Better Nation is delighted to welcome David Torrance in a guest post, in part responding to Pete Wishart’s from yesterday, but also positing ideas and opinions of his own. David is an accomplished author, journalist and broadcaster, and will be known to many BN readers. He tweets @davidtorrance and  blogs at Mugwump.
On one level, Pete Wishart’s recent blog (“Proud to be British in an Independent Scotlandâ€) was a fascinating restatement of what “independence†means in the early 21st century. He would “be happy to see any number of shared institutions being called British†after independence (my italics), while speculating that it could even “give Britishness a new lease of lifeâ€.
Yet on another, the politics of national identity, Wishart appears almost as confused as he claims Britishness is. Surprisingly, he concedes the geographical dimension almost straight away (why? It’s integral to so much of the argument, not least in terms of oil), while focusing his attention on Britishness “as a cultural ideaâ€. “No one has ever come up with a convincing definition of Britishnessâ€, concludes Wishart, “because there probably isn’t one.â€
Now I wouldn’t quibble with this assertion, far from it, but Wishart singularly fails to – although it is implied – articulate a definition of “Scottishnessâ€, which presumably he believes exists. “Cultural Britishness is then a rather curious construct that can be almost anything, and usually is,†he writes, “hence the mom and apple pie attributes usually associated with Britishness when people are asked to define it.â€
I would apply the same critique to Scottishness, for dwelling on national identity for any length of time inevitably steers political debate into a cul-de-sac. Once you move beyond constitutional definitions, it’s all – frankly – a bit meaningless. Yet the SNP retains a peculiar fascination with trying to pigeonhole people as “Scottish†or “Britishâ€, the recent census (which classified Scottishness as an “ethnicityâ€) being a case in point.
Wishart then offers a generous – and actually quite convincing – definition of Britishness (“great historic cultural achievements…pride in our victories in the wars we fought togetherâ€), but then spoils it by labelling this “the social union†which, of course, is a relatively recent Nationalist construct. “Our gripeâ€, explains Wishart, is with the “current political arrangements within the United Kingdomâ€. Doesn’t it occur to him that those “political arrangements†were central to the cultural achievements and wars he rightly lauds?
In my mind, John P. Mackintosh hit the nail on the head when he spoke of many Scots seeing themselves as Scottish and British, also arguing that with this “dual nationality, there is a simple alternative if the pride in being British wanes; just be Scottish. It is an ‘opt out’ solution which allows each person to imagine the kind of alternative to the disappointment of being British which he or she wants.â€
As polls demonstrate, more and more Scots are opting out, although that doesn’t necessarily mean they want independence. Which brings me back to my opening point: Wishart says independence will facilitate “the opportunity to define a new Britishness, one based on equality and mutual respectâ€. Elsewhere in his blog he refers to “moving towards independenceâ€. In doing so, he’s simply echoing a recent speech by Alex Salmond, but why, I wonder, don’t they just say “independenceâ€?
#1 by Dr William Reynolds on July 23, 2011 - 6:05 pm
I understand Pete Wisharts argument and to some extent agree.Britain is a geographical area where several nations exist and even after Scottish independence will collaborate on areas of mutual interest.However,I must say that I consider my nationality to be Scottish,not British.Of course I recognise a relationship of my nation to the British Isles,in the same way that my Finnish wife recognises her nations relationship with Scandanavia.
I find this writers critique of Wisharts article to be esoteric.Also,I would point out that the SNP have defined their concept of civic nationalism extremely well.It is an all embracing concept of Scottishness that accepts that Scotland is a multicultural society and that all who live here are welcome to be Scottish if they wish to be.Actually in Finland,they are generous to define Finnish in the same way.I wouls assume that all of the nations within Scandanavia view Scan danavian in the same way that Pete Wishart views Britishness.
#2 by Pete Wishart on July 23, 2011 - 8:36 pm
David, really enjoyed your reply and thank you for being so generous.
