Vestnik Kavkaza together with Vesti FM implements the National Interest project. The program is not limited to national issues in Russia. Vladimir Averin and Gia Saralidze, the hosts of the program, are visited by the First Deputy Dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs of the HSE, Igor Kovalyov, who tells about the relationships between England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Averin: We're talking about national issues in the UK. On the one hand, there are very complex issues, historically inherited by Great Britain, which threaten the unity of the United Kingdom even today. The results of the referendum in Scotland delayed further development of events, but there are Welsh, Irish, there are new Briton-migrants - immigrants from Pakistan, India, other migrants. The confrontations between England itself and, for example, Scotland and Ireland go back to the Middle Ages ...
Kovalyov: Yes, there is quite a long history of reform of the United Kingdom that has lasted for centuries. The Welsh were the first to join, at the end of the 13th century. Here the English were lucky, because they were in time to annexe Wales, before the Welsh gained statehood, so nationalism in Wales may not be so clearly expressed.
Averin: When we talk about England and Wales, is it a national issue? Are those really different nationalities?
Kovalyov: These are different ethnic groups. The Welsh are Celts, they speak in a Celtic language, the language of an entirely different group. It looks like English just like Russian looks like Chinese. Yes, it's a national issue.
Saralidze: In the Middle Ages various principalities, various landowners, various family names, which could almost equally claim superiority on this territory, fought among themselves, made peace, formed coalitions. But how much is it a national issue now?
Kovalyov: It is primarily a national issue. There are issues of economic development, cultural issues that are somehow related to the national issue. But the national issue is, of course, fundamental, because those are different ethnic groups, the Welsh and Scots are highlanders inherently, and the English are somewhat different. They have a different culture, they have different views on life. If you take Scots and English, they have different religions, that is, quite a lot of divisive things, despite the fact that for centuries they lived side by side, competing, assimilating. The Scots, for example, lost their language. In other words, unlike the Welsh, the Scots mostly speak English, except for the Gaels, who live in the north [of Scotland], in the Highlands, and they preserved the Gaelic language, but there are very few of them.
Averin: About the degree of confrontation and the urgency of the issue – when I was a sports journalist I went to Glasgow, and this confrontation is noticeable there. There is Celtic and there is Glasgow Rangers. Protestants cheer for one team, and Catholics for the other. One of the most bloodthirsty battles took place between fans of Celtic and Glasgow Rangers. And when you come to Scotland, it is very clearly seen. It is not just a tribute to the misty Middle Ages, it is a very modern confrontation.
Kovalyov: To tell a Scotsman that he is an Englishman means to insult him to the core. The confrontation is really serious. It is felt in many things, not only in football stadiums, but also in everyday life. They have been trying to solve this problem for many decades, but it is still far from a final solution.
Averin: Why is it happening, in your opinion? There is already a long history of living together, a history of joint warfare, where Scotsmen, Englishmen, Welshmen and Irishmen fought together during World War II – things like that usually bring people together. There is a successful solution of economic problems. In Novgorod, for example, nobody remembers that Muscovites came and burned everything, and conquered everything with fire and sword.
Saralidze: Probably the example of Novgorod is not entirely relevant, it is better to compare it with the Caucasus ...
Averin: I drew a parallel with Novgorod because of the time period. Everything should have somehow calmed down since those centuries, right?
Kovalyov: In my opinion, this worsening of the national issue occurs when there are either some new factors stimulating this issue and forcing it to be addressed, or when the current government or the acting elite loses touch with reality and begins not to meet the challenges of the time, which is what is happening right now. Let's recall the story of the accession of Scotland: for many centuries they tried to conquer it, that did not work, then for a long time there was a union in which there were two states and one king. But in 1707 they signed an act of alliance, united into one kingdom, and then they started a very long, very complex, very difficult process of integration of the Scottish elite into the new elite of the new country – Great Britain. Everything went through bribery, through the distribution of titles, through the distribution of posts. At one point they more or less integrated. In other words, everything was normal.
But whenever the situation began to change, the economic, political, all the time they had to adjust this process. For a long time the Scots did not demand independence, because the Scottish National Party, a nationalist party, appeared only in the 20th century, when both the economy and society were not the ones which were in the 18th or 19th century, when the issue was more or less decided. The situation has changed, working-class districts with powerful trade unions, with great influence on the Labour Party appeared in Scotland. The Labourites managed to keep Scotland under their control for a long time. Almost all the MPs from Scotland in one way or another represented the Labour Party, it was a sanctuary of Labourism.
