|
"Je ne suis pas de ceux qui pensent que le temps des nations est révolu. L’Europe politique voulue par le Président de la République, c’est l’Europe des nations qui ont le courage de se placer au service d’un dessein collectif. Sans nations fortes, il ne peut y avoir d’Europe forte !
Dans la mondialisation, c’est le pluralisme et la richesse des patries, des langues et des héritages qui déjouent l’unilatéralisme des Etats les plus puissants et la standardisation appauvrissante qui guette notre humanité."
François Fillon, 4 décembre 2009
"Le débat sur l’identité nationale voulu par le Président de la République tourne autour de plusieurs questions simples, essentielles, rappelées par le Premier Ministre : qu’est-ce que la France au 21ème siècle ? Quelles sont nos valeurs communes ? Qu’est-ce qu’être Français ? Ce qui nous rassemble est-il plus fort que ce qui nous divise ?
Ces questions, en Corse, touchent au plus profond du pacte républicain, compte tenu de l’histoire de la Corse, de son identité propre, de sa langue et de sa culture, de sa relation spécifique à la France.
Il m’a semblé que dans le grand débat sur l’identité nationale, il fallait réserver un espace propre à la Corse pour tenter, clairement, sereinement, d’analyser les fondements de l’appartenance de chacun à la France, à la Corse, et le sens à donner à cette appartenance.
C’est pourquoi j’ai décidé d’ouvrir, avec l’accord du Ministère, au sein du site internet du grand débat sur l’Identité Nationale, une adresse qui soit spécifique à la Corse, afin que tous ceux qui veulent s’exprimer sur ce sujet, le puissent sans avoir besoin de s’orienter dans la masse des contributions du site principal."
Stéphane Bouillon, préfet de la région Corse
Il se trouve que le forum interactif spécifique en Corse pour le débat sur l'identité nationale se transforme actuellement en confrontation entre les pro et les anti indépendantistes. Déjà vu !?!
"(...) le préfet, tel Monsieur Jourdain qui faisait de la prose sans le savoir, admet l’identité nationale corse sans le savoir, et sans le vouloir probablement. Quand aux liens particuliers de la Corse avec la République ou avec la France, là c’est l’histoire qui nous éclaire. Depuis 1768 et 1793, c’est une histoire de domination méprisante et vicelarde, de négation politique et culturelle, et de non-assistance à l'économie en danger (...)"
Unità Naziunale, 28 décembre 2009
Et tout d'un coup ça se corse
en Corse !
Hélas, des incidents ont éclaté à Bastia après un rassemblement indépendantiste suite à l'interpellation d'une dizaine de militants nationalistes avant une visite officielle du Président Sarkozy.
Un rassemblement devant le commissariat de police de Bastia le 15 janvier 2010 a dégénéré. Des manifestants nationalistes, venus protester contre le transfert vers Paris de cinq des leurs soupçonnés d'avoir participé à un attentat contre la gendarmerie de Vescovato, ont mis le feu un peu partout dans la ville, provoquant une réaction des forces de l'ordre.
L'Europe des Lumières
In reflecting upon 21st-century Scotland one can hardly avoid referring to Europe and referring back to 18th-century Europe. 'L'Europe des Lumières', to which European constitutional development owes so much, is indebted not only to the stateless nation that this beautiful country had become by the late eighteenth century but also to another stateless nation, Corsica, which in 1755 produced a constitutional document upon which the first European democratic republic was founded, on principles not dissimilar to those upon which, in 1789, the people of France established their republic, with which the Island of Beauty became associated in preference to the UK.
The 1755 constitution declares, in particular, the sovereignty of the people. In other words, the Corsican republic, 34 years before the French one, was founded on the principle that 'le peuple souverain' is the sole legitimate source of power. It also declares that all citizens are equal under the law.
James Boswell's Journal of a Tour to Corsica (1768) is worth reading in this connection.
Constitution française du 4 octobre 1958
"Préambule
Le peuple français proclame solennellement son attachement aux Droits de l’homme et aux principes de la souveraineté nationale tels qu’ils ont été définis par la Déclaration de 1789, confirmée et complétée par le préambule de la Constitution de 1946, ainsi qu’aux droits et devoirs définis dans la Charte de l’environnement de 2004 (...)"
Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen de 1789
"Article premier
Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et égaux en droits. Les distinctions sociales ne peuvent être fondées que sur l’utilité commune.
Article II
Le but de toute association politique est la conservation des droits naturels et imprescriptibles de l’homme. Ces droits sont la liberté, la propriété, la sûreté et la résistance à l’oppression.
Article III
Le principe de toute Souveraineté réside essentiellement dans la Nation. Nul corps, nul individu ne peut exercer d’autorité qui n’en émane expressément (...)"
Mais qu'est-ce qu'une nation ?