You are absolutely right of course that it is also difficult to define Scottish(ness) but if you’re applying the same rules it would be equally as difficult to define American, Italian or French. The thing is we don’t seem to agonise over Scottishness like we do over our good friend Britishness. We only have to go back to that Newsnight programme and some of the almost splendid and contorted vagueness (anti-fanaticsm anybody!!?).
I know we can dismiss all of this as “meaningless†but I think it is important as we build up a picture of the type of independent Scotland we want and how we may see ourselves and define our new and hopefully improved relationships on this island.
What makes Britishness uniquely curious and interesting, and I suppose particularly difficult to define, is that it is a combination of identities. Britishness is the cultural relationship of Scots, English, Welsh and possibly even the Irish, and in that it is almost unique. It is because of this set of circumstances that we get these particular and peculiar set of difficulties.
You gently rebuke me for referring to this strange, hybrid and evolving relationship as the†social union†but if Britishness is not a “social†union it really can’t be anything other than a geographic one.
I didn’t quite get your reference, but yes of course, anyone can define themselves anyway they want and in a multi-cultural Scotland this is increasingly prevalent and welcome.
But let’s celebrate the potential for a new improved Britishness with new British institutions that an independent Scotland can offer. So yes, Scottish and British in a new improved British Isles with a fit for purpose new 21st century political relationship.
#3 by douglas clark on July 23, 2011 - 10:50 pm
Is it just a convenience to call ourselves ‘Scottish’?
I ‘quite like’ Pete Wisharts’ comment @ 2. He says:
Is that not the point? I think the ‘being Scottish’ thing is almost an attempt to herd cats, or pretend that we have ‘core values’ or summat, when it is as clear as day that we don’t.
What we do have, I would submit, is a desire to have a society that lets us be what we are and assume that other people that are, roughly speaking Scottish too, also want that.
A kind of anarchists ‘Friends’ set.
That they will support your right to exist and prosper. Just as you will reciprocate it . That your ‘right to difference’ is what makes you a Scot.
It is that idea – that we should respect, if not exactly glorify.
That there actually is an ‘each and every one of us’ – is perhaps paramount to the difference between us that get the point of being Scottish and those that don’t.
I am pretty sure there is all sorts of good and bad about that, Burns on the one hand, Livingstone on the other.
You are Scottish if you say you are.
It should be noted that most of our nearest neighbours wouldn’t: say it, that is. And that almost no-one else has ever even heard of us.
We do all right for a nation stuck on the North end of a rocky isle.
It would be interesting to know what folk that have come here for an education, from Africa or Asia perhaps, think about us. Is it a place to have a life, or, perhaps only a place to get educated? And then not, think about us ever again. Just because?
I am pretty well sick of the exclusive idea of Scottishness. In fact I hate it.
Absent Idi Amin, I do kind of say, you are Scottish if you say you are.
#4 by Indy on July 24, 2011 - 10:03 am
I would guess the reason Pete wrote his article – which I fully agree with – is that there is a clear tactic emerging of unionists and political commentators trying to turn the debate about independence into one about a shared national identity and a shared culture with the implicit threat that if Scotland becomes independent we will be cut off from that. No longer will we be able to eat fish and chips, watch old episodes of Fawlty Towers or watch the cricket. That will all be verboten and instead we will have to adhere to a compulsory diet of stovies, Taggart and shinty. That is a horrific prospect indeed but it’s also sheer mince.
In one sense the fact that such daft arguments are put forward is very encouraging. No longer is the unionist argument that Scotland can’t afford to be independent or that Scots couldn’t manage to govern their own country – that argument has been knocked on the head because voters simply don’t believe it any more. That doesn’t mean that there is a majority for independence yet but it does mean that the majority are no longer scared of independence, and that is progress.