But by the end of the 20th century, once again, the economy changed. Britain became a post-industrial power, shipbuilding quietly died. Scotland was reconstructed, somewhere with the help of Britons, somewhere with the help of the EU, a Scottish 'Silicon Glen' appeared, Glasgow turned into an exhibition complex from a traditional industrial city. And a new elite began to emerge, which could no longer fit in, in the conventional sense. In 2007 Scotsman Gordon Brown became Prime Minister of Great Britain. Another elite appeared in Scotland itself, which did not want to listen to the Labour Party. They wanted some kind of alternative, because the Labour Party did not correspond to those realities that were outside.
Averin: Northern Ireland stands apart. Our listeners know the history of this conflict from literature and from the programme 'International Panorama' – at one time we talked a lot about Ulster. What is happening there now? Does such severity still exist?
Kovalyov: To say that the Northern Ireland problem is solved would be a kind of exaggeration. While on the other hand, indeed, the most urgent, the most critical phase has passed. The Belfast Agreement, the granting of special authority to the provinces in the framework of a broad program of devolution and the re-establishment of its own legislative body also raised some issues. The main issue was not raised – the confrontation between the two communities, Protestant and Catholic, and accordingly, Irish republicans on one side and Anglo-Irish and Scots-Irish, that is, descendants of Protestants who resettled there, on the other side. And I think that in the future this problem could erupt with renewed vigor, in view of the demographic situation. The Irish republican birthrate is higher, and the Protestant majority is melting little by little.
Averin: There have been referendums for secession from the UK. And each time the Protestants won because there were more of them.
Kovalyov: Now this majority is slowly declining.
Averin: So they will hold a referendum, there will be more Catholics, they will vote for secession from the United Kingdom, and it will finally be united.
Saralidze: What do the Northern Irish republicans want? Do they want to become a part of Ireland? Do they want to be separate from everyone?
Kovalyov: The Catholics want to become a part of Ireland. They consider the island to be a divided state since 1921, when Ireland achieved independence after centuries of struggle. The northeastern part, inhabited mainly by Protestants, did not want to be part of a Catholic state. This separation occurred, another province became a part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, and by the way, the current name of the state appeared. That is, in its current form, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was established in 1921. It could be said that it is a relatively young state.
Since then, the situation has not changed much. Different methods of combat were used, including hardline, terrorist, with bombings.
Interestingly, more people died at the hands of the ultra-Protestants, rather than at the hands of the IRA. The Protestant terrorist groups operated there quite harshly, cruelly. Therefore, the current reconciliation is not a solution.
Averin: I look at various parts of the world, and I understand that in some places, thanks to money, they manage to solve these problems. Supplied with money, jobs appear, everything is flourishing there, there is no economic reason to strive for the big neighbor, particularly for Ireland, not the richest country, among other things, of modern Europe, especially compared to the United Kingdom. Then they did not go down this route? Britain continues to invest money. Why is does this desire for separatism and accession to another country persist, even though this country may not be such a honeycake in comparison with the UK?
Kovalyov: They invest money, but the question is how they invest it, and who gets the most from this. After all, who are the Irish, even if we remember movies like 'Gangs of New York'? In the US, the Irish were white negroes. They got the dirtiest and lowest paid jobs. In the mid-19th century there was a famine in Ireland – there was a poor harvest of potatoes, and Irish people, saving their lives, fled to America or England, in all directions. To the dirtiest, most difficult jobs. They were the lowest stratum. The religious hatred that arose in the Middle Ages, it's not just the religious fanaticism, the opposition to another religion, it's also a different outlook. The Protestant ethic and the Catholic ethic are different. If a Protestant is inclined towards hard work and active entrepreneurship ...
Saralidze: In the English version there is also the rule of the state ...
Kovalyov: This is for England, but in Northern Ireland the Anglican church does not have the status of the state church. This is a different ethic, it's a different attitude towards life.
Averin: What prevails in the confrontation between the English and the Irish, the difference in outlook or in ethnic origin?
Kovalyov: The difference in outlook, the difference in religion, is based on the difference in origin and the difference in living conditions.
Averin: Is it important in the context of globalization?
Kovalyov: On the one hand, no one argues that there is a gradual adoption of some common standards, in food, in clothing, in life, in outlook. On the other hand, few people will deny that there is opposition to this globalization, anti-globalism. When people are faced with the fact that this globalization brings negative points, it causes the desire to show that we are not like all the others, we have something that only we possess, and we are holding onto it. And this is quite a powerful uniting stimulus.
