Archive for category Culture

Scottish Civic Nationalism: The Bhangra & Bagpipes Solution

Today’s guest blog contribution is from Humza Yousaf, SNP Holyrood candidate for Glasgow. You can also find Humza on Twitter or Facebook.

Humza Yousaf

55 years ago this week America’s civil rights movement was catalysed by one granny who refused to be shoved aff the bus or even relegated to the back. The result of Rosa Park’s historic stance was not only the dismantling of many barriers between communities but began the formation of the melting pot, which in turn we have developed into modern-day multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism was once a concept we looked up to but it has now become one of the dirtiest words on the European continent. Just last month Chancellor Merkel pronounced it had ‘utterly failed’ when addressing her Christian Democratic Union colleagues. Funnily enough, she decided to keep quiet on that one while the country’s football team, made up of a part-Ghanaian defender, Polish striker and a midfield maestro of Turkish origin, went on to reach the semi-finals and come 3rd in this year’s World Cup.

Germany is not alone – observers of European affairs will note, with increasing anxiety, that an extreme right-wing, xenophobic tidal wave is sweeping across Western Europe, with Muslim populations particularly under the spotlight.

Belgium has become the first European country to implement a nationwide ban on the face veil worn by ‘at most’ 215 Muslim women in Belgium, according to the Belgian Institute of Equal Opportunities. It is difficult to comprehend why there is a furore spreading across Europe concerning this mundane black piece of cloth. It is, no doubt, a symptom of a much deeper malaise concerning the role of immigrants, their apparent refusal to integrate and the loss of ‘traditional values’.

With deep and severe cuts forthcoming, the debate regarding immigrants and the role they play in society will continue to rage on and worryingly may increase strain in already volatile communities. It is the very nature of the debate, which is centred on the identity and loyalty question, and how this is presented, which is fanning the flames of racial intolerance.

It was 20 years ago that Norman Tebbit declared the cricket test as an apt means of gauging a community’s loyalty to the state, many of us think that times have moved on – but in some cases Tebbit’s sentiments are more prevalent than ever.

We are a people obsessed with defining each other’s identities. Are you Muslim or are you Scottish? British or Pakistani? Such unhelpful categorisations ignore the reality of a multi-ethnic Scotland and UK, where identities are a lot more fluid and unrestricted. This is perhaps demonstrated if I take my own example. As an Asian Scot born in Glasgow to a father from Pakistan and a mother from Kenya, I went on to marry my wife, Gail, who is a White Scot born in England to an English father and Scottish mother. I would challenge anyone to accurately define the identity of any children we may have in the future. Will they be ¼ Scottish, ¼ Pakistani, ¼ English etc? Are we really happy to simply reduce people to fractions?

In the UK the debate about race equality and multiculturalism often finds itself manifest in the heartlands of middle England and, more often than not, is won and lost in London. However, little attention is given to Scotland’s multicultural landscape which has its own unique challenges and, more importantly, offers some of its own very fresh solutions.

While not being complacent about racism and intolerance in Scotland, we have to question why, time and time again, the BNP and Scottish Defence League have been rejected by Scots. I firmly believe that our notion of civic nationalism, as opposed to ethnic nationalism, creates an atmosphere of inclusiveness which makes us less hostile to one and other.

Whether it is the British National Party or France’s National Front, the concept of nationalism is being dragged through the mud until it resembles almost nothing of its true form. This is not helped by political posturing by some within the Holyrood bubble, where the word ‘Nationalist’ has been used (often derogatorily)  to describe only one political persuasion.

The late Bashir Ahmad, Scotland’s first Asian MSP and a man respected across the Scottish Parliament chamber, explained the concept of civic nationalism in the simplest and most concise manner:

‘It is not important where we have come from; it’s where we are going together, as a nation.’

