we let that end, isn't it?" from certain quarters.
From the English side the argument for devolution of the Union can be summarised as "By Jove, I say, what what, what have those jonny Scots ever done for us, eh, what? We give 'em big old subsidies and what do they do in return? Complain. Let 'em go their own way and a bally good riddance! What's that Tarquin? Another W&S? Don't mind if I do", whilst from the Scots side the case for devolution can be summarised as: "Sassenach bastards! William Wallace blue face paint Edward Longshanks Bannochburn Culloden!"
The major problem as I see it with these points of view is that they're both complete bollocks.
I'd be the first to admit that I used to be one of the people who was in favour of devolution. I'd merrily swig my G&T and with red-faced bluster run out ill-formed opinions like those outlined above. In my defence, everyone under the age of thirty spouts political bullshit and I was no different. It gets indefensible when you get older and the thinking muscles should have started working because when you look at the act of Union and what it has brought both England and Scotland, the arguments against Union are just rubbish when faced with the weight of history.
The English and Scottish, as a nation, are undeniably the most dynamic in history since the Romans. Within a relatively short period of time after union they turned a muddy backwater into a nation with the most profound influence in the world. They spread themselves, their language, their laws, their money and their ideas over the face of the Earth. As a group, there has never been anything like them. What is even more astonishing is that in the face of a cultural hegemony which transformed the rest of the Earth, both the English and Scottish maintained their own traditions, money and laws. As an indicator of cultural vitality this is unsurpassed on both sides. Any argument that Scottishness is being polluted by the English (a claim I've heard made) is demonstrated as nonsense by this simple fact. Faced with an English culture which at it's height dominated the earth, the Scots quite plainly didn't give a toss. Instead they not only kept an individuality, but like the English benefitted immensely from the association - anyone who has ever walked through Glasgow city centre can't deny that.
This shared history brings strong ties and even addition to language - the famous 'thin red line' was the Gordon Highlanders under Campbell at balaclava, when two lines of infantry routed a Russian cavalry squadron.
Despite the decline of military power as a means of gaining international influence, the cultural influence of the unholy brew of Englishness and Scottishness is still mightily impressive. In 1999, the MITI Corporation compiled a list of what are considered the one hundred most important inventions of the twentieth century - of these hundred, fifty six were invented within the Union. The intermingling of two vibrant, aggressively competitive peoples into a single nation has produced the world as we know it and despite the rise of global competition actually shows little sign of slowing. The Union which produced Livingstone, Fleming, Baird and Bell also produced Brunel, Stephenson, Rutherford and Turing - would any of them have had the chances or the environment they needed without it? Of course not, they would all have been smaller, and so would we in our turn.
So who would benefit from devolution?
Certainly not the Scots. The huge subsidies which Tarquin rabbits on about are true enough, but to begrudge them shows all the logic of begrudging subsidies to other depressed areas like Liverpool or Newcastle. It's nothing more than small mindedness - so what if some Scots 'aren't grateful enough'*? Liverpool gets huge subsidies and they're famous for whining, but I don't hear anyone proposing some sort of self rule for Scousers off the back of it. The economic reality is that the city of London coughs up a packet for Scotland in the same way that it does Wales, Yorkshire, Northern Ireland, Birmingham, Canvey island and a whole list of pretty much everywhere else. Using this as an argument for one bit of the country leaving isn't just nonsense, it's small-minded and parochial.
Certainly the English wouldn't benefit. For all that the seat of power is London based, London is bigger than mere England - it's representational and for London to lose the Scots would be to lessen it. The cultural and economic contribition made by Scots to the Union over the centuries has been immense and should not be forgotten or even downplayed by the English. The current 'Flag of Saint George' mentality in England is shameful, because it discounts contribitions made from those from elsewhere without whom it wouldn't even be a flag any more. Who held the rearguard at Dunkirk and preserved the British army to fight another day? Amongst others, it was the 2nd division including the Cameron Highlanders and Royal Scots who, without their artillery and anti-tank weapons, faced four Panzer Divisions and two SS Divisions supported by Stukas. They fought until out of ammunition and were effectively destroyed as a fighting unit, but held the line for long enough for five whole divisions to be evacuated. Wave the flag of Saint George and sing about two world wars and one world cup? Tossers. Without the Scots the chances are you wouldn't have a flag to wave, and you definitely wouldn't be singing.
Would anyone benefit politically from devolution? The Labour party wouldn't. A quick glance at the election statistics show that of the eight Labour General Election victories since the Second World War, only two (1946 and 1997) would have been won without the Scottish vote. This puts Labour in the interesting position of having to pay lip service to devolution in order to maintain their Scottish voter base, but never actually being able to do anything about it without facing never winning power in Westminster again. It's interesting that the party with most to gain from Scottish devolution, the Conservatives, appear to be the ones making the most of a song and dance arguing against it. Scottish devolution would all-but guarantee Conservative rule in Westminster for the forseeable future and you'd think that I, of all people, would be all for it on that basis alone, wouldn't you? Of course I'm not, because my political views are based on wanting the best for everyone, and a greater good is maintained by the continuance of a vibrant democracy held together by the astonishing fusion of two irritable, squabbling, distrustful, envious, creative, inventive, brilliant neighbours.
Here's to the Union, here's to the Scots, and here's to the next three hundred years. Anyone fancy taking over the world again? It doesn't half need it, and history shows we're just the team to do it.
*What is an acceptable level of gratitude, exactly?