Averin: At one time there were preferences, if you were a Protestant you had privilege over Catholics. Currently in Malaysia, if you are a native Malaysian, then you have a bank loan that is cheaper than another person who was also born there in the tenth generation, but of Chinese origin. In the UK, as far as I know, in the past ten years there have been no special privileges. If, for example, a Protestant wants to open business, then he has the same conditions as a Catholic. This applies to education and loans. Then what are the basic differences?
Kovalyov: Now there are no selections, no privilege on religious principle, but I was talking about the mentality and the attitude. The most important thing for a Protestant is prosperity in this life and hard work, he should not be forced to work, he will work. Even in the Middle Ages, in the times of Shakespeare, what was the main enemy of the English theater, when it had just bloomed? The plague and Protestant municipality, which prohibited theater as a waste of time. At such a time it is better to earn money. Catholics have a different attitude towards life. If you are not able to earn, the church will shelter you, the church will help you, the community will help you.
Saralidze: The Pope will pay the debt for a communal apartment ...
Kovalyov: We must not forget that for a long time after the victory of the Reformation in England, Catholics were very restrained in their rights. They could not get into the elite. That restriction also left a deep impression.
Averin: Could the demographic imbalance lead to Northern Ireland joining the Irish Republic?
Kovalyov: It all depends on how Northern Ireland will develop economically. It is no secret that for a long time Northern Ireland was the most economically weak region, the weakest of the four parts of the United Kingdom, while, for example, the Republic of Ireland has actively developed in recent years, showing a high rate of GDP growth and living standards. If Northern Ireland will be able to create the conditions of life and living standards times greater than the one that exists in the Republic of Ireland, even many Catholics will not want to return. The economy, of course, always lies at the basis.
Averin: Let's talk about Scotland. The referendum was held. Those who voted against the exit of Scotland from the UK voted because of economic reasons.
Kovalyov: I'm not sure. Considering the fact that the right to vote was granted to citizens starting from 16 years, I do not think that at 16 years many people think much about the economy, or understand something in it. But for the immediate future the question of the secession of Scotland is closed.
Averin: And is there a Welsh issue?
Kovalyov: No. The Welsh nationalist party Plaid Cymru has always been more moderate. In contrast to the Scottish nationalists it was always content with the expansion of national cultural autonomy, was happy with the fact that in Wales, during the 20th century, Welsh culture and Welsh language developed very consistently, very intelligently. There is bilingualism – newspapers are issued in two languages, all of their licence plates and signs are in two languages. The heir to the throne traditionally bears the title Prince of Wales, and it must be earned, to go through the procedure of inauguration, make a speech in Welsh. For this purpose it is necessary to learn it, and it is quite a complicated thing. The monarchy is a very important binding factor.
Averin: Scottish nationalists do not hide that they want to remain in the EU. They are not eurosceptics. The British authorities, however, say that they might leave the EU.
Kovalyov: If they will secede from the United Kingdom, they will not become an EU member automatically. The EU strictly doesn't encourage separatism. They will have to go through the whole procedure once again, and that is quite difficult and time consuming. At the same time, the British Conservatives do not want to leave the EU. Cameron has repeatedly said that his task is to prevent the outflow of some of the supporters of the Conservative Party to the ranks of the United Kingdom Independence Party, or even to bring them back. The second task is to get those actions that the British want from the EU, those special conditions which they need, due to the fact that the UK is slightly different from the continental European countries, especially in its socio-economic model. What is good for the Germans is not always good for the English in Britain. Therefore, the situation here, in my opinion, is much more complicated. I do not see major problems with the fact that the Scots want to stay in the EU and they, in fact, are there.
Saralidze: When you google 'separatism in the UK', you can read, along with traditional Irish, traditional Scottish, even Welsh, but there is also Manx separatism and Chagossian separatism. Is this because the Internet has already gathered what does not exist, or because it is a reality and there is a more or less significant movement for secession in the British Overseas Territories? Or is it trading for some status?
Kovalyov: Manx and, for example, Cornish separatism exists, but it is not so significant due to the fact that the Isle of Man is a small island, and Cornwall is a small peninsula. To some extent it can even be artificially created separatism. But the Manx and Cornish languages are revived languages. This is a rare case when the native speakers died a long time ago, and then enthusiasts, based on books, on the basis of dictionaries, revived the language. Now there are schools where children learn it, and it promotes the revival of Celtic separatism.
