I sometimes read Scottish nationalists arguing that it is somehow illegitimate to support the Union, as the UK is an artificial construct and Britain is not a nation. Sometimes they back up this argument with discussion about the the history of the Act of Union of 1707 and what was agreed between Scotland and England all those years ago. It is almost as if they consider that Scotland is just the same as it was prior to 1707 and just as much a nation as it would have been if the Union had never happened.

Historical debate is, of course, fascinating, but it can be incredibly difficult to resolve arguments by appealing to history. This is not least because very eminent historians can have such radically different views on the same events. I’ve read historians who think that Scotland was subsumed by the Union, while others emphasise how we retained our distinct nationhood. No doubt, each side brings its present political views to the investigation of the past and attributes to that past ideas that were not even dreamed of then.

It is however, possible, I believe, for unionists and nationalists to come to some sort of consensus on this matter by reflecting that whatever disagreement there may be between them is more a confusion about certain words like “nation” and “country” that can be used in a variety of senses.

Is Scotland a nation? Yes, of course. After all, we talk of the Six Nations Rugby Championship in which Scotland takes part. Moreover, the UK is commonly described as a multinational state, which implies that it is made up of nations. This type of state is not particularly uncommon. India is a multinational state made up of many ethnic groups who speak a variety of languages and follow a variety of religions. Present day Russia likewise has many different ethnic groups, religions and languages and has many constituent Republics. Nearly every European country is formed from formerly independent countries. Some of these may be referred to as nations.

Often this depends on a person’s political viewpoint. Someone who supports independence may describe Catalonia or Flanders as a nation. Someone else may not. There is nothing therefore incorrect or unusual about describing Scotland as a nation. The words may be different in various languages and the usage somewhat varied, but in principle we’re dealing with the same idea. I can ask someone in Germany what “land” he is from and it would be correct for him to answer Saxony. I can ask someone in the United States what state he is from and it would be correct to for him to answer Texas.

If such a person were a nationalist, or if the usage of his language allowed it, he might describe where he comes from as his nation. In all events however, the reality would be the same. A constituent part of a multinational state can be described as a nation, or a country or a state. It amounts to the same thing. However, the word “nation” when it is used in this way is crucially used in a different sense from when it is used as part of the the phrase “nation-state.”

If asked which country I’m from I can answer Scotland or Britain or the UK. Some people prefer to describe themselves as Scottish and not British. This is perfectly legitimate. Here language is determined by identity and the aspiration for Scotland to be independent. No one has to feel British. It should however, be admitted by Scottish independence supporters that many Scots do feel British and that this is likewise legitimate.

But if I am asked my nationality on an official form, it is likely that in certain circumstances I will have less leeway. Often it is necessary to reply that I am British. This is because such forms are commonly not asking about my sense of identity but about the nation-state where I am a citizen. If, for example, I filled out a Russian visa form and put that I was Scottish, there would be every chance that the form would be rejected. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the word “nation” can be used fairly loosely and in a variety of senses, but the word “nation-state” cannot.

Many nation-states can be described as more or less artificial constructs. If this means anything, it means that they were constructed from formerly independent constituent parts and that this happened owing to the accidents of history and for a variety of complex reasons. In this sense, the United States is an artificial construct, as is Spain, as is the Netherlands. The history of most nation-states is the history of often arbitrary decisions, of wars won that might have been lost, of conquest and of injustice. All of these things can be described as artificial and they all were necessary to make the present day nation-state.

Even Scotland was once a collection of warring kingdoms called unfamiliar names like Fortriu and Dál Riata, speaking a variety of languages and with various cultures and identities. Prior to this, no doubt, we were a collection of warring tribes. If I had a mind to, I could probably go back to a time when Aberdeenshire was independent, ruled by some feudal lord. I could, if I chose, describe this place as my nation. When we delve into history looking for our nation, there is no particular reason to pick the present day boundaries of Scotland. All is arbitrary. All an artificial construct. Scotland is just as much a union as the UK. It’s just that this union occurred some hundreds of years earlier. There’s no rational reason why that should be decisive in determining our present day nation-state.

