Bill Clinton asked earlier this week: ‘Can you be Scottish and British?’, as he gently attacked what he called ‘identity politics’. I don’t know if a question can be rhetorical when it has such a blindingly obvious answer (Yes, in this case) but perhaps he was just partly telling his London audience what they wanted to hear. How else could a former President make the rookie mistake of not realising that being Scottish and British are forever intertwined?
Many Brits outside of Scotland are very much set against the idea of Scottish independence. There are good reasons of course for holding this position, although there may be a nagging fear eating away at some Brits that they may not have even realised yet, though Clinton may have helped jogged these thoughts on, as they did for me this week….
After independence, what nationality will everyone on these islands be?
Scots will be Scottish, of course, and the Irish will continue to be Irish (in a strictly passport context at least) but what about those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Will they be British? How can they be, when Scots are also British? They won’t be English, Welsh or Northern Irish either for obvious reasons. Those in Northern Ireland can currently hold an Irish or a British passport (or even both) but with Scottish independence are we forcing them down the Irish route?
I guess the problem is that ‘British’, as we are lablled currently on our passports, has been a misnomer for decades. Perhaps even centuries. There is no country called Britain, it is a geographical term. Even Great Britain is just the largest island of the British Isles (so excludes Northern Ireland). We really should be ‘UKers’ or ‘United Kingdomish’. They both sound silly so it’s little wonder that some bright spark back in the day decided to just go with British and put the problem off for another day.
Well, that other day might be in a couple of years’ time and, as far as I’m aware, there doesn’t seem to be any answer to the following question.
What nationality will those who are currently British in England, Wales and Northern Ireland be if they can no longer be British and aren’t Scottish?
Maybe Bill was right after all, it’s British or Scottish after 2014 if it’s a Yes vote, at least from a passport perspective in any case.
#1 by Commenter on November 18, 2012 - 10:32 am
The answer is “British”. There’s only an insignificant few of us Scots – what do the rUK care about strict logical correctness which in any case has no place in this kind of discussion :).
#2 by Jeff on November 18, 2012 - 12:47 pm
You may well be right, but I hope you agree that that would be a crude, quite arrogant and probably unsustainable answer to the problem. Scots would of course be British but presumably not entitled to a ‘rUK’ passport. Indeed, there may even be legal grounds for seeking to prevent rUK using “British”, though I’d hope that the Scottish Government had bigger things to worry about.
#3 by Grant Thoms on November 18, 2012 - 10:59 am
Remember there is a nationalist in every internationalist… and for Bill Clinton to lump Scottish independence campaign into ‘identity politics’ is crass
#4 by Jeff on November 18, 2012 - 12:50 pm
Indeed Grant, good point. I’ve always found it odd that the SNP is painted as isolationist (as Clinton did) despite the SNP clearly wanting to be a proactive part of the EU, the UN and, now, NATO. UK constitutional borders are as arbitrary as would-be Scottish ones.
#5 by Chris on November 18, 2012 - 11:43 am
All of us born in Britain would entitled to a British passport surely.
And Scotland would have its own passport authority to check and issue passports for everyone born in Scotland and those in the rest of the UK who have Scottish parents or grandparents. God knows how much it will cost to provide this service and to set up consulates in London, Cardiff, Belfast, Manchester and Birmingham to process claims. Just another duplicated cost of Independence that is ignored in the “We’s be better off, honest, pal” calculations
#6 by BM on November 18, 2012 - 3:48 pm
Why would they need consulates in so many places? Ireland offers the same without having a consulate in Liverpool.
#7 by Indy on November 18, 2012 - 5:03 pm
Why on earth would we have to set up consulates in London, Cardiff, Belfast, Manchester and Birmingham to process claims?