Currently, the biggest problem is not this one, but the emergence of English nationalism. Many British politicians, not only radical, but also quite adequate, ask why the Scots are entitled to Scotland, to decide their own local problems through the Scottish Parliament, and at the same time they sit in the Westminster Parliament, where they decide issues that also concern the English population. The English do not have such an opportunity.
Saralidze: This is similar to the Soviet Union of the 1980s.
Averin: But it's hard to deny the logic. The Scottish Parliament makes its life easier, while acting within the British Parliament in a completely different way.
Saralidze: Maybe this is a problem of collapsed empires? From sea to sea everything was English, and then it began to crumble, and the titular nation is paying the price for the fact that everything collapsed, or because everything was created ...
Kovalyov: Calling Scotland, Wales and even Northern Ireland a part of the empire should be done with great reserve. Although the United Kingdom is a unitary state, federalist tendencies there have developed quite seriously in recent years. However, they simply can't build some really adequate federalist model. Even major scientific publications are calling Britain a quasi-federation, because it already has local parliaments, local governments, they are expanding.
Maybe devolution, the empowerment of historic nations – Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – stimulated nationalist radicalism? After all, the referendum on the secession of Scotland actually became possible after Scotland seriously expanded its powers and received not only its own parliament, but also an opportunity to gather its own taxes, and change (albeit to a limited extent) the rate of income tax in Scotland. Those are fairly broad powers.
Averin: How is the problem of migrants being discussed in the UK now?
Kovalyov: This issue is quite acute, although Britain realized very quickly that it is threatened by the influx of migrants from former colonies and built a rigid migration legislation. It is quite difficult to get British citizenship. No wonder Cameron, when presenting the conditions in which the United Kingdom is ready to remain in the European Union, demands a tightening of migration policy. He asks not to give them social benefits, which, of course, attracted migrants to the EU countries. Cameron and many other political leaders of the UK have repeatedly stated openly about the failure of multiculturalism, including on the territory of the UK. No wonder the demand to make migration policy and treatment of migrants stricter, in recent years, is one of the central points of all the electoral programs of the Conservatives. They have repeatedly said that they will undertake a range of measures aimed at reducing the influx of migrants. So far, however, they have not been very good at it, especially under current conditions when the influx of migrants covers Europe more and more. I think that it is unlikely that they will be able to create some kind of common European program – here, every country in the EU, including the United Kingdom, decides by itself.
Averin: When there is the issue of migrants, does the UK, as a state, use not only carrots, but also whips? What choice of methods does the state have?
Kovalyov: We are talking about who they are willing to take. Migrants are accepted in the countries of Western Europe not only because they are so compassionate and care about humanitarian issues. They are willing to take those migrants that they need in the circumstances of population aging, in conditions of the changing structure of the economy. They will accept well-educated, knowledgeable programmers, English-speaking, willing to work and generate income for the country with joy. And they are unlikely to accept a person who knows only Arabic and does not know a word in English and cannot do anything, who needs to be taught both the language and a profession.
Averin: But there are fascist nationalist parties in the UK, which protrude from other positions. How much is this a serious problem in the UK?
Kovalyov: The seriousness of this problem has increased dramatically, not only in Britain, but in general for the whole of Western Europe. The results shown by right-wing parties in the elections, for example, to the European Parliament, are well known. In my opinion, this is a reaction to the inability of traditional, fundamental, basic political parties to negotiate and to respond adequately to the situation. And in these conditions, people, voters are looking for some alternative, and many find it in such extreme manifestations, not only extreme right, but also on the left. The victory of the leader of the Labour Party at the elections, who is one of the most left-wing candidates over the past decades of the history of the party, was not unexpected for me.
Saralidze: Is everyday nationalism in the life of the UK a factor which the state should somehow take into account? Should it fight it or not?
Kovalyov: Everyday nationalism, probably, exists, but I do not think that it is a big problem. Firstly, the United Kingdom is a legal state, there are relevant laws and relevant jurisprudence, which does not allow this phenomenon to flourish. Secondly, there are also a variety of other restrictions. Poor migrants cannot afford to live in areas where everyday nationalism may occur. There is a natural segregation.
Averin: Segregation is a plus?
Kovalyov: It is not a plus, it is a solution in the short term, and the creation of a big problem in the long term. While these different commonalities are living separately, have little contact with one another, there are fewer reasons for conflict, for collision. But sooner or later this collision will happen.
Averin: Are there districts in London where Sharia law is operating?
Kovalyov: This is a problem. The political leadership of the country is directly talking about it – multiculturalism was unsuccessful in our country, not all of us can integrate.
