Being technologically challenged, I don’t know how to post this as being from a “guest”. Â Hopefully one of the boys will appear at some point and sort it…. meantime, not from the Burd but from someone much more eminent and sensible, Pete Wishart. Â Pete is the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire and is also the SNP Westminster spokesperson on all things constitutional, cultural and related to media, international development, home affairs and sport. Â You can follow him on Twitter @PeteWishart.
Probably one of the most passionate debates we’re going to have in the run up to the referendum will be around the whole idea of identity and Britishness. Like many proud nationalists I have struggled with the idea of being British and have never described myself as such. But what will happen to the whole concept as Scotland moves towards independence and can the idea make a comeback and even become respectable in nationalist circles?
Firstly, I suppose Britishness is as much about geography as it is about identity and history. Coming from Perth in the northern part of the island of Greater Britain I am as much British as someone from Stockholm is Scandinavian.
It’s when we try and add the other bits that we start to get into the difficulties. If Britishness is to work as a cultural idea a shared story as well as a shared geography has to be constructed. And that’s the hard part. No one has ever come up with a convincing definition of Britishness because there probably isn’t one. And the concept has to be almost constantly rewritten – remember Gordon Brown’s clumsy and excruciating attempt and Michael Portillo’s recent nonsense about “anti-fanaticismâ€? Cultural Britishness is then a rather curious construct that can be almost anything, and usually is, hence the mom and apple pie attributes usually associated with Britishness when people are asked to define it.
But there is absolutely no doubt that people indeed do feel and identify themselves as British, even in Scotland. For me Britishness is so much more than the usual confused descriptions. For me cultural Britishness isn’t one thing but is the sum of the 300 years journey that we have enjoyed and endured on this island. It is what we have achieved and secured together in this partnership. It is about the great historic cultural achievements from the industrial revolution to our great rock and pop bands. It is about pride in our victories in the wars we fought together and the collective sense of shame in our historic crimes of colonialism and slavery. Britishness is in fact the social union, and being British belongs as much to me as a proud Scottish nationalist and Scottish patriot as it does to anyone from England.
Our gripe then isn’t with cultural Britishness, the social union, but with the current political arrangements within the United Kingdom. As civic nationalists we want the powers to grow our economy and make our own specific international contribution. We want to complete the powers of our Parliament and take responsibility for our own affairs. We have no issues with the past and our British inheritance is a crucial part of our own Scottish story.
Britishness will exist in Scotland long after we become independent. In fact I think that it could well be enhanced with independence. With independence we will get the opportunity to define a new Britishness, one based on equality and mutual respect. Britishness will still be all about our shared history and culture but it can also be about the new positive relationship we will seek to build.
I would also be happy to see any number of shared institutions being called British and it could and should be the brand name of our new enhanced and equal 21st century partnership. Who knows maybe independence can give Britishness a new lease of life.
So there you go, that’s me, British and proud of it in an independent Scotland.
#1 by Braveheart on July 22, 2011 - 8:45 pm
So there you go, that’s me, Scottish and proud of it in an interdependent Britain.
#2 by rose white on July 22, 2011 - 9:18 pm
Much as I respect Pete I have spent my entire adult life opposing the very mention, idea, manifestation of ‘british’, and will not change now.
Scotland has NO british future.
Independence nothing less.
#3 by Malc on July 22, 2011 - 9:22 pm
You know that Pete hasn’t suggested otherwise in this piece – or indeed at any other time? I’m sure he can argue the case himself, but he’s Scottish and pro-independence. All he’s saying is that “Britishness” is a concept which extends beyond the political, and will continue to exist in a post-independent Scotland. Recognising that this is the case while campaigning for independence are not contradictory positions.
#4 by Martin on July 22, 2011 - 9:53 pm
I think you’re mis-interpreting Pete’s point.
Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway are all independent countries, but you will probably find that the people of these countries are quite happy to recognise themselves as Scandinavians. The region where they come from dictates this, along with any cultural attributes the people of these nations share.
If Scotland becomes independent, it will still be part of the island that is ‘Britain’. All the people of this Island, be it English, Welsh or Scottish will share many cultural similarities – much like the Scandinavians.
When you look at it in this context, can you not see where Pete is coming from? That maybe after Independence (probably quite a while – but who knows), the terms ‘British’ and ‘Britain’ may become less of a ‘naughty word’ and could eventually be accepted by us Scots as the same way that Swedes accept that they are Scandinavians also.