The question of whether Scotland is a nation can then be answered. Scotland in one sense is a nation and in another it is not. Scotland can be described as a nation in the same sense that Bavaria is described as a “land”, Texas a “state” or Catalonia a “nacionalidad” (nationality). This is simply a matter of language usage. Some constituent parts of nation-states are described as nations, others described as countries, others as republics, others still as regions. The reality is the same.

Some of these places, like Catalonia or Flanders have significant numbers of people who seek independence, others do not. But there is nothing intrinsic in such places being constituent parts of nation-states, which makes independence either inevitable or desirable. Otherwise, it would follow that every nation-state, which was formed from formerly independent countries should break-up into those parts.

The sense in which Scotland is not a nation is the sense in which we are not a nation-state. It is this, which independence supporters want us to become, for the defining characteristic of a nation-state is that it is independent. Something clearly cannot become what it already is. Therefore, it is uncontroversial and independence supporters must agree that Scotland is not a nation in the sense of being a nation-state. This usage of the word “nation” as short for “nation-state” is the most common usage the world over and what most people mean when they talk of their nation. There are exceptions to this usage when a place or a people can be described as a nation even though they lack a nation-state. In Canada for instance there are “First Nations”. Such “nations” even sometimes have a seat at the United Nations. But the vast majority of UN nations are nation-states.

Is Britain a nation? In the most common usage of the word “nation” clearly it is, for Britain is a nation-state. To attempt to deny that Britain is a nation is therefore to simply misunderstand the the most ordinary usage of the word “nation.” Is Britain a nation in the looser sense that Scotland is a nation? This is more a question of identity. Is there such a thing as a British identity? Clearly there is. Lots of Scots feel it. Some do not. Some independence supporters don’t like the idea of a British identity. But to deny it exists is like trying to deny that Germans have an identity or that Spaniards do. Even if some Bavarians or Catalans want independence and deny their German or Spanish identity, it does not follow that everyone must do the same.

If Scotland were to become a nation-state it would be the goal of the Scottish Government and people to preserve this nation-state. It is in the natural order of things for a nation-state to seek to defend its borders and maintain its territorial integrity. In the event of independence therefore, it would be uncontroversial for Scots to seek to prevent the breakup of this nation-state called Scotland. But by the same token it is natural for British people to seek to prevent the breakup of our nation-state called the United Kingdom. In this we are no different from a German or an Italian striving to maintain the territorial integrity of his nation-state.

It is this which Scottish nationalists frequently fail to understand and why there is commonly so little understanding between the opponents in the independence debate. Independence supporters frequently conflate the meanings of the word “nation.” The justification for independence is frequently founded on the implied assumption that Scotland already has or has somehow retained the properties of a nation-state, and that the UK is somehow an “illegitimate” grouping of peoples. But this is not only circular, it is also self-defeating. For if Scotland already is a sovereign nation-state, there is no need to seek independence. It’s a simple matter of logic that you cannot become what you already are.

Connect with  Us:

Website: http://www.openunionism.com/
Twitter: @OpenUnionism
Email: openunionism@gmail.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/oneill1912

Share and Enjoy

Henry Hill is a columnist for Conservative Home, opinion writer for the International Business Times and editor of Open Unionism. Follow him on Twitter @HCH_Hill.

One of the complicating factors for any unionist campaign is striking the right balance between a focus on it being a question for the country in question (which it undoubtedly is), and deploying one of the undoubted strengths of the union which is that people from all four home nations support one another.

To my mind, it has never made sense for unionists to fall into the nationalist trap that insists that only people from Scotland should campaign in or contribute to the campaign to keep the UK together. Scots should certainly be the voters, that much is beyond question, but to cut Scottish unionists off from the assistance of Welsh, English and Northern Irish people is to concede vital ground and play on the separatists’ turf. After all it is they who maintain that such people have no business in Scottish affairs – a unionist cannot credibly hold that view.

With that in mind, it was a most welcome discovery on Tuesday when I found out about the launch of Better Together London. Whilst their focus on London being home to “thousands of Scots” is understandable, I do hope they don’t try to play down the fact that the support of non-Scots British is one of the key benefits of being a unionist and, for Scotland as a whole, being in the Union.

