Littler Britain or Scottish Blood, English Heart
![anglo_saxon_earmap2c[1]](https://annaraccoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/anglo_saxon_earmap2c1.jpg)
As you’re no doubt aware, just over two weeks from now the people who make up one-quarter of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom will vote to decide whether or not they want to end a three centuries-old partnership they entered into with shrewd economic foresight in 1707. Scotland didn’t unite with England because – unlike Wales or Ireland – a megalomaniac monarch with anger issues conquered it; Scotland was smart enough to recognise the financial benefits of such a union at a time when its own finances were far from healthy, and the deal that brought hundreds of years of mutual antipathy to end was sealed by Queen Anne, an English sovereign from a Scottish royal dynasty, the Stuarts. Thanks to the willingness of the Scots to link arms with the Auld Enemy, the collective inhabitants of this violent, quirky, bloodthirsty, ill-tempered and eccentric island were truly united for the first time since the Roman occupation; and what came out of that union surpassed even the global reach of our former Latin subjugators. When Ireland was officially absorbed into the club just under a hundred years later, the journey from Great Britain to the United Kingdom was complete.
Yet, as both Yes and No Scots go to the polls, the other three nations of the British Isles have no say in the potential dissolution of a four-way marriage that has, on occasion, served them very well indeed. Perhaps it’s an ironic legacy of a time when the British came together under one banner to lord it over a larger portion of the planet than any country in history that a certain inherited arrogance has convinced some residents of these islands that their clamour for self-determination is on a par with similar demands made by former Soviet satellite states across eastern Europe during the past twenty-five years. For all its innumerable faults, a system of rule from Westminster is not really comparable with the manner in which the Kremlin controlled the vast landmass of the USSR. Yes, the long-overdue introduction of devolution at the end of the 20th century addressed some of the more understandable grievances aired by the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, but has devolution not only weakened the Union but the country as a whole?
Around fifteen years ago, demands for regional assemblies followed in the wake of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, even though half-hearted attempts to instigate greater autonomy in the English regions floundered as, when faced with the prospect of yet another layer of bureaucracy added onto an already-overcrowded bureaucratic system of government, most quickly lost interest. A not dissimilar lack of enthusiasm has greeted the plans to establish new local television services independent from the BBC and ITV; the commercial disaster of the much-hyped London Live, which was supposed to be a trailblazer for this scheme, has surely highlighted that even parochialism has its limits. After all, if the two main television broadcasters in this country, with all their resources, can’t produce anything better than the Partridge-esque regional magazine shows transmitted every weekday between 6.00-7.00 why should anyone be interested in a cheaper alternative simply because it’s Local TV for Local People?
However, the success of the Scots in finally achieving a referendum has served to give weight to an even more surreal clamour for independence amongst some natives of England that often brings to mind the classic Ealing comedy, ‘Passport to Pimlico’. The Cornish have long claimed status as an independent nation and are continuing to portray themselves as the British equivalents of the Catalans as events north of the Border career towards their conclusion. But how far does one take this kind of nationalism? Once actual countries in Britain edge towards separation from the rest, do regions follow suit? Do cities become nation states of the kind that once littered central Europe during the era of the Holy Roman Empire or before the 19th century unification of both Germany and Italy? At what point is enough enough? Will we have the People’s Republic of Salford or Southend? Will we have housing estates or streets establishing their own government, currency, judiciary, police force? Or will Britain simply revert to what it was in Anglo-Saxon times, with a series of separate kingdoms, each jealously guarding their own corner of the country and aiming arrows at their nearest neighbours? Depends how far we go in encouraging and desiring division.
Traditional rivalries between nearby towns are played out on a weekly basis in football and rugby stadiums throughout the land, just as rivalries between counties – or at the more amateur level, villages – re-emerge every summer to the sound of leather-on-willow; but however unavoidable and (some might say) illogical pride in one’s hometown or home county can be, it’s an essentially harmless and largely jocular competitiveness that takes place between one small part of the nation and another, with these feelings of enmity no more malicious than the kind that used to be seen regularly on ‘It’s a Knockout’. Somebody in Manchester who hates The Beatles doesn’t hate them because they came from Liverpool anymore than somebody in Liverpool who hates The Stone Roses hates them because they came from Manchester. Some things are above parochial rivalries and transcend them.
