Yeah this kind of awful take is what's wrong with modern politics and speaks to the same type of hypocrisy as I was pointing out earlier.
This quote kind of sums up how I feel:
"The man who can hold forth on every matter under debate in two contradictory ways of pleading, or can argue for and against every proposition that can be laid down – such a man is the true, the complete, and the only orator."
When will people understand that dismissal of political views they don't like as racist/classist or otherwise prejudiced doesn't do anyone any good... it pushes the far right further right and the far left further left.
Those who do try to take advantage of populsim with more sinister/nefarious objectives (which is VERY VERY rare) on both sides of the isle find their job only made easier by shitty takes like this. It keeps happening and no one ever learns...
Stop assuming the other side are evil / stupid / hateful / all round baddies. These aren't sports teams. There are things to learn from all walks of politics, but presumption of motive is exactly the reason politics is in such a dire state.
This is also wildly blinkered. There are plenty of oppertunities to critisize Boris and his many pet projects, but dismissing an attempt to demonstrate some sembelance of unity to a part of the UK in which 50% ish of the populus have felt completely abandoned by their government in Westminster as "jingoistic" isn't one of them.
Is there other ways to do it? Absolutelty! Is this a massive project that may be ill fated? Absolutely! Is this an example of a devolved government being treated as a "colony" of westminster? No.
Regardless, suggesting that the "Union" in it's totality an example of colonialism at which Westminster is at the centre is a misunderstanding of not only the treaty of the Union, but also waters down the idea of "colonialism" in the international arena... something that is very ill advised.
I have been meaning to reply to you for some time on this; apologies first for the delay. Also, I agree with you that I didn't express myself as well as I could have; it should have been far more nuanced. It was a case of needing to put my brain in gear before hitting the keypad.
For starters, I am entirely with you about the need to address the justified grievances of - as you say - the 50% of the U.K. that has been ignored and neglected by Westminster. However in infrastructural terms I don't think the answer need be grandiose schemes (which actually feed the vanity of the Westminster politicians more than helping the communities they are meant to serve). Instead it would be better to improve existing communications such as better rail and bus links across the North of England and Scotland - and reviving the railways in Northern Ireland. Such measures would probably cost less than 'big' projects and have a better medium to long term effect on local economies and the environment.
Also the narrative of London = Privilege, Rest of U.K. (including Red Wall areas) = Disadvantage is only partly true. Several of the poorest areas of the U.K. are situated within London. The current government ignores the needs and wishes of London - and other 'metropolitan' areas for spiteful populist reasons. It is now threatening to remove the supplementary vote system from our Mayoral and Assembly elections (the same policy will be imposed on Manchester, West Yorkshire, etc.). A government that was really interested in giving more say to local communities would do the opposite. It would extend the Single Transferable Vote system used in Scottish local elections (and N.Irish) to local authorities in England. That would be a democratising move - and a good Unionist move!
Which brings me on to your larger point about support for the Union. I do support it but regard the narrow, centralising form of Unionism of the current government as both ugly and counterproductive. For example, the vote for Brexit was a narrow one in the Union as a whole. Scotland voted strongly against it (as did London and as, less strongly, did N. Ireland). This should have been taken into account in the type of Brexit that was eventually imposed. A true 'Unionist' would favour a soft Brexit or a Norwegian or Swiss style relationship with the EU with single market access. The Tories in the present iteration imposed a hard Brexit instead - which as well as being IMHO inherently disastrous is making it harder to present a positive and open-minded case for the U.K. - a case which I would like to make.
In other words, I would like to see a more generous and outward-looking version of Unionism, rather than the current centralisation, power grabbing and (IMHO curiously un-British) obsession with flags and declarations of naive 'patriotism'.
Likewise, I would have been open to voting for a Tory mayoral candidate in London had there been one who represented the (dwindling) moderate and socially conscious wing of the party - a Ruth Davidson-style Tory, in other words. Two very different candidates spring to mind: Justine Greening (working class background, lesbian, upwardly mobile - a bit like Ruth D) and Rory Stewart (establishment background with social conscience). Both represent a modern and inclusive outlook. Instead the party nominated a hard Brexiteer who was an echo chamber for central government - another example of centralisation.
There is so much more that could be said but enough for now!