The big question is whether or not this is a one-off, or part of a broader strategy on the part of Better Together to become a truly national campaign. It is not hard to see how London, being the centre of the British political and media world, might make a tempting target for an exception to a purely Scotland-focused campaign.

This would be a disappointment. Unionists need to recognise that the biggest threat to the Union in the long term is not Alex Salmond’s unsought-for referendum, imperative as it is to win that contest and win it handsomely. The real threat is the continual diminution of the concept of Britishness, the existence of which is vital to the legitimacy of British institutions and, fundamentally, the British state itself.

This problem is noticeable in several different ways. There’s the reluctance of pro-Union politicians to defend the legitimacy of Westminster decision making, and the failure to challenge the nationalistic rhetoric that rule from London is somehow “colonial”. There’s even the argument, put forward in a letter to the Times last week, that if Wales and Scotland were torn from the EU “against their will” by the massed votes of the South East, it might “destroy the UK”. In truth, far more damaging to the long-term interests of the UK is allowing the notion that there is no such thing as a legitimate “British” decision to break out of nationalist discourse and into our own.

Spreading the campaign beyond Scotland is not only a good way to harness additional strength towards the battle in 2014, but is a welcome first step towards  reminding not just Scots but people across the UK that we are better together, and stepping up to defend the legitimacy of Britain and Britishness. Alistair Darling and the rest must make sure that London is only the beginning.

Connect with  Us:

Website: http://www.openunionism.com/
Twitter: @OpenUnionism
Email: openunionism@gmail.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/oneill1912

Share and Enjoy

Stephen Goss is the newly-elected Chairman of Northern Irish Conservative Future. He’s a Roman Catholic from Andersonstown, a doctoral student at the Queen’s University of Belfast, and a former member of the Ulster Unionist Party. Follow him on Twitter @StephenGossNICF

I attended Basil McCrea and John McCallister’s event about their (so far nameless) party’s policies and direction. This wasn’t the launch, merely a sort of pre-launch to whet our appetites for what the Jasil Party – for want of anything else to call it – will be about.

Their three policy priorities will be ‘youth unemployment’, ‘rebalancing the economy’ and ‘tackling educational underachievement’. Good so far, who could possibly disagree? Basil talked about creating a Northern Ireland anchored in the Twenty-first Century, not stuck in the past and ‘mature, confident, more than inclusive’ which he backed up with an up-beat and inspirational video. Also good and commendable, it certainly sounds very positive and appealing.

The problems arise however when it comes to the matter of details about the Jasil Party. They want to look at issues beyond the constitutional, celebrate diversity and promote tolerance and inclusivity (actually ‘more than inclusivity’, whatever that means). They won’t have any flags on their literature; they want to appeal to everyone – Catholic or Protestant, unionist or nationalist – who cares about building a better Northern Ireland. This is wonderful, but effectively makes them a second Alliance Party.

Apparently not though; as Jasil will go into opposition in the Northern Ireland Assembly and “sitting on the fence doesn’t cut it”. When I pointed out Alliance had tried and failed to be the opposition at Stormont and asked how the two of them could be more effective at it than the Alliance’s eight MLAs, there was no answer other than that they would stay in opposition until they could overtake the DUP and gain the First Minister post.

A further differentiation is that they will – and Basil went to great lengths to emphasise this – reluctantly designate as unionists in the Assembly. They plan to introduce legislation to do away with community designations for parties (which is a sensible approach as a weighted majority system would be better). There was also a promise to engage in tokenism at the actual launch when it comes, Basil committing to parading minorities, ‘non-traditional unionists’ and a woman before those assembled at the great event.

Despite the best efforts of the audience, neither would identify the party as left or right, but we were told that they are “for the individual”, for education (which is re-assuring, far too many parties are against it) with some form of academic selection and described themselves as “socially liberal but financially conservative”.

So, if we accept that they aren’t in fact a second Alliance Party, on the basis they are pro-Union, promote individualism, advocate academic selection, are socially progressive and conservative fiscally, then they are effectively the NI Conservatives.

