Thanks to Brenda Steele for alerting me to this.
Two bitterly funny lines from the researchers:
We found that the case for unity is primarily negative in Spain, with self-determination viewed unconstitutional and independence divisive and backwards, and more positive in the UK, with the Union seen as the instrument to facilitate the success of its four nations.
In contrast, the UK is usually presented as a partnership into willingly and requiring the consent of its constituent nations. As a result, a case must be made for its continuation.
https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/news-and-opinion/why-stay-together
I know it takes some time for peer-review but did they do their research in 2014, just after David Cameron had pleaded with the Scots to stay and lead the UK and Gordon Brown had pledged us maximum devolution?
Did they finish it only weeks later, just before Cameron launched English votes for English Laws and Scottish Labour made sure the Smith Commission reneged on Cameron’s vow?
They must surely have finished the write-up before the Brexit saga of zero consultation with the devolved authorities and the braying contempt of the Tory benches when any Scot dared to speak. They must have neglected to read anything by Michael Gove as he regularly put us in our place.
I’ll excuse them for not taking into account the current trauma inflicted on Scotland by Westminster’s serial failures to prepare for the pandemic
Footnote: Is Cetrà related to Pete Cetera of 70s band, Chicago, who sang:
‘If you leave me now, you’ll take away the very heart of me…oooh ooooh oooh’
???
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
I think the article is much more nuanced than it is being presented here. I think that the article is trying to be descriptive of the concept of the unitary state held by those in the main political parties:
“.. .we compared the way political parties in the UK and Spain justify state unity in response to Catalan and Scottish demands for self-determination.
“We found that British and Spanish party elites struggle to articulate well-developed cases for staying together. This may be because state elites in general tend to present state maintenance as self-evidently desirable and are less practised in legitimising their national projects.
“But how exactly do they justify state unity? We found that the case for unity is primarily negative in Spain, with self-determination viewed unconstitutional and independence divisive and backwards, and more positive in the UK, with the Union seen as the instrument to facilitate the success of its four nations.
“Our contention is that this variation may be explained by the dominant conception of the state in each case, a single and indivisible nation of equal citizens in Spain and a flexible and plurinational Union in the UK. ”
Perhaps, for those of us of a pro-independence persuasion, this is a useful description of the mindset of the unionist ‘elites’ – i.e those in the higher reaches of the Conservative, Labour and LibDem Parties. It could be argued that the article is saying “Know your enemy”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A ‘kind’ interpretation IMHO!
I’m sure few have forgotten ‘Project Fear’; I’m sure few of a pro-independence persuasion don’t react negatively to the ‘one nation’ political messaging by the UK government; I’m sure few of a pro-indy persuasion don’t have countless examples of UK institutions, notably the BBC, failing to acknowledge or respect on a daily basis the four country, four nation structure of the UK; and I can’t be alone in reading Unionist supporters on social media vehemently denying that Scotland even exists as a ‘country’ or as a ‘nation’ in its own right. So lots of examples to check the reality of the author’s (uncritical) reference to the UK as a ‘plurinational Union’.
So whilst I can acknowledge that the article does make for a moderately interesting read, I also suggest the authors have missed out on some important ‘nuances’! It may be their purpose has been only to capture the Unionists’ ‘position’ but I think for completeness they should critique that presentation objectively (Brexit – a ‘common project’?)
But then perhaps I’m bound to say that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you are being generous beyond belief.
The authors are so nuanced they don’t know what they are talking about on UK state unity, probably because they appear to have done no research.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m finished with nuance.
LikeLike
In the preamble it refers to “Unionist and Nationalist”. How can Brexiteers (now comprising Labour, Tory and Dumbs) be considered “Unionists”?
What we have on one side are those who want Scotland to be a normal self-governing country.
Opposing them are British nationalists.
British nationalists insist Scotland has no say within the UK. No say on its own future. No say on Brexit and any other future trade negotiations, with regard to the assets of Scotland.
Scotland, on British nationalist terms, is next door to a colony of England (or Greater England) as Cameron’s legal advisers asserted in 2014, when we became “extinguished” by their skewed understanding of international law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John
I never embraced it. …See you… was always my opener.
LikeLiked by 1 person
See you Sammy?
LikeLike