"Une nation est (...) une grande solidarité, constituée par le sentiment des sacrifices qu'on a faits et de ceux qu'on est disposé à faire encore. Elle suppose un passé ; elle se résume pourtant dans le présent par un fait tangible : le consentement, le désir clairement exprimé de continuer la vie commune. L'existence d'une nation est (pardonnez-moi cette métaphore) un plébiscite de tous les jours, comme l'existence de l'individu est une affirmation perpétuelle de vie. Oh ! je le sais, cela est moins métaphysique que le droit divin, moins brutal que le droit prétendu historique. Dans l'ordre d'idées que je vous soumets, une nation n'a pas plus qu'un roi le droit de dire à une province : «Tu m'appartiens, je te prends». Une province, pour nous, ce sont ses habitants ; si quelqu'un en cette affaire a droit d'être consulté, c'est l'habitant. Une nation n'a jamais un véritable intérêt à s'annexer ou à retenir un pays malgré lui. Le vœu des nations est, en définitive, le seul critérium légitime, celui auquel il faut toujours en revenir."
Ernest Renan, Qu'est-ce qu'une nation ? (1882)
Disregarding all of that, however, or oblivious to it, the anglo-unionist Tory Party opposed Scottish self-government consistently (notwithstanding the 'Declaration of Perth' in 1968), even when the SNP began to demolish Scottish Tory representation in the House of Commons in the 1970s, a period during which Scotland was ruled from London through something known quaintly as the Scottish Office. Even when there was a popular majority in favour of legislative devolution in the 1979 referendum, in which the votes of the dead and abstainers were counted as 'no' votes, the Tories cannot be said to have shown themselves to be much interested in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, seizing the first opportunity to bury the devolution project:
Nonetheless, the doctrine of the sovereignty of the nation eventually prevailed up to a point, with the restoration of the Scottish Parliament, with limited powers, 20 years later, thus achieving the first goal of the two-stage constitutional strategy of the Scottish National Party's 1970s "football team" of 11 Westminster MPs, as outlined in the SNP's 1974 manifestos:
"How Do We Get Self-Government?
As the prospect of self-government draws closer, more and more people want to know exactly how this will be achieved. It may happen in one of the following ways:
Directly
If the SNP gets a majority of the seats at a General Election, this will produce an unquestionable mandate for self-government. The Westminster government will then have to comply with the wishes of the Scottish people. The Scottish National Party MPs will invite all other Scottish MPs irrespective of party, to join in the negotiations to a Scottish Parliament. When the principal negotiations have been completed and a constitution has been drafted, it will be submitted to the Scottish people in a referendum. If the people accept the new Constitution, a General Election will be called in Scotland and a new Scottish parliament elected. Any party will be free to take part in the elections and the Scottish people will decide who should form the new Government: it may be Labour, Conservative, Liberal, SNP or any other party.
Through a Scottish Assembly
Because of the strong support for the SNP, a London Government may concede that a Scottish Assembly should be established. Provided that this is democratically elected, the SNP will accept it as a first step while continuing to urge that it should have power over the Scottish economy and Scottish oil. It will then be the task of the Scottish National Party in the new Assembly and at Westminster to work for greatly increased powers for this Assembly until it becomes a real Scottish parliament, responsible for all the affairs of Scotland. But all of this depends on the strength of support for the Scottish National Party."
followed only 8 years later by the election
of the first Scottish government
dedicated to holding a referendum on independence:
The Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP MP
First Minister of Scotland
"We in the Scottish Government are ambitious for the future of Scotland. We also believe that sovereignty in our country lies with its people. As a sovereign people, the people of Scotland - and we alone - have the right to decide how we are governed.
That is why our manifesto for the Scottish Parliamentary elections this year promised to provide an opportunity for the people to consider the concept of Scottish independence in a referendum during this Parliament.
In that election, the people voted clearly for further development of the way we govern ourselves in Scotland. We in the Government believe that independence would be the best for our country. Others support increased devolution, or greater responsibility for taxes and spending, or federalism. But whatever the differences between the political parties, the message of the election was obvious - the constitutional position of Scotland must move forward.
There have also been recent, historic constitutional developments in Northern Ireland and Wales, with new parties coming to government and new responsibilities being devolved. The United Kingdom Government has now published a discussion paper on the governance of Britain.
As First Minister of Scotland, it is my responsibility to explore and lead discussion on the options for constitutional change. I lead the first Scottish National Party Government to be elected in a devolved Scotland, so I will put the case for independence, its benefits and opportunities. However, I also recognize there is a range of other views in our country, and represented in the Parliament.
Scotland's long-standing union with the other nations of the United Kingdom is based on the Union of the Crowns of 1603 and the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801. The 1801 Union with Ireland has already undergone substantial change. The political debate in Scotland concerns the 1707 political Union, the amendment or repeal of which would still leave the Union of the Crowns intact.
I therefore propose that we have a national conversation on our future to allow the people of Scotland to debate, reflect and then decide on the type of government which best equips us for the future. This paper is intended as the starting point and inspiration for that conversation. It explores areas in which Scotland could take on further responsibilities - such as employment, our national finances, or legislation on public safety such as firearms - as well as the concept of independence, and wider constitutional developments in Britain.