This is very frustrating as, despite my flippant tone, I have a great deal of respect for John and Basil. When in the UUP, I backed both of them in their separate bids for the party leadership. We largely see eye to eye on the direction Northern Ireland needs to take and what needs to be done politically. The desire to see normal left/right, non-sectarian politics; an opposition at Stormont; the private sector grown; an inclusive, progressive society and a state that acts responsibly with the public finances are all reasons why I joined the Conservatives. John and Basil should have done the same.

Together Jasil and the NI Conservatives would have established momentum and seriously pursued the agenda they clearly both share. By starting a new party, they have ensured that two minor parties will be fighting for the same political ground and electoral support, meaning the commendable ideals and objectives they share won’t be realised. Northern Ireland does not need any more political parties, especially when they are espousing the policies of those already existing.

Connect with  Us:

Website: http://www.openunionism.com/
Twitter: @OpenUnionism
Email: openunionism@gmail.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/oneill1912

Share and Enjoy

Connect with  Us:

Website: http://www.openunionism.com/
Twitter: @OpenUnionism
Email: openunionism@gmail.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/oneill1912

Share and Enjoy

Lucius Winslow is an MA Politics student at Queen’s University Belfast, who takes an intensive interest in his subject. In his spare time he writes creatively.

I know Henry Hill has already covered this, but I thought I’d add my own spin on things. After all, I am not sure I have managed to alienate every Open Unionism reader yet… So, here goes:

As a British unionist and patriot, I despise the European Union. It is incompetent, federalist, anti-nation, and is making Britain (to say nothing of all the other member states) consistently poorer and weaker. If I were to make the decision I’d take us out next week. I mention this because it seems fair to fly my pennants high.

So, despite being a card-carrying Tory, I do have more than a hefty chunk of sympathy for UKIP. I am also tremendously fond of Nigel Farage, whom I met once at the inaugural opening of the UCL Libertarian Society, and who had the decency to buy me a pint of coke in a Bloomsbury pub afterwards (I forget exactly which one, though perhaps appropriately it was near the Spearmint Rhino).

But, to the point. There is now a near-universal expectation that UKIP will win the European elections in 2014, in the sense that they will at least be the first party, having the most MEPs, and probably an outright majority.

But I am intrigued by the possibility that in May of that year UKIP could be the only party in Britain to have higher-level representation in all four home nations. England is their bastion, particularly in the south. But they can expect to increase their share in the north as well, not least with all those parliamentary by-elections confirming their potency in the region.

In Wales UKIP already have representation in the form of one MEP. This is very unlikely to be lost, but it is just about possible that they could squeak in for a second one (though I doubt it).

Scotland has always been harder going for UKIP. Indeed Farage admitted this in his fantastically candid manner at that UCL Libertarian event years ago. ‘Hopeless’ I think might have been one of the words he used, along with a rueful laugh and a shake of the head. But how times change. In the last EU election in Scotland it took roughly 10% of the electorate to return an MEP. In that election UKIP was on 5.2%, so clearly there is room for improvement.

The last polling figure I have seen (YouGov: fieldwork 8^th-9^th May) indicates that UKIP are currently at 8% in Scotland. In other words, they would appear to be falling short. But this is misleading, because the abysmal turnout in European elections always ensures a more Eurosceptic electorate, as does the nature of the election: people who vote for other parties in general elections shift for Europe. So it seems possible, even probable, that UKIP will be able to take an MEP in Scotland.

And so we come to Northern Ireland which, as ever, has its own wretched little political system. In 2009 I was still living in Moira, and thus eligible to vote. I voted for Jim Nicholson as my first preference because he stood under the Conservative banner. But as the UCUNF link is done, and as Nicholson is a euro-corporatist mediocrity, I think I’ll cast about somewhere else. Given a lack of options the Eurosceptic unionist must make do with the DUP, they being committed outers.

But if UKIP stand everything changes. For what it’s worth I believe they will stand. There are several reasons. 1) Farage told me. 2) They already have NI representatives, and thus some form of base. 3) When a few months ago I told the UKIP candidate-selection office that if they could find nobody else to stand I would do it myself, I was – thank God – rebuffed . This implies they have someone better in mind. And 4) they’d get a seat, or at least a good share of the vote.

The DUP will still get a seat, as will SF. And as both parties are Eurosceptic – albeit for different reasons – that can be fine. But if UKIP comes in from the outside, it can attract the Eurosceptic vote without trying. And it doesn’t have the local baggage. It may just be able to pip the UUP to the third MEP slot.

If that happens, I’ll happily buy the new UKIP MEP for Northern Ireland a pint of coke myself.

Connect with  Us:

Website: http://www.openunionism.com/
Twitter: @OpenUnionism
Email: openunionism@gmail.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/oneill1912

Share and Enjoy

One of the things that independence grants a country is choice. For example, an independent Scotland could decide to join the Euro. Alternatively, it could decide to set up a Scottish pound. There would rightly be a great deal of indignation in Scotland, if someone else tried to limit our newly won independence by saying that we did not have a choice in these matters. Being a sovereign nation would mean that we would have the right to have a currency that was different from that in the rest of the UK (rUK). If we did not have that right, we could not properly be called independent at all.

Independence is always a relational concept. I am independent as I am independent from something else. But if Scotland became independent from rUK, it follows logically that rUK would become independent from Scotland. They too would gain independence, not just us. But it would be unjust if we were to deny to newly independent rUK something that we would demand for ourselves. Just as an independent Scotland would have the right to choose a currency different from rUK, such as a new Scottish pound, or the Euro, so newly independent rUK would have the right to have a different currency from Scotland. For either side not to have this right would be to imply that were not properly independent.

The Scottish government has expressed a desire to retain pound sterling after independence. This is a perfectly proper and reasonable aspiration. But no supporter of independence would want to say that Scotland could not at a later date change its mind. Perhaps, in time the Euro would prove to be such a success that we would want to join it, or perhaps we might decide that having our own currency would be better still. No one could force us to retain the pound if we did not want it post independence, and we would resent it deeply if anyone tried.

But by the same token we could not force rUK to retain a currency union with us if they did not want to.

At the moment the UK government, in an official paper, is saying that it probably would not be in rUK’s interest to maintain a currency union with Scotland post independence. This has been met with some indignation by the SNP. They have argued that it is in everyone’s best interest that Scotland retains the pound. This is because they think that it would be beneficial economically to rUK to retain Scotland’s economy within a sterling zone, not least because it would help rUK’s balance of payments. They have even gone so far as to suggest that if rUK were unwilling to allow Scotland to remain in a sterling zone, then they would not accept a share of the UK’s national debt. This share could amount to around 125 billion pounds.

It’s always tricky to know for sure what’s going on when we get into economics. One side comes up with a set of figures and economic arguments that look very sensible, only for the other side to come up with a set of figures that are equally hard to dispute. In this case, it might be better to look at the psychology of the situation.

The SNP seem pretty keen to keep the pound post independence, even going so far as to make threats if they don’t get their way. The UK government,  on the other hand, does not exactly appear to be begging an independent Scotland to stay in the pound. It may well, of course, be just as the SNP suggest that it would be foolish for rUK not to keep Scotland in the sterling zone, but then if that were the case, it would hardly be necessary to resort to threats. If it were so self-evident that it was in rUK’s interest to keep Scotland in the pound, there would be no need to persuade at all. Naturally, this might all be a bluff in order to discourage Scots from voting for independence and that in the event of independence, everyone would see sense. But again, it would be a fairly feeble bluff if it were so obvious to all concerned that monetary union between rUK and an independent Scotland was so self-evidently desirable.

The best argument in favour of currency union between rUK and Scotland is the example of the Republic of Ireland, which retained the pound after independence and kept it until the 1970s. Currency unions between independent states are clearly possible. We already have a currency union between the UK and the crown dependencies  (Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man) and the overseas territories (Gibraltar, the Falklands etc). Why couldn’t we have a currency union between an independent Scotland and rUK? There are some limitations and constraints on all sides from being in a currency union and to say the least the crisis in the Eurozone has ably demonstrated that monetary union without political and fiscal union is at best problematic. But if both rUK and Scotland considered a currency union to be in their own economic interest, no doubt it could be made to work.

But here’s where it looks more difficult for the SNP. If rUK really did not want a currency union with Scotland, then it could not be forced. Scotland could continue to use the pound unilaterally and unofficially, but this would not be a currency union. For a country as developed as Scotland, with a large banking sector, this is hardly a serious option. A Scottish government under these circumstances would have no control whatsoever over monetary policy. To become independent only to have the status of Kosovo, Montenegro or Panama is hardly a pleasing prospect.

The threat of not accepting a share of the national debt, can likewise hardly be considered as serious. Having refused to accept a share of the UK’s national debt, Scotland would not exactly appear to be a trustworthy country to lend money to. Trying to sell bonds on the international market, quite possibly in London would be tricky at best. The credit rating of an independent Scotland would hardly be helped if we had  just shown ourselves willing to renege on our debts. Most importantly however, if relations between rUK and Scotland deteriorated to the extent of Scotland walking away from the debt we had built up together, it would mean that the post independence negotiations had effectively reached deadlock with neither side willing to cooperate with the other. Relations between the two nation states would be characterised by recrimination and hostility. This would be a disaster for everyone no matter on which side of the border we live.

In the end, we in Scotland have to accept that in the event of independence, rUK would have a perfect right to have a different currency from us. We might regret this, we might think it foolish, we might even think that they are acting against their own best interests, but that really is their business. After all, they might think it foolish for Scotland to leave the UK. A supporter of independence would hardly let that influence his judgement. These are matters on which reasonable people can disagree. So if there were to be a difference of opinion about economic self-interest between Scotland and rUK, Scots would have to extend the same right to those south of the border to disagree with us. An independent Scotland could not force them to have us in a currency union, nor should we want to force them.

An independence supporter who is completely unwilling to accept the possibility of losing the pound should seriously consider whether he really understands the concept of independence. It might indeed be possible to remain in a currency union with rUK. No one will know for sure until the negotiations begin after a “yes” vote in the independence referendum. But recognising the fact that the people living in rUK would clearly have the right to judge for themselves and make their decision independently of us as to whether they thought it was in their own economic interest to remain in a currency union with Scotland, means accepting that it must be possible that Scottish independence would lead to us losing the pound.

Even if we were to disagree with the rUK position, even if we desperately wanted to retain the pound, we would have to allow them the choice. Otherwise we would not be respecting their independence. Honesty therefore requires supporters of independence to admit that a vote for independence might also be a vote for losing the pound. After all, the UK government has stated its official position that it is unlikely to be in the rUK’s interest to retain a currency union with an independent Scotland. This we must assume would be their negotiating position in the event of Scotland choosing to vote for independence.

This need not discourage independence supporters. There are advantages that come with having an independent currency for which reason most newly independent countries, like Latvia or Ukraine made establishing their own currency one of their top priorities. An independent Scotland, of course, could do likewise. It may be that we would have no alternative but to do so.

Connect with  Us:

Website: http://www.openunionism.com/
Twitter: @OpenUnionism
Email: openunionism@gmail.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/oneill1912

Share and Enjoy

Share and Enjoy

Henry Hill is a columnist for Conservative Home, opinion writer for the International Business Times and editor of Open Unionism. Follow him on Twitter @HCH_Hill.

“The scale of the advance of Ukip has shocked both the two main parties. As expected, it seems to have taken votes primarily from disgruntled Conservatives, but it is also establishing itself in traditional Labour areas. As Tim Congdon has pointed out, if that trend should continue Mr Farage would be able to claim that his was the only truly national party with strong support across the whole of England.”

Above is Lord Tebbit, temporarily forgetting that Alex Salmond has yet to win the 2014 referendum campaign. I know that Anglonats read this blog but individual opinions aside, UKIP is very explicitly the United Kingdom Independence Party. It contests Scottish and Welsh elections. It even managed to beat the Conservatives to an MLA in Northern Ireland.

