tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452474541473927280.post8827926327601480877..comments2023-07-29T12:34:38.874+01:00Comments on Henry CH Hill: Federalism and Unionism: Not the same thing.Dilettantehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03532639584338090676noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452474541473927280.post-62385629243599445272011-09-09T14:35:19.599+01:002011-09-09T14:35:19.599+01:00So are other languages always divisive? What about...So are other languages always divisive? What about documents which are published by local governments in various languages including, say, Bangladeshi, do they weaken the union? Why should the preservation of alternative languages necessarily be negative? Welsh and Scottish are still alive and kicking but there hasn't been the kind of violent anti-unionism there which characterised Anglo-Irish relations. Labelling basic cultural differences as 'divisive' seems a bit simplistic given that various analogous states (e.g. Singapore, Switzerland) survive after their own fashions with equally pronounced historic linguistic divides. It seems to me that cultural similarity is not a pre-requisite of a successful state.<br />Is the fundamental problem with old Unionism that it could no longer cope with the more complex attitudes people had towards their identity?<br />As a point of interest, would you support greater localism in the English regions? For what it's worth, my theory is that devolution might represent a nationalistic form of localism which recognises that central government can't cope with the demands and needs of regions which are really quite different from one another.The Shadow Cabinethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079754240157591683noreply@blogger.com