Just as the United Kingdom is not a huge, sprawling continent that cannot realistically expect to contain a dazzling myriad of different languages, religions and cultures without problems, the United Kingdom is not the British Empire; Scotland is not Ceylon anymore than Wales is the West Indies or Ulster is Aden. We are a family of siblings sharing the same house, not distant cousins renting holiday homes from an avaricious landlord. We exhibit the same niggling annoyance with our brother and sister nations as can be seen within any clan, yet beneath the surface there is a common history and, dare I say it, love that bonds us whether we like to admit it or not. We all inhabit a tiny island or (in the case of Northern Ireland) part of an even tinier neighbouring island, yet when not seeking to conquer and kill each other, have mixed and mingled over the centuries to produce an astonishingly fruitful cultural legacy that has changed the world for the better.
The Union was the culmination of a long transformation from warring tribal kingdoms to the mature recognition of the sense in joining together; having done well out of that for 300 years, do we now gradually go into reverse and end up back where we were at the dawn of the previous millennium? I appreciate this is a divisive issue, but it must be fairly clear now that I actually love the idea of the UK, not necessarily a ‘cool’ admission to make, and not one that automatically means I’m in bed with David Cameron; besides, his feet will no doubt be cold and clammy. You can just tell. No, I love the diversity of the citizens of this country, whether native or immigrant; I love the distinctions between villages, towns, cities and counties; and I love our differences; but I equally love our similarities, everything that unites us, not just what divides us. And union wins hands down over division as far as I’m concerned. I agree it could be better, but I also believe it could be worse. I think it’d be a shame if we get divorced; but I don’t have a say because I don’t have a vote. And my paternal grandfather was a bloody Scotsman! Does that count for nothing, Mr Salmond?
-
September 3, 2014 at 11:52 am -
The Scots seem determined to have a stab at proper Socialism, and the continuance of an England unhappy at having Socialism perennially foisted upon it by the northern hordes and a Scotland unhappy at having a Capitalist system foisted upon it by those Sassenachs, seems to have led to a point where it’s best to shake hands and divide up the house. Whither Wales? Well, I suppose it might do.
-
September 3, 2014 at 12:21 pm -
“As you’re no doubt aware, just over two weeks from now the people who make up one-quarter of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom will vote to decide whether or not they want to end a three centuries-old partnership they entered into with shrewd economic foresight in 1707″
Um, slight rewriting of history there. They entered the Union as they were broke, thanks to Darien, and we offered to cover their debts. Grateful nation the Scots, and God willing they will be granted independence, as it is the only way the West Lothian question can be resolved. Hopefully, next time they go bankrupt they will be left to sort themselves out. We’re still paying for the Royal Bank of Scotland.
-
September 3, 2014 at 12:51 pm -
The English thought the price worth paying to close and lock that loose attic door that the Frenchies kept trying to climb through, at the time.
-
September 3, 2014 at 12:56 pm -
September 3, 2014 at 10:24 pm -
‘I love the diversity of the citizens of this country, whether native or immigrant; I love the distinctions between villages, towns, cities and counties; and I love our differences…’
Well said. It is our strength (much to the chagrin of the writers of ‘This England’ magazine, whose pages have yet to show even one slightly off white face on any of its pages) and it seems shocking that we might actually lose part of it after all.
-
-
September 3, 2014 at 1:04 pm -
Just a note on the Scottish and Welsh assemblies. They were rushed into existence with almost no debate at the time the IRA were negotiating devolved government for Northern Ireland. IMHO the rush was to ensure that Scotland and Wales had their devolution first so that the violent approach could be seen to be less effective. A snub to the IRA if you like.
-
September 3, 2014 at 1:16 pm -
Well – I am English, and have my home in Scotland where I have lived for 23 years – more than a third of my life. I always considered myself to be British first, and had only a hazy recognition of the national identity of the component parts of the union. “Home” – in the broader sense, was anywhere in the British Isles.
Fast forward…….we now have the bizarre circumstance that a small portion of the population can vote my country out of existence – WTF? And no matter the result, the level of vitriol created will not be easily soothed. Most of the native Scots I know are against separation – and judging by the “likes” of the articles on Facebook in favour of the Union, I retain a hope that cool heads will prevail on the 18th.
Sadly, if it goes the way of the nationalists, I will almost certainly move back to England.
-
September 3, 2014 at 1:32 pm -
@ the people who make up one-quarter of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom will vote @
the 8% of the population who occupy 32% of the land. -
September 3, 2014 at 2:10 pm -
I’m torn here – my family are from Scotland, originally from around Forfar, but moved to Inveraray, where they ran a bakery; my great grandfather was the Provost (sort of mayor). I was born in Manchester, but emotionally, I would like Scotland to be independent; after the depradations of Edward I, and subsequent others the Scots declared their wish for independence via the Declaration of Arbroath, which is an important historical document hardly ever mentioned. ” It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.” The attitude of the English to the Scots has been quite appalling, even into the 18th century; you only have to read John Prebble’s Culloden to see that.
