United We Stand

I am a British person living in South Africa and also have a great interest in the history of our nations.

I was thus intrigued by the way in which South Africans viewed the recent referendum about the independence (or, some might say, secession) of Scotland. So many South Africans seemed to support instinctively the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. The comparison drawn was sometimes with Ireland’s struggle for independence or with South Africa breaking its ties with the “empire”.

The quest for self-determination — the desire to throw off the yoke of oppression and to break away from the coloniser — is a recurrent theme in the history of both Ireland and South Africa. But I feel that these comparisons profoundly misread the relationship between England and Scotland.

The United Kingdom was formed from the uniting of two kingdoms—not equal in size but equal in status. The first step towards this was not the takeover of the Scottish by an English monarch. In fact, in 1603 King James VI of Scotland extended his throne to become King James I of England.

And when in 1707 the two kingdoms were constitutionally joined into one United Kingdom, it was the start of a relationship of co-existence and shared citizenship that has lasted reasonably successfully for over 300 years. The Scots, far from being oppressed by the British empire, were often the beneficiaries (or if you prefer the oppressors).

Let me give you a different comparison. This should not have been a moment for South Africans to cheer the assertion of the Scots over their larger neighbours. Rather, it should have been a moment for South Africa to contemplate its own commitment to the union that is the foundation of this country — controversially in 1910 and then reinforced by the 1994 liberation agreement and the current Constitution.

How would you have felt if, in the 1994 negotiations, a whole piece of territory had not transitioned to be part of the new South Africa? Don’t forget how nearly a separate state of Zululand might have emerged if a majority of inhabitants had been allowed to assert their desires over a minority.

Or how would you feel now if Capetonians were allowed to decide for themselves to become a separate city-state, without anyone else having a say in the matter?

I presume that, whatever your views on the merits of these various cases for “independence”, you might at least feel aggrieved that other South Africans would have no say in the dismemberment of their country.

Of course, no political union is perfect. The Treaty of Union in 1910 was forged in the wake of a highly unpleasant conflict and at the exclusion of the political voice of the majority of South Africans. The negotiations that brought about 1994 were inevitably affected by brinkmanship, political manoeuvring and dark threats.

But I have met few South Africans who want to throw all that up in the air or treat it as something which is written in pencil, to be erased and rewritten at will. The attitude instead is: “Here is our country, great yet imperfect: let us all work together within these boundaries to make a go of it.”

We know that married relationships have their ups and down. But as Catholics we hesitate to see divorce as an inevitable or even preferred outcome when things get tough. I think this same presumption in favour of unity should apply to countries that have in the past come together voluntarily. Not unity at all costs. But unity as an operating principle.

Have we forgotten the artificial creation of Bantustans with nominal independence yet huge economic dependence? Or are we blind to the precarious position of Lesotho and Swaziland? Small sovereign states may seem very romantic but, other than stamp collectors and corrupt politicians, whom do they benefit?

Within states, a re-negotiation of power between the centre and semi-autonomous regions — in the US, in South Africa, in Canada and in the UK — has provided a more mature response than the fate of the former Yugoslavia or the current debacle in Ukraine. At a larger level, the erasing or, at least, softening of borders between countries through regional agreements and co-operation treaties is one of the successes of the modern age.

For me the result of the Scottish referendum is reason to rejoice in our desire and our ability to live with each other in harmony and happy co-existence. And it shows that we do not have to give in to the instinct to divide and build yet more walls and fences.