Leaving aside the sheer silliness of the “fish and chips and pop” argument the broader “cultural” argument for the Union – i.e. that because we share a culture and history with the rest of Britain we have to be in a political union – is quite a difficult one to tackle because it is intrinsically incohate and difficult to pin down. We do,of course, share a culture with other British people and independence would not change that – but our cultural, social and political links are much wider than that.
Just as an exercise let’s all think about what we did yesterday and what that says about the culture we live in. For myself I spent a fair bit of time online and, like most of my friends, I changed by facebook profile picture into the Norwegian flag. I spent a fair bit of time reading first hand accounts of the terrible events in Norway and expressed my sympathy – even though I have never been to Norway, don’t speak Norwegian, don’t know any of the people affected etc. But when something like that happens you can instantly have access online to ,members of the community of people who are affected by it, in the same way that we had access to people on the ground during the Arab Spring. That’s one of the ways the internet has revolutionised the way we interact with the rest of the world and changed our culture forever.
Then I got a text from an Irish friend I used to share a flat with in London who now lives in Madrid saying OMG have you heard the news? Amy Winehouse is dead. We are both big fans of the late Ms Winehouse so I opened a bottle of wine to toast her and we drank it with our tea – a Chinese take-out.
Then I spent the rest of the evening in front of the telly watching the Family Guy Star Wars trilogy, a cultural masterpiece of our time in my humble opinion.
I would challenge anyone to say just how much of that day – which would probably be fairly typical I would imagine – could be classified as “British”. You only have to ask the question to see how silly it is. Would I, for example, have become more “British” if I had switched over from Family Guy and watched QI XL. For surely there is no greater cultural icon of Britishness than the very wonderful Stephen Fry. And that’s why I taped it for later (which, speaking of Britishness, meant I had to ask a friend to tape Camelot for me).
Anyway the point is that culture, and access to culture, is almost universal these days. And the most important point of all is that POLITICIANS DO NOT CONTROL IT. The government does not tell us what music to listen to, what TV programmes to watch, who we can talk to on the internet, what we can eat and drink, where our friends and family live, what we think is funny, what we think is cruel, nor does it tell us what we feel or define the limits of our identity.
That’s the really fundamental point that makes the whole “culture” argument bogus. I would still have been able to do all of those things if Scotland had been independent. Independence will make no real difference to the culture that surrounds us because culture cannot be constrained or controlled by the democratic political process.
#5 by Stuart Winton on July 24, 2011 - 11:13 pm
But isn’t that a bit like the argument proferred by the likes of professor John Kay: “In the modern world, economic sovereignty for small nations is inescapably limited, and political sovereignty is largely symbolic.”
And how could a “diet of stovies” be “sheer mince”?!
Yet another SNP paradox ;0)
#6 by Robert D. Knight on July 25, 2011 - 4:25 am
“Doesn’t it occur to him that those “political arrangements†were central to the cultural achievements and wars he rightly lauds?”
But you neglect to consider the cultural and political deficit between whatever achievements you might be referring to and whatever future aspirations we might hold.
ie. Just because we might feel proud about the distinguished history of our military in the field of conflict, doesn’t mean we wish the brave men and women who protect this country to be continually dragged into wars the world over, by those same political arrangements which sent them into danger the last time around – and the time before that and the time before that.
The past is no good reason for the stagnation of the present through misguided preservationism. But the struggle of the people towards future ambition will never wash away the lessons, the traditions and culture of our shared histories.
#7 by Indy on July 25, 2011 - 10:18 am
There is a further point there. The Second World War was not won by the professional armed services. It was won by ordinary men and women with no previous military training who had absolutely no prior connection to British military history, culture and traditions.
It’s amazing how many people do not appear to know that.
#8 by Cameron on July 25, 2011 - 9:25 am
““In the modern world, economic sovereignty for small nations is inescapably limited, and political sovereignty is largely symbolic.— Isn’t that a bit of a self defeating argument? If it’s largely symbolic then it partially isn’t and that partially isn’t part would be a greater amount of economic sovereignty than we have now (i.e none).