Although most comfortably propagated by the SNP, they do not claim to have possession over civic nationalism. It is a concept which is interwoven in the fabric of our nation, we will all be familiar with the age-old saying that in Scotland ‘we’re a’ Jock Tamson’s bairns’.

This forward-thinking and progressive notion does not attempt to define people’s identity but rather, allows them to define themselves, if they feel it necessary. The result? Black and ethnic minorities living in Scotland are just as likely, in some cases more likely, to define themselves as Scottish than their white counterparts (see Hussain and Miller).

As a nation we have accepted that people can be Indian-Scots, Polish-Scots, Scots-Irish and not have to choose one over the other. Even our cuisine reflects this with cheese, chips and curry sauce mixing in perfect harmony to create a culinary delight to be found in any West of Scotland takeaway!

Civic nationalism is something we can all be proud of as Scots. We have moved away from obsessing over each other’s identities and instead focussed on how different communities can and do contribute to our society – we have, in essence, shifted the nature of the entire debate.

Perhaps Chancellor Merkel would care to turn her head towards Scotland’s direction and in doing so she may well hear the vibrant sound of bhangra and bagpipes – confirmation that, despite its challenges, multiculturalism is thriving and continuing to evolve.

Tags: , , ,

The Royal Wedding – Never reigns but it bores

So ‘finally’ we know. The Royal Wedding will take place on April 29th. A blessed relief? Union Jacks and commemorative doilies at the ready? No, me neither.

I have no problem with them personally and the best of British luck to Wills and Kate but it is difficult to get excited about the Royal Family in these modern times, straitened or not. I can’t imagine that will change even if the Queen cedes her throne (as she should) to Charles. Monarchs shouldn’t be like baldness and having twins, it shouldn’t skip a generation. To be honest, once Elizabeth hangs up her crown, I’d quite happily cash in the Royal Family, turn Buckingham Palace into shelter accommodation for the homeless in London’s near vicinity and just move on from there. Alternatively, foreigners love the Royals so can’t we just add it on to Las Vegas or put it in a Japanese Museum somewhere and we’ll split the gate receipts? Anyway, selfishly speaking, the UK having a President would just mean more elections which can’t be a bad thing from where I’m sitting. I am pretty sure there are more than a few Scottish republicans who think along the same lines.

This wedding is already sowing division at the border given that England (and perhaps Wales?) will receive a public holiday on the 29th but, as such decisions are devolved to Holyrood, it will be for the Scottish Parliament (Government?) to decide if we should follow suit. I daresay that MSPs will want to avoid the bad press and lack of respect in not calling a holiday for that same day but I do wonder to what extent the public will be behind such a decision. Would it not be more appropriate to have a holiday on St Andrew’s Day (as will be debated in Holyrood this week)? We could postpone this one public holiday and do it on 30th November 2011 on some sort of trial basis, see if we want it to be long term. We already have Easter booked in for late April, we don’t want to cram everything in together.

And anyway, the end of April and start of May is becoming quite a crowded field – Holyrood elections, AV referendum and a Royal Wedding. That’s a lot to pack in and we wouldn’t want to lose our focus when making the difficult decision of what type of Government we want to have going forward. Not to mention voting system, of course.

Maybe Scotland should just give April 29th a miss? But I would say that from down here though, wouldn’t I…

Twitter’s Intolerant Left needs to chill out

I’m perhaps not in the best position to discuss and dispute the criticism levelled in Stephen Fry’s direction over the weekend as a result of his article suggesting that women don’t enjoy sex. After all, the sum total of my bedfellows makes for a rather lacklustre sample size and one that contains significant gender bias.

That said, I did find the criticism to be just the latest frustrating outpouring from an increasingly intolerant left-wing mob, ironically timed during Jon Stewart’s calls for a bit of moderation to break out. I personally have no strong views on the subject Fry opted to discuss other than to say that everyone is different and generalisations rarely stack up on any issue, including to what extent women (or men) enjoy sex.