It is now ten years since the referendum to establish the Scottish Parliament. We have seen its potential to respond to the wishes and needs of the people of this country. But we have also seen the limitations of its current responsibilities. I believe it is now time for us, the people of Scotland, to consider and choose our own future in the modern world."
August, 2007
So now we approach stage 2 of the SNP's two-stage constitutional strategy, a referendum on Scottish independence, as the SNP government prepares to introduce a referendum bill in the present session of the Scottish Parliament, a bill which the anglo-unionist parties have threatened to oppose, thus failing to respect the right of the people of Scotland to determine their own constitutional future, a right which is in conformity with the doctrine of national sovereignty enunciated in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789. The anglo-unionists appear to be afraid to let the people of Scotland "choose our own future in the modern world."
Not that there has not been a degree of inconsistency in anglo-unionist attitudes towards the proposed referendum on Scottish independence. As you may remember, in 2008 the entire Labour Scottish parliamentary party, although it now opposes one again, professed itself to be in favour of such a referendum. "Bring it on!" they said:
First Minister Salmond is now 'bringing it on': "Let the people speak!" In introducing its legislative programme for the 2009-10 session of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government has issued the following statement on the subject of the constitutional referendum bill:
"Referendum Bill
The Scottish Government will bring forward a Referendum Bill in 2010 to give the people of Scotland the opportunity to have their say on the constitutional future of Scotland in a referendum.
The Referendum Bill will provide the framework for the conduct and mechanics of a fair and democratic referendum. The Parliament will have its say and ultimately decide on all of the issues, including the question.
The Scottish Government has made clear its position that the people of Scotland should not be denied the right to express their opinion in a referendum. It is for other political parties to justify why they would not wish to give the people that right. The current economic climate only reinforces our conviction that only independence provides the flexibility to respond in Scotland's best interests to these challenging economic circumstances.
The Scottish Government raised from the start the possibility of multi-option referendums, and has made it clear that it is open to the possibility of the fiscal proposals in Calman being on the referendum ballot.
The Referendum Bill will be accompanied by a detailed Financial Memorandum, which will set out the anticipated costs of the referendum."
And now here is . . .
the Scottish Government White Paper published on Saint Andrew's Day 2009 in connection with the proposed independence referendum:
If after all is said and done the opposition parties actually block the referendum bill that will be introduced in 2010, another one will no doubt be along presently, as most Scottish voters seem intent upon having a referendum and would appear likely to return the SNP to power with increased parliamentary representation in 2011 if the anglo-unionists deny them one. It is not as if the independence question is going to go away just because not terribly persuasive defenders of the 1707 Union say it should.
The Choice for Scotland
"(...) définitivement accepter la loi du plus fort . . . et disparaître"?
(Richard Desjardins)
From an independentist or sovereignist point of view, the choice which the people of Scotland face has never been clearer. It is a choice between the anglo-centrism of the Conservative and Labour parties, each of which believes in the concentration of fundamentally important economic and political power in London, and the radical and democratic alternative which the Scottish National Party offers.
The SNP plainly has a popular and deep commitment to democracy, to Scotland's distinctive history and culture and to the social and economic well-being of the Scottish people.
In order to further these objectives, the transformation of the present severely limited Holyrood legislature into an independent Scottish Parliament is regarded by sovereignists as essential.
Without the capacity to exercise sovereign political power, within the European Union and the Eurozone, Scotland cannot control its own economy. Without the capacity to exercise sovereign political power the interests of the Scottish people will always be at the mercy of others. Without the capacity to exercise sovereign political power there can be no hope of regenerating Scottish society. When the Scottish people have this political power, it will be up to them to choose their own social and economic priorities.
The choice for Scotland has become even more urgent in the prevailing economic climate. Despite excessively rapid UK oil and gas extraction in the North Sea, substantial remaining reserves in the Scottish sector of the Continental Shelf, not forgetting the enormous potential of the Hatton Rockall Basin in the Atlantic Ocean, offers Scotland an opportunity to rescue itself from the misfortunes which it suffers as an ill-considered peripheral region of the UK. If the present generation of Scots have the spirit to take what is theirs by right, Scotland can overcome the bitter legacy of centuries of poverty, inequality, unemployment, emigration and cultural neglect.
Scotland can face a new future with dignity and confidence as an independent country or remain in a state of humiliatingly disrespected dependency in the UK.
Independence will ensure a substantial balance of payments surplus, sovereignists argue, an adequate supply of basic resources and the opportunity to adopt monetary and fiscal policies designed to suit the Scottish economy. This will create a general economic environment highly favourable to Scottish industry, but more specific action will also be required to achieve a major industrial revival in Scotland.
In the 1970s the SNP predicted that, unless Scotland became independent, London would take the oil from it as fast as possible and "at the end of the day leave Scots with nothing except the mess and the unemployment arising out of a boom-slump situation". Mess, however you care to define it, and unemployment are there in abundance for all to see. As for "boom-slump", comment on that would seem to be superfluous. Fortunately, it is not too late to rescue Scotland from this scenario, which is why it would be extremely damaging to Scotland's interests to let the anglo-unionists get away with blocking the Scottish Government's referendum bill.
