The Olympics is coming to the U.K. soon. Not only is Team G.B. ready to try and top its excellent showing in Beijing but Nation G.B. is ready to welcome the world’s athletes, media and God knows who else. They will be situated in London though of course. The Olympics have to have the heartbeat of proximity. But the flame is going to travel all over the country beforehand and hopefully everyone will enjoy the whole experience.
But the world will be beckoned to a country which has recently seen some of the worst rioting and civil disobedience in a generation and is wrestling with a power-wielding secessionist movement. I say this not with too much apprehension. The summer rioting in the U.K. was, it could be argued, successful because of unprepared and startled security and policing and if there is one thing that security and policing will not be this summer it is unprepared.
As for the secessionist movement? I mention the Scottish nationalist push for independence not to sneer but to simply point out that the Olympics are coming to a country that may not exist in a few years time.
The fight between union and independence is simply awkward for the UK. It already has an awkward relationship with its component parts which has always been based on assumption that it works, without now having to actually justify the status quo.
The U.K. struggles with a flag-waving system and traditional expressions of nationalism. If the component nations of the U.K. were to devise their political arrangements from scratch tomorrow then they would probably not choose union and they would probably not choose monarchy. Both can be seen as outdated. Monarchy for obvious reasons and union for similar democratic-based reasons which revolve around the inclusion of nations within the European project, the continuing redundancy of Westminster-based centralisation after the deepening of devolution and the good old fashioned right to self-determination.
So what can an independent Scotland expect? Newer nations tend to need particular symbols in order to express identity. This is amplified when the nation is born out of revolution and violence. France, the United States and Kosovo are cases in point.
France is not a new nation but its Republic is, and the need to preserve this Republic from whatever may be threatening it remains strong. This is an idea of constant-revolution exemplified by the activist, rebellious role played by Trade Unions which is probably inherent to France’s DNA. Laïcité is a good example of an identity-forging tool which helps create uniformity behind the idea that the still young Republic needs to be prioritised above everything else and thus France becomes the national religion.
Certainly apathy will linger, but for every action there is a reaction and the obvious and passionate notion of being French causes an equivalent ‘un-french’ mould. Therefore, one need only look at the recent history of France’s national football team make-up or indeed Presidential Elections to see criticisms of those who are ‘pas Français.’
The United States of America is the quintessential flag-waving system. France has had five Republics, the States but one, and I can’t guess what it would take for a second to emerge. The U.S. is both a young nation and a young state; a nation of immigrants. The notion of a melting pot, the national mythology of The American Dream and the unifying exercise of waving the flag are the simple and often sacred bonds which binds an otherwise disunited people. What’s more, the concept of being ‘un-American’ has been a near-constant in the nation's History.
Kosovo declared independence in 2008 and the country’s flag bears the outline of the nation’s borders. It is a symbol of the icons for which communities will reach in order to ascertain political and social solidarity. It is completely understandable because for Kosovo their borders tell the story of their independence.
But the U.K is the product of evolution. Its revolutions pitted brother against brother but radical change was always within a certain framework of London based monarchy and then parliament.
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales exist concurrently by themselves but also in a union, an ambiguity formed slowly by erosion on the cliff-face of history and lives today fuelled by devolutionary compromise and a search for modern credibility.
Mentioning Ireland brings to light the harshest of bonds which have held the U.K. together over time. If Scotland were to secede than Britain would cease to exist as a political entity leaving Parliament with 550 MPs, 40 of whom would belong to Wales and Northern Ireland. Northern Irish Unionism would be severely weakened if their Scots brothers went their own way. Loyalty to a Britain which compromises many historical and living Celtic ties is one thing. Loyalty to England, London and the St. George’s flag could cause the relatively settled waters of Northern Ireland to stir.
If Britain were to divorce, then what future would await its most prized possessions like North Sea oil? What fate for the BBC, one of the most powerful media organisations in the world, and as a near as anything unifying effect on the British peoples?
However, the very ambiguous nature of the U.K. may be just cause for it to solidify its differences in its component parts. If constitutions were wrought with new credible and clear allegiances, democracy could be best served by a clear mandate from the people of each country, without lingering West-Lothian questions brewing resentment.
If we are to learn anything from the younger nations of the world it is to be careful when one creates the template for patriotism. It has been in vogue in the past decade to wrench from our guts a pure definition of ‘Britishness’ about which we could be proud and being unable to get much past Fish and Chips in such discussions perhaps is a hidden blessing.
Not being British enough is a criticism rarely heard. People are criticised for not being tolerant or not wearing a poppy for example. But these are individual criticisms and can be voiced individually without the McCarthyist debate stopper ‘un-British.’
New nations resplendent in independence will be impatient to forge the national identity that all new nations need. For every action there is a reaction and if new models of Scottishness or Englishness, Welshness or Irish-ness emerge friction is bound to be created in rejection of any obligation or conformity thus creating equivalent models and labels akin to being ‘un-American’ or ‘pas Français ’.
Such high constitutional and sociological matters will be of little interest to people from areas of strong ‘regional character’ like Cornwall or Liverpool, or the fans at an Old-Firm match, or Londoners who inhabit one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. What is certain is that if Scotland goes, it is probable nobody will have a clue what arrangements will be. Divorces are almost always messy. But the problem for Britain is, there was never really a wedding.