But, I don’t like Alex Salmond, and I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw a locomotive.
-
September 3, 2014 at 4:52 pm -
I agree with you about Alex Salmond but not about taking a decision based on emotion. I’m from Scotland and don’t believe Edward I or Culloden has any more place in this irreversible decision than the decision to hold the referendum on a date commemorating a battle in which hundreds of Englishmen were slaughtered in a bog.
And my paternal grandfather was a bloody Scotsman! Does that count for nothing, Mr Salmond?
It means you can get a wee tartan passport. Says so in the White Paper.It’s great to see such an an eloquent and insightful analysis. Thank you for your article.
-
September 3, 2014 at 11:10 pm -
I’m sure it’s been said before, but Salmond & Sturgeon seem fishy.
Time to go.
-
-
September 3, 2014 at 2:13 pm -
Success has many fathers, and failure is an orphan.
In a world of fear and fashion, confidence in the past decays; and cynicism ensures only the well-off can afford that historical decadence called ‘culture’.
In a genuine crisis, appropriate radicalism is necessary. But when socialist subversives induce fear through bent propaganda, there can be no appropriate radical response, because the crisis is synthetic.
It is an ironic tragedy that the independence movement invokes the history of Scottish psychological fortitude, by advocating ‘running away from the problem’. I hope the Scots wise up to the possibility that they are being lead by a stalking-horse:
-
September 3, 2014 at 2:51 pm -
This argument could be used as an argument to stay in the EU and drop our own laws are traditions to fall in like with the fourth reich.
Personally, the closer we are to the policymakers the better and as you say it isn’t Russia, although we ain’t far off, so as long as we keep some fundamental rules then what is the issue with devolution going down to county, or smaller. After all London and Bristol have local laws that are not in place in Newcastle or Reading and vica versa.
-
September 3, 2014 at 2:55 pm -
September 3, 2014 at 3:06 pm -
Isn’t it odd, that when shops become more ‘efficient’, they form larger and fewer supermarkets, that between them employ fewer staff. But when councils coalesce to form unified governments, their staff grow without limit. And because of this weirdness of bureaucracy, who will say for sure that smaller states will encourage leaner administrations?
-
September 3, 2014 at 3:08 pm -
Or indeed ones above corruption, something that has been endemic at local government level for decades.
-
September 3, 2014 at 3:34 pm -
Indeed. But maybe larger administrations simply have more layers of bureaucracy, so as to better cover-up their transgressions. Besides which, everybody knows everybody else in smaller organizations, and you can only hide from local gossip for so long.
-
-
September 3, 2014 at 7:15 pm -
Where are you thinking of? Round here 3 district councils are merging services and jobs seem to be going rather than increasing. I hope they don’t get rid of too many planners though as the planning service was slow enough already and I’ve got an application in.
-
September 3, 2014 at 8:04 pm -
They’re always slow in delivery. But as soon as they hear your plaintive cries, they’ll be off the blocks like a whippet, raising the rates, and filling their ‘understaffed’ departments, as though a Parkinson’s Law rocket was lit-up under their arse.
You see, the free market is about possession, the less staff you have to share it with, the more you get for yourself. Whereas the bureaucracy is about power, the more people around you, the more power you wield.
-
-
-
-
September 3, 2014 at 3:24 pm -
It’s complicated.
I am from North Britain, but still feel a great connection to the rest of the UK and the Commonwealth.
We (i.e. Heath, – why do so many pro Euro Federalists have no offspring?) opted for a European Trading group and ditched the Commonwealth – all of it.
Then we found out that somewhere down in the teeny-weeny small print there was an obligation to join up with all the other Euro nonsense, straightness of bananas, big exes for MEPs, Euro crats, unlimited immigration, nonsense Euro Court and Numan rights. No choice, no referendum, no cooling off period.
And all the Westminster parties thought this was great. Hey, we are all in it together – windmills, vacuum cleaners that could not satisfy a big shot Eurocrat, air travel taxes (we do not pay for our fares), high fuel costs (ditto) , extra taxes (windfall) on any oil and gas that the UK might accidentally continue to produce , and on and on and on.
England came up with UKIP, which gave the sole alternative to all this all-party consensus.
Poor Scotland is stuck with a great block of Socialists who think that socialism is great so long as London is paying – bash the bankers, the City. We have no Tory party, the Liberals – eh?
(Eh – a Scottish term meaning “I really think that you should reconsider your argument.”)