From an independentist point of view, the anglo-unionists have deprived Scotland of soundly based prosperity and the self-respect that goes with it. Now they are proposing to deprive Scots of their democratic right to determine the constitutional future of their country in a referendum.
If the anglo-unionist parties proceed along this path, they will have to explain themselves to a much aggrieved electorate in the not very distant future. It is not too late for them to back down, but the clock is ticking.
"O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us."
(Robert Burns, To a Louse, verse 8)
In contemplating what happens next, it may be worth noting that interested parties furth of Scotland are taking a much more informed view of these matters than Joe Bloggs in Sidcup. The constitutional development of the UK has been studied and documented in France for the past several decades by, among others, Jacques Leruez, a distinguished academic who regards devolved Scotland as an embryonic state, while maintaining a proper professional detachment from the prospect:
"Personne ne peut nier que l'Ecosse constitue une nation, ne serait-ce que par son existence indépendante pendant des siècles et parce que l'Union avec l'Angleterre a été négociée et non imposée par la force. Ce qui lui a permis de conserver trois de ses institutions essentielles (Eglise, enseignement, droit et appareil judiciaire) et de garder des traits spécifiques, qui en font une société à forte identité.
Avec la création d'un nouveau parlement à Edimbourg, le premier depuis 1707, s'ouvre une nouvelle page de l'histoire de l'Ecosse : les Ecossais se contenteront-ils longtemps du statut de self-government limité qui vient de leur être accordé ou bien finiront-ils par exiger l'indépendance pure et simple dans le cadre de l'Union Européenne, telle que la revendique le parti indépendantiste SNP ?"
(Ecosse, vieille nation, jeune Etat by Jacques Leruez [Armeline, 2000], an analysis of which by Dominique Roudot may also be worth reading.)
Mr Leruez has also documented the early years of Scottish legislative devolution in, for example, Chronique de l’étranger : lettre d’Edimbourg - Le nouveau parlement écossais et les élections du 6 mai 1999 and Chronique - Heurs et malheurs de la dévolution : les élections parlementaires du 1er mai 2003 en Ecosse.
Admittedly, professional political scientist though he is, it should perhaps be borne in mind that Mr Leruez is one of those stalwarts of the Association Franco-Ecossaise who have fond memories of the Auld Alliance, about which they know considerably more than may seem to some to be entirely reasonable in this day and age. Suffice it to say that they tell a story of a Scotland that was far from isolated from the rest of Europe when it was an independent country. Here is the essence of the account of Scottish history given by these supporters of the Alliance France-Ecosse:
 
"La Vieille Alliance à laquelle les Anglais voulaient mettre fin en réunissant les royaumes d'Ecosse et d'Angleterre, le Général de Gaulle la qualifia en 1942 dans son célèbre discours d'Edimbourg de "la plus vieille alliance du monde". En effet, certains historiens font remonter cette "Auld Alliance" à 732 et la Bataille de Poitiers, où encore à Charlemagne. Elle fut concrètement formalisée par des traités, sans cesse renouvelés au fil des siècles, de la fin du 13ème siècle (23 octobre 1295) avec Philippe le Bel et John Balliol, en passant par le mariage entre François II, Roi de France, et son épouse Marie Stuart, Reine d'Ecosse, jusqu'au Traité de Fontainebleau signé le 24 octobre 1745.
Au 16ème siècle par Lettres de Naturalité générales et réciproques, Français et Ecossais disposaient dans chacun des pays des mêmes droits que les ressortissants de souche. Jusqu'au milieu du 18ème siècle "the Auld Alliance" resta sans faille.
Cette vieille alliance avait bien entendu un caractère militaire. Sait-on que le royaume de France fut sauvé entre 1419 et 1429 par ses alliés écossais qui vinrent en force (jusqu'à 30 000 soldats), que Jeanne d'Arc fut entourée de soldats écossais et que Charles VII créa un corps d'élite "la Garde Ecossaise", garde personnelle des Rois de France, qui exista jusqu'au 19ème siècle ?
Mais elle comportait aussi un caractère culturel et économique. Les étudiants écossais venaient en grand nombre en France ; à Paris, Poitiers, Orléans ou Montpellier. Les premières universités écossaises (St Andrews et Aberdeen) furent construites sur le modèle des universités françaises. L'Ecosse était au 16ème siècle le premier consommateur de produits français. Aujourd'hui la France est le premier consommateur de produits écossais.
Le 8 février 1603, James (Jacques) Roi d'Ecosse accède au trône d'Angleterre sous le nom de Jacques VI d'Ecosse et 1er d'Angleterre. En 1707 les deux parlements de l'Ecosse et de l'Angleterre sont réuni par l'Acte d'Union. Avant 1707 l’Ecosse avait développé son propre système juridique. Celui-ci a été maintenu. Il est fondé sur le droit civil, dérivé du droit romain, comme les systèmes juridiques d'autres pays européens, alors que le reste de la Grande-Bretagne se conforme au droit coutumier.
