My commitment to Scotland's Independence is motivated by the belief (I'd say "knowledge" but it's time consuming having to read all the angry comments so i'll stick with "belief") that it not only makes economic sense (actually that bit's "knowledge") but it's absolutely the right thing to do in terms of maintaining and developing our culture and our contribution to the world.
It's not motivated by this idea that Scotland is treated badly by the UK. Scotland is treated how the people of Scotland vote for it to be treated. But .... you can see why some people (inc myself) get irritated by other UK attitudes toward us. The worst is when it's like we don't exist.
This morning for instance. A very interesting guy called Nigel was reporting to GMTV about global warming, the threat to up to a third of the worlds species (the golden frog is now extinct btw!) and why the goings on in Copenhagen are so important to the world.
"We're trying hard here in England" he says and adds "and so is America". So I'm watching BRITISH TV which is supposed to be aimed at a BRITISH audience, not purely England. And whilst I don't object to people talking about Scotland or England, I do think if you're referring to "we" and you're not on "regional" TV, you ought to remember that there are other parts of the UK and it's not just England.
You're broadcasting to the UK countries. You want to say something positive about our attitude to climate change. Given that one of those countries, ie Scotland, has very recently passed the MOST AMBITIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE BILL IN THE WORLD, you might think that was a worthy example. But no. "We're trying hard in England" was all he could manage.
I am sure this guy will know about it but when you believe that the UK IS England, it's very easy to forget that Scotland exists. He reported that the Golden Toad is now extinct but as far as I'm aware, Scotland isn't. Someone ought to tell this guy.
The sooner we get our Independence and start to play a full role in the world, the better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice post, I find it time consuming to always correct people when they say 'England'. Great point that the Scots vote for the way they're treated. It's funny, because one of my friends the other day said that Scotland attaining its independence, would be a very sad divorce. I would hardly describe the relationship as a married one. Or perhaps it's more of a forced marriage!
ReplyDeletewww.thejacobite.blogspot.com
Anne
ReplyDeleteHello.
Before you point the finger, I don't post anti-Scottish bias/ sentiments here. I'm actually addressing hollow sounding nationalism and rhetoric.
Independence would have no impact whatsoever on the development of Scottish culture and influence. Scottish culture has in no way been impeded by the Union in the past 300 years. You could certainly argue that, to the contrary, the size and influence of the UK has actually boosted Scottish arts worldwide. Do you believe, for example, that the influence of reknowned Scottish writers from Robbie Burns to Irvine Welsh has been compromised by the lack of an independent Scotland? Does this not sound absurd?
By extension it follows, according to your logic, that the unification of Germany in 1871 stultified the development of culture in the previous independent States, for example in Prussia and its capital, Berlin. The union in this case did not seem to prevent Berlin from taking its place at the centre of world culture/ theatre/ cinema etc. in the 1920s.
Basically, it is perfectly possible for a non self governing region of a country to retain a distinct culture and influence. Secession from the UK would be entirely irrelevant here.
Basically, it is perfectly possible for a non self governing region of a country to retain a distinct culture and influence.
ReplyDelete- But Scotland isn't a 'region', despite what the BBC claims. It is a nation.
And 'Britian' isn't a nation, despite what the BBC claims. 'Britian' might be a state but so what? That is merely a fact of bureaucracy, not culture. Its notional borders change with the times just to prove how much of an abstract cultural non-entity it is. It is more a figment of the minds of the London-Oxbridge establishment, than anything in the real world.
By 'Robbie Burns' I think you're refering to Rabbie Burns, ahem, who was recently bad-mouthed on the BBC 'flagship' programme 'Question Time' by David Starkey with not a word of complaint from the chairperson Dimblebum who actually reckons Starkey is a 'star-performer'.
Irvine Welsh lives in Dublin, so he isn't the best example to use of Britian's munifence really.
Where would us powerless Scots be without the London establishment, I can only begin to imagine.
Oh dear Joe, you've opened up a hornet's nest there. You see Essexpal does not recognise Scotland as a country and he has some weird explanation for that which I'm sure he's about to furnish you with.
ReplyDeleteHello Anne and joe90kane
ReplyDeleteAccording to this definition, Scotland is not a country as it fails on six out of ten of the criteria.
http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm
However, I understand that the term is used in Scotland and other places in a different context too, possibly as a tag of cultural identity.
The word nation is slightly more vague and I’m happy to talk about a Scottish nation.
"And 'Britian' isn't a nation, despite what the BBC claims. 'Britian' might be a state but so what? That is merely a fact of bureaucracy, not culture. Its notional borders change with the times just to prove how much of an abstract cultural non-entity it is".
So Scotland is a nation/ country but Britain isn't. That's a novel approach. By worldwide standards, Britain has actually been a pretty stable entity since its inception over 300 years ago. I would hold up the USA as an example of the contrary here. Would you define America as a nation?
In addition, surely this quote applies to most countries around the globe. All countries came into being through bureaucracy as they are by definition political entities. Many are pluralistic with different cultures/ languages etc.
