The Scot’s poll can give hope to English patriots
I read with interest recently an article by Irvine Welsh, a Scottish author and socialist. The article published in the Evening Standard and was entitled “Scots poll can give hope to the Left across Britain. That issue is more than independence – this is about the journey of modernisation of these island’s political systems”
It seems to me that much of what Irvine Welsh says could be adapted for England, with a new title as above “The Scot’s poll can give hope to English patriots”. The article starts as follows:-
“Something strange and beautiful is happening in Scotland. The country is re-inventing itself from the inside out. People are talking about their futures as if they actually have them. It is that exhilarating, intoxicating, occasionally exasperating phenomena at work: welcome back participatory democracy. How these islands have missed you! To recap what’s happened in your absence: Everything has been set up in favour of a small, trans-national global elite. Most citizens are being or have already been reduced to the level of poorly paid, debt ridden servitude. Yes, many are still unemployed, but many more are underemployed, over-employed and set to work on barely liveable wages.
Within this context, looking at traditional indices of economic prosperity like unemployment rates, inflation, GNP is severely limited, as those don’t account for the reality of the past 35 years. The growing penury and financial instability suffered by everybody outside of society’s elites is the true political narrative of our times. It needs to be addressed locally and globally. This hasn’t happened in the UK. The main political parties remain complicit in the transfer of resources from our citizens to the super rich elite, under the advocacy of a private media, and through the constant lobbying of elected representatives. The “pragmatism” touted by politicians is one that solely addresses how to manage this movement of resources to the wealthy, to the constant reward of their corporate emissaries.
As a nation state the United Kingdom was an imperialist construct, and to this day it retains these undemocratic trappings: a hereditary principle, an un-elected second chamber, no written constitution and a ruling elite drawn from a narrow, privately educated strata of society …”
Irvine Welsh carries on in this way which many English nationalists would recognise as being equally true of England. Below is the whole article. I have inserted my comments in brackets.
Something strange and beautiful is happening in Scotland. The country is reinventing itself from the inside out. People are talking about their futures as if they actually have them. It’s that exhilarating, intoxicating and occasionally exasperating phenomenon at work: welcome back participatory democracy. How these islands have missed you.
To recap what’s happened in your absence: everything has been set up in favour of a small, transnational global elite. Most citizens are being or have already been reduced to the level of poorly paid, debt-ridden servitude. Yes, many are still unemployed, but many more are underemployed, overemployed and set to work on barely liveable wages.
Within this context, looking at traditional indices of economic prosperity like unemployment rates, inflation, GNP is severely limited, as those don’t account for the reality of the past 35 years. The growing penury and financial instability suffered by everyone outside of society’s elites is the true political narrative of our times. It needs to be addressed locally and globally.
This hasn’t happened in the UK. The main political parties remain complicit in the transfer of resources from our citizens to this super-rich elite, under the advocacy of a private media, and through the constant lobbying of elected representatives. The “pragmatism” touted by politicians is one that solely addresses how to manage this movement of resources to the wealthy, through the constant rewarding of their corporate emissaries.
As a nation state the United Kingdom was an imperialist construct, and to this day it retains these undemocratic trappings: a hereditary principle, an unelected second chamber, no written constitution and a ruling elite drawn from a narrow, privately educated strata of society.
In Scotland, voters have traditionally sent a block of Labour MPs to Westminster to represent them. Labour originated in Scotland as the party of Keir Hardie and had a strong home rule ethos. (Kier Hardie first made his name and came to prominence as a campaigner against mass immigration into his area of Scotland. In his day the mass immigration in question was of unskilled and semi-skilled Irish workers. He led a noisy campaign against importation of Irish workers which was reducing the wages paid to Scotland’s).
As it grew from a party of protest to one of power, Labour changed its view: the best way to govern was to send representatives down to London. Thus a career structure emerged, whereby “ambitious” politicians could move from local council to a safe Labour seat, then perhaps become a minister. When the party lurched to the Right in the Eighties, it was usurped on the “Left” by the SNP, a bourgeois nationalist party which had taken on social-democratic trappings.
Since then we’ve seen the rapid de-industrialisation of Britain, the sale of national assets, the dismantling of the welfare state, the squandering of oil revenues on dole payments and bread-and-circus foreign wars, and the steady erosion of the democratic, participatory spirit in politics.
Politicians changed. They were less likely to have trade union, industry or even professional backgrounds, more inclined to be career politicians, and people are now more alienated from them than ever. These changes took place under both Labour and Conservative governments.
Now Scotland, through the independence debate, is leading the way in the reassertion of the democratic ethos. The actual result of the referendum in September, while massively important, is less significant than the fact that this process has gained such traction.
Whether Scotland votes Yes or No, its people have got used to having a say in how their lives are run, outside of the self-interested and morally bankrupt party system. The drive for more of the same will continue. (The same could happen in England if we were successful in getting our independence referendum, or may be even if the Scots vote ‘YES’ and England is thereby reborn as an independent State following the dissolution of the UK.)
English protest politics have been of the Right in recent years: “Eurosceptic” Conservatives, Ukip, the BNP and EDL. But without the distraction of Scotland, England will have to look seriously at what it is and what it aspires to be. I would expect that narrative to change and the country to shake off its weary attachment to the cabal of centre-Right/Right-wing parties and their tired platitudes. Rather than enabling its political progression, Scotland holds England back by sending it more lobby-fodder careerists invested in zero substantive change. (England’s political traditions and culture are different from Scotland’s and I would think in any case the way which our politics will develop post-independence is likely to be very different to Scotland’s. I would not necessarily expect, as someone as steeped in the Scottish political culture as Mr Irvine is, to be fully aware of the difference or necessarily the different circumstances which brought it about.)
The Yes campaign’s biggest strengths are its vigorous grass-roots support, mainly from people who have felt disenfranchised by party politics. They are bolstered by the activities of the No campaign, with its unappetising coalition of the elite, the self-interested and the perennially servile, with the honourable but misguided exception of those who still believe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that the British state can deliver social progress and economic justice.
The No campaign’s main asset is people’s intrinsic fear of change. The anti-independence campaign is, in tone and substantive argument, the same as any other throughout history. It seeks to make administrative procedural arrangements of varying awkwardness into compelling reasons for maintaining the status quo. The same arguments, citing different processes, were used in America, Africa and Ireland (and practically every independent nation in the world) with the same dire consequences predicted if they were ignored. Of course they were, and yes, life went on much the same as ever.
It isn’t in the nature of any state to want to cede territory but it begs the broader question: why is the British Establishment so desperate to keep Scotland? Well, if there’s a Yes vote, north of the border instantly gets rid of the hereditary second chamber, the City of London and Britain’s public-school elites, all those forces superfluous to good government but expensively grandfathered into our current system. There will also be a proper constitution drawn up, conferring citizen rights and designating responsibilities. It’s inevitable that people in England will then look north and think: “I fancy a bit of that.”
So Scottish independence is about a lot more than self-determination for that country: it is about the genuine modernisation of these islands’ political systems, conducted through the restitution of participative democracy. I don’t know whether September will offer up a vote of hope or fear. But I am convinced that those who pushed themselves to the forefront of the debate on their futures are unlikely to cede that power back to the elites, as represented by the Camerons, Cleggs and Milibands of this world. And that might be contagious.
(Here is the link to the original>>> http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/irvine-welsh-the-scots-poll-can-give-hope-to-the-left-across-britain-9559111.html