Myth take

In an essay for the openDemocracy newsletter on the future of Ukraine, Aman Sethi discusses national.myths.

As he puts it, "we are all shaped by our myths, but we needn’t be bound to them. We are all born into our respective national identities, but we can each choose to reinterpret what they mean to us". On the 50th anniversary of the death of the Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco, modern Spain is doing precisely that; re-examining its post-Franco settlement, with strong challenges emerging from the left to the prevailing narrative of a successful parliamentary democracy guaranteed by a constitutional monarchy - a myth if ever there was one.

While the United Kingdom is clearly not experiencing the same kind of existential crisis facing Ukraine as a result of Russian aggression, or dealing with the troubled legacy of a forty-year fascist regime like Spain, it is nevertheless in the throes of a crisis of identity. It could be argued that this is merely the latest iteration of a struggle that has existed at least since the Acts of Union of 1603 and 1707 between England and Scotland - the first personal, when King James VI of Scotland united the two crowns by becoming James I of England on the death of the childless Elizabeth I, the second political, in the reign of Queen Anne, with the unification of the two parliaments. But the roots stretch back centuries before that, including the Acts of Union of England and Wales of 1536 and 1543 under Henry VIII.

It could also be argued that the Internal struggles for identity and independence within Britain and Ireland since these unifications, notably the English Civil Wars of the 17th century (including the subjugation of Ireland), and the Scottish Jacobite Rebellions of the 18th century, were gradually redirected (though never entirely subsumed) into a collective 'British' expansionist endeavour which included Scots, Irish and Welsh as much as, if not more than, the English. In other words, internal struggles were put on hold as nation-building energies were externalised towards establishing global markets, colonies and, eventually, an Empire.

But they never went away and, as British imperial power slowly began to ebb after World War I, simmering resentment in Catholic Ireland burst into full-blown rebellion against British rule in 1919. The Act of Union of 1801, which had created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, unravelled, leading to the foundation of the Irish Free State in 1922. (At the same time the success of this rebellion encouraged Gandhi's Non-Cooperation Movement against British rule in India, but that's another story.)

Six northern Irish counties (out of the nine forming the historic Irish province of Ulster) chose to remain as a province of the Union loyal to the British Crown. The province's Protestant loyalist hegemony provoked tensions with its oppressed Catholic nationalist community, eventually exploding into sectarian violence, known as 'The Troubles', which spanned thirty years from the late-1960s to the signing of the Belfast or 'Good Friday' Agreement in 1998.

Thereafter, a period of relative calm ensued, boosted by the Blair Labour government's devolution policies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (though interestingly, and possibly tellingly, not England) from 1997 onwards. But the shifting tectonic plates of national identity continued to grind, contorting the political landscape. The granting by the Conservative-led coalition government of a referendum on Scottish independence, held in 2014, led to a decision to remain in the United Kingdom by a margin of 55% to 45%. This was considered a definitive outcome for a generation but it was swayed by fears of an independent Scotland having to reapply for membership of the European Union (EU). 

Understandably, there was huge resentment in Scotland when, in 2016, a referendum on EU membership, granted by the by-now majority Cameron Conservative government, led to a narrow victory for the 'Leave' campaign of 52% to 48%. The Scottish result was 62% to 38% in favour of remaining in membership so not only had Scots sacrificed their opportunity for independence two years previously but, in so doing, they had lost their treasured membership of the EU. While in Northern Ireland the vote to remain was 56% to 44%, by contrast in England and Wales overall the majority for leaving was decisive.  After forty-three years in the EU, Britain Brexited. Unfortunately, although the British people had spoken, they had not done so with one voice.

Unsurprisingly, calls for self-determination, never silenced, were amplified. Now that Brexit has been shown to have been an economic and reputational disaster, demands are once again being heard for a second independence referendum in Scotland. There are growing expectations that the island of Ireland may reunify within the decade and a debate is already underway as to how best this might be achieved given the debacle of the Brexit referendum. In Wales, the nationalist Plaid Cymru party is being tipped for government in the Senedd elections next year, defeating an increasingly unpopular Welsh Labour party. In England, meanwhile, the agenda is dominated by migration, particularly of the irregular variety, despite that only constituting 5% of the annual net migration total. Nigel Farage has never let facts stand in the way of propaganda, as his Brexit campaign proved.

It seems the centrist parties in England are being squeezed by parties of the left and right; namely the Green Party under its new leftwing leadership of Zack Polanski, and Reform UK under Brexit campaigner, Nigel Farage. (The newly-formed leftwing Your Party, under Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's joint leadership, shows every sign of imploding before it is even fully launched as a result of internicine squabbling.)

So where does all this leave the UK's cherished foundational myth of unity? The British are demonstrably not one people, the histories and cultures - even the languages and dialects - of the UK's component nations are distinct and different and the glue that was supposed to bind this fragile construct together, ie the monarchy and parliamentary democracy (the so-called Crown in Parliament principle), is coming seriously unstuck. King Charles has a net favourability rating less than half his late mother's and the relationship of Prince Andrew to Jeffrey Epstein, leading to his being stripped of the use of his royal titles, has seriously weakened the institution of the monarchy. At the same time, the Labour government, only a little over a year old. is embroiled in an internal leadership crisis, while in the country Sir Keir Starmer enjoys (if that's the right word) a net favourability rating of -54 according to a November YouGov poll.

As things stand at present there is a serious possibility, even a strong likelihood, of Reform UK's winning the general election in 2029 and Nigel Farage becoming the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. While this may satisfy many voters in England and Wales it will not go down at all well with the Scottish electorate, inevitably leading to more calls for independence from that quarter. But things are highly unlikely to stay as they are at present. For starters, the situation in Ukraine shows every sign of deteriorating into a full-scale European conflict. If Donald Trump continues to insist on the implementation of his 28-point peace plan (effectively meaning total Ukrainian capitulation to Vladimir Putin) and Europe belatedly decides to support Ukraine unconditionally in continuing the fight, then all bets are off.

Then again, Trump's days in the White House may be numbered if the continuing Epstein scandal seriously annoys his MAGA base and opposition not just from the Democrat party but within the Republican party itself grows and coalesces into a coordinated pushback against him. The results of the mid-term elections next year will be key but we have already seen significant electoral victories by leftwing candidates in key local elections and, regardless of whether the Democrats finally get their act together after their crushing defeat by Trump, senior Republican politicians will be plotting their own presidential futures. There is also a distinct possibility of serious rioting or even civil war in their country if Trump persists with his current draconian anti-immigrant policies and his controversial Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in major US cities.

Post-Brexit, the UK finds itself in a delicate, potentially perilous, position internationally. As a 'Third Country' outside the EU and with an unhealthy reliance on a fickle and unpredictable US president, whose own position may become untenable and who is anyway due to quit office in 2028 under the Constitution, its future is more insecure than at any time since 1940. At the same time, divisive politics at home could further destabilise it. If Farage were to become PM he has shown himself to be a strong supporter of Trump and Putin. In this scenario the UK would find itself at odds with the EU (Farage's long-time bête noire) and the EU could be caught between an expansionist Russia and a Euro-sceptical, if not hostile, UK - in other words between a rock and a hard place.

But would there even be a cohesive UK by that point? It is barely that now and it wouldn't take much to weaken its fissiparous union farther. Given the number of imponderables at play it is impossible to predict the outcome but, for the sake of argument, let's assume an uneasy international status quo were to allow us the luxury of just enough time to put our own house in order, what should we do? 

First and foremost from my perspective is a strong socialist government; key to, in fact a sine qua non for, resolving a plethora of longstanding domestic issues. Then should come the dismantling of the kingdom itself, with the abolition of the monarchy leading to the establishment of democratic republicanism. Simultaneously, there should be a decision as to the nature of the relationship between the separate nations of the former kingdom: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As far as the latter is concerned, I envisage a reunited Ireland within the EU, leaving the three nations of the island of Great Britain to decide how to relate, a) to each other and, b) to Ireland (already a republic) and the EU. This could take the form of a federation, confederation or union, or operating as independent states.  I wouldn't wish to pre-judge the outcome but I imagine a partnership of some kind involving the three nations of the island of Great Britain would be advantageous, including rejoining the EU as a bloc.

Throughout history emerging states have felt the need for foundational myths. Rome had Romulus and Remus, England has Magna Carta, and in the modern era the United States mythologised the 'Star-Spangled Banner' flying defiantly above Fort McHenry after it was bombarded by the British, the subject of its national anthem. Consider the pivotal role of the storming of the Bastille prison in 1789 (holding only seven prisoners) in sparking the French Revolution, or the Risorgimento in the unification of Italy. Indeed, in view of the ongoing Gaza conflict, we cannot ignore the use of the Holocaust as justification for the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians to establish the modern Jewish state of Israel in 1948 - a very real horror used to legitimise a mythic 'homeland'. Once the United Kingdom has thrown off its monarchical chains the histories its component nations choose to emphasise as foundational will be decisive in determining their futures, jointly or severally.

As a septuagenarian, I hope to live long enough to find out what these might be.