#5 by Angus McLellan on July 23, 2011 - 3:08 am
I’m also inclined to think that Pete Wishart is on the right lines here. Yes, the message isn’t very new, but it is worth repeating all the same. No, people who are swithering on the question of independence will not be convinced by this one argument on its own, but it will count for something.
Facts can nearly always be disputed in a political context so forget Burns and follow David Hume. “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions”. There’s nothing wrong in principle with winning a political argument by an appeal to emotion. And it is as important to overcome the understandable fears of change, as here by emphasising the inevitable continuation of Britishness (albeit not quite the same Britishness that Gordon Brown was selling) in an independent Scotland, as to have positive arguments for that change.
In terms of the replies it will generate this message will in the main be a case of preaching to the converted (some of whom may not approve as we’ve seen) or to the unconvertible (some of whom will apparently choose to misunderstand the message). That’s OK for a trial run, but the real audience are the great many people who are undecided, uncommitted or uncertain when it comes to the matter of independence.
#6 by Braveheart on July 22, 2011 - 9:41 pm
All he is saying is that we all share this small island and the idea of “independence” for a small part of it is non-sense.
He probably doesn’t understand or recognise it and will be angry to have it pointed out. But there it is and what can you do?
#7 by Malc on July 22, 2011 - 9:51 pm
Eh?
#8 by Martin on July 22, 2011 - 9:54 pm
I must agree with Malc – Eh?
#9 by Braveheart on July 22, 2011 - 11:03 pm
Have you read the post?
Eh?
#10 by cynicalHighlander on July 22, 2011 - 10:41 pm
British Isles
The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and over six thousand smaller isles.
#11 by Braveheart on July 22, 2011 - 11:07 pm
“…We have no issues with the past and our British inheritance is a crucial part of our own Scottish story…”
So all that “parcel of rogues” stuff is so much crap…?
The union of crowns and the union of Parliaments is all perfectly legitimate. In which case, what’s all the fuss about?
#12 by Malc on July 23, 2011 - 8:00 am
I’d say that comes under “political union” which Pete is quite clear he wants to get rid of.
#13 by Braveheart on July 22, 2011 - 11:09 pm
Or could it be that Mr Wishart is softening up all the lifelong Nats for the abandonment of “independemce” by the Nationalist party?
#14 by Indy on July 23, 2011 - 11:47 am
I suggest you read Stephen Maxwell’s research into the opinions of SNP members at every level. I realise of course that it suits uber-unionists to portray the SNP as swivel eyed bigots but that is simply not the case.
Indeed one of the things that appears to be emerging out of the dehate happening now is that the distance between the SNP and the “devo max” wing of the Labour Party is not that great.
Scarey stuff for yiou I wold guess.
#15 by Andra on July 23, 2011 - 12:30 am
What we really need is a definition of independence. If there are shared institutions then it is not really independence. In fact if there are shared institutions then we could end up with less influence than we have now since we’ll not have seats at the table where decisions are made (i.e. Westminster).
I’m thinking of the Armed forces – will they be completely separate? I suspect lots if Scots would in future serve in the ‘English’ army with no control or protection from the Scottish Electorate.
I’m thinking of the Bank of England – some say it does not work for us now – some would say it does. How would it work better with no MPs at Westminster?
Would we need to duplicate all of the government functions for health and safety, food safety, plant and animal health. I suspect we just copy England on many issues in the interest of common sense, but in future having no influence.
The list is endless.
In an ever more integrated world, independence is a backward step. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence until you get there. Don’t waste time looking – just get on with life in this great part of the world.
(Pete discussed the definition of Britishness – and pointed out is difficulties; definition of Scottishness has exactly the same problems.)
#16 by Anonymous on July 23, 2011 - 12:31 pm
“In an ever more integrated world, independence is a backward step.”
Utter tosh – is that why there are more than four times the amount of independent, sovereign states there were 100 years ago? It’s a question of having a say in which parts of your government you volunteer as a sovereign nation to these other institutions to which I imagine you are alluding, i.e. the E.U., rather than the ludicrous U.K. scenario where you ask for control over any part of your government which might rightly be considered democratically yours for practical reasons, and through a process of delay and obfuscation invariably get a fudged and enormously limited version of what you legitimately asked for (see Danny Alexander’s proposals for the Crown Estates).
