The no border comment is interesting. It speaks to the idea that the UK is one state (true) but also to the idea that it’s too often confused with being one nation (not true) and having one politics (definitely not true). It’s a multi-national state (unusual)...
...and as such its politics requires very careful calibration, especially in an age where it’s no longer, for any intents and purposes, a unitary state, with one seat of power....
In other words, historians might one day conclude that one of the reasons the union came under such strain (possibly to breaking point) is that too often Westminster politicians mistook the UK for being one nation, with one state.
NB a good example would be Brexit. Given the extremely fissile politics of the union, it’s really quite surprising how little the politics of a no trade deal Brexit is discussed in relation to the politics of Scotland, rather than that of the politics of Westminster alone.
Or, I suppose, England.
Ultimately, most multi-national European states have withered over the past century. The UK’s was broken too (partition) but been intact since. The fact it is unusual, means it requires very careful calibration and manoeuvre from the political elites who want to retain it...
...especially at a time when consent for that union is fraying. Seems surprising to me there isn’t more discussion in Westminster as to how to do that.
To go back to my first point, one of the reasons for that (alongside fact that many elites feel uncomfortable defending the British state/institutions after a number of yrs where it’s considered not to have covered itself in glory) is that many elites are too complacent...
...in a) the endurance of the 2014 ref result and b) that UK politics can be treated as one, that we are still, at heart one state, that that will win out and UK politics (like Brexit) doesn’t have to be seen through a multi-national prism. Those things could do it for the union.
