Newsgroups: comp.parallel.pvm
From: jabf@ucs.ed.ac.uk (John Blair-Fish)
Subject: Break up of UK?
Organization: Edinburgh University
Date: 23 Apr 1996 15:52:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4liubv$56r@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>

[ Article crossposted from can.politics,scot.general,uk.politics,nz.general,aus.politics,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.welsh,soc.culture.scottish ]
[ Author was Alan Luchetti ]
[ Posted on 11 Apr 1996 09:22:34 GMT ]

graeme fairbrother <graeme@pictish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>John Tyrrell <J.Tyrrell@doc.mmu.ac.uk> writes

>>A further point re the British State is that privatisation has helped to
>>undermined the Union -  nationalised industries such as the National Coal 
>>Board, British Steel , British Rail and the Post Office helped to bind 
>>Scotland to Britain - with these gone or going - and Scotland's retention of 
>>its own legal and educational systems, not to mention its different religious 
>>complexion - it is difficult to see what (except for the Labour Party?) can in 
>>the long term bind Scotland to the Union.

>I would actually slightly disagree with you on this, part of the
>original problem, was the growth of the centralised UK...a slow, but
>gradual process, which increasing took more and more things out of the
>control of Scots in Scotland. At the time of the Treaty of Union,
>Britain was not very relevant to the vast majority of Scots,
>particularly due to the preservation under the Union, to the main
>institutions of that time. Law, Church, Local Government etc.,
>Capitalism remained very Scottish.
>
>Nationalisation, continued that process, of developing British and Non-
>Scottish institutions, whilst working-class loyalties, may have
>increased to the concept of post-war 'British National' socialism (ie
>now we have won the war...lets win the peace), this I would argue was
>only a temporary phenomena.
>
>If, however, nationalisation, had taken the form of workers control as
>opposed to state control. Then I think that it may have increased the
>binding of Scots to the union. But that did not happen.
>
>But I do agree that privatisation is perceived to having english and
>therefore non-scots cultural values.
>
>I would agree with you that (from an english perspective) only a Labour
>Government can solve the current impasse vis the relationship with
>Scotland.
>
>But I do not think that Scottish Labour or Scottish Liberals would use
>the term 'bind Scotland to the Union'. Both of them signed up to the
>Scottish Constitutional Convention which asserts the Sovereignty of the
>Scottish People. What is perhaps required is a different union.
>
>Using such terminology, is only likely to to increase those scots, who
>currently take a 'lets suck it and see' approach to a devolved
>parliament to move over to an Independent Parliament.

Scots, Welsh and Irish nationalists (or should I say regionalists) must 
be astounded by federal british ex-colonies.  Take Australia with 8 
regional governments (6 states & 2 territories).  There is far less 
difference culturally, linguistically etc between a Queenslander and a 
Tasmanian than between an Englishperson (sorry chaps - couldn't resist) 
and a Scot.  Yet the Australian states have their sovereign statehood and 
the British ones do not.  There's something very back-to-front about it 
all, particularly in the burgeoning European context.
- -
alan
 L
\-/



--
**************************************************************************

         John Blair-Fish
         Edinburgh University Computing Service
         Room 3216 JCMB
         King's Buildings
         Mayfield Road
         Edinburgh
         EH9 3JZ
         Phone: 0131 650 4928
         Fax: 0131 650 6552
         email:J.Blair-Fish@ed.ac.uk

*************************************************************************



