Willie Drennan for Issue 14 of The Ulster Folk
On May 2nd,
I attended a presentation on the upcoming Scottish Referendum at Queens
University Belfast. It was delivered by Dr Michael Rosie of University of Edinburgh.
[Dr
Rosie is Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Edinburgh and
Director of the University’s Institute of Governance. Dr Rosie specialises in
studying the political sociology of Scotland. The event was facilitated by Professor John
Brewer of the Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation and Social
Justice at Queens].
Dr Rosie is a man well-versed on the subject
matter of anything Scottish. His presentation was delivered with great ease,
comprehensive and quite entertaining. No pretentions with this academic:
excellent lunchtime entertainment.
I didn’t
really learn an awful lot as I have been following the referendum debate but
there certainly were a lot of issues confirmed with much meat added to the
bones. In a nut shell the situation is that the polls
still give the NO voters a slight
edge and there are complex reasons as to why the Scots are taking their various
stances. What was not clarified for me were issues relating to the following:
membership of the EU, membership of the British
Commonwealth, currency, defence, and fees for students.
Dr Rosie
straight away denounced the extremist elements in the debate in Scotland
and presented an image of mature civilised debate among the majority of Scots.
It would of course be virtually impossible for an academic Scot not to have a
personal opinion and while he did his best to present both sides of the
argument he was clearly a YES
supporter. You couldn’t help get the feeling that the desire for independence
was primarily for the enlightened progressives and those against were from the
old school.
Reasons for
variations in findings of opinion polls were attributed very much to age: Dr
Rosie suggesting that the NO voters
were older and the younger folk were opting for the big political change. While
this may well be somewhat accurate I think this generalisation is an over
simplification. He also used this assessment to reinforce his contention that
while there may well be a small victory for the NO side it will be short lived as the older pro-British NO voters will soon die off to be
replaced by the young progressive independence seekers (not his words but my
interpretation of his words).The flaw in this theory is that the young also get
older and wiser.
The
conclusion to Dr Rosie’s presentation was the most interesting for me. I agree
with his analysis that this debate is simply going to intensify after September
18th: that a great opportunity has been missed to consider more
radical changes for the good of all in the United Kingdom. However he seemed
to put the blame for this solely on the unionists when surely there is a need
for all of us to be thinking creatively for the future greater good of all
the inhabitants of the British Isles?
I was disappointed that time, or perhaps
priority, didn’t allow for discussion on the possible realignment of the British Isles along federal lines. I was also a bit disappointed that there was
not more debate on the significance, for a potential independent Scotland, of the inevitable debate on the
European Union that will very soon engulf the United Kingdom.
If I had had the opportunity I would have
asked Dr Rosie to confirm that many Scottish Nationalists are big supporters of
the EU. I would then have asked if that was being seen by some as selling the
soul of Scotland: as setting up the thran independently-minded Scots to be
subservient to the power-mongering of the Eurocrats; as further enabling that
rapidly expanding empire for the benefit of super-rich absentee land-lairds?
Given the
chance, I would also have pointed out that while I agree that a NO vote in September would not be the
end: I think for balance his presentation should have pointed out that a
narrow YES vote would not be the end
either.
I do not live in Scotland
but it is just over on the other side of the sheugh and the people of Ulster and Scotland have historically been
seen as virtually the same people. I
seem to have a different understanding of these people from an academia and
media that appears to not fully grasp what the common folk, the people
most effected by the manoeuvrings of the ruling classes, think and feel
emotionally.
This
presentation was quite typical of the usual message sent out by the Scottish
media that the debate is all very civilised, mature and respectful: in relative
terms, say for instance to how we might debate things in Northern Ireland. In actual fact,
so far, that is true and the people of Scotland need to be commended for
it. But, Scottish academics and the media seem to be in a state of denial of
the hurt that will be caused to many should there be a narrow vote for
independence.
It is most unlikely that there
would be any widespread violent reaction but the passionate opposition to
the “divorce”, as Dr Rosie quite aptly put it, would result in much social
turmoil and obstruction to the new regime in Scotland. This would not only be
from within Scotland but
from the working class remaining in the rest of the UK who have emotional attachment to
remaining in solidarity with each other. There can be no doubt that there is
currently a common bond among the working class: an understanding that the
current establishment has failed them and that there needs to be a
transformation of government. Should the Scots abandon ship the rest of the
working crew will not be too pleased.
It is all
very well to say that the mature people of the UK will be able to handle the
divorce with dignity: agreeing to share the debts and divide up the profits. In
reality it would be a disturbing long drawn-out painful process. Government
accounting is abysmal: the books are cooked to maintain the trough for whoever
is in charge. The supposed ‘independence’ of government auditors is misleading
to say the least. This apparently
extends to governance of the EU as well. It wouldn’t be so bad if the divorcees
were all in mutual agreement and both sought a clean efficient
process to facilitate the finding of new partners/new lovers.
I could
imagine that a truly independent Scotland:
independent of London and Brussels
that had the confidence and support of a clear majority of Scots and the
remainder of the UK;
could develop a sound sustainable economic future. It is most unlikely that
there could ever be that level of enthusiastic support: nor indeed that
lack of opposition.
It is
certainly legitimate for independence seekers to highlight the lack of
innovative alternatives being presented by unionist politicians but equally it
is disturbing that the want-to-be divorcees think it will all be harmonious and
wonderful: with Scotland and
the Republic of Ireland
being controlled from Brussels while the rest of
the UK seeks more
independence from Brussels.
No,
while I very much enjoyed Dr Rosie’s excellent delivery I left feeling a
greater sense of urgency for the common folk of the British Isles, including
those in the Republic of Ireland: an urgent need to get together to analyse
what road those who jockey for power and
control of government are trying to send
us down. We have to ask ourselves what do they hope to gain from an
obviously divided Scotland
and a divided UK:
or indeed, to gain from maintaining the status quo?
On the bright side, perhaps it's not too late to have more far-reaching debates on the future alternatives for all the people of the British Isles.
On the bright side, perhaps it's not too late to have more far-reaching debates on the future alternatives for all the people of the British Isles.
No comments:
Post a Comment