#17 by Doug Daniel on July 24, 2011 - 2:46 pm
“In an ever more integrated world, independence is a backward step.”
Are you going to tell that to the people of the newly independent South Sudan, or shall I? “Hey guys, what are you doing? Independence is soooooooo last century.”
If independence is a backward step, then what would be a forward step? Going back to empire-building?
#18 by CassiusClaymore on July 23, 2011 - 5:16 am
Braveheart and Rose – the island is called Great Britain. Britishness is a fact of geography as well as politics. You can change the latter, but not the former!
Speaking as a Nat, I’m totally comfortable with being British geographically but not politically, if that makes sense. The SNP are quite right to accept and talk openly about this kind of Britishness, and to equate it conceptually with Scandanavianism (did I just invent this word?).
It’s a sign of confidence and maturity, in my opinion, and a very clever and seductive narrative.
CC
#19 by Braveheart on July 23, 2011 - 10:48 am
It’s a very clever narrative if you don’t want a fully independent state.
#20 by James on July 23, 2011 - 8:30 am
Thanks a lot for the post, Pete, and I’m surprised anyone would misread your stance on independence here (although it’s happened to the editors here every time we write about it too, so welcome aboard). Also, props to Cassius above for accepting the geography of the British Isles – makes a change from old SNP policy which I think was one of those big long two-person saws, right?
Pete, your sense of identity is entirely your own business, of course, but I’m increasingly wondering what proportion of the population have much weaker senses of national identity – the assumption normally is that everyone feels equally strongly, whether they identify as 100% Scottish, 50%/50% with British, some combo with European etc. Pretty obviously that doesn’t apply to everyone, though.
#21 by JPJ2 on July 23, 2011 - 10:59 am
Andra writes “In an ever more integrated world, independence is a backward step.”
What nonsense and ignorance of simple facts. If it Is a backward step then it is the direction in which the world is moving-there are far more independent states in the world NOW than there were after the second world war-try looking up a few FACTs.
#22 by Tony on July 23, 2011 - 11:28 am
As a native Briton who’s genes have passed back and forth across the north channel several times over it has never been an issue for me to feel culturally as an integral part of these wider islands (north-eastern Atlantic archipelago) and indeed north-western Europe in general.
It is the political Britishness that i have an issue with, this missapropriation which really means England writ large and subsumes my native British identity, my cultural British/Celticness for a germanic-Romano/French cultural imperialism if you will.
The Scots and irish (the Catholic church in particular) have escaped culpability in the eyes of the world for the crimes of the British empire. I am happy to reap this harvest and get away from being described as British whilst we can. In my mind the good and bad cannot be reconciled so leave it be.
I have yet to see a credible argument that would see us become detatched from a strong friendship with England, and sharing of resources in both our interests. I’m against sharing armed forces but if our boys, our heroes (sic) insist i getting involved in mercenary wars for other nations commercial prospects then so be it.
Pingback: David Torrance: The politics of national identity « Better Nation
Pingback: David Torrance: The politics of national identity « Better Nation
#23 by Andra on July 23, 2011 - 4:40 pm
Can anyone tell me any differences between Scottishness and Britishness? (are we greener, more or less socialist, more or less interested in worldwide poverty, more or less internested in political opression? – I’m keen to hear of others.) I think we are basically very similar. Did the Scottishness of Gordon Brown or James Murdoch or Malcolm Rifkind, or Richard Branson, or any other make them a better or worse person?
Personally, I’m proud of many cultural differences, but we are 100% culturally free within the UK. What I want to know are the political differences that require separation.
Why would we want our own military (we are much stronger together), or F&C office (I can’t see a Scottish Ambassador having much influence in many places), or passports (already EU controlled), or trade policy (pretty much controlled by EU already).
There could be arguments for a bit more devolution of tax powers but that can be done perfectly well without separation.
#24 by Braveheart on July 23, 2011 - 6:44 pm
Andra, the answer to your first question is: no-one can tell you.
The answer to your post in general is that there will be no reasoned response from Nats. Nationalsim is an emotional spasm, not a reasoned positoon.
#25 by Angus McLellan on July 23, 2011 - 8:37 pm
Well, since you raised defence, that dovetails with your feeling that only “a bit more devolution of tax powers” would be the answer.