#8 by Galen10 on November 18, 2012 - 2:35 pm
I think the nomenclature or “rumpUK” is unimportant. If they want to carry on calling themselves British, who cares? I’ve now lived in England for 20 years, almost half my life, and Scotland for the other half. I have a first degree from an English University and a further degree from a Scottish University. My wife is English, and my daughter tho’ born in Scotland has lived in England most of her life, and now attends an English university. Most of my family are still in Scotland, and I could never consider anywhere else than Scotland as “home”, so I would definitely opt for a Scottish passport if the vote in 2014 is a Yes, as I’m sure a significant proportion of Scottish expats would.
You will always have a lot of ill-informed comment a la Clinton; they really ought to do more homework, but in reality they probably have people to write up research for their ill-informed comment pieces – it’s hardly likely to be based on actual experience or anything original.
As for the costs of setting up consulates and overseas embassies and a Scottish diplomatic service, so what? It is one of the (relatively trivial) costs of becoming independent. The amounts involved will be dwarfed by the huge opportunity savings made in other areas of nugatory spending which will no longer be required post independence!
#9 by Andy Wightman on November 18, 2012 - 3:04 pm
When I lived in Addis Ababa (which is the diplomatic capital of Africa), it was interesting to see the names of countries on the brass plates of embassies which were all of course their “Sunday” names such as “The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka”. I noted that the UK was the only embassy in town that chose not to call itself its proper name (Embassy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland) and stated simply “British Embassy”. I engaged in an interesting correspondence on the topic with the Charge d’affaires of the “British Embassy” and he could not give me a convincing explanation as to why the UK govt was so sloppy.
#10 by Iain Menzies on November 18, 2012 - 4:57 pm
Do British Embassys not still provide cover for a number of commonwealth nations when they dont have consular services in country? I seem to remember not that long ago reading that that was the case with regards to Canada. Now you can consider Canada (to a point) of being culturally British so maybe thats part of the reason.
Tho it would be interesting to see how many Embassy’s across the world have similar signage.
#11 by Iain Menzies on November 18, 2012 - 5:02 pm
Is it a rookie mistake? Ask the same question a different way, Can you be Texan and American?
Or Canadian and American?
The United States of America doesnt cover all of America, Should we refuse to call Clinton an American? Or should we start calling the Canadians Americans?
Heck should we start calling the Irish British?
And since when did the issue of Scottish Independence stop being about identity. You can argue that thats not all its about, but to say its not about that at all? Really? Cos if it isnt why is it that the Scottish government seems to want to plaster the saltire all over the place?
Where does ‘America’ Stop?
#12 by Jim T on November 18, 2012 - 5:22 pm
As far as I can see we (Scotland) will remain part of the United KINGdom because we will have a single (therefore unitary) monarch. The European passport, which a lot of us carry, states that we are subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Post-indy it might simply have to be retitled United Kindom of Britain, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
In terms of embassy costs, I am willing to bet that as part of any settlement Scotland will be able to recover some of the costs that are currently included in the operation of UK embassies at the moment.
There is also an option for us to agree emabssy sharing with another nation. Really not a barrier to international representation.
Why do the NO campaign always try to make things look so difficult?
#13 by Craig Gallagher on November 18, 2012 - 9:20 pm
Your first point isn’t quite right. We’re currently in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as you say, but if Scotland goes independent it would no longer be a UNITED Kingdom. We’d share a monarch and be part of the Commonwealth but we’d revert to being the Kingdom of Scotland again (subject to a hypothesised referendum on becoming a republic in the future)
#14 by Braco on November 19, 2012 - 9:59 am
I don’t think so. Scotland and England were a United Kingdom after the Union of the crowns (1603 I think). I don’t believe the SNP are proposing to undo the treaty for the Union of the crowns but just that of the Union of the Parliaments. This is where our constitutional relationship is different from the other Commonwealth countries that you mention. I could be wrong though.
#15 by Iain Menzies on November 19, 2012 - 11:27 am
now i may have missed a bit of history in the course of my degree (there is alot of it i mean its just one bleedin thing after another) but this is the first time ive heard mention of an actual treaty on the union of the crowns…as opposed to you know wee jamesy just being the next in line of succession to the english throne.
#16 by Braco on November 19, 2012 - 12:01 pm
I may well have innovated a treaty there Iain, oops. I think my point still stands though. That is that the Kingdom is united under the same Queen/King. Maybe it should be (and always should have been) known as the United Kingdoms. British history/constitution and self definition have always been a movable feast of political fudge to suit the times and I don’t see that changing for something as petty as Scottish self determination. My vote would be for a Passport issued in each of the Sovereign countries under the title ‘Passport of The United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’. Seems fudgey enough to me.
#17 by Iain Menzies on November 19, 2012 - 3:35 pm
Can i point you in the direction of canada?
Also in the direction of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm
Sharing a monarch does not a united state make.
#18 by Braco on November 20, 2012 - 10:47 am
Who said anything about a united state. I simply pointed out that the name of the passport for Scotland and the former UK could continue as The United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Canada is not I think located on the land mass known as Great Britain. As I say a satisfactory ‘British” fudge. We will still be independent sovereign states with our own representation in the UN and other multinational organisations.
#19 by Craig Gallagher on November 19, 2012 - 4:22 pm
If two kingdoms share a monarch, even today, they are united dynastically but not politically. That’s been the case since the 1580-1640 regal union of Spain and Portugal, at the end of which Portugal rebelled citing too much encroachment on their political independence from the Habsburgs in Madrid.
Scotland was only really functionally independent, meaning the Crown’s Privy Council was denuded of power over parliament, twice in the 1603-1707 period (under the Covenanters 1643-1651 and after the Revolution 1688-1707). However, they weren’t a united kingdom with England. Instead, the Stuarts were composite monarchs who ruled over multiple jurisdictions (Ireland, the Americas and India are included here too) but who recognsed the sovereign differences between their English, Scottish and Irish realms.
#20 by Braco on November 20, 2012 - 11:14 am
Do you not by necessity require at least two kingdoms in order to come together and form a new ‘United’ Kingdom. The Kingdom of Scotland and The Kingdom of England have always existed but under the new form and name of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. as long as we stay a Kingdom and have a joint Monarch with England I don’t see why a change in the parliamentary arrangements should change the Unity of the Kingdoms.
#21 by Chris on November 18, 2012 - 6:05 pm
Type your comment here
I am in a similar family position to you and if Scotland became independent I would want a Scottish passport. But honestly for work I’d keep a British passport. The coverage of embassies and high commissions is much more significant and I have more than once seen New Zealanders or Irish people get stuck due to having no diplomatic representation or having extra visa requirements due to them not being on the radar of the government. I also wouldn’t fancy being deported if I happened to break the law!
#22 by Chris on November 18, 2012 - 6:06 pm
Type your comment here
Did you visit the American Embassy?
#23 by Chris on November 18, 2012 - 6:14 pm
Type your comment here
They will do if required. For instance the British High Commission in Sierra Leone organised the evacuation of 10,000 odd commonwealth citizens during the civil war. Mind you they left 24million commonwealth citizens behind.
#24 by Chris on November 18, 2012 - 6:19 pm
Type your comment here
To meet the demands of Scots living in England and all those entitled to a Scottish Passport, or believing they are entitled to one. 600,000 Scots in England I think – add all their children and grandchildren you’ve got a potential demand of 2 or 3 million especially if their nationality would entitle them to a free university place or free personal care.
Of course we could simply demand that they contact the Scottish Passport Authority but they might be reluctant to pay for an international phone call or using international post.
#25 by Indy on November 19, 2012 - 3:35 am
I think that is nonsense. We would need one office in England, one in Wales and one in N Ireland. Which could easily be covered by the funding we already contribute to cover such spending.
As for entitlement to free personal care, free tuition etc – that is determined by residency not what it says on your passport. You couldn’t just apply for a passport and say I want free tuition! You actually have to live here! Silly point really.
#26 by Iain Menzies on November 19, 2012 - 11:33 am
Wait so in an independent scotland a teenager who is moved south a few years before going to uni because of say their parents work wouldnt get any support from their own government to get an education?
