Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Pip
|
Scottish Unionists - Where are they coming from?Via the forums and blogs I've got a bit of a picture of the Scottish independence movement, albeit one painted in broad strokes. And obviously, being English, I have a pretty solid grasp of the different English opinions on the matter and how those opinions are derived. However the Scottish unionists are a different matter. It's funny the times that these thoughts come to you, but as I'm quite committed to bringing the state they profess to love to an end, I think it would be a bit unfair not to understand their position a little better. The Scots that I tend to meet in London are more interested in Westminster or Brussels, and are dismissive of Scottish independence as a 'small' issue or retrograde step away from a future European state, but they don't seem entirely representative. Is anyone able to shed any light on the different social and ideological roots of the Scottish unionists?
The only Scot I've ever met who was genuinely enthusiastic about the UK was a John Buchan type Tory, who felt that the only problem was a general English ignorance and undervaluing of Scotland, but that we were first and foremost all Britons. Are there other strands to the unionist position, or is it simply a case of fear of the unknown, basic apathy and some imperial leftovers?
|
mairead
|
The Scots in London would appear to be the ones that benefit tremendously from big business and poliitcs therefore want to hold on to what they have.
|
Economist
|
I mean, how can anyone think Scotland becoming an independent state is a backward, retrogade step is really beyond me. It is a bit like parents saying to their kid, about to leave the family home for the first time; "Oh you can't do that, you can't go out into world and make your own way, and take responsibility for yourself because it is a backward step" 
Most people I know (and have asked) whether they support independence or not, either do or are ambivalent about it. Outside elected politicians and some sections of the media, I struggle to think of examples of people who would be ultra Unionist, or give out a defence of the Union in any meaningful way. And I know of no-one who would voluntarily describe themselves as British. The ones that do support the Union, in my opinion, just do in a de facto way and in my experience can't offer up any good reasons why; again it is all they have known; it would be too costly; Scotland is too small etc. Not that they aren't averse to independence, just that it would be costly and an upheaval and better to "stick to the devil you know". In essence they've swallowed all the Unionist rhetoric thrown in Scotland's direction over the years (and not just from Scottish Unionists, either).
For some older people, particularly the War Generation, the Union all they have known and they can remember a time when there was perhaps a sense of conhesion and spirit, but even many of them became rapidly weary of this sense of Britishness and Unionism.
Nevertheless there certainly are people in Scotland who are proud solely, British Unionists. They are the exception to the rule, but I'll never understand why.
|
Aventinian
|
Re: Scottish Unionists - Where are they coming from? | Pip wrote: | | I'm quite committed to bringing the state they profess to love to an end |
I don't love the state in the least.
| Quote: | | Is anyone able to shed any light on the different social and ideological roots of the Scottish unionists? |
In ideological terms, I am a liberal. As such, I don't think I can honestly be a nationalist of any colour (British, Scots, whatever else...).
Socially, when I went to university, there was a Nationalist prensence - but it was a few odd sorts who everyone assumed were slightly mad. It's a bit more mainsteam these days, I suppose.
| Quote: | | The only Scot I've ever met who was genuinely enthusiastic about the UK was a John Buchan type Tory, who felt that the only problem was a general English ignorance and undervaluing of Scotland, but that we were first and foremost all Britons. Are there other strands to the unionist position, or is it simply a case of fear of the unknown, basic apathy and some imperial leftovers? |
Why need it be any different from Scottish nationalism - most people do feel British, and the cultural sames we share go far deeper than our differences. That is not, however, my personal position - I am British culturally without caring about the union politically.
I am, however, an internationalist and a federalist. Therefore I believe in unity over separation - which leads me rather unwillingly into a politically unionist (both in terms of the UK and EU) position.
|
IF Convenor
|
Aventinian, you've answered all these questions about unionists by telling us about yourself and how you're not a unionist. What was the point of that?
|
Anthropos
|
| mairead wrote: | | The Scots in London would appear to be the ones that benefit tremendously from big business and poliitcs therefore want to hold on to what they have. |
In the case of politicians that is certainly true and hence Gordon brown making a bit of an ass of himself blethering about 'Britishness' and Gaza's excellent goal etc.
However big business (or indeed small business) is a different matter, and there would be few impediments to an ambitious Scotsman who wants a business career in London. That city contains masses of people from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Australia and the USA, not to mention substantial numbers from Holland, France (about 100,000 young people) and the rest of Europe and the wider world.
| Pip wrote: | | The only Scot I've ever met who was genuinely enthusiastic about the UK was a John Buchan type Tory |
Where is gawds name did you meet such a person? I would have thought such people had died out by now.
Anyway, some Scots of both left and right do have varying degrees of enthusiasm for that part of their heritage, I don't think most people are especially enthusiastic one way or the other.
|
Pip
|
Thankyou all, very interesting. To be honest it doesn't seem that the feelings on the subject are all that different from those in England. Independence is seen as impractical for Scotland ('Scotland's too small' etc), or people have (what I would call) a false of sense of Britishness. It tends to be the case that most of the latter have no direct experience of Scotland (or Wales or NI for that matter).
| Quote: | | I don't love the state in the least. |
Duly noted that you don't love the state Aventinian. I should perhaps have said, "I am committed to ending the state that the unionists are committed to preserving."
| Quote: | | Where is gawds name did you meet such a person? I would have thought such people had died out by now. |
LOL! He was a supply teacher who often took my class at school. He was over 60 then (early 90s). He never had much time for the national curriculum, but could talk all day about the union of the crowns, Walter Scott and Scottish law, which on reflection I don't think he knew much about.
|
Aventinian
|
| IF Convenor wrote: | | Aventinian, you've answered all these questions about unionists by telling us about yourself and how you're not a unionist. What was the point of that? |
Well I am a Unionist in that I believe in the unity of the nations of the British Isles. As I've said before, I accept the term reluctantly, but realise that it has never been one of self-identification - with the Tories name, it was an Irish reference, not a intra-GB one.
I imagine my response gave some perspective on the matter.
| Pip wrote: | | or people have (what I would call) a false of sense of Britishness. |
Why would you call it false?
|
Pip
|
| Quote: | | Why would you call it false? |
Because when it comes down to the test it fractures almost at once. Many Englishmen go to Scotland thinking of themselves as British, but I haven't met one who has come back thinking so. Can you suggest someone who is a truly British artist or even a truly British work of art, that incorporates the disparate identities of the entire island?
The Scottish assumption since 1707 seems to have been that they were in a relationship of equals, in which Scotland and the Scots were recognized as distinct and respected as such. Many on this forum may disagree, but it could be argued that there was some enthusiasm for the British Empire, if not Britain itself, within Scotland. For the English, at least for the man on the Clapham omnibus, 1707 was not perceived as very important. The Scots' earnest talk about 'the union' was always somewhat bewildering, as the English never particularly regarded themselves as being in a union. England and Britain were used on the whole simply to mean, 'my country.' If questioned they knew the difference, but it never seemed a very important one. From the 1950s a real effort was made to replace the use of 'England' with 'Britain' in the context of 'the country' or 'my nationality' and it was accepted in a generous spirit of political correctness, (with hindsight this was a mistake IMHO). A truly British project would have elevated Wales (and let's not even mention Cornwall!) to equal status within a federal union or integrated the entire island into a single nation state, with one set of laws and one all-encompassing identity. Neither of these did or could have happened.
Imagine for a moment that a truly cretinous government allowed Sharia law to be practiced in an inner city area of an English city. The English reaction would be massive, immediate and furious. Now imagine that an equally cretinous government decided to impose English law onto Scotland. Do you think that in such a situation there would be any comparable moral outrage in England, because I certainly don't. If people were truly British then those 'Britons' in England would hold Scots law in equal esteem.
|
x_scotsdream_x
|
In my opinion Pip, the guy you knew who said that scotland feels undervalued - for me, probably hit the nail on the head there. As a nationalist, i vow for independance because for me, i dont see any reason why Scotland cannae stand on her own two feet, i hate the small mindedness of the English media and i hate the fact that the only real money coming into Scotland is to the city's - where they delegate certain money to small towns but nowhere near enough! whereas in England its probbaly the same situation, however all the money is going to london -for example, football stadiums and olympic grounds! The average wage in Dumfries and Galloway is 9% below the national average and 17% below the english - which therefore after my research shows that I am working the same hours and doing the same job for less money than those in England...
...and to be frank - it really pee's me off! 
|
mairead
|
I'm a nationalist and the reason is simple. I love my country and detest the second hand manner with which it and its people have has been treated for the past 300 years.
'Prosperity to Scotland', and that will only come when this damnable union goes.
I just don't understand those who look but never see, listen yet never hear, and think the union was and is good for our nation, the most ancient in Europe...
|
Babygael
|
TOTALLY agree! 
|
SLG
|
The way I see it, there is a very broad breakdown amongst Unionsts something like the following...
- There are 'principled' Unionists. Usually very inconsistent. The argument is that the British Union is the first step towards world unity. Aventinian would fall into this category. Although I would expect these people to back the Lib Dems rather than the Tories.
There is a very fine line between them and many independence supporters who would argue that with the advent of the EU the UK is no longer necessary. To deny independence for Scotland within the EU is like denying the need for local councils to exist and have them all run from Westminster because local government is divisive.
I guess these people have the same world view, but whether they identify with Scotland or with Britain first will determine their feeling towards Scottish independence.
- Then there are the British nationalists. Pretty self-explanitory. We're all one country and Scotland is just another region. For them Holyrood should be scrapped and we should go back to a unitary British state. I expect these people to mostly vote for Labour or Tory depending on their background and location.
Both these positions, while mibee not insignificant, are not large in numbers IMO.
- Then there are the Scots who are happy and proud that Scotland is a nation are held back from supporting independence. There are a number of reasons for this, such as the scare-mongering, the 'we're too small' attitude, or the opinion that we need to work together with England in a way that independence would hinder.
In my experience, these people recognise that the present settlement falls far short of the ideal though and support more powers, yet fall short of supporting independence.
I think that most people who would vote against independence IMO fall into this camp. I think they are open minded enough to accept independence as a realistic way forward though and if it happens, would accept it and move on. I probably wouldn't even go as far as calling them Unionist, but they are a major constituency in keeping the Union in place.
|
Corby Boy
|
Good summary SLG.
In my experience the breakdown is even simpler.
There are two types of Scottish unionists that I have met down here in England.
1) Those who believe the scare mongering (but are proud of being Scots nevertheless, and are vehement during sporting events).
2) Orangemen.
That's it.
Pip, keep the momentum up my friend because it will help the cause north of the border, also two pulls will rip the union up quicker I do believe rather than just the one . It is good to see a true English patriot, who is not anti-Scottish. Unfortunately, there are too many English Nat's who hate the 'auld enemy' , as are still too many Scots Nationalists who hate the English. They all need to get a life.
|
Aventinian
|
| Pip wrote: | | Quote: | | Why would you call it false? |
Because when it comes down to the test it fractures almost at once. Many Englishmen go to Scotland thinking of themselves as British, but I haven't met one who has come back thinking so. Can you suggest someone who is a truly British artist or even a truly British work of art, that incorporates the disparate identities of the entire island? |
Can you name an artist who has incorporated all the cultures of Scotland either? Gaelic, Lowlands, urban, rural, Zetlanderish etc? If people are going to comment on their own culture, its probably in the scope of how they understand it.
As I consider it, most English people in Scotland refer to themselves as British more often than English when they’re here for obvious reasons of assimilating into the local culture.
| Quote: | | If questioned they knew the difference, but it never seemed a very important one. |
And I don’t consider it a very important one either, when considering national issues. If I’m referring to someone of the same national community as me, I won’t give a lot of thought as to whether I say Scottish or British. But obviously for political matters it’s a bit different, but then again the man on the Clapham omnibus has never had much of a political bent.
| Quote: | | From the 1950s a real effort was made to replace the use of 'England' with 'Britain' in the context of 'the country' or 'my nationality' and it was accepted in a generous spirit of political correctness, (with hindsight this was a mistake IMHO). A truly British project would have elevated Wales (and let's not even mention Cornwall!) to equal status within a federal union or integrated the entire island into a single nation state, with one set of laws and one all-encompassing identity. Neither of these did or could have happened. |
Wales was elevated in the 1950s. Cardiff was proclaimed as the Welsh capital in 1955, along with it being considered effectively a nation and the Wales and Berwick Act, which effectively extended the legal definition of ‘England’ to include those two areas was repealed insofar as it extended to Wales in 1967.
A united country doesn’t require a united nation.
| Quote: | | Imagine for a moment that a truly cretinous government allowed Sharia law to be practiced in an inner city area of an English city. The English reaction would be massive, immediate and furious. |
That’s because Muslims are far from popular in the public’s perception these days; Sharia law is in many ways revolting to our sense of morality and conflicts with our sense of what law should be in a liberal, Christian country.
| Quote: | | Now imagine that an equally cretinous government decided to impose English law onto Scotland. Do you think that in such a situation there would be any comparable moral outrage in England, because I certainly don't. If people were truly British then those 'Britons' in England would hold Scots law in equal esteem. |
It’s a very tenous comparison. I don’t think many English people are going to be bothered by what does not affect them, what they have ruling over them and which is not particularly different from what existed prior.
Equally the English haven’t much cared about the cross-over of Scottish law into their system (and vice-versa of course). Take for example their concept of negligence, totally founded on a Scottish case, or the idea of open contracts derived from the Scottish concept of promise.
| x_scotsdream_x wrote: | In my opinion Pip, the guy you knew who said that scotland feels undervalued - for me, probably hit the nail on the head there. As a nationalist, i vow for independance because for me, i dont see any reason why Scotland cannae stand on her own two feet, i hate the small mindedness of the English media and i hate the fact that the only real money coming into Scotland is to the city's - where they delegate certain money to small towns but nowhere near enough! whereas in England its probbaly the same situation, however all the money is going to london -for example, football stadiums and olympic grounds! The average wage in Dumfries and Galloway is 9% below the national average and 17% below the english - which therefore after my research shows that I am working the same hours and doing the same job for less money than those in England...
...and to be frank - it really pee's me off! |
You’ve made a huge logical flaw here. On one hand, you say Scotland is undervalued and on another you say ‘English is probably in the same situation’; then you contrast your income in a poor part of Scotland with the English average – that’s not an acceptable comparison, particularly in a nation which has London included in its statistics. Maybe if you found the figures for Cornwall or the like, you’d be better placed.
Equally, you’re working the same hours/job for less money than many people in Scotland, I’d imagine.
Yes, spending is distributed unevenly towards cities, but so what? Scotland gets more funding per capita than England – and it’s the Scottish Parliament that is responsible for almost all relevant expenditure. Scotland is not undervalued, Dumfries and Galloway is – and unless you’re a Dumfries Nationalist, then your political ideology will make no difference.
The ‘own two feet’ argument is nonsense too. If you take it a bit more literally, it’s effectively an Anarchist position.
|
Jimbo
|
There is another kind of unionist. The New Labour MP.
New Labour do not want Scottish independence as they would lose too many Scottish seats which in turn could lose them their majority in Westminster. In every election prior to 1997, if it hadn't been for the Scottish contingent the Labour Party would never have gotten into power.
As for the Scots who stands for New Labour, they know that they have a more than even chance of being elected than anyone from any of the other political party's. Their interest in representing Scotland is minimal. They look south for advancement and can't wait to get their noses in the trough. When did you ever see or hear of a New Labour MP actually fight Scotland's corner in Westminster as opposed to following the party line. When it came out last week that Whitehall actually spoke against Scotland's interests in Europe no Scottish New Labour MP wanted to give an honest opinion on the matter.
|
Aventinian
|
| Jimbo wrote: | | New Labour do not want Scottish independence as they would lose too many Scottish seats which in turn could lose them their majority in Westminster. In every election prior to 1997, if it hadn't been for the Scottish contingent the Labour Party would never have gotten into power. |
1945, Labour had a majority of over a hundred MPs. 1969, Harold Wilson got a majority of just under a hundred. Between 1969 and 1997, there were only two elections which the Labour Party won, both in the same year, and one of them was only won due to the lack of proportionality in our electoral system (the Tories received the popular vote).
So in short, your contention is crap.
| Quote: | | As for the Scots who stands for New Labour, they know that they have a more than even chance of being elected than anyone from any of the other political party's. |
That's very cynical. For inasmuch as I disagree with them, I have come across a good few Labourites who care deeply about the lot of the people.
| Quote: | | When it came out last week that Whitehall actually spoke against Scotland's interests in Europe no Scottish New Labour MP wanted to give an honest opinion on the matter. |
The matter would've been decided in cabinet, which is anonymous for obvious reasons.
|
Jimbo
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Jimbo wrote: | | New Labour do not want Scottish independence as they would lose too many Scottish seats which in turn could lose them their majority in Westminster. In every election prior to 1997, if it hadn't been for the Scottish contingent the Labour Party would never have gotten into power. |
1945, Labour had a majority of over a hundred MPs. 1969, Harold Wilson got a majority of just under a hundred. Between 1969 and 1997, there were only two elections which the Labour Party won, both in the same year, and one of them was only won due to the lack of proportionality in our electoral system (the Tories received the popular vote).
So in short, your contention is crap.
| Quote: | | As for the Scots who stands for New Labour, they know that they have a more than even chance of being elected than anyone from any of the other political party's. |
That's very cynical. For inasmuch as I disagree with them, I have come across a good few Labourites who care deeply about the lot of the people.
| Quote: | | When it came out last week that Whitehall actually spoke against Scotland's interests in Europe no Scottish New Labour MP wanted to give an honest opinion on the matter. |
The matter would've been decided in cabinet, which is anonymous for obvious reasons. |
Yep, the bit about the Scottish contingent is crap. It should have read Celtic contingent. As for the 1969 election, there wasn't one that year. It was 1970 and the Tories won. I think you're making this up as you go. As for you knowing some who care about the lot of the people. Have the people put something into an auction? Re the cabinet.: I can see why they'd like to be anonymous. You come across quite rude. Did you take this post as a personal jab at you? I hope not and I shall take it that it just your style of putting yourself across.
Best wishes
Jim
|
Aventinian
|
| Jimbo wrote: | | As for the 1969 election, there wasn't one that year. It was 1970 and the Tories won. I think you're making this up as you go. |
No, I made a simple typo by writing 1969 instead of 1966. If you actually thought of when Harold Wilson got into government with a decent majority I'm sure you'd have realised my simple error - look it up for your self, my numbers are spot on: a majority of 96. It was of course Ted Heath who won in 1970.
| Quote: | | As for you knowing some who care about the lot of the people. Have the people put something into an auction? |
Did you get political-themed crackers at Christmas this year or something? 
| Quote: | | Did you take this post as a personal jab at you? I hope not and I shall take it that it just your style of putting yourself across. |
I come across as rude very often when people make completely unfounded claims that can be seen through by anyone with a memory that stretches back for over twenty years or can refer with ease to any of a countless number of books on British politics. If you're going to lie or pretend to know something you don't, at least make it vaguely convincing.
So you were wrong, fine, we'll move on. No harm done, you're far from my least favourite person on this forum.
|
Pip
|
| Quote: | | Pip, keep the momentum up my friend because it will help the cause north of the border, also two pulls will rip the union up quicker I do believe rather than just the one . It is good to see a true English patriot, who is not anti-Scottish. Unfortunately, there are too many English Nat's who hate the 'auld enemy' , as are still too many Scots Nationalists who hate the English. They all need to get a life. |
Cheers Corby Boy. You're spot on that there's too little common purpose between the Nationalists of different flags. I think it's important for all nationalists to grasp the concerns of their counterparts and the varying ways that the union harms the different nations. We also need give each other plenty of space on the divisive issues and to recognise that no one is really benefiting in the long run. Too many nats are motivated by hatred of 'the enemy' than love of their own.
|
Pip
|
| Quote: | | Can you name an artist who has incorporated all the cultures of Scotland either? Gaelic, Lowlands, urban, rural, Zetlanderish etc? If people are going to comment on their own culture, its probably in the scope of how they understand it. |
Well it's a little difficult, as I'm English, so it's hard to gauge the extent to which these things actually are different. My first impression of Ian Rankin and Hugh Macdiarmid is "They're Scottish" so I may not be the best person to answer it. I've never been further north than Dundee and my impressions of the Highlands come via Scott, Stevenson and Glen Morangie. Having said that the debate about the Highlands/Lowlands divide seems to have been a very long running theme in Scottish writing.
My question is, and perhaps I should have worded it differently, that while I can point to artists who are very definitely English, very much of England and who do address the lines of division in England, there is no such body for Britain. Nor, in my view, could there be, as the divisions between England, Scotland and Wales cannot be crossed arbitrarily, in ways that the internal divisions can.
| Quote: | | And I don’t consider it a very important one either, when considering national issues. If I’m referring to someone of the same national community as me, I won’t give a lot of thought as to whether I say Scottish or British. But obviously for political matters it’s a bit different, but then again the man on the Clapham omnibus has never had much of a political bent. |
But can you honestly say that you are not in a small minority in doing so? Clearly this board isn't a representative sample of Scottish society, but in everyday life how many Scots can confuse Scotland and Britain? Even when saying 'this country' or 'across the nation' they are very clear whether they mean Scotland or Britain in a way that a great many English people haven't been.
| Quote: | It’s a very tenous comparison. I don’t think many English people are going to be bothered by what does not affect them, what they have ruling over them and which is not particularly different from what existed prior.
Equally the English haven’t much cared about the cross-over of Scottish law into their system (and vice-versa of course). Take for example their concept of negligence, totally founded on a Scottish case, or the idea of open contracts derived from the Scottish concept of promise. |
A fair amount of borrowing goes on between legal systems, but I'm talking about the imposition of entirely alien laws. In practice the great majority of people affected in the Sharia enclave would be Muslims, (and on this basis many deluded semi-traitors and fifth columnists argue that it would be acceptable). English law and Scottish law are equally British, but it is only those things that are English that the so-called Britons in England respect. If Scots children are learning about Wat Tyler and Henry VIII (not sure if this is still the case, certainly was) then children in England should probably have William the Lion in their history curriculum. I certainly don't want that, and nor would the Brits. The difference between us is that I don't want the same imposed in Scotland.
|
Jimbo
|
Aventinian wrote
No, I made a simple typo by writing 1969 instead of 1966. If you actually thought of when Harold Wilson got into government with a decent majority I'm sure you'd have realised my simple error - look it up for your self, my numbers are spot on: a majority of 96. It was of course Ted Heath who won in 1970.
Hi Aventinian
I thought it was 98 (majority). BTW your rudeness is forgiven.
|
|
|
|