I am going to quote Peter Bell here. Peter says the Queens pious prating on reconciliation reflects the attitude of a British establishment which saw in the referendum, not a great exercise in democracy, but a threat to the entrenched power and privilege which defines the British state. To the ruling elites of the British state, the Yes campaign was not a heartening affirmation of true participative democracy - it was an uprising against the divinely ordained order. Whilst those engaged in the campaign to restore Scotlands rightful constitutional status gloried in a revival of political engagement and the organic growth of a genuine grass-roots movement, conventional power could only make sense of what was happening by translating it into the language of conflict, revolt and strife. The language of imperial power politics. The language of the British state. British politicians in Scotland want reconciliation so that they can get back to the cosy arrangements which guaranteed them a place in the structures of power and privilege which they like to refer to as Britain. The Queen voices the more general concern of the British establishment as a whole. An arrogant, disdainful concern that those fractious Jocks should stop rocking the boat and get back in their box. With a casual condescension that lacks any self-awareness, we are being told that weve had our wee fling and should now content ourselves with the old order and the old ways. In the vocabulary of the British establishment, reconciliation becomes a euphemism for resigned acquiescence and meek submission. So, a question. I didnt watch the Queens Speech. Does Peter give a fair interpretation of what she had to say?
Posted on: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:17:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015