Entre 1924 et 1979 la question concernant la réouverture du parlement écossais est source de débats. Finalement lors du référendum sur Dévolution le 11 septembre 1997, les votants écossais ont répondu 'Oui' (74,3%) à la question "Voulez-vous que soit créé un Parlement écossais ?". Le 12 mai 1999, le Parlement d'Ecosse est 'reconvened' et le 1er juillet de la même année, c'est 'business as usual'. Le parlement écossais compte 129 élus (MSPs) et, à leur tête, un Premier Ministre (First Minister au lieu d'un Prime Minister pour plaire aux Messieurs les Anglais)."
One more step and it may really be 'business as usual'.
(Eric Gaba - Wikimedia Commons User: Sting)
For those who may be interested in the content of the de Gaulle wartime speech referred to above, here it is. It was delivered before an audience in Edinburgh on June 23rd, 1942:
"Je ne crois pas qu'à aucune époque un Français ait pu venir en Ecosse sans être saisi par une particulière émotion. A peine foule-t-il terre de ce vieux et noble pays qu'il discerne, entre votre peuple et le nôtre, de multiples affinités naturelles dont l'origine remonte au fond des âges. En même temps, se présentent à son esprit les mille liens, toujours chers et vivants, de l'alliance franco-écossaise, la plus vieille alliance du monde.
Quand je dis : alliance franco-écossaise, je pense, évidemment, d'abord à cette étroite entente politique et militaire que, dès le Moyen Age, notre vieille monarchie concluait avec la vôtre.
Je pense au sang écossais qui coulait alors dans les veines de nos rois et au sang français qui coulait dans les veines des vôtres. Je pense aux gloires communes des champs de bataille du passé, depuis le siège d'Orléans que délivra Jeanne d'Arc, jusqu'à Valmy où Gœthe reconnut qu'une ère nouvelle se levait sur le monde.
Dans chacun des combats où, pendant cinq siècles, le destin de la France fut en jeu, il y eut toujours des hommes d'Ecosse pour combattre côte à côte avec les hommes de France. Ce que les Français pensent de vous, c'est que jamais un peuple ne s'est montré, plus que le vôtre, généreux de son amitié.
Mais, dans notre vieille alliance, il n'y eut pas seulement une politique commune, des mariages et des coups d'épée. Il n'y eut pas seulement les Stuart, les reines de France et les reines d'Ecosse, Kennedy, Berwick, Macdonald et la glorieuse Garde Ecossaise. Il y eut aussi mille liens profonds des âmes et des esprits.
Comment pourrions-nous oublier les inspirations réciproques des poètes français et écossais, l'influence des Locke et des Hume sur notre philosophie ?
Comment pourrions-nous méconnaître ce qu'il y a d'indivis entre l'Eglise presbytérienne d'Ecosse et les doctrines de Calvin ? Comment tairions-nous l'influence que le merveilleux Walter Scott a exercée sur la sensibilité de l'adolescence française ?
Comment pourrions-nous ignorer tous les échanges d'idées, de sentiments, de coutumes et même de mots, que se prodiguèrent l'un à l'autre les deux peuples naturellement amis et dont il suffit de venir à Edimbourg pour recueillir tant de témoignages ?
Or, cette amitié et cette compréhension, qu'en tout temps l'Ecosse a montrées aux Français, leur sont aujourd'hui plus précieuses qu'elles ne l'ont jamais été. Sans doute, se mêlent-elles à présent à cette communauté de buts, d'efforts et d'idéals que constitue l'alliance de la France et de la Grande-Bretagne. Mais je crois pouvoir dire, sans désobliger personne, qu'elles ne s'y confondent pas et qu'elles gardent, au milieu de l'ensemble, leur caractère particulier, tout comme dans un bouquet une fleur conserve son parfum et sa couleur propres.
Les milliers et les milliers d'Ecossais qui, lors de la dernière guerre, mêlèrent leur sang au sang de nos soldats, c'est, je vous l'affirme, avec amour que la terre de France les recouvre. Le monument, érigé à leur mémoire sur la colline de Buzancy, n'a jamais, je le sais, été plus souvent fleuri par les Français que depuis l'invasion nouvelle. Si les roses de France sont aujourd'hui ensanglantées, elles se pressent cependant autour du glorieux chardon d'Ecosse. Quant à moi, je puis vous dire que la camaraderie de combat, nouée sur le champ de bataille d'Abbeville en mai-juin 1940 entre la division cuirassée française que j'avais l'honneur de commander et la brave 51e division écossaise que commandait le Général Fortune, a eu sa part dans la décision que j'ai prise de continuer à combattre à côté des Alliés jusqu'au bout et quoi qu'il arrive.
Nous vivons en un temps où toutes les sympathies comptent, surtout les plus éprouvées. Celle que vous nous témoignez dans la tâche assez difficile que moi-même et mes compagnons avons entreprise est la preuve réconfortante que, comme vos pères, vous savez avec qui est réellement la France et que vous avez gardé confiance dans son avenir.