Scotland, as part of the UK, spends a large amount of money in real and proportionate terms on defence. GERS says something over three thousand million pounds a year. This is around four times what Ireland spends in cash terms and in the region of twice the 1.5% or so that an average European country might spend as a proportion of GDP.
But is this really necessary? And might there be better ways to spend some of the money? Those are value judgements and you’ll have to decide the answers for yourself. What is certain is that no amount of devolution will result in these questions being decided in Scotland for Scotland.
#26 by Doug Daniel on July 24, 2011 - 3:01 pm
“Why would we want our own military (we are much stronger together) or F&C office (I can’t see a Scottish Ambassador having much influence in many places)”
Interesting comment. It screams of the sort of attitude of British prime ministers, a refusal to admit that the British Empire is no more and the UK is now just a tiny state on the outskirts of Europe, rather than the giant of the colonial era.
Personally, I’m less concerned about Scotland looking “strong” and being able to influence other people than I am about Scotland not being dragged into other people’s battles and being able to say to other countries “look, don’t blame us, we weren’t the ones who decided to bomb you”. Besides which, Scotland has different immigration needs to England, which requires a separate foreign policy.
#27 by Allan on July 23, 2011 - 6:10 pm
Fair enough, except that rather like parts of the cultural “scottishness”, some of the “cultural Britishness” can be excruciatingly naff (or Britishness in name only – apart from 3 bands Brit-pop anyone?).
The “Scottish Sentiment” is a slightly diferent mindset to the Brittish equivilant, particularaly as the “English sentiment”, which is is slightly more individualistic, less collectivist and more infuenced by other “English speeking nations” (ie the USA), is more dominant.
I’m don’t think that “Britishness” will survive beyond Independence, anyone who saw Newsnight a couple of weeks ago and saw Don Letts thoughts about being English (something along the lines of “No thanks, i’m brittish”) will agree.
#28 by Andra on July 23, 2011 - 7:48 pm
from Angus / Perthshire, the secatiarian culture / politics of the West coast (/Central belt?) looks more naff to me than any flaws in English nature.
Like you I’m proud of us being more collectivist – but in reality I don’t think we have any greater claim to this trait that the NW of England; and England has some fine examples including John Lewis / Waitrose, Cadbury’s Co-ops etc.
If there is any epitomy Scottishness it’s that we’re a’ Jock Tamson’s bairns. We’ve all got our little differences but we’re basically all the same, and I’d like to think an important (Scottish) trait is not to judge folk. Trying to justify separation is therefore in itself a failure of and contradiction of Scottish values.
I like to think that the best of British is in fact Scottish – fairness, equality, etc. I also suggest that Britian was the route by which the Scots spread these values round the world. Scotland has achieved much under the British label. We do however have to accept an equal share of the darker side – we were just as much if not more involved in slavery and exploitation (although too often the actions of the past are judged by today’s values – often letting our critics off the hook for today’s actions).
#29 by Indy on July 24, 2011 - 4:58 pm
What are you talking about “English nature”? There is no such thing. The English do not all have the same character any more than the Scots do.
Here is a simple fact – the English are all the people who live in EnglanD.
The Scots are all the people who live in Scotland.
Fow whatever reason, the people who live in Scotland tend to vote differently to the people who live in England and to have different political priorities.
We could spend from now until doomsday analysing why that is but it doesn’t actually matter. The difference exists.
It was that difference which led to devolution. Those of us who believe in independence would like to see the same principle extended to allow the Scottish Parliament to have control of all policy areas.
You I presume object not only to independence but to devolution itself because it encourages separateness. Most of the other people who live in Scotland would not agree however and indeed would probably thank God that the Tory reforms to the health service and nonsensical arguments about the Big Society will get precisely nowhere here.
#30 by Andrew BOD on July 23, 2011 - 7:57 pm
I think adding the “ness” to British or Scottish is utterly irrelevant and illogical. I mean, is there such a word as Scandinavianness? Or how about Americanness? Or how about Soviet Unionness? I think not. This is a red herring.
James is spot on about sense of identity being different for different people. My English friend and colleague who has settled in Scotland wants independence for this country. In terms of identity, would that make him British, English, or Scottish? Perhaps all three.
But he sees the sense in having a politically independent Scotland, where decisions regarding overall governance are more closely wired to the people of Scotland.