From the English side the argument for devolution of the Union can be summarised as "By Jove, I say, what what, what have those jonny Scots ever done for us, eh, what? We give 'em big old subsidies and what do they do in return? Complain. Let 'em go their own way and a bally good riddance! What's that Tarquin? Another W&S? Don't mind if I do", whilst from the Scots side the case for devolution can be summarised as: "Sassenach bastards! William Wallace blue face paint Edward Longshanks Bannochburn Culloden!"
The major problem as I see it with these points of view is that they're both complete bollocks.
I'd be the first to admit that I used to be one of the people who was in favour of devolution. I'd merrily swig my G&T and with red-faced bluster run out ill-formed opinions like those outlined above. In my defence, everyone under the age of thirty spouts political bullshit and I was no different. It gets indefensible when you get older and the thinking muscles should have started working because when you look at the act of Union and what it has brought both England and Scotland, the arguments against Union are just rubbish when faced with the weight of history.
The English and Scottish, as a nation, are undeniably the most dynamic in history since the Romans. Within a relatively short period of time after union they turned a muddy backwater into a nation with the most profound influence in the world. They spread themselves, their language, their laws, their money and their ideas over the face of the Earth. As a group, there has never been anything like them. What is even more astonishing is that in the face of a cultural hegemony which transformed the rest of the Earth, both the English and Scottish maintained their own traditions, money and laws. As an indicator of cultural vitality this is unsurpassed on both sides. Any argument that Scottishness is being polluted by the English (a claim I've heard made) is demonstrated as nonsense by this simple fact. Faced with an English culture which at it's height dominated the earth, the Scots quite plainly didn't give a toss. Instead they not only kept an individuality, but like the English benefitted immensely from the association - anyone who has ever walked through Glasgow city centre can't deny that.
This shared history brings strong ties and even addition to language - the famous 'thin red line' was the Gordon Highlanders under Campbell at balaclava, when two lines of infantry routed a Russian cavalry squadron.
Despite the decline of military power as a means of gaining international influence, the cultural influence of the unholy brew of Englishness and Scottishness is still mightily impressive. In 1999, the MITI Corporation compiled a list of what are considered the one hundred most important inventions of the twentieth century - of these hundred, fifty six were invented within the Union. The intermingling of two vibrant, aggressively competitive peoples into a single nation has produced the world as we know it and despite the rise of global competition actually shows little sign of slowing. The Union which produced Livingstone, Fleming, Baird and Bell also produced Brunel, Stephenson, Rutherford and Turing - would any of them have had the chances or the environment they needed without it? Of course not, they would all have been smaller, and so would we in our turn.
So who would benefit from devolution?
Certainly not the Scots. The huge subsidies which Tarquin rabbits on about are true enough, but to begrudge them shows all the logic of begrudging subsidies to other depressed areas like Liverpool or Newcastle. It's nothing more than small mindedness - so what if some Scots 'aren't grateful enough'*? Liverpool gets huge subsidies and they're famous for whining, but I don't hear anyone proposing some sort of self rule for Scousers off the back of it. The economic reality is that the city of London coughs up a packet for Scotland in the same way that it does Wales, Yorkshire, Northern Ireland, Birmingham, Canvey island and a whole list of pretty much everywhere else. Using this as an argument for one bit of the country leaving isn't just nonsense, it's small-minded and parochial.
Certainly the English wouldn't benefit. For all that the seat of power is London based, London is bigger than mere England - it's representational and for London to lose the Scots would be to lessen it. The cultural and economic contribition made by Scots to the Union over the centuries has been immense and should not be forgotten or even downplayed by the English. The current 'Flag of Saint George' mentality in England is shameful, because it discounts contribitions made from those from elsewhere without whom it wouldn't even be a flag any more. Who held the rearguard at Dunkirk and preserved the British army to fight another day? Amongst others, it was the 2nd division including the Cameron Highlanders and Royal Scots who, without their artillery and anti-tank weapons, faced four Panzer Divisions and two SS Divisions supported by Stukas. They fought until out of ammunition and were effectively destroyed as a fighting unit, but held the line for long enough for five whole divisions to be evacuated. Wave the flag of Saint George and sing about two world wars and one world cup? Tossers. Without the Scots the chances are you wouldn't have a flag to wave, and you definitely wouldn't be singing.
Would anyone benefit politically from devolution? The Labour party wouldn't. A quick glance at the election statistics show that of the eight Labour General Election victories since the Second World War, only two (1946 and 1997) would have been won without the Scottish vote. This puts Labour in the interesting position of having to pay lip service to devolution in order to maintain their Scottish voter base, but never actually being able to do anything about it without facing never winning power in Westminster again. It's interesting that the party with most to gain from Scottish devolution, the Conservatives, appear to be the ones making the most of a song and dance arguing against it. Scottish devolution would all-but guarantee Conservative rule in Westminster for the forseeable future and you'd think that I, of all people, would be all for it on that basis alone, wouldn't you? Of course I'm not, because my political views are based on wanting the best for everyone, and a greater good is maintained by the continuance of a vibrant democracy held together by the astonishing fusion of two irritable, squabbling, distrustful, envious, creative, inventive, brilliant neighbours.
Here's to the Union, here's to the Scots, and here's to the next three hundred years. Anyone fancy taking over the world again? It doesn't half need it, and history shows we're just the team to do it.
*What is an acceptable level of gratitude, exactly?