A possibly interesting addendum to this wider debate, and one that can confound many a devout Christian who believes sex should be a God-blessed, clumsy, baby-making affair, is that the clitoris has no functional biological value other than to make sex enjoyable. It’s a bit like bacon which has zero nutritional value and merely exists as it tastes good, though it is at that juncture where the similarity with female genitalia may well end….

Anyway, cripes, let’s move on.

There is a thin line between principled debate, passionately argued and an obtuse, oafishness that gives no quarter to those stepping beyond the lines drawn up by only one side of what should constitute ‘debate’ but is really just a public flogging. I think the latter applies here and has applied intermittently on various occasions throughout the year, with Twitter largely to blame.

One such example emanated from the merest whiff of an unpaid tax liability story regarding Vodafone, resulting in store blockades and cancelled mobile contracts. The source of such apparent disproportionate action was a rather dubious anonymously sourced article in Private Eye. If Iain Hyslop is to be the litmus test of right and wrong then we’re all in trouble. The pint-sized funnyman (a description I’m sure he treasures) is no stranger to public action, but that’s typically of the legal variety after getting his facts wrong rather than standard protests.

And there is a further point to make. Stephen Fry did not wilfully invite this Intolerant Left storm upon himself, in the way perhaps that Jan Moir, David Starkey, Kelvin Mackenzie and Melanie Phillips regularly, knowingly, smirkingly do. Honestly held views, as opposed to professional baiting, should, but often sadly don’t, command more respect.

There will be people today, otherwise perfectly smart, rational people, who will hold the delightfully lovable Stephen Fry in a significantly lower regard than they did last week, all for next to nothing.

An oft-quoted line from left-wing worthies is “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death you’re right to say it”. Such logic does appear to be on the wane or, at least, should now come with the addendum of “but we will unleash the mob forces of social media upon you and cast you adrift if you speak out of turn”.

Stephen Fry is a good egg and in my eyes will always come first before a chicken left-wing that, in short, needs to lighten up (through perhaps, while we’re on the topic, a good….. no, i’ll leave it there)

Two Treatises of Sport and Identity

When you reference John Locke in a blog title, you give the reader an expectation on quality which you are never likely to live up to.  Nevertheless, I’ve done it anyway – mainly because it worked as a title but partly as a device to emphasise my point.  So now, as you read on, expectations are raised as to the quality of prose – but I’ll leave you as the judge of whether the result is an almighty effort which results in heroic failure or produces a positive result only to be hampered by the sizeable expectations laid upon it to begin with.

Anyway, the reason I’ve regarded this as “Two Treatises” is that I’ve already seen a first (though not written by me).  Read it here.  It is written by the enlightened (well, for a No.8 at any rate) John Beattie, a former Scottish rugby international, whose son is a current Scotland back-rower and his daughter is a Scottish football international.  I guess if there’s a family who know a little bit about sport and representing your nation, it could be Mr Beattie’s.  So when he asks: “how Scottish people beat the Australians, New Zealanders, and indeed the English, at anything?” I feel we need to explore the question a little.

His post is a summary of Scottish success (oh yes – there was some of that!) at the Commonwealth Games in Delhi (9 golds, 10 silvers and 7 bronzes – 26 medals in total).  He points out the huge disparity in population between Scotland and Australia (we’re 25% of them) and the fact that they have more swimming pools in Melbourne than we have in total as emphasis that we shouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in… erm, an Australian summer of beating them in the pool.  And yet it happened.

But I don’t buy that.  I was going to use this post to emphasise the same point – that for a nation of just 5 million Scotland punches above its weight.  But then I looked at the new FIFA World Rankings.  We’re now #57= in the world, and started counting the countries above us with a population smaller than ours. I gave up at 10, but there are more.  So that can’t solely be it.  Similarly in rugby – New Zealand are the best team in the world and arguably have been for some time (Rugby World Cup competitions notwithstanding) yet their population is less than ours (and indeed, they have more – 13 times more – sheep than people… just saying).