Nous saurons, comme nos pères, payer de retour.
Et c'est pourquoi, en vous remerciant de la réception vraiment émouvante que vous m'avez ménagée ici, je terminerai en prenant à mon compte la vieille devise de la Compagnie écossaise : « Omni modo fidelis » ."
One can imagine that at this point someone in the audience might have shouted out 'Vive la France!', to which the appropriate rejoinder from the general, if diplomatic circumspection had not forbidden it, would have been "Vive la France libre dans l'honneur et dans l'indépendance!", which is the concluding sentence of his broadcast to occupied France on June 22nd, 1940.
For those who might care to have an explanation of the Latin phrase with which General de Gaulle summed up his remarks about Scotland and, more particularly, the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division, which remained with the French during the Battle of France in 1940 instead of escaping across the Channel when the British Expeditionary Force was evacuated from Dunkirk despite the general's appeal for more UK forces to be committed to the arena, it means 'faithful in every way'. Although General Fortune's unsupported manoeuvre resulted in the capture of 8,000 Scottish soldiers, including himself, it was a gesture of solidarity and comradeship apparently appreciated by de Gaulle, who recalls that 'Omni modo fidelis' was the motto of the old Compagnie Ecossaise, which is the Garde Ecossaise referred to above and in Histoire de la maison militaire du roi de 1814 à 1830 by Eugène Titeux (1889), in which its fidelity is particularly remarked upon:
"Sous Charles VII, l'Ecosse fournit au Roi de France des troupes nombreuses qui, par leur bravoure et leur fidélité inébranlable, contribuèrent puissamment à la libération du territoire envahi par les Anglais, sous les rois Jean, Charles V et Charles VI.
En témoignage de sa reconnaissance, et pour affirmer ses sentiments d'estime et de confiance, Charles VI, en 1445, choisit pour sa garde particulière 200 des Ecossais qui avaient combattu dans les rangs français. Cette garde est l'origine de la compagnie des Gendarmes écossais; cent archers, chargés plus particulièrement de la garde de la personne du Roi, prirent la dénomination de Compagnie écossaise des Gardes-du-Corps du Roi. En 1815, la Compagnie écossaise fut appelée première Compagnie des Gardes-du-Corps; elle subsista jusqu'à la suppression définitive de la Maison militaire en 1830."
Those who may be interested in a more up-to-the minute treatment of the current Scottish constitutional debate than is to be found in the Leruez writings may care to consider a newly-published work in English by Michael Keating, not least because it takes into account the increasingly important English dimension. The title is The Independence of Scotland: Self-Government and the Shifting Politics of Union. The author is Professor of Political and Social Sciences at the European University Institute in Florence and Professor of Politics at the University of Aberdeen.
Table of Contents
with an author-supplied abstract of each chapter
1. State and Nation
There is a large body of literature on the end of the Anglo-Scottish Union but explanations tend to be too simple. A complex explanation must take into account mass opinion, elite strategy and the dynamics of institutions. The United Kingdom is an example of a complex union.
2. Understanding the Union
The United Kingdom is neither a unitary state nor a federal state but a union. It was built on limited functional integration; political management; and a distinct ideology of unionism on both left and right. The empire was an important component of the union but not the only one and Britain could have survived the end of empire without disintegrating as a state.
During the nineteenth century, the Union was valued in Scotland as giving access to wider markets. In the twentieth century its value changed as Scotland depended on protection and resources from the British state. Within the Union, Scottish nationality was not only preserved but developed, providing an alternative to Union at critical moments.
3. The Strange Death of Unionist Scotland
Support for the old Union is falling in Scotland. This is part of a general restructuring of states in Europe, with the emergence and re-emergence of sub-state territories. The old territorial management formula, based on redistribution from the centre, no longer holds. Class solidarities no longer favour the Union. Scots increasingly identify primarily with their nation rather than the United Kingdom. The governing class has lost its ability to articulate an ideology of union. Yet public opinion has not been converted to independence.
Rather, most people favour deeper self-government, within a new Union. The European context is important, not because Scots are particularly pro-European, but because it lowers the threshold of independence.
4. Becoming Independent
There are no strong legal, constitutional or political obstacles to Scottish independence. There would be arguments about dividing assets but these could be resolved by compromise. Scotland might have to apply to join the European Union, in which case it could lose the British opt-outs. Scottish nationalists would need to decide which sort of Europe they favour. More Europe would mean greater distance from the United Kingdom.
5. The Political Economy of Independence
Small states are now viable in larger trading areas. It is very difficult to calculate whether Scotland would be better or worse off independent, since estimates are based on static analysis and are always contested. The economic argument does not seem critical to the independence debate because the two sides have cancelled each other out. More important are the dynamic effects. An independent Scotland would need to adapt rapidly to external conditions and there are various ways of doing this. One is a neo-liberal strategy of low taxes; another is the concerted policy model of the Scandinavian social democracies. Scottish nationalists have not faced up to these choices.
6. Constitutional Futures
There are many constitutional options available short of independence but none of them quite fit Scotland's position as a nation within an asymmetrical union. Elements of federal and confederal theory could be used to entrench Scotland's institutions. Although there is a broad middle ground favouring more self-government short of independence, there is a division between neo-nationalists, who see Scotland as a self-determining nation with the United Kingdom as an external support system, and neo-unionists who want to retain a strong form of common British political and social citizenship.
7. Beyond Devolution
Short of independence, Scotland's constitutional position might evolve gradually, with a slow accretion of powers. Fiscal powers are an important element although fiscal equalization poses major problems. There are strong arguments for devolving welfare matters in order to strengthen the Scottish political arena, although this divides neo-nationalists and neo-unionists. The West Lothian Question can be resolved by excluding Scottish MPs from voting on English matters. Neo-unionists have argued for a written constitution and a British bill of rights, but these are nation-building measures unacceptable to neo-nationalists. The main difficulty in stronger Scottish self-government is the need for common institutions to manage common issues. English political and public opinion remains unitary in its thinking and would want to retain a unitary English polity and resist federalizing measures.
8. Scotland and the Future of Union
From the Scottish perspective, there is a range of constitutional options to re-negotiate its position in the UK and Europe. The difficulty lies at the UK level. If Scottish independence does come about, it may not be because Scotland has decided to leave the United Kingdom but because England is not prepared to abandon its own unitary state or allow joint decision-making in critical matters of domestic and European policy.
The synopsis provided by the publisher, Oxford University Press, is as follows:
"After three hundred years, the Anglo-Scottish Union is in serious difficulty. This is not because of a profound cultural divide between England and Scotland but because recent decades have seen the rebuilding of Scotland as a political community while the ideology and practices of the old unionism have atrophied. Yet while Britishness is in decline, it has not been replaced by a dominant ideology of Scottish independence. Rather Scots are looking to renegotiate union to find a new place in the Isles, in Europe, and in the world.
There are few legal, constitutional or political obstacles to Scottish independence, but an independent Scotland would need to forge a new social and economic project as a small nation in the global market-place, and there has been little serious thinking about the implications of this. Short of independence, there is a range of constitutional options for renegotiating the Union to allow more Scottish self-government on the lines that public opinion seems to favour. The limits are posed not by constitutional principles but by the unwillingness of English opinion to abandon their unitary conception of the state. The end of the United Kingdom may be provoked, not by Scottish nationalism, but by English unionism."
The observation expressed in the final sentence is one with which students of Scottish politics would be hard put to it to disagree, I venture to suggest.
Meanwhile, in Corsica:
Jean-Christophe Angelini, secrétaire national du Partitu di a Nazione Corsa, Assemblée générale du PNC, le 18 janvier 2009...devant 600 militants rassemblés à l'Université de Corse.
Generazione Autunumìa
Il y a eu la «génération Aleria», celle qui a obtenu le premier statut particulier en 1982. Selon M. Angelini, 2010 doit permettre une avancée qui elle aussi marquera l'histoire de la Corse : l'autonomie et la prise de responsabilité.
Le PNC estime que la revendication pour une autonomie interne telle qu'elle s'applique dans sa forme la plus complète (législative et fiscale) au Pays Basque ou en Catalogne par exemple, doit être une priorité pour la prochaine mandature à l'Assemblée de Corse.
Le PNC entend fédérer la mouvance nationaliste modérée, afin de constituer un pôle capable d'accéder aux responsabilités régionales en collaboration avec d'autres démocrates issus de sensibilités différentes.
Mr Angelini of the PNC in Corsica and Mr Salmond of the SNP in Scotland have at least three things in common:
(i) they believe that sovereignty resides in the nation, as asserted in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 (and indeed in the Corsican constitution of 1755);
(ii) they will be claiming more autonomy in 2010, when Mr Angelini intends to be in the Corsican Executive and Mr Salmond expects to retain control of the Scottish Government;
(iii) their parties are members of the Greens/European Free Alliance Group in the European Parliament, the 'Verts/ALE', of which 'Europe Ecologie' (under whose banner Mr Angelini's deputy, François Alfonsi, was elected as an MEP earlier this year) is the major component.
Like the SNP and the PNC, 'Europe Ecologie' is a movement of some considerable vision and principle, as can be gathered from the following campaign speech delivered by the respected former diplomat Stéphane Hessel, who may have been the only German-born French Resistance fighter, much as the playwright Samuel Becket was likely to have been the only Irish-born one. Mr Hessel was also closely associated with the drafting of the postwar Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which owes something to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 and was adopted in Paris on December 10th, 1948.
You may notice, incidentally, that Mr Hessel delivers his rather inspired, inspiring and well-nigh impeccable address without a piece of paper to read from - MSPs please note the difference that this makes - and without anything to rest on or to sit on. Not bad for a man in his nineties:
Le Français Stéphane Hessel, qui soutient dans la vidéo ci-dessus le mouvement politique Europe Ecologie, auquel le Parti national écossais est associé dans le Parlement européen, a été le témoin de la rédaction et de l’adoption il y a 60 ans de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme.