So the only option for a Scot is to take up all the dice, give the cup a good shake and throw. Because any result must be better than what we have at present.
Exasperated.-
September 3, 2014 at 3:43 pm -
“If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”
-
September 5, 2014 at 4:40 pm -
The European Courrt of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU.
-
-
September 3, 2014 at 3:29 pm -
Oh , and bythe way,’n’ that Rentboy had it about right.
Trainspotting.
Mark Renton: : It’s SHITE being Scottish! We’re the lowest of the low. The scum of the fucking Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some hate the English. I don’t. They’re just wankers. We, on the other hand, are COLONIZED by wankers. Can’t even find a decent culture to be colonized BY. We’re ruled by effete assholes. It’s a SHITE state of affairs to be in,-
September 3, 2014 at 5:15 pm -
Last I heard of the Trainspotting author, he’s living in Florida with his new wifey and only has her girlfriends for company, and thinks all males should be barred from government for a generation or two so that the girls can put the world to rights again. Men in skirts y’see.
-
-
September 3, 2014 at 6:35 pm -
Of course ‘Scots’ don’t get to vote, just the current inhabitants from wherever they came. One of my cousins gets a vote, his brother doesn’t.
It is strange that a union that has been in place for so long could be dissolved as a result of a marginal vote based on little more than ‘Braveheart’ emotion, yet the toxic EU that we were tricked into might just be broken away from, if we vote Conservative, if they win the next election, if re-negotiation takes place, if we are allowed to vote ‘Out’ and finally, after years of ‘Article 50′ negotiations we might just manage it.
No-one seems to note that Cameron is an ethnic Scot, Brown is a Scot and so, save us, is Blair. Rule from Westminster or Scotland?
-
September 3, 2014 at 6:45 pm -
Since I was born British and am now an American citizen (though I do still have a UK passport), if I was a Scot I am sure I would want to have a government based in Scotland. It it too small? Well, I lived for a decade in Bermuda, which is self governing with its own laws, taxes, courts, police, immigration rules, and so on, though ultimately British in name only and they manage fine, and the population is only a tiny fraction of that of Scotland. They did have a referendum on breaking ties with Britain altogether, but decided not to.
-
September 3, 2014 at 6:52 pm -
Most “little countries” like this rely on becoming tax havens don’t they? I can see no reason why that shouldn’t work for Scotland too.
-
September 4, 2014 at 7:33 am -
I think one of the reasons that Bermuda didn’t completely cut loose from the UK was that because the UK takes care of its defense and (nonexistent) foreign policy, so that enhances its security as a tax haven, making it much less likely to be hijacked by some rogue regime. I’m not sure what the future plans are for a Scottish army, navy, and air force, though no doubt the massed bagpipe bands already located on their territory will deter most invaders. They will probably adopt the groat as their currency as it has a pleasantly Scottish sound to it. And then they will probably keep Andy Murray and his mother. Of course they won’t be so happy when England decides to close the border, depriving the Scots of the opportunity to do weekend duty-free shopping in Carlisle, but, hey, you can’t have everything.
One also wonders what will happen to Balmoral in the event that the Scots don’t decide to appoint a king of their own. Perhaps they could take Prince Andrew, as he has a Scottish sounding name, and is not of much value to England.
-
September 5, 2014 at 4:43 pm -
Scottish defence aspirations:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/10
Ex-services readers of this blog may offer a few insightful comments, particularly on the naval aspect….
-
-
-
September 8, 2014 at 3:37 pm -
“I was a Scot I am sure I would want to have a government based in Scotland. ”
I think you’ll find that the Scottish Parliament is indeed already in charge of laws, courts, police, local taxes, and much, much more. Nearly everything else, in fact. (Scots Law was anyway protected by the original Act of Union.) There are relatively few reserved powers (reserved to the UK government). The Scottish Parliament has never used its ability to increase income tax (currently only to a limited extent), and it seems unlikely it could ever choose to reduce it. Immigration rules are almost entirely determined by EU membership, and even the UK government has little scope. Despite all that, England has accepted that the votes of Scottish MPs are binding on England for laws that do not affect Scotland.
-
September 8, 2014 at 3:49 pm -
“They will probably adopt the groat as their currency as it has a pleasantly Scottish sound to it.”
If separated Scotland successfully joins the EU, it will be obliged to adopt the Euro, with all that entails (essentially handing monetary policy to Germany instead of London!). Of course, Spain for obvious reasons is not keen on making membership of the EU straightforward for separatists.
Really, the whole thing is irrational.
