I've been reflecting on Scottish independence, and decided that my experiences relating to prejudiced nationalism in Scotland have been instrumental in shaping some core political views
( Read more... )
I suspect where we might differ is in the idea for the framework of the international organisation. I'd like something with actual power, directly elected members (the Council of Ministers bickering in their national interest is the worst bit of the EU) and the highest level governance structures.
I'm not confident that looser international organisations can actually hold together and serve a useful purpose. The UN has done a sterling job in difficult conditions, but is a long way from being the world government that US conspiracy theorists fear.
The Tories must be in an interesting position on this; on one hand they're the official political representation of Unionism in Scotland, on the other, if Scotland is independent they've effectively single-party rule for the remainder of the UK.
I agree - recall the recently discovered Thatcher/Hesletine memo talking about abandoning Liverpool to "managed decline". Current European policy seems to accept the idea of managed decline for entire countries like Greece.
The larger the political system, the less involvment is possible for ordinary people and the more the whole thing is taken over by professional lobbyists.
With regard to my previous posts on solidarity, I'd say that it functions within Scotland, is on the way out for the UK (witness the viciousness about the extent to which one area of the country is subsidizing another or not), and has never been present in the EU outside of a minority of elite internationalists. There's no support for European countries funding one another's welfare states. A pan-European government would slowly dismantle welfarism in the name of competitiveness, and force the public sector to shrink to purely a procurement source (and locus of corruption) for public services.
I think my ideal situation is a large number of small countries under a large umbrella organisation looser than the USA but tighter than the current EU. I think the main trick is to get each type of political thingum dealt with a the appropriate locality-level, and I'm not sure "the UK" is an appropriate locality-level for very much at all (locality-levels that I feel could usefully be applied to me for illustrative porpoises - "Kings Hedges", "Cambridge", "Cambridgeshire", "East Anglia", "England", "Europe", "NATO", "World") because I feel the cultural/social divisions are larger than makes for a coherent wossname at that level (I'm not sure "England" is really a coherent wossname at that level either really, tbph).
I'm also not really confident that the system-as-stands (or indeed any realistic system) will correctly allocate political thingums to locality-levels of course. Not least because I'm sure there is large space for disagreement about what "correctly" means.
Given all that; why not embrace a European identity and get all the benefits of the cultural, scientific, philosophical and social achievements of the whole continent?
It doesn't work like that... that's too diverse an idea to assimilate into a single identity. Maybe if Europe had been united under a single crown and flag for four centuries, and during that time had faced foes and adversity as a unit, and achieved much, and shaped the world.
But as it is... there just isn't a single narrative thread that can form the basis of an identity in centuries of European squabbling. How can I identify with 'Europe' when just sixty years ago Europe was disperate nations tearing itself apart? Not even a civil war, with each side claiming to be the 'true Europe', but a true clash of separate entities, each with their own narrative story. And it's not like Europe is united even now: the whole Euro crisis just throws into sharp relief how Europe is not a single identity.
If you can make a coherent identity narrative out of 'European' that stretches back more than four centuries, I'd love to hear it; I simply can't.
Comments 15
(The comment has been removed)
I'm not confident that looser international organisations can actually hold together and serve a useful purpose. The UN has done a sterling job in difficult conditions, but is a long way from being the world government that US conspiracy theorists fear.
The Tories must be in an interesting position on this; on one hand they're the official political representation of Unionism in Scotland, on the other, if Scotland is independent they've effectively single-party rule for the remainder of the UK.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The larger the political system, the less involvment is possible for ordinary people and the more the whole thing is taken over by professional lobbyists.
With regard to my previous posts on solidarity, I'd say that it functions within Scotland, is on the way out for the UK (witness the viciousness about the extent to which one area of the country is subsidizing another or not), and has never been present in the EU outside of a minority of elite internationalists. There's no support for European countries funding one another's welfare states. A pan-European government would slowly dismantle welfarism in the name of competitiveness, and force the public sector to shrink to purely a procurement source (and locus of corruption) for public services.
Reply
I'm also not really confident that the system-as-stands (or indeed any realistic system) will correctly allocate political thingums to locality-levels of course. Not least because I'm sure there is large space for disagreement about what "correctly" means.
Reply
Reply
Reply
But as it is... there just isn't a single narrative thread that can form the basis of an identity in centuries of European squabbling. How can I identify with 'Europe' when just sixty years ago Europe was disperate nations tearing itself apart? Not even a civil war, with each side claiming to be the 'true Europe', but a true clash of separate entities, each with their own narrative story. And it's not like Europe is united even now: the whole Euro crisis just throws into sharp relief how Europe is not a single identity.
If you can make a coherent identity narrative out of 'European' that stretches back more than four centuries, I'd love to hear it; I simply can't.
S.
Reply
S.
Reply
Leave a comment