Né à Berlin en 1917, fils de l’écrivain Franz Hessel et d’Helen Grund, il est entré au ministère français des affaires étrangères à la fin de la Seconde guerre mondiale. « J’étais un diplomate français frais émoulu du dernier concours. J’avais été reçu le 15 octobre 1945 et je suis arrivé à New York en février 1946. J’ai fait la connaissance d’Henri Laugier, qui était alors Secrétaire général adjoint des Nations Unies. Il m’a pris comme directeur de cabinet. Avec lui, il y avait John Peters Humphrey, directeur de la Division des droits de l’homme au Secrétariat des Nations Unies. J’étais en contact permanent avec l’équipe qui a rédigé la Déclaration, dont l’Américaine Eleanor Roosevelt et le Français René Cassin », se souvient-il. « Au cours des trois années, 1946, 1947, 1948, il y a eu une série de réunions, certaines faciles et d’autres plus difficiles. J’assistais aux séances et j’écoutais ce qu’on disait mais je n’ai pas rédigé la Déclaration. J’ai été témoin de cette période exceptionnelle », ajoute-t-il.
Selon lui, « la Déclaration témoigne de l’audace de cette époque. René Cassin a eu le culot de l’appeler universelle alors qu’on l’a fait à 18 et qu’elle a été adoptée par 48 pays. Toutefois, elle a le droit d’être qualifiée d’universelle car elle a été rédigée avec grand soin. » Il rappelle que la composition de la commission chargée de la rédaction était très ouverte, avec des représentants de près de vingt pays, dont la Chine, l’Union soviétique, le Royaume Uni, l’Egypte, l’Inde, l’Iran, le Liban, le Panama, le Chili, etc... « On ne peut pas dire que cela soit un texte occidental. Les 30 articles sont bien rédigés. Certes on retrouve des termes utilisés dans la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen de 1789 et la Déclaration d’indépendance des Etats-Unis. Mais il est injuste de dire que ce texte a été imposé par les Occidentaux. Quand il a été contesté, il l’a été par des gouvernements autoritaires et non pas par les peuples eux-mêmes », souligne-t-il.
La Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme, qui énonce les droits fondamentaux de l’individu, a été adoptée le 10 décembre 1948 à Paris par 48 votes pour, zéro contre et 8 abstentions.
Aujourd’hui, Stéphane Hessel pense que le texte a un peu vieilli : « C’est un monument d’une certaine époque. Il n’a pas abordé un certain nombre de problèmes, comme la relation de l’homme avec la Terre et le terrorisme ». Toutefois, il juge que la Déclaration « reste parfaitement valable car les droits qu’elle proclame restent valables ».
Selon lui, il reste beaucoup à faire sur le plan des droits économiques et sociaux qui font partie de la Déclaration. « Il n’y a pas de pays où en matière de droit à l’emploi, de droit à la santé, de droit au logement, etc ? il ne reste pas à faire », dit-il. « La réalité n’est pas ce dont rêvaient les rédacteurs de la Déclaration mais ils le savaient. La Déclaration était un programme proposé aux Etats », conclut-il.
The European Free Alliance (EFA) Group in the European Parliament currently includes representatives from Scotland, Wales, Flanders, Catalonia, Corsica and Latvia. Its MEPs advance the cause of Europe's stateless nations, regions and disadvantaged minorities.
EFA Members of the European Parliament are members of the Greens/European Free Alliance Group, forming a common parliamentary group since the European elections of 1999.
At the moment the EFA Group of MEPs consists of Jill Evans from Plaid Cymru - The Party of Wales, Ian Hudghton and Alyn Smith from the Scottish National Party, Frieda Brepoels from N-VA (Flanders), Oriol Junqueras from Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya, François Alfonsi from PNC (Corsica) and Tatjana Zdanoka from PCTVL - Latvia. Jill Evans is president of the group.
The European Free Alliance was formed in Brussels in 1981. At an historic meeting in Barcelona in 2004, EFA became one of the first registered European political parties, following new EU rules on party registration.
EFA priorities in the European Parliament include the respect of linguistic and cultural diversity, sustainable European energy policies, regional development and EU structural funding and the promotion of sustainable local agriculture. In its Protocol of Understanding the Group sets out to:
build a society respectful of fundamental human rights and environmental justice: the rights to self-determination, to shelter, to good health, to education, to culture, and to a high quality of life;
increase freedom within the world of work, not only by tackling unemployment, but also by widening people's choices, releasing human creative potential;
deepen democracy by decentralization and direct participation of people in decision-making that concerns them, and by enhancing openness of government in Council and Commission, and making the Commission fully answerable to Parliament;
build a European Union of free peoples based on the principle of subsidiarity who believe in solidarity with each other and all the peoples of the world;
re-orientate the European Union, which currently over-emphasizes its economic conception at the expense of social, cultural and ecological values.
EFA also has member parties in the Basque Country, Galicia, Sardinia, Aosta Valley and elsewhere who have been represented in the European Parliament. Across Europe, EFA member parties are in government in several different countries, regions or stateless nations.
|
