The English fight for power, the Welsh for liberty;
Their aim is domination, our aim is to be free.
The English way is war, land-grab, greed and hierarchy,
While the Welsh value equity and community.
We’ve been invaded, murdered, conquered, annexed, repressed,
Exploited, ransacked, impoverished and dispossessed,
Insulted, abused, tormented and cruelly oppressed,
Discriminated against, threatened, punished, distressed.
Saxon, Norman, English then British – all made us poor.
Ignorant thugs who were always rotten to the core.
Now another gang of crooks are banging at our door:
Fight back Cymru! End our subjugation! Take no more!
This demonstrates, to the tee, the contronym which the word ‘nationalism’ conveys, i.e. in the case of, say, England, also Germany and Italy about a century ago (and we all know what happened as a result) and other countries at various periods in history, including present day Russia, in relation to Ukraine, it means ‘nation state supremacism’, whereas, in the context of Wales, Scotland, Basque Country and others, it conveys ‘nation state autonomism’ as a reaction to the nation state supremacism of neighbouring countries. So what do I say? I say that the word ‘nationalism’ should be consigned to the lexical scrapheap, and replaced by multi-word phrases such as those above, so as to clarify matters.
Absolutely, Helen. On that subject, it’s always worth replaying this:
Labour, LibDems and Greens, despite having anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism and the self-determination of all peoples as core founding values, have long had a peculiar blind spot when it comes to Wales. When pressed to give one reason why Wales should not join the world’s family of 193 independent nations they can never come up with a reason and are reduced to something along the lines of: “I’m against nationalism, it’s parochial, insular and divisive, I’m an internationalist” – a duplicitous, nonsensical posture designed to dress up their knee-jerk opposition to Welsh actualisation as some kind of deeply-held, ethical conviction. Outrageously putting the noble, peaceful independence movement of a small nation-in-waiting in the same bracket as the notoriously xenophobic, expansionist, imperialist superpowers that have spread misery and suffering throughout history is an affront to logic. To campaign for independence is not ‘nationalism’, it is a struggle to be free. The only nationalisms to be concerned about are the belligerent nationalisms of already existing nations like, for instance, the USA, Russia, China and the UK.
If they’re against nationalism does this mean they oppose the very idea of nation states, or just new ones? If it’s the abolition of all nation states they want, does this include the UK? If it’s a world government they want, will they mind being ruled by Beijing or Moscow or Washington? If independent status is so terrible, does this mean that the 62 former UK colonies that won their independence over the last century were being ‘insular’ and ‘narrow’, that Ireland should have stuck to famines and India to the Raj? If independence is such a mistake, how come not one of those former British possessions would choose to revert to London rule? If independence is so objectionable, how come the British body politic, right, left and centre, cheered and encouraged the recent formation of newly-independent nations in Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro? Why were they never labelled ‘parochial’? If the current accidental arrangement of nation states, largely determined by the imperialist powers, is a never to be altered, God-given final settlement after millennia of perpetual flux, does that mean these ‘internationalists’ also oppose independence for – to pick just a few of the world’s countless independence movements – Palestine, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Chechnya, Yakutia, Kurdistan, South Yemen, Kashmir, Hong Kong, Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, Maoris, the Basque Country, Brittany, Corsica, Sardinia, Bavaria, Galicia, Catalonia and Scotland? Or is it just Wales that is deemed uniquely incapable of running its own affairs and is it just Wales that should be grateful for not existing?
I’m confident that, albeit gradually, we’ll move towards becoming a nation in our own right, with a seat in the United Nations. It isn’t going to happen overnight but, as more powers, such as broadcasting and law and order, are devolved to us, together with a fairer settlement, to include a review of the Barnett formula, together with an admission that HS2 was nothing to do with us in Wales, we’ll get there. However, we must make sure that Scotland shouldn’t overtake us to the goal of independence, otherwise we’ll be laying ourselves open to potential ravages by theFar Right. My personal solution would be for Wales and Scotland to secede from the UK simultaneously. This is why I dissented with Plaid Cymru back in 2014, when many people in Wales, including some in prominent positions, were expressing their wholehearted support for Scottish independence, whilst appearing oblivious to what the consequences could be for Wales, if the Scots had voted for independence. Seriously, where would such a vote have left us? Without Scotland in the UK, we’d be at a very, very high risk of being completely downtrodden by the English far right. Let’s bear this in mind should Scotland call another referendum on independence> I also dissented with Plaid Cymru over their policy of contesting all seats in the General Election of 2019, rather than resigning themselves, for the time being, to the archaic first-past-the-post electoral system. Such a policy could split the progressive vote, thus allowing the blus/torquoise parties to slip in through the back door. I feel strongly that we need to play a tactical game to reach our objective.