It’s September and there’s a nip in the air. I’m at a workshop in Glasgow on ports and commodities of empire, part of a series at the University in which no papers are delivered and discussion is paramount. It sets up an interesting dynamic: few participants have read all the papers.
Against the background of Brexit, debates about Britain’s role in Europe, and Scotland’s continuance in the union with England, it’s fascinating to be discussing papers which emphasize the global nature of the flow of major commodities. This being Glasgow, some papers directly relate to the initial arguments in favour of Scotland’s union with England: likely protection for Scotland’s burgeoning herring fishery and expansion of its rum distilleries (resulting from trade with the Caribbean).
Participants have come from all over the world, thanks to the global theme of the workshop. As Britain teeters on the brink of crashing out of Europe with no deal, it’s pertinent to be reminded that when global trade took off, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Europe’s competitive advantage came from exclusive access to colonial goods; compared with Asia it had a comparative lack of capital.
Participants note the difficulty of distinguishing perception from reality in the examination of sources; merchants disguise or talk up opportunities for trade. It’s the same when faced with politicians’ statements. But interestingly the dichotomy some foster between ‘experts’ and ‘ordinary folk’ dissolves in any discussion about commodities: many British trades and manufactures needed expertise to take off, often sourced from abroad. And this need for expertise endured to improve outputs over time. The relationship, in practice, is one of interdependence not dichotomy.
There is vitality and energy in most discussions of port communities. Ports are nodes within systems of trade, but on a human level they foster the exchange of people and ideas. It’s not surprizing that they throw up examples of the interconnectedness of time and place. But does it help to refer to these eighteenth-century Glasgow mercantilists, who talked up exports and ignored the imports needed to service the cycle of trade, as ‘Trump-like’? I’m not so sure.