To take a view on every matter in political discussion is a challenge. There are such a wide range of issues, so many arguments and worthy cases for and against ideas. Certain topics may not interest people, meaning they haven't given a policy a second thought. In some, sad circumstances, a person may not even be aware that alternative views on an idea exist, that people think differently.
In the UK, even for those not hugely interested in politics, it is quite easy to take a side on two of the leading questions of the last five years: Scottish Independence and Britain's membership of the European Union. Two defining referenda that helped to shape how political life is today. After the failure of the independence campaign, a tsunami of SNP support led to one of the greatest political landslides. The decision to depart the EU has transformed British politics permanently. Watching the endlessly changing political scene unfold is truly unbelievable, laughable and sometimes frightening. The latest farce to arrive in news websites around the country surrounds Nicola Sturgeon's apparent decision to ban the UK flag from Scottish buildings apart from Remembrance Sunday. She has vehemently denied the allegations, stating the decision was taken eight years ago to use the lion rampant instead of the union jack. According to her predecessor, Alex Salmond, the Queen herself was happy with the change, providing Scottish people were happy. Accusations of this being Nicola Sturgeon's decision have now been proven to be false, showing how sensationalist some of the media can be. The SNP, the majority of whom supported staying in the European Union – a body, which, whether you like them or not, does take control over some decisions, were happy for the removal of the union jack. This has not gone down well. Iain Duncan Smith, a fervent Brexiteer called the decision 'outrageous' while open, inclusive Jacob Rees-Mogg said the decision 'smacks of small-mindedness.' Both of them are Conservative MPs, which inherently means they are unionists. Presumably, they would oppose any decision made by a nationalist government that aimed to break up the union. But they are also arch Brexiteers – they wish for Britain to exit the EU, which many would regard as small-mindedness. UKIP wanted all EU flags to be removed from government buildings, the very image of the EU representing something they dislike. While I'm unsure of the two Conservative MPs views on EU flags, I doubt it would be too dissimilar. Of course, flags are important. For centuries, they have come to represent nations: how they have come to be and are a proud, associated symbol. To remove one type of flag – whether that be the union jack or the EU flag – represents a sense of isolation and nationalism over wider, international unity. Scotland remains in the UK and, while Britain will leave the EU, we will still have many close ties with it. A lot of this nationalism - whether Scottish and anti-EU – is based around identity. Who people are. Where they live. Working class, former industrial areas feel left behind due to a lack of investment, changing job structures and the closure of many bedrocks of the community. It's clear that our press and media are far too London-centric. They report on, yes, important Westminster issues, but these have no importance to the ordinary person's life. Swashes of the country have been forgotten. This is where the nationalism creeps in. Scottish voters were told to abandon Westminster and Britain. They, the SNP, would be the ones who could sort out the problems. No matter where people lived: in the dense inner-cities or the mountain highlands, their voice would finally be recognised. Just get rid of Westminster bureaucracy. They don't care about you. By decisions being made closer to home, everything would get better. Instead of Britain, choose us. We can sort out your problems. Sound familiar? Replace Scottish with British, Westminster with Brussels, Britain with European Union, SNP with Brexiteers and you've arrived at the EU referendum. The figures, locations and question on the ballot paper may have varied but the fundamental arguments: leaving a collection of countries, becoming isolated, not trusting the 'elite' but inste the 'outsiders' remain the same. This is true of all forms of nationalism; people who love their countries by disliking others. It's clear that the arguments of Brexiteer Unionists now don't make sense. Britain must be free, immediately free from the shackles of Europe. But Scotland? How dare you! Scotland, being able to rule itself. What a ridiculous small-minded, nationalist, xenophobic argument. Pathetic. As for Remainer Nationalists, they are the same. Scotland must remain in the EU! We must be subject to legislation from Brussels, have free movement and the Common Fisheries Policy. But be subject to rule from London? How dare you! We want Scotland to be free, a thriving country where people in Scotland get to make a choice about who runs the country. Not Westminster. Boo! On these key issues, there are only two positions that seem consistent. You either want Scotland to remain in the UK and the UK to remain in the EU (as I do). This represents openness, diversity and a belief that things get done, which benefit the many, when countries work together. Were someone to support Scottish independence and the UK's departure from the EU, I would disagree with them on both counts, but their beliefs would be consistent. It is those that are open in one form and closed in another that fail to see the contradiction of their positions. Earlier I mentioned the left behind areas: the parts of Britain have been abandoned since the decline of industries and rise in tertiary sector jobs. What can be done? Nationalism is not the answer. Instead, investment in the area, creating excellent schools, hospitals, local hubs, community integration and a sense of fulfilment will help. There should be incentives so young people feel inspired to stay in the area, instead of escaping to the city after graduating. Those cities could run for UK City of Culture, allowing lots of promotion, money and activities. This will not solve all the problems. But it will certainly help the poverty, inequality and chasm between the well-off parts of Britain, which in many ways are liberal, and the poorer areas, which cling to a social conservatism of the past. Nationalism only presents fear of certain groups or institutions. Co-operation, energizing places that need support, can ensure unity prospers and everyone lives up to their potential.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|