So if its not how many people we have – as John Beattie suggests – that impacts upon sporting success, then what is it?  Well, pick any number of factors – government funding for sport, sport in schools (PE), lack of decent facilities, the invention of computers and computer games.  But if those are actually good excuses for us, then surely the rest of the world should be suffering the same?  Well, perhaps they are – and the quality of sport has taken a dive in recent times.  I’m not really talking about elite sports level (world class pro footballers are probably more skilled –  but less smart with it – than previous generations; rugby internationals are massive) but the depth of talent is probably less than it has been.  And having a smaller population will inevitably impact upon this.

John Beattie also points to us being pessimistic, to us talking Scotland down and being negative, as a national trait.  I have to be honest – I’m as guilty as the next at that, particularly when it comes to sport.  But just as sport is part of our identity, so is, I think is this pessimism.  Not a healthy aspect of identity – and one which rightly sees politicians taken to task when they imply we’re too wee, daft or poor to survive on our own (a caricature of a unionist position to be sure, but perhaps a fair criticism).  But I’m not convinced it is this attitude that is holding us back.

Honestly (and here’s a surprise for Jeff and James who have me down as a sporting pessimist) I think Scotland are as good as we can be at the moment in sporting terms.  Sure we can only marginally beat Liechtenstein and draw with Lithuania, but that is perhaps our level.  It is only because our expectations are so high – because we’ve historically been spoiled by the over-achievement of our small nation – that we see these results as poor.  And this is where I have one-up on my co-authors.

I’ve watched Scotland performances with them in the past (Netherlands in the last qualifying campaign stands out) and both hoped (expected?) us to win.  I think James even had us, optimistically, to beat World and European Champions Spain last week!  I, on the other hand, am much more pessimistic.  But I find that a good thing – it makes for less heartache in the long run.  You see, if you expect Scotland to be good and we’re not, you get incredibly frustrated when we struggle against minnows of world football.  If you are more pessimistic (some may say “realistic”!) then when victory comes, it is perhaps all the sweeter for its surprising nature.

So I think what I’m saying is this – by all means be ambitious.  But temper it with some realism.  Raising expectations is only going to disappoint.  Be a little more pessimistic, a little less expectant, and we, as fans, will enjoy the experience more.

Is it time the coalition gave single parents a break?

It is looking increasingly likely that the biggest losers from the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition will be single parents.

The headline debate from the Tory Conference this week has of course been the rights and wrongs of cutting child benefit for those earning £44k or more. I personally think this is actually a good idea, generally speaking, and I was even surprised that individuals earning so much were eligible for such income. However, there is a clear inconsistency and unfairness to a single parent earning £44k and not receiving any child benefit while a couple earning £83k does.

David Cameron has so far been unable to communicate how this will be addressed which suggests that the problem has thus far been overlooked. I would expect some sort of compromise will be arranged but for now there is a clear demographic that is undeserving of specific punishment, if not ‘vulnerable’ in their own right.

On top of this slight, single parents will at some point during this parliamentary term see their tax payments go towards subsidising married couples. To be fair to the Conservatives, this will see them delivering a manifesto pledge (which is something that undemocratically many of their Government proposals are not).

It is the lack of flexibility of the Conservative proposals that worry me, the old-fashioned notion that the only way that a household should be is Dad, Mum, 2.4 kids and a big shaggy dog. Real life doesn’t work that way I’m afraid Dave. I know Conservatives are in favour of nuclear power, nuclear weapons but I didn’t think their dogma would also extend to an unswerving insistence on nuclear families.

And so I do hope that Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats can be a voice of reason in all of this. I understand that their position of junior partners does not give them sway in every policy and every deliverable that the coalition Government holds but surely, as it stands, this is an illiberal result.

Single parents, punished twice by their Government for simply not being cohabiting or married, is not how 21st century Britain should look.