In England, the crossover in use of the terms British and English meaning the same thing is a real turn off. Recently, members of the crowd at the Wimbledon tennis tournament were being interviewed before an Andy Murray game. One spectator said that although he wanted Andy Murray to win, he saw him as a Scot, not a “Britisher.” (That’s a new one.)
#31 by Laurence on July 23, 2011 - 8:35 pm
Braveheart-What right do you think you have to tell people what they actually do or don’t want or believe? Notwithstanding that Pete Wishart’s beliefs and reasoning are fairly well on the record. So just for the sake of equilibrium what is it you want and why? Because, on the pan unionist front there seems to be very little clarity about what they want or what they believe to be best for Scotland and why. Pleanty on what they believe everyone else really wants and why. You appear not to have grasped the fact that an independent Scotland that makes its own decisions about everything may well decide that it is in the best interests of Scotland to share resources with near neighbours or to be allied with neighbours be it in Britain or beyond. the crucial point being that Scotland will be an equal partner in any decision to align and will bear sole responsibility for its own decisions. Right now Scotland has no control over many of the major decisions affecting our international relationships, defence, social welfare and absolute control of revenue. Why would it not be in Scotland;s interests to be in conmtrol of these things. or do you consider that we could not be trusted over these major issues. Yes there would be some hard negotiating to be done and clarity to be achieved on the nuts and bolts of how the secession would work- but the fact that is difficult does not mean that its not worth doing. it also doesn’t have to be an acrimonious separation. There is nothing to stop a fully independent Scotland throwing out what is bad and negotiating the good bits back into new treaties. On the social union of course we are too intertwined and share too much common ground just to shut the borders and retreat into a tartan cocoon- nobody except those who are trying to tell nationalists what they “really actually believe” would suggest otherwise. Of course as good neighbours we can share the positive aspects of social union. Take the blinkers off and see what would actually be good for Scotland, recognise that Scotland has the will and the abilities to manage itself, and understand too that what is good for Scotland is not necessariliy bad for the other partners in the erstwhile union.
#32 by CassiusClaymore on July 24, 2011 - 5:02 am
Type your comment here
Norway is part of Scandanavia. Does this mean it’s not a “fully independent state”?
I have to say I’m not following your logic.
CC
#33 by Braveheart on July 24, 2011 - 10:28 am
You’re right. You’re not following my logic.
Or Pete’s.
#34 by Gryff on July 25, 2011 - 11:58 am
Braveheart, would you accept it is possible for Scotland to be fully independent – two states, member in own right of UN EU or whichever, own army ETC. And still be British, culturally and geographically.
Just as Norway is Scandinavian and Canada is North American.
Whether or not that state of affairs is a good thing is another matter, you could claim that Britishness would decline with an independent Scotland, you could further argue that that was either a good or a bad thing. That would mean that Pete Wishart’s beliefs are founded on too much hope and assumption, but would not mean that he actually believed something different.
#35 by Andra on July 24, 2011 - 11:35 am
Laurence,
Scotland usually has very good representation within UK government. This was true even in the time of Thatcher when we had Scottish Foreign and Defence secretaries and others. We have a strong say in UK affairs and every Scotsman has the same say as every Englishman.
My point is that there is so little difference in the needs and desires of the people of the whole of the UK that it is silly to argue that we need devolution of every power to every part of the Uk. Your logic would lead to Scotland being broken into small parts – what if Shetland (with it’s Oil) decided to it wanted independence or wanted to link up with Norway or England??
Your problem is that where decisions are made that you do not agree with, you blame Westminster. You often ignore the fact that the party in power has or had very strong backing in Scotland. You need to learn to respect democracy – and to work for your arguments rather than find blame all of the time. This is why Nats have a reputation as whingers.
You seem obsessed with devolution of decision making. I think it is right that there are a number of levels of Government and that each level has certain responsibilities. For example we are in a single market in the EU and so the EU is largely responsible for Trade matters – and I would argue that the EU has been a great sucesss in this area.
Many companies have operations in many parts of the UK and so it would be costly and counter productive to devolve corporation tax since companies would simply move the Taxation office to the part with lowest tax rates.
The Scottish parliament is probably the right place to manage NHS and and some matters of Education for Scotland although much of this is done in close co-operation with other parts of the UK.
Councils are the right place to look after many local services.
#36 by Indy on July 25, 2011 - 9:40 am
You are swimming against the tide Andra. All the evidence shows that most people in Scotland want the Scottish Parliament to have more powers. Whether that extends to full independence is a decision that will be taken over the next few years – but the status quo will not be maintained.
#37 by Andrew BOD on July 25, 2011 - 1:40 am
Andra
Where do I start?
“.. what if Shetland wanted to link up with England’ ?? Eh?
“This is why Nats have a reputation as whingers” ???
“The Scottish parliament is probably the right place to manage NHS and and some matters of Education for Scotland although much of this is done in close co-operation with other parts of the UK.” ??
“..there is so little difference in the needs and desires of the people of the whole of the UK” ??
Perhaps merely highlighting these statements would be enough, but somehow I doubt it.
Scotland is a country and a nation. The normal status for a country and nation is to be governed independently. Whether the people of Scotland want that is another matter. However, Shetland is not a nation or country.
And Westminster makes some fine decisions, often they don’t. 50% of the time, the party in charge at Westminster has about 15-20% support in Scotland. That’s hardly democratic.
On education, I’m pretty sure the two parliaments don’t work in “close co-operation”. Curriculum For Excellence? Student fees?
On the NHS, Cameron’s plans for England will move the NHS in a completely different direction to that of Scotland’s NHS.
Perhaps there is also so little difference in the needs and desires of the people of the Germany and Austria, or Portugal and Spain, or Serbia and Croatia. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be independent states. I mean it’s not like anyone’s going to hack away the land at Hadrian’s wall so that England and Scotland float away from one another. The island will still be Great Britain. And gosh, I finished on topic!
#38 by Benjamin on July 26, 2011 - 11:30 am
‘Scotland is a country and a nation. The normal status for a country and nation is to be governed independently. Whether the people of Scotland want that is another matter. However, Shetland is not a nation or country.’
Many Shetlanders would actually disagree. It is interesting to see how Shetland has adopted many of the trappings of a distinctly Shetland national identity in recent years, the most notable of which is the very widespread use of the Shetland flag, which wasn’t designed until 1969, and wasn’t adopted officially until 2005.
However, none of that is an argument against Scottish independence, and I agree with the genera thrust of your post. Scottish independence would pretty much force Shetland to consider its constitutional status once again, but I’d be very surprised if the outcome were to opt out of an independent Scotland and remain part of the UK. Increased autonomy within a Scottish state seems most likely, although many Shetlanders would be sympathetic towards forming some kind of union with Norway.
#39 by Cameron on July 25, 2011 - 9:47 am
If Scotland is identical to England why do we have nuclear weapons here when we don’t want them? Why do we have a conservative government in power? A government who explicitly won’t allow us to nationalise the railways, who explicitly won’t allow us to set tax rates and have our say over our own economy. There are plenty of differences at least at a political level which is the relevant level.
And for the record Andra, the UK is not a large country. You’re logic would have it merge with the USA because it’s similar to us. Interesting argument against raising business tax too.
“Many companies have operations in many parts of the UK and so it would be costly and counter productive to devolve corporation tax since companies would simply move the Taxation office to the part with lowest tax rates.” We shouldn’t have control over it because it might benefit us?
You say we’re very similar to the English but ultimately aren’t all people in all countries just people and therefore both very diverse and very similar. I think this is why people are having difficulty pinning down what being British is, it’s because in not very many countries do you have essentially a choice of what nationality you are.
So are you Scottish or are you British? If there’s a choice then what’s the difference? That’s why there’s a question over what they mean especially over being British because for better or worse it seems like it’s usually the more conscious choice. Scottish is more of a default.
#40 by Bob on July 25, 2011 - 2:03 pm
Great Britain / British was around when Scotland and England were independent. So was the Union flag. You’ve made STV. Read this from Iain Gray where British and UK are used interchangeably.
– “Wishart’s peculiar claims that Britishness would somehow be enhanced by tearing Scotland off from the rest of Britain are utter nonsense. Either we are part of the United Kingdom or we are not”
http://news.stv.tv/politics/263677-snp-mp-says-independence-could-enhance-britishness/
No, we’d not be part of UK. We’d still be in Great Britain though, as per before 1707. No?
I hear a lot of people put down Jedi for their designation. It doesn’t matter to me if people want to be British, Jedi, or whatever. This is all about removing Westminster 1707/1927. Great Britain / British will still be around.
