‘Muscular Unionism’: The British Political Tradition Strikes Back?

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Studies Pub Date : 2023-05-25 DOI:10.1177/00323217231176474
M. Sandford
{"title":"‘Muscular Unionism’: The British Political Tradition Strikes Back?","authors":"M. Sandford","doi":"10.1177/00323217231176474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that shifts in the UK’s territorial management practice in the late 2010s and early 2020s, described by various terms, including ‘muscular unionism’, may be more rhetorical and ideational than substantive. The practices associated with these terms are recognisably part of the ‘British political tradition’, and the changes of the early 2020s can be viewed as reasserting traditional governance practices rather than introducing new ones. The article examines the various phenomena described as ‘muscular unionism’ and suggests that many are relatively ad hoc, low-level initiatives, often rhetorical. There is also much evidence that the UK governments of the 2020s see the ‘Millennium Settlement’, introduced in 1999, as continuing to be a core part of UK territorial management. The clearest break from historical practice comes in the overt, explicit quality of ‘muscular unionist’ rhetoric. The article then suggests that, contrary to some scholarly expectations, this muscular unionist turn may come to be an effective territorial management strategy for the UK government, as it aligns with an Anglo-British imaginary within England that continues to conflate England, Britain and the UK in terms of governance and national identity.","PeriodicalId":51379,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217231176474","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article argues that shifts in the UK’s territorial management practice in the late 2010s and early 2020s, described by various terms, including ‘muscular unionism’, may be more rhetorical and ideational than substantive. The practices associated with these terms are recognisably part of the ‘British political tradition’, and the changes of the early 2020s can be viewed as reasserting traditional governance practices rather than introducing new ones. The article examines the various phenomena described as ‘muscular unionism’ and suggests that many are relatively ad hoc, low-level initiatives, often rhetorical. There is also much evidence that the UK governments of the 2020s see the ‘Millennium Settlement’, introduced in 1999, as continuing to be a core part of UK territorial management. The clearest break from historical practice comes in the overt, explicit quality of ‘muscular unionist’ rhetoric. The article then suggests that, contrary to some scholarly expectations, this muscular unionist turn may come to be an effective territorial management strategy for the UK government, as it aligns with an Anglo-British imaginary within England that continues to conflate England, Britain and the UK in terms of governance and national identity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“肌肉统一主义”:英国政治传统反击?
这篇文章认为,英国领土管理实践在2010年代末和20世纪20年代初的转变,用各种术语描述,包括“强有力的统一主义”,可能更多的是口头和概念上的转变,而不是实质性的。与这些术语相关的做法是公认的“英国政治传统”的一部分,20世纪20年代初的变化可以被视为重申传统的治理做法,而不是引入新的治理做法。这篇文章考察了被描述为“强有力的统一主义”的各种现象,并指出许多现象是相对临时的、低级的倡议,通常是修辞性的。还有很多证据表明,20世纪20年代的英国政府将1999年引入的“千年解决方案”视为英国领土管理的核心部分。与历史实践最明显的决裂在于“强有力的统一主义者”言论的公开、明确的品质。文章接着指出,与一些学术界的预期相反,这种强有力的统一主义转变可能会成为英国政府的一种有效的领土管理策略,因为它与英国内部的一种英美想象相一致,这种想象在治理和国家认同方面继续将英格兰、英国和英国混为一谈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Studies
Political Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Political Studies is a leading international journal committed to the very highest standards of peer review that publishes academically rigorous and original work in all fields of politics and international relations. The editors encourage a pluralistic approach to political science and debate across the discipline. Political Studies aims to develop the most promising new work available and to facilitate professional communication in political science.
期刊最新文献
The Good Politician: Competence, Integrity and Authenticity in Seven Democracies The COVID-19 Pandemic in Britain: A Competence Shock and Its Electoral Consequences Europhoria! Explaining Britain’s Pro-European Moment, 1988–1992 Beyond the Ballot: The Impact of Voting Margin and Turnout on the Legitimacy of Referendum Outcomes in Europe Why Voters Prefer Politicians With Particular Personal Attributes: The Role of Voter Demand for Populists
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1