Liam Byrne: idiot

Liam Byrne likes a challenge. In the face of considerable competition, he's fast-becoming the most stupid and odious member of the government, and this attempt to defend the Union is - again against strong competition - one of the worst articles ever to appear in the Spectator.

There is perhaps no better illustration of our economic ties than the UK’s huge financial services powerhouse. The UK has rapidly consolidated its global leadership of the industry in the last decade. But £8 billion of the business is based in Scotland.

The latest figures (pdf) we have are only for 2004. These show that Scotland's income from financial intermediation was worth £6.8bn, compared to £76.6bn for England and £32.7bn for London alone.

We have something else in this country, which is an indomitable spirit. What is its anatomy?

Spirits don't have anatomy - by definition.

Well, it is partly the sense of adventure that drove Brits to scale Everest first.

Sir Edmund Hillary is a New Zealander, and Tenzing Norgay was Nepalese - their achievement was a tribute to the ethnic diversity Byrne seems to undervalue. Or is he claiming that George Mallory actually got to the summit - in which case, as he died on the way down, what point is he trying to make?

A higher share of our GDP is devoted to trade than any other nation in the OECD.

Apart from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Switzerland, Spain and Germany.

An English argument for dissolving the Union would be a lamentable admission that, in this age of diversity, we were unable to master the task of marshalling, combining and celebrating what is in common between our modern plurality of identities.

But there's no reason why the efficient structure of government should coincide with any common identity, or entail celebration of that commonality. The question of how far Scotland should be ruled from Westminster is a narrow one. Do the economies of scale (governmental overheads being spread more thinly, coordination between national policies, for example) outweigh the diseconomies of scale (such as Scottish people feeling alienated by having decisions made so far from them)?
Most of Byrne's New Labour colleagues recognize this. They have tried to introduce regional assemblies, even though no-one feels an East Midlander or South Westerner. And they acquiesce in the European Union having considerable powers, even though many Britons don't identify with Europe.
Which raises the question. Should Byrne be in New Labour at all? Or wouldn't he feel more comfortable in the BNP?

Comments

[Amir]

Again,

Another puerile dig at the anti-immigration position.

Okay. So was 7/7 or the Lozelles incident or the Northern riots a tribute to ethnic diversity, Chris?

Left-libertarians have no regard for unintended consequences or the erosion of trust that accompanies multiculturalism.

Multicultural societies are among the most unstable on the planet. I mean... try telling an Iraqi that "Diversity is strength!"

Look what mass immigration has done to Lebanon or Paris. Not pretty, is it?

Is it fuck.

[Shuggy]

"But there's no reason why the efficient structure of government should coincide with any common identity, or entail celebration of that commonality."

Amen - which is why I'm not a nationalist. Why should the boundaries of the nation also mark the boundaries of a polity?

"The question of how far Scotland should be ruled from Westminster is a narrow one. Do the economies of scale (governmental overheads being spread more thinly, coordination between national policies, for example) outweigh the diseconomies of scale (such as Scottish people feeling alienated by having decisions made so far from them)?"

I personally think it's a bit broader than that but since you put it this way I think the argument would be for retaining the Union by these criteria.

Do the "Scottish people feeling alienated by having decisions made so far from them"? According to most opinion polls, only one in five Scots feel this to the extent they want separation from England.

The real story of this forthcoming election is that Scots are disgruntled by the decisions made rather closer to home in Holyrood.

The mismatch between putative support for the SNP and the much lower numbers indicating support for independence would tend to indicate that a majority of the Scottish people simply want a change of administration in Edinburgh. I get the impression that most of the English columnists in the MSM don't really get this.

[dearieme]

It may have changed greatly since I lived at home, but I can remember a feeling that people were reasonably content with the Union with England; it was rule from London that they were beginning to find unbearable. So move the British capital to Berwick. Problem solved. Whether the English would want London to be the seat for the necessary English parliament could be settled by plebiscite.

[FH]

I am not sure what it does for your arguments that Edmund Hillary flew a Union Jack on the summit of Everest, the division between "British" and "New Zealander" nor being so either/or in the early 50s.