The problem is that, despite its clearly British sentiments, UKIP doesn’t appear to have a game plan for outside England. It continues to poll poorly in elections to the devolved chambers. It at least beat the Liberal Democrats to an MEP in Wales (and former two-term Conservative MEP for North Wales and so-called “Welsh Iron Lady”, Beata Brookes, recently announced her defection). Yet despite being in the unique position of being able to focus their resources on a single council, the Welsh wing of UKIP didn’t even put up a fight for Isle of Anglesey council.

Its performance in Thursday’s local elections was impressive but they are the worst possible local elections for judging this, consisting as they did almost exclusively of rural English councils. The real tests will come over the next couple of years when councils in the smaller home nations and urban England are up for election. The next few years contain a string of relevant examples:

• The council elections in 2014. On present form Manchester’s Liberal Democrats are set to be wiped out, leaving Labour the only party on the council. If UKIP really do have the ability to reach out to Labour voters, then getting elected in a city that last elected a centre-right councillor in 1992 will be a good litmus test.
• The European elections. Whether or not UKIP can increase their performance in Wales, more interesting still will be to see if they can scoop a Scottish MEP (if they do, whether they simply unseat the Tory). With the Conservatives and Ulster Unionists in the doldrums, it will be interesting to see how a UKIP bid to take the third Northern Irish seat (currently held by a Conservative-allied Ulster Unionist) fares.
• The 2015 general election. It seems fairly safe to predict that, if UKIP to manage to win any seats in 2015, they’ll be in England. Nonetheless it will be interesting to see whether they can build up a vote outside England (possibly cannibalising the Tory vote in Scotland and Wales).
• The Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 2015 (they might be postponed to 2016). Can David McNarry hold his Assembly seat as a UKIP MLA? Can they win any more?

• The Welsh and Scottish elections in 2016. These elections have an element of PR, so the question is whether or not UKIP can win any seats on the regional lists (and who from).

Long-term, this is probably what will determine whether or not UKIP is a genuinely different sort of centre-right party or not. It will be interesting to see whether, and how, UKIP rise to these challenges with which the Conservatives have struggled for decades.

Connect with  Us:

Website: http://www.openunionism.com/
Twitter: @OpenUnionism
Email: openunionism@gmail.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/oneill1912

Share and Enjoy

There is little in this analysis to deny the contention of the Treasury paper that a formal sterling union following Scottish independence would “require rigorous oversight of Scotland’s (fiscal) plans by continuing UK.”

Share and Enjoy

In January Open Unionism’s editor, Henry Hill, took up a weekly column with popular website Conservative Home, discussing the Union, devolved politics and related issues from an explicitly Conservative perspective.

The column is published every Wednesday. Linked below are his April columns, with previews.

(24/04/13) Scottish independence may mean no Scottish banknotes

Another of the strangely integrationist ramifications of Alex Salmond’s separatist ambitions came to light this week, when a Treasury paper revealed that in the event of a post-separation currency union between Scotland and the continuing UK, it might no longer be possible to continue issuing Scottish banknotes.

According to the Treasury, this is because Scotland’s weaker commitment to sterling under a currency union might have a negative impact on the confidence of the public and currency speculators in the “Scottiish pound”, in case Scotland were ever to withdraw from the union and devalue. Those notes issued and backed directly by the central bank underpinning the currency – the Bank of England – will be a safer bet. And despite SNP claims that the right to issue Scottish notes is ironclad, the relevant legislation – most recently the 2009 Banking Act – is issued by Westminster.

Yet Salmond’s plan will have farther-reaching consequences than simply sparing cashiers south of the border the occasional squabble over the legality of an unusual note. The Treasury is also expected to argue that for Scotland to maintain a ‘sterling zone’ it would have to accept budget constraints set in London – a foreign city where, Nicola Sturgeon’s unilateral declarations notwithstanding, Scotland would no longer be represented. Unionist politicians such as Alistair Darling and Danny Alexander maintain that Scotland would have to face cuts to sustain an economic union.

Thus the currency becomes another one of those strange issues where the SNP seem to be shrinking from the shiny new levers of statehood that independence is supposed to proffer them. Indeed, in this instance they appear to have stumbled into reverse gear. (Read more…)

.

(18/04/13) Devolved politicians contest Thatcher’s legacy

The Welsh Assembly opened its first post-Easter session with tributes to Lady Thatcher, which played out much as you might expect.