-
-
-
September 3, 2014 at 6:45 pm -
I’m from the south and the referendum I want to see is on London independence. The M25 will be the border. Then we’ll see which currency the bankers link to in anticipation of having to bail themselves out.
If Scotland goes, England will never be free of London.
-
September 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm -
Here, here!
-
-
September 3, 2014 at 8:38 pm -
One thing that has slightly surprised me during the ‘independence’ debates is that one thing seemingly not covered is how much independence Scotland has always had, even since the Act of Union. England was at that point by far the dominant partner – certainly financially – and could have imposed almost anything it wanted. Scotland could have ended up as just an additional northern English county, but it didn’t. Scotland retained (and still retains) it’s own legal system, it’s own system of local government, it’s own religious arrangements, it’s own system of education, it’s own sporting teams, it’s own flag and certainly it’s own cultures (there being many Scots cultures – borders, Highland, Hebrides, Northern Isles, central belt). About the only ‘shared’ responsibilities are defence and matters fiscal.
After 300 years, things are just about shaking down nicely ( leaving apart a bit of silly bigotry from both sides of the border). It would be daft to throw away the shared history now – all in all, it’s worked far better than it could have done, to mutual benefit. True, there are some disagreements – such as the West Lothian question and Scotland aruably leaning a little more to the left than England politically – but nothing that can’t be sorted out by mature debate.
By the way, I live in England (though born a Scot), so I don’t get a vote – but it’s my Union too. Why can’t I express my wish through the ballot box, along with all the others that are part of this Union?
-
September 3, 2014 at 9:20 pm -
September 3, 2014 at 9:23 pm -
Because it’s not a referendum, it’s a divorce, and England is the Patriarchy.
-
September 3, 2014 at 9:53 pm -
And if it’s a divorce, who gets custody of Gordon Brown ? That could be the clincher.
-
September 3, 2014 at 11:31 pm -
He’ll be adopted by Rotherham social services, where he can navigate his padded cell with his moral compass.
-
September 4, 2014 at 9:08 am -
If that’s the case, for the first time in my life I feel a degree of sympathy for Gordon Brown – but that brief moment has now passed. Who better to sample the true service qualities of the People’s Democratic Republic of South Yorkshire than the man who enabled it?
-
-
-
-
-
September 4, 2014 at 9:48 am -
“We are a family of siblings sharing the same house, not distant cousins renting holiday homes from an avaricious landlord. We exhibit the same niggling annoyance with our brother and sister nations as can be seen within any clan, yet beneath the surface there is a common history and, dare I say it, love that bonds us whether we like to admit it or not. We all inhabit a tiny island or (in the case of Northern Ireland) part of an even tinier neighbouring island, yet when not seeking to conquer and kill each other, have mixed and mingled over the centuries to produce an astonishingly fruitful cultural legacy that has changed the world for the better.”
Hurrah! Yes indeed, well said.
-
September 4, 2014 at 12:18 pm -
Indeed – and , as posted by a commenter elsewhere, potentially to be swept away by a tiny proportion of the electorate , gerrymandered by a reduced voting age, and people who are not native to either Scotland or these Isles.
-
-
September 6, 2014 at 6:40 pm -
It’s not just Scotland cutting it’s ties with England but with Wales and Northern Ireland. Lose lose
-
September 9, 2014 at 1:54 pm -
” ” It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”
All very resounding, but it it’s true why are they so mad keen on rushing into bed with the bloody EU of all things? No, it’s nothing to do with freedom, they regard freedom as a dirty word somewhere between “Tory” and “American”.
JimS has it right: ” a marginal vote based on little more than ‘Braveheart’ emotion ” is exactly what it is. And that’s why Salmond is winning – because he understands that it’s nothing to do with facts, or reason, or rationality, or economics, but pure simple straightforward emotion, and that emotion is mostly hatred of the English. What a way to start a new country.
-
September 9, 2014 at 9:42 pm -
The debate is often pitched in terms of Scotland v England. In those terms Scotland is not one quarter, but only ⅔ as large as England, and in population terms, the figures are the other way, 10 against one, so where did the one quarter come from? This is not in any sense expressing any preference for either country, just looking at the numbers, and relating them to the statement made. Talking about numbers, I have read that the majority of the Scottish budget comes in the form a subsidies from the rest of the UK. If they achieve independence, and the subsidies stop, as they will, and free Scotland has to stand on it’s own economic feet, as it will have to, will Scottish taxes remain the same as now, or be less, or be more? If taxes will be unchanged, or higher, why on earth leave? If Scottish taxes will be less, then by all means leave, and good luck with the new adventure, but be aware that the betting odds are 2:1 against.
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }