Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
A major international competitor that sees such great returns on investment and every pound of public expenditure that it can, allegedly, make billions in transfers to the other nations and regions shouldn't be too difficult to emulate.
The purpose of these transfers, other than propping up a neurotic and fragile English nationalism, is to prevent competition and keep those nations in check.
|
Assigning the neurotic and fragile nationalism to the English is a novel tactic, Ill grant you that.
Historically, Wales' incorporation into England was down to medieval feudalism, pure and simple. Were it not for geography facilitating the preservation of language and culture, there would probably be no nationalistic sense of Welshness today that could be said to be any stronger than the distinct regional sense of identity that exists in various parts of England - all of which were themselves feudally incorporated into a unitary state from pre-existing petty Kingdoms. Much the same is of course true within Scotland, as the Picts knew to their cost. Come to think of it, the Scots were much more effective at wiping out Brythonic culture in the land between the Antonine and Hadrian's walls than the English were in Wales.
The union between England and Scotland was the favourite idea of the Stuart monarchy, pretty much from the very day James VI went south, was crowned James I of England, and never went back to Scotland again. The logic of unitary control of this one island and its resources, and people whose entangled history means they have for 2,000 years had far more in common than not, predated even the Stuarts.
It was fragile, neurotic Scottish nationalism, and the assumption that an independent, foreign England would somehow favour Scotland above its other alliances, that led Scotland to economic ruin at Darien. Ironically that then forced Scots to confront the logic of union (the deal on the table from England being unite with us and we pay off your debts). The deal on the table wasn't half bad, for either party. It gave the English political influence over a bankrupt, chaotic northern neighbour. It gave the Scots political influence over a wealthy, powerful neighbour which from henceforth was compelled to consider Scotland as home territory rather than a foreign competitor. Scots gained immediate access to what were now British colonial possessions.
For centuries now, the whole territory has been governed as a unitary state, with its economy managed likewise as a single unit. Nonetheless, Scotland and England exist in parliamentary union, not as an amalgam, and Scotland's distinct legal identity is assured. For this reason, central government spending is identifiable as 'transfers' in Scotland in a way that it isn't when spending occurs in, say, Yorkshire. It is absurd that spending that is identified in this way
because Scotland's identity is being consciously respected and assured, is somehow a symbol of English colonialism - a position that has no basis in either history or in current affairs.