Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 812

There was, apparently, a recent poll in a local paper for the Berwick locality about whether Berwick should be moved to Scotland. Somebody sent a message to a discussion forum I'm on, saying "Various English 'nationalists' have been voting on this, so perhaps, you might want a vote yourself".

Well, no, I don't. Leave them English Nationalists to it.

We were also urged on that forum to " Vote early vote often. Wink

"

And prove what, exactly? That Scottish nationalist outsiders are more effective at rigging this local poll than English nationalist outsiders?

I don't find this constructive at all. I find it completely the opposite of constructive, in fact. I think this sort of thing is an obstacle to independence for Scotland.

I don't care very much whether Berwick is part of Scotland or part of England. I do care about anything which is likely to delay or obstruct independence for Scotland, and playing up this business is sure to do that. Anyway, it is far from clear just what it is that folk are being asked to vote on. The recent prominence of this question came about because of changes in local government administration in England. The Berwick District Council was to be abolished and instead local government for that area was to be based at Morpeth, sixty miles away. So then some Liberal Democrat MP had the bright idea of Berwick District Council coming under the Scottish Parliament instead. Note that this Liberal Democrat idea didn't just mean the historic town of "Berwick", on the north bank of the River Tweed, it didn't even just mean the modern town of "Berwick", which includes a large area on the southern ("English") bank of the Tweed, it would have meant extending Scottish administration TWENTY MILES into rural northern England. I can see that this daft idea might make a kind of sense for Liberal Democrats. After all, it would mean that an area where Liberal Democrat support is strong, and support for the SNP (and other Scottish-based parties) is non-existent, would be represented at Holyrood, thus strengthening the Lib-Dems there. I don't see any reason why advocates of independence for Scotland should support this nonsense. Yes, it did get some support from Berwick folk (and even from folk in the area of England up to twenty miles south of Berwick). But this support was pragmatic, and not based on any kind of nationalism. The reasoning was, they have better schools, and a better NHS, in Scotland. If we come under the Scottish Parliament, then we'll get better schools and a better NHS too. Of course we don't want to be part of an independent Scotland, but that probably won't happen, and anyway us having a say in the matter will make it less likely to happen.

So, yes, I can see why a Liberal Democrat MP (himself from Berwick) thought this a good idea, and I can see why it might appeal to some of his LibDem colleagues, and I can see why (on purely pragmatic grounds) the contrast between the NHS on one side of the border and the NHS on the other side of the border might make some folk in the north of England (not just in Berwick) favour an administrative change of this nature, but I can see no reason at all why anybody who wants Scotland to be independent, and as soon as possible, should go along with this.

Let's leave administrative matters relating to the NHS aside for a moment, and consider football. Nothing brings out national sentiment like football does, and, when England is doing well in international footballing competitions, you can see thousands of England flags flying in Berwick. There is no reason to think there will be any sudden change in that footballing allegiance. So yes, I can see why that LibDem MP thinks Berwick coming under the Scottish Parliament is a good idea, and I can see why folk in the north of England might prefer to come under the Scottish NHS. The thing that puzzles me is, why would any supporter of independence for Scotland want to give thousands of England supporters a vote in a referendum on whether Scotland should be independent or not? Also, why would any supporter of independence for Scotland want to make the independence negotiations longer and more complicated?

azzuri · Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:34 am Post subject:

I don't really care about it either. The border between Scotland and England is well-defined, Berwick hasn't officially been a part of Scotland for hundreds of years, why complicate the issue?...
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

"There is British nationalism or Scottish nationalism. I prefer the civic nationalism of small nations that has been expressed through the independence of a dozen European nations of similar size to Scotland in the past 100 years. They have prospered and I'd choose the tolerance and peace of Norway and Ireland over Trident and the illegal Iraq war any day. - Alex Salmond

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

carol · Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:07 am Post subject:

to me it would be up to the people of Berwick to take a stance if they wish to be part of Scotland, let them get on with it.

azzuri · Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject:

...would it not then also be up to the people of Scotland whether Berwick was to become a part of it or not?
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

"There is British nationalism or Scottish nationalism. I prefer the civic nationalism of small nations that has been expressed through the independence of a dozen European nations of similar size to Scotland in the past 100 years. They have prospered and I'd choose the tolerance and peace of Norway and Ireland over Trident and the illegal Iraq war any day. - Alex Salmond

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 812

Carol wrote "to me it would be up to the people of Berwick"

The people of WHICH "Berwick" ?

In my original post, I pointed out that "Berwick" can have at least three different meanings, and possibly more than that. Do you mean it is "up to" the people of the historic town of Berwick on the north bank of the River Tweed, do you mean it is "up to" the people of the modern town of Berwick which includes a large area on the southern ("English") bank of the Tweed, or do you mean, as that Liberal Democrat MP meant, it is up to the people of Berwick District Council which extends twenty miles into rural northern England?

And whichever one you meant ........

Azzurri says " ...would it not then also be up to the people of Scotland whether Berwick was to become a part of it or not?"

So even if ANY of the Berwicks should ever express a clear desire to become part of Scotland, the people of Scotland would still have to be consulted, and their answer can not be taken for granted, so this is obviously likely to be a very long and complicated process.

"to me it would be up to the people of Berwick to take a stance if they wish to be part of Scotland"

Part of which Scotland?

Do you mean part of the devolved area of the United Kingdom which has a noticeably better Health Service than south of the border, or do you mean part of an independent Scotland? These are two very different questions, and might receive two very different answers from the people of Berwick (whichever "Berwick" you mean).

"let them get on with it" - get on with WHAT ? Get on with seeking to become part of the devolved area of the UK which has a noticeably better Health Service than south of the border, or get on with campaigning to be part of an independent Scotland?

Whichever "Berwick" you meant, there is no real sign of any great enthusiasm from the people of Berwick to become part of an independent Scotland. Therefore, campaigners for independence for Scotland should not allow themselves to be side-tracked by this distraction. It will be much simpler to get independence than to settle any "claim" regarding the status of Berwick, therefore, whether there should ever be any change in the status of Berwick (or not) is a question that can wait until after independence. Independence first.

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: Re: Let Berwick stay English

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 812

Agentmancuso asks "What about the thousands of England supporters who live in Scotland?"

Any referendum on independence for Scotland will, of course, be conducted on the same electoral basis as the earlier referendum on setting up the Scottish Parliament in the first place. That is to say, it will be open to everybody who is on the electoral register here in Scotland, regardless of where in the world they may have come from in the first place. So, like everybody else in Scotland, England supporters who live here will have a vote in any referendum. Probably many of them would vote for Scotland to remain part of the UK - but by no means all of them. For instance, the woman who is north east Scotland area organiser of the Scottish Independence Convention is English, and I know other English folk resident in Scotland who also actively support independence, so I don't think we should make too many assumptions about which way folk are likely to vote. But regarding the daft suggestion from a Liberal Democrat MP to extend the area controlled by the Scottish Parliament twenty miles into England, I think this is objectionable on many grounds. One of the grounds (though perhaps not the most important one as far as I personally am concerned) is the sheer stupidity of seeking to include in Scotland a whole large area where virtually all of the people not only consider themselves to be English, but also consider themselves to be living in England.

Agentmancuso asks regarding England supporters who live in Scotland "will they have already been weeded out?"

No.

Entitlement to vote should be based only on residence, and not on any other criteria.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 812

Agentmancuso suggests that "it should be up to the people of the United Kingdom to decide if Scotland should cease to be a part".

Not according to Margaret Thatcher, when she was prime minister. She said "of course it is entirely up to the people of Scotland to decide if they want to be separated from the United Kingdom".

And not according to John Major, when he was prime minister, either. He repeated Maggie's statement almost word for word.

Of course they both went on to say that they hoped the people of Scotland would always want to be part of the United Kingdom, and that they would do their best to try to persuade the people of Scotland to always want this. But the important point, nevertheless, is that they both stated that this was entirely up to the people of Scotland.

Those assurances, given by two successive prime ministers of the UK , were not contradicted at the time by the leaders of the opposition parties, and they have never at any time since then been contradicted by any subsequent prime minister, or by any leader of any major UK party.

Yes, at the time when these assurances were given, they didn't think it was likely to happen. But you can't move the goalposts just because it looks like the opposing team might score.

kevin04 · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 06 Mar 2007 Posts: 329

It's up to the folks of the town what they want to be, I knew a family from Berwick the husband and wife were Scottish and the kids felt English. It's probably a complex place.

I don't see Berwick as Scottish at this present time but if they want to join our Republic in a good few years, why not..

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 812

Kevin04 wrote "It's up to the folks of the town what they want to be".

Wrong, for two reasons.

First reason, in the first post on this topic, I pointed out that "Berwick" can have at least three different meanings, and possibly more than that. Do you mean it is "up to" the people of the historic town of Berwick on the north bank of the River Tweed, do you mean it is "up to" the people of the modern town of Berwick which includes a large area on the southern ("English") bank of the Tweed, or do you mean, as the Liberal Democrat MP who first suggested changing the border meant, it is up to the people of Berwick District Council which extends twenty miles into rural northern England?

And whichever one you meant ........

As Azzurri pointed out " ...would it not then also be up to the people of Scotland whether Berwick was to become a part of it or not?"

So even if ANY of the Berwicks should ever express a clear desire to become part of Scotland (which I think unlikely, but okay, let's accept it might not be impossible), the people of Scotland would still have to be consulted, and their answer can not be taken for granted.

Personally, I regard this as an irrelevant distraction, quite deliberately raised by someone of unionist views, from focussing on the need for a referendum on independence for Scotland.

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 812

I wrote "Agentmancuso suggests that 'it should be up to the people of the United Kingdom to decide if Scotland should cease to be a part'".

Agentmancuso says "I suggested no such thing".

True, you phrased it as a question, but in such a way as could imply approval. If you don't think such a decision should be up to the people of the UK as a whole, then, on this particular point, if on nothing else, you are in agreement with Maggie Thatcher, John Major, and myself. More importantly, neither Tony Blair, nor Gordon Brown, nor any of the numerous leaders of the Conservative party since Maggie (I forget exactly how many) have contradicted that position, so any attempt to do so now really would look like shifting the goalposts.

"Another odd sporting analogy".

Personally, I have virtually zero interest in football. But whichever analogy we use, going back on what Maggie and Major said, at this late stage, would be seen both here and internationally as changing the rules because your opponents are winning.

Holebender · Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: Re: Let Berwick stay English

agentmancuso · Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 12:41 pm Post subject:

agentmancuso · Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: Let Berwick stay English

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 812

Holebender told Agentmancuso "it might be interesting to see your views of the connection between supporting England in sports and attending a private school".

Agentmancuso avoids Holebender's point by saying "Ask Mr Coull, it's his idea".

No it isn't, it was Agentmancuso who made this connection, not me.

I am well aware that Princess Anne (who certainly didn't attend the local comprehensive) is the President of the Scottish Rugby Union and attends Scotland games (including Scotland versus England games) and enthusiastically joins in the singing of "Flower of Scotland".

Agentmancuso refers to "a long standing debate between Mr Coull and myself, in which he expressed the opinion that most people who objected to nationalism did so because they were either a) English or b) "anglified" or c) had attended a private school".

If Agentmancuso, or anybody else, cares to search the archives of this Our Scotland forum, they will be unable to find any such statement from me, because I never made any such statement.

I am well aware that "most people" in Scotland who support the Union are neither English nor particularly anglified. I have relatives who have taken part in Orange parades and who are neither English nor anglified. My own father, when he was just a youth, in the bygone days of yore, wore an orange sash. (Mind you, in the last general election before he died he voted SNP.)

It is also a complete distortion of my views because I am well aware that Gordon Brown is Scottish, while Dot Jessiman, North East Scotland organiser of the Scottish Independence Convention, is English.

It is also a complete distortion of my views because (unlike Holebender) I have never in my life described myself as a "nationalist". I have some friends who are nationalists, and I have some friends who are not. I count amongst my friends people who have strong objections to all nationalism (from an internationalist, libertarian socialist point of view) and who certainly didn't attend private school. Therefore it makes little sense to claim I had made any such categorisation of those with "objections to nationalism".

As part of the history degree course of study which I undertook in my late fifties at Dundee university I studied the history of Scottish Education. This subject was taught by Dr. Lawrence Williams, who came from Yorkshire. At the start of the course, Dr Williams explained that, when he first came to Dundee (to teach on other aspects of history) he didn't even know that there was such a thing as "Scottish Education". The first time he heard the phrase, he had to have it explained to him. However, he became interested in the subject, did a lot of research, and ended up teaching us about it.

This course in the History of Scottish Education, taught by an Englishman, led me to view private, fee-paying boarding schools, (which are perversely referred to as 'public schools') as being more-or-less anglified and anglifying imports, with little connection to the mainstream of Scottish education.

Now, of course it is possible for those who have been through that form of indoctrination to, nevertheless, become supporters of independence for Scotland. I believe one of the latest examples of this is the conservative historian Alan Massey. Nevertheless, in general, the general tendency of such private, fee-paying boarding school education does tend to be to reduce "Scottishness" and to encourage support for the "British" status quo.

But that is a rather more subtle point of view than the one which Agentmancuso (wrongly) attributes to me.