The Scots: No Longer British First? Nae!
The Scots lost the Battle of Falkirk (1298) during the First War of Scottish Independence. Some 700 years later, they may prevail for good.
Three hundred years ago this week, the marriage of England and Scotland was sealed by treaty. This union was unpopular in Scotland then and is unpopular now, and many Scots say that it is time for a divorce.
My mongrel pedigree includes large dollops of Scotch and English blood, and I have a deep fondness for both peoples. But in the 10 years since the Scottish parliament that was dissolved by the 1707 treaty reconvened because of the initiative of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labor government, I have come around to the view that an independent Scotland would be a good thing for Scots and not a terrible thing for England.
Blair called the recreation of the Scottish parliament “devolution,†a fancy term for covering Labor’s political flank. (There also are provincial parliaments in Wales and Northern Ireland.) But things haven’t worked out that way and the Scottish National Party (SNP) could out ballot Labor in an election being held today after spending years in the political wilderness as a fringe group.
Blair, born and educated in Scotland, has called the drive for Scottish independence “pure self-indulgence†and says the impact on business would be disastrous. Gordon Brown, Blair’s successor-in-waiting, also is a Scot and calls independence “dangerous and disastrous,†and says that as PM he would find it impossible to work with an SNP-led provincial government.
Surprisingly, at least to those who do not follow British politics, two key issues surrounding independence are the Iraq war and oil. The SNP and Scots in general were against the war from the outset, while the province of 6 million is rich in North Sea oil.
At the heart of calls for a referendum on independence – which a vast majority of Scots tell pollsters that they favor and would be a logical result on an SNP victory — is a renewed sense of Scottish nationalism and deep dislike of being taxed and ruled by politicians in London. Independence-minded Scots point to the economic success of Ireland, which won independence from Britain in 1921, and say it could happen there, as well, if it were able to woo foreign investment on its own.
The English are not so sanguine about the potential breakup of Great Britain.
They note that the Edinburgh parliament gets $60 billion a year in the form of a block grant from the central government, as well as other economic arguments, none of them particularly convincing.
Beyond economic considerations is a deep-rooted feeling that the union of England and Scotland is a primary reason for Britain’s greatness. Scots and English alike once considered themselved British first, but that is no longer the case for many if not most Scots.
First the loss of the empire and now this. What’s an Englishman to do?
Share This
Related Posts
-
‘Having Sown the Wind … America Reaps the Whirlwind’ – Iraqi and Jordanian Reactions to Boston
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
The Great Reinhart/Rogoff Error
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
The Invasion of Our Nation Goes Unpunished (Al-Iraq News, Iraq)
Posted on Apr 15, 2013
-
Why the Right ‘Hates’ Latin America (Carta Maior, Brazil)
Posted on Mar 13, 2013
While on a walk on a cold foggy morning at the Royal Mile in Edinburgh (1975), I greeted an elderly lady walking with the help of a stick. “How wonderful, the English indeed are fond of their morning constitutional,” I said cheerfully.
The lady suddenly stopped in her tracks and looked me in amazement: “Oh laddie! We are not English…We are Scottish. Haven’t you read history? All the wars that we have fought…”
I got a really long lecture over a cup of steaming tea…And would never forget that lesson in my life!!!
I lived in Scotland for a year (1993-94) and I can tell you that nationalism there is real. That was before the devolution parliament was established, mind you, but Scots are insistent that Scotland comes before Britain.
To the Scots, the modern EU would make Scotland perfectly palatable as an independent nation. I just don’t think the EU wants yet another tiny country to support.
60 billion a year is a pretty convincing reason to me. But I am sure the Scots probably think the money will still come even when they are independent.
Quebec, in Canada, is a good analogy for this, as they have a strong separtist party. In the 1990s they almost managed this…with a poll famously showing how most Quebecers thought when they separated from Canada they would still receive Canadian welfare, unemployment, medical care, and be able to use Canadian money and passports.
But what will the English do without Scotland. The Scots are the only people whose cuisine the English — a people who invented the deep-fried Mars bar, I would remind folks — can legitimately mock.
Dr. Johnson – the inventor of the English dictionary – was a profound hater of Scotland and things Scottish. He had some great lines:
“The noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!”
He would not allow Scotland to derive any credit from Lord Mansfield; for he was educated in England. “Much may be made of a Scotchman, if he be caught young.”
Johnson, when asked by a Scot what he thought of Scotland:
“That it is a very vile country, to be sure, Sir”
“Well, Sir!” replied the Scot, “God made it.”
Johnson: “Certainly he did; but we must always remember that he made it for Scotchmen, and comparisons are odious. God made hell too.”
Marlowe!
> Quebec, in Canada, is a
> good analogy for this,
> as they have a strong
> separtist party. In the
> 1990s they almost
> managed this…with a
> poll famously showing
> how most Quebecers
> thought when they
> separated from Canada
> they would still receive
> Canadian welfare,
> unemployment, medical
> care, and be able to use
> Canadian money and
> passports.
Absolutely! “Divorce with bedroom privileges.”
I love Quebec and wouldn’t be bothered in the slightest to see it become independent (the eastern, Maritime ROC wouldn’t like it, on the other hand, would feel like Bangladesh). But so many of the people there are as you have described, unrealistic.
Related to this (you probably know this but other readers here may well not) is the question of secession. Why does a referendum on secession have anything other than a clear question on secession? “Do you wish to secede from Canada?” or “Do you wish to become an independent nation?” count. Some activists, as it has been said, would claim “Do you like gravy on your roast beef?” is a clear question on the issue of secession (“separation”).
The one thing I’ll point out in defense of the Quebecois is that many of them know the question isn’t clear, but they still vote Oui in order to cast a no-confidence vote on the government at the time in Ottawa and simply to be heard.
The Scots seem to be among the few minorities left at whom fun can be poked without accusations of bias and hatred.
The worst thing they could do is become independent, at least while Bush is still in office. According to our friends on the left, he would make up evidence that the Scots were developing biological warfare capabilities to put doen a PIct uprising, and trying to buy nuclear technology to use against England. He would then invade the country to replace their government, and assign Halliburton to rebuild Scotland and run their oil fields for them.
test test
Aye-aye-aye! Dick Cheney in a kilt!
“…evidence that the Scots were developing biological warfare capabilities” =
Haggis!!!