#41 by Andra on July 25, 2011 - 2:45 pm
Andrew BOD – I quite accept and agree that the implementation of some Education and NHS is different in Scotland -that is the whole point of devolution. However behind the scenes there is much co-operation with the rest of the UK.
You list a number of countries that are now separate – I could give you a much longer list of States / Provinces / Regions that choose to stick together – all the way from New Brunswick to British Columbia – all the way from Queensland to Western Australia – all the way from Gujarat to Arunachal Pradesh. We must all live together on this planet – national boundaries are purely administrative and forced segmentation is a bad thing. The UK is one of the oldest and most successful political and economic unions of separate counties and is a model for how countries should live and work together. The EU is now trying to unite the people of Europe but the process 250 years behind the UK. To all anti EU Brits I say how can you condemn the EU while admiring the success of the UK; to all the anti UK Scots I say – how can you condemn the UK while aspiring the centralisation of control to the EU. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water – we have a system that is mainly successful, but the world is changing and what worked 50 or 100 years ago might not be best for today or tomorrow. Maybe more needs devolved from Brussels and Westminster to Holyrood – and maybe some things need centralised from Holyrood or Westminster to Brussels.
Maybe we need devolution of some tax raising powers – but this could be done perfectly well within the UK.
Maybe we need passports that say Scottish on them – but this could be done perfectly well within the UK.
Where democracy is successful, I expect nations to stick together and co-operate more. However, where democracy is failing, I expect further new nations will be born – and hopefully these new nations will improve relations with their neighbours and I expect they will begin the slow process of breaking boundaries down again.
#42 by Indy on July 25, 2011 - 4:45 pm
If it was so successful we wouldn’t be having this debate.
#43 by Random Lurking Scotsman on July 25, 2011 - 10:19 pm
Overall, there’s a lot of fluff about “Britishness” and “Scottishness” that clouds the debate. Basically, citizens of an independent Scotland would be Scottish by virtue of being part of the country known as Scotland, and British by virtue of being part of the common elements of culture that the people of the British Isles share. I mean, look at Ireland – although they’re distinctly Irish, every time I’ve been over there unlike some European countries it could be quite easy to forget that I’m in a country that’s different to the UK!
I view this as a political, rather than cultural issue. Are there common cultural bonds between the people that live in the British Isles? Yes. We share a common history, a common language and many aspects of a common culture. We also have regionally distinct cultures which I think are to be celebrated – I like the fact that I can go somewhere else in the UK and find a different set of local traditions and stories to where I live.
But there’s also the fact that Scotland is very, very different in its politics to England, and this is where many conflicts come up and to sweep it under the rug and say “London Rules OK” is to do Scotland down. Scotland as a nation does not place its faith in the power of free markets as the solution to every problem, instead having a distinct more social democratic character to its politics that chafes with the idea propagated by the Tories that everything not bolted down must be sold off into private ownership.
I would love to see the railways of Scotland returned to the ownership of the public and run as a service for the benefit of those who use it, rather than as a way for FirstGroup to squeeze ever more money out of the taxpayers who already heavily subsidize them. I am proud of the fact that Scotland has drawn a line in the sand and refused to allow its students to be saddled with debt at the beginning of their professional lives, and I’m disappointed that the rest of the UK doesn’t believe the same. I’m also relieved that our NHS will not be privatized under the mantra of “choice” and will remain responsible to the public rather than shareholders.
I also have worries that with the EU moving towards fiscal union thanks to the Greek crisis, that possibly an independent Scotland would find itself simply moving from one union to another, and that we might find ourselves forced into an arrangement with the EU that could prove unfavorable. But the current status quo is not sustainable, and these issues need to be settled above vague worries about the EU and sovereignty to be decided at a later date.
I enjoyed reading this piece, and I hope to see more like it as the debate over independence unfolds. We sure as hell need it, given some of the bile, misinformation and ridiculous rhetoric that will inevitably appear from the more ornery elements of both Scottish nationalism and unionism.
#44 by Michael_Gardiner on July 27, 2011 - 1:33 pm
>Our gripe then isn’t with cultural Britishness
Christ, mine is. What an extraordinary thing to say. England has a million things to offer us and we should be close allies, in fact much closer than we are now. But Britain? Evil.
Pingback: No half measures apparently allowed « Better Nation