Does the Scottish Government not pay out to scottish students at english universities right now?
#27 by Indy on November 19, 2012 - 1:11 pm
That is the situation now. It would not change. You must be ordinarily resident in Scotland to be treated as a Scottish student. You do not actually have to BE Scottish for that to apply. If you are English but ordinarily resident in Scotland you don’t have to pay tuition fees. It’s not about your nationality but where you actually live.
#28 by Iain Menzies on November 19, 2012 - 3:31 pm
But isnt it about your nationality? Right now it isnt because, well we are all british.
But if we get indy, well what if rUK decideds that its not going to pic up the tab for scottish nationals?
#29 by Indy on November 19, 2012 - 7:46 pm
Well it is partly about nationality you are right there – overseas students pay fees. But Scottish domiciled and EU students don’t. That is because of an EU wide agreement where EU students pay the same fees as the home students. Which means that EU students in Scotland don’t pay fees – but English domiciled students do. Ironically if Scotland WAS independent English students in Scotland would be in the same position as EU students – they wouldn’t pay fees. It’s all quite complex but the key point is your status as a student is decided by where you reside, not by what it says on your passport. If you happen to be Scottish but your family has been living in England for years then in terms of student support you come under the English system i.e. 9 grand a year. Likewise if you happen to be English but your family has been living in Scotland for years you come under the Scottish system and you don’t have to pay fees.
If you are resident in Scotland but you want to study south of the border then you have to pay fees because that is the arrangement south of the border. The Scottish Government will only pay fees for Scottish institutions because that is what they are responsible for.
#30 by Chris on November 18, 2012 - 6:24 pm
Type your comment here
All the costs are dismissed, all the gains are magnified.
Seriously how could this possibly work? We will need embassies or high commissions in places where there are UK ones. The only exception being the Scottish High Commission in London and presumably consulates in Belfast and Cardiff to maintain relations with the assemblies there.
We won’t remain part of the UNITED Kingdom as we would no longer be UNITED with them. We’d be the same as Canada or New Zealand or Barbados
#31 by Craig Gallagher on November 18, 2012 - 9:29 pm
Although I can’t imagine you’d want to spend the time, Jeff (though perhaps I underestimate your interest in history) I think you’d be fascinated to find what the broadly agreed scholarly definition of “British” actually is. Most agree that it is a legitimate identity, but that like European or Glaswegian, it is only applicable to certain circumstances.
Linda Colley famously argued British identity was forged in the heat of battle with Catholic France in the 18th century, and coalesced around Protestantism, ideas of natural liberty and representative government and a siege mentality that Britain took to its overseas possessions in a big way. Basically, Britishness is a fighting ideology appropriate only to situations where it can be defined against an Other. John Brewer agrees with her, except that in his vision, it’s not the fighting but the pulling together to support the troops that defines Britishness.
Allan Macinnes, meanwhile, sees Britishness as emblematic of a broadly ambitious imperial ideology that was based on tolerating many interpretations of liberty and representation (for example, in the American colonies) but believed it was in constant competition with an Anglocentric determination to defend England’s interests against competing claims to sovereignty (such as the Jacobite Pretenders, or latterly the EU). Colin Kidd tells us Britishness is participatory, that you have to actually choose to be British in a way that doesn’t apply to Scottishness, Englishness or Irishness.
Whatever interpretation you choose, though, it’s clear that imperialism is a central tenet of Britishness, which rather calls into question its fitness-for-purpose in the modern day.
#32 by Jo Shaw on November 19, 2012 - 10:18 am
If you don’t mind me saying, I think that you have confused some of the distinctions between state and nation, and between nationality and citizenship. I discussed the issue of Scottish citizenship, a few weeks ago – it raises some fascinating and difficult questions, which the issue of Britishness as a contested identity only adds to.
http://www.citsee.eu/citsee-story/scottish-citizenship-now-time-start-discussing-it