Hope all this isn't too 'weird' for you Anne!
I'm not sure how the opinion of one individual on Question Time has any bearing on the cultural impact of Burns by the way. Welsh can choose to live where he likes - it doesn’t make him any less Scottish.
Britain has actually been a pretty stable entity since its inception over 300 years ago.
ReplyDelete- If you exclude Ireland, Heligoland, the British Empire and Britian's imperial nature then sure, it's been stable.
Scotland is not a country as it fails on six out of ten of the criteria.
- Scotland is at least two and half times older than the phoney United Kingdom of Great Britioan and Northern Ireland - a title of very recent invention. Just to paraphrase J.J. Rousseau about The Holy Roman Empire - it isn't united, it isn't a kingdom but a queendom, and there's nothing particularly great about it.
Some argue that Scotland is the world's oldest nation with the world's oldest recognised national flag.
I'm not sure how the opinion of one individual on Question Time has any bearing on the cultural impact of Burns by the way.
- Apart from being an example of a quintessential British institution being used as a platform by a mouth-piece of the British establishment sneering down his British superior imperial nose at the non-British inferior culture of others, who are not part of the London-Oxbridge centre of the universe.
When people like yourself can actually begin to spell 'Rabbie Burns' correctly then maybe you'll get taken seriously when you claim Britian has had a positive influence on Scottish culture. It's apparent, from the few examples you use, that you don't actually know that much about it, so how your are to judge, I've no idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_border_changes_since_World_War_I
ReplyDeleteYou might not agree with the UK but I really don't understand why you must claim that it's illegitimate. The last king of Essex ruled in 825 AD, so it's about 6 times older than the UK. Does it make Essex a more legitimate nation than the UK - nope.
Robbie Burns is the anglicised form of Rabbie (see wikepedia), so is spelt correctly for someone from England.
I have no interest in nationalism at all by the way and didn't state fundamentally that Britain has a positive influence on Scottish culture - just that it certainly isn't detrimental.
Who argues, outside Scotland, that it is the world's oldest nation? Searches on google bring up China, Japan, Greece. Not seen Scotland yet.
I think you're giving the opinion of a couple of Oxbridge toffs more consideration than is necessary by the way.
You're welcome to campaign for an independent Scotland if you wish but please remove the blinkers.
This is Mrs Essex-Pal here. I think you might find that Essex Pal can indeed begin to spell Rabbie Burns correctly, since he began spelling it with an R, which is correct!
ReplyDeleteEssex Pal is actually an avid fan of Still Game, Chewin' the Fat and something called Trout and About.
To accompany Essex Pal on a trip to Aulds is to witness the most undiluted form of love; what Essex Pal wouldn't do for a fudge donut is anyone's guess but he certainly wouldn't draw the line at a night of passion with Fran and Anna, dead or alive!
So it's really not fair to suggest that Essex Pal doesn't know much about Scottish culture. Now you two boys calm down and play nicely or you'll get skelped!
The last king of Essex ruled in 825 AD, so it's about 6 times older than the UK. Does it make Essex a more legitimate nation than the UK - nope.
ReplyDelete- Essex isn't the UK though. It's a county in England. It may have had a king or queen once, so what? So did the Russians, the Germans, the French.
The Roman Empire had an emperor once. So did the Russian Empire, the German Empire etc.
They no longer exist except in name, just like Essex.
I didn't claim the UK was illegitimate. It might be a 'state' with a bureaucracy, civil service, army etc, but it isn't a 'nation'. This attempt by the British Establishment to invent a British 'nation' out of its disparate elements has never worked. There is no such thing as a British 'nation'.
Robbie Burns is the anglicised form of Rabbie (see wikepedia), so is spelt correctly for someone from England.
- Forgive me, but I don't count wikipedia as an authoritative source for anything much. Useful and handy in passing but always has to be double-checked. Although, I didn't know wikipedia was English and used as an authority by the population of England.
Who argues, outside Scotland, that it is the world's oldest nation? Searches on google bring up China, Japan, Greece. Not seen Scotland yet.
- The historical evidence argues that Scotland is one of the oldest extant nations.
It doesn't need the results of someone's internet search engines to be in agreement for this to be true.
Scotland still remains Scotland after all these years. It has its own borders, education system, law, religious establishment and, latterly, its own parliament in its own capital city re-constituted after a very small recess.
I think you're giving the opinion of a couple of Oxbridge toffs more consideration than is necessary by the way.
- No I'm not.
I argue that the BBC is representative of the Oxbrdige-London establishment, and of its patronising condescending attitude to the rest of Britian.
You're welcome to campaign for an independent Scotland if you wish but please remove the blinkers.
- I've no idea what blinkers you're talking about.
So it's really not fair to suggest that Essex Pal doesn't know much about Scottish culture. Now you two boys calm down and play nicely or you'll get skelped!
- I don't need to calm down because I'm not agitated or excited about anything.