First Minister and Labour leader Carwyn Jones focused on her role in allowing Welsh coalmining to decline, as well as her (quite unintended) role in beckoning in devolution. He also accused her of alienating both sides of the Northern Irish issue, which is probably inevitable if you both fight the IRA and seek an accommodation with peaceful nationalism. He praised her role in liberating the Falklands and, in a rather barbed compliment, noted that her 1983 total of 14 Welsh Conservative MPs – including three from Cardiff – has never been repeated.

Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies was naturally laudatory, praising Thatcher as “a force for good” who turned Britain around. Yet as in Westminster, there were those who chose to stay away, from both the Labour and nationalist parties. Plaid leader Leanne Woods distinguished herself by rebuking the “no such thing as society” line by stating that Wales believes in “community”. To my mind, the full quotation is in fact all about the distinction between community – a tangible, local and personal phenomenon – and an abstract and remote ‘society’ that can only be represented by the state. (Read more…)

.

(11/04/13) Thatcher: The view from outside England

One of the clearest illustrations of the gap between the Margaret Thatcher of history and that of folklore is in this excellent article by David Williamson, political editor of Wales Online. In it, he draws attention to many of the discrepancies between the Thatcher of today’s remembering and the one Wales experienced. The best passage is worth quoting at length:

“When the Assembly took its first, often faltering, steps Mrs Thatcher’s memory was regularly evoked by AMs. Devolution, for all its imperfections, had a purpose: to prevent Thatcherite policies ripping through Wales again.

“Just as the myth of the bogeyman has been used by generations of parents to make children scamper upstairs at bedtime, the image of Mrs Thatcher as the nemesis of Wales has served an electoral purpose.”

He lists the dry, psephological facts: that some three in ten Welsh voters backed Thatcher at the ballot box in each of her election victories. That in 1983 the Conservatives returned 14 Welsh MPs. That they did all this despite facing three consecutive Welsh leaders of the Labour Party in Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock, MPs for Cardiff South East, Blaenau Gwent and Islwyn respectively. One of the most memorable moments of the 1979 general election was David Dimbleby informing the nation that Keith Best was the first Tory MP for Anglesey since the Viscount Bulkeley… in 1722. (Read more…)

.

(04/04/13) Gone are the days when Scottish trades union leaders stood firm against independence

The government’s new welfare measures, greeted with such decorum by the left-leaning national press, have made waves in the devolved regions too.

The ‘bedroom tax’ – or spare room subsidy, if you prefer – was front and centre in most coverage. Both the Welsh and Northern Irish administrations have criticised the new policy, as has the Scottish government – although they have stopped short of a Labour proposal to outlaw evictions stemming from the new rules. Opponents of the measure in Cardiff, Glasgow and Edinburgh joined others from across the UK in a series of coordinated public demonstrations.

The long term political implications aren’t clear yet, but people are already trying to capitalise on the visible anger provoked by the new rule. I wrote in a previous column about Welsh politicians using it to make the case for the devolution of welfare, whilst the New Statesman carries a piece about how such measures – and Labour’s inevitable commitment to some form of austerity if and when it returns to office – are apparently driving Scottish trades unions towards supporting independence. Long gone, it seems, are the days when Scottish NUM leader Mick McGahey said: “Scottish workers have more in common with London dockers, Durham miners and Sheffield engineers than they have ever had with Scottish barons and landlord traitors.”

From the perspective of three months writing this column, what has struck me most about the bedroom tax response is that it’s one of the first truly “British” stories I’ve encountered that hasn’t been some form of constitutional angst. It is very rare to encounter in the news a Westminster policy, certainly a domestic policy, which actually affects the entire British people in this way. Normally, Westminster features either as the sparring partner of a devolved politician or group, or in the ‘rest of the UK’ section. This, hopefully, is something that pro-union politicians will reflect upon when they’re dreaming up their vision of the “next stage” of devolution. (Read more…)

Connect with  Us:

Website: http://www.openunionism.com/
Twitter: @OpenUnionism
Email: openunionism@gmail.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/oneill1912

Share and Enjoy