Monday 7 May 2012

A positive case for the Union

My last piece has been labelled, by some nationalists, as ''negative''.  I believe - increasingly - that this is a default position. If anyone questions the SNP or its (in my view) somewhat sketchy vision of a future independent they are labelled negative.

Moreover, let's face it, there's plenty of negativity from both sides. The genius of the SNP campaign thus far is to talk about relentless positivity regardless of what is actually happening. This isn't a criticism - I admire the politics!

Let us put that to one side.

If it is a positive case for the Union they want, a positive case they shall get. I should note that nationalists are likely to disagree with this. That is fine. Good politics is built on disagreement. What I hope they will see is a positive elucidation of unionist thinking.

It will not be a forensic accounting exercise. That may come another night. My issue with economic arguments is that by their nature they end up being negative (x is better off than y is both positive and negative after all).  



Identity matters
I believe that many people in Scotland view themselves as British. The majority of these will see themselves as Scottish and British. I concede, of course, that many in Scotland do not view themselves as such - that is their right, and it is to respected here. However, we should not brush under the carpet that many do view themselves as - to some extent - British. Being a nation state is about rather more than having a defined population, a flag and whatever else is jotted down in the provisions of the Montevideo Convention.

People tend to dismiss stuffy appeals to a shared history, a shared culture and the shared achievements of the nations of these islands in the wintry North Atlantic. I am not at all sure why they do.

History, culture and identity are of fundamental importance to all nations and all states. What is a nation if it isn't the sum of the acts of those who have gone before? I will focus a little on that sort of ground but I hope to try to anchor the debate in the present.

We will all define Britishness differently (as, for that matter, we all define Scottishness differently). I'm not going to spend time defining a list of values that I think equate to Britishness (because I always feel such lists can be equated to the identity of most peoples). Away from an appeal to values, for me Britishness is about having ties across the borders that cross these islands. It shows an intangible connection that matters to many of us. More Scots live in England than ever before. The English are the biggest minority group in Scotland. The majority of Scots have relatives south of the Border. This might seem irrelevant but it shows to me that increasingly we are not a separate people, living separate lives, thinking separate things. We are increasingly mixed.
 We are increasingly, truly British.

And it isn't just individual people. It is communities. Glasgow is a special place, a dear place, but many of the issues it faces are similar to those of Liverpool and Newcastle. Liverpool is remarkably similar to Glasgow. People who say otherwise haven't spent enough time in either city. More fool them.

The mill towns of the North of England are similar to many of the towns in Ayrshire and the Lanarkshires. The hill farmers of Dumfries and Galloway are remarkably similar to the hill farmers of Cumbria and of Snowdonia. We have more in common than the colour on our passport. Their needs are similar. Their wants are similar.

This shared history, these cross-border ties matter. They matter, so much, that we increasingly hear about ''a social union'' when Alex Salmond discusses the topic. That isn't a criticism of Mr Salmond. I am pleased he has noticed that the social union exists between the peoples of this sceptred isle. I think that is stronger as part of a nation state. This, again, is part of his wise strategy to ensure moderates and markets are not spooked by independence.

A chronic failure?

I've heard more than my fill - and I am sure you have too - of people saying ''Scotland is a subsidy junkie''. Moreover, I've equally had my fill of Scots making the argument the other way when factoring in oil revenue (real or imagined). This negates the whole point. In any state, be it  Britain or an independent Scotland (or, for that matter, within the EU), money will transfer from the rich to the poor, from one area of the country to another, via taxation. It is not a sense of shame that 'x takes from y'. It should be a mark of pride in any civilised society.

These are the sorts of things we should be proud of - and there are others. Together we have achieved things. Things that have shocked and shaped the world.

As Bill Bryson put it ''What an enigma Britain will seem to historians when they look back on the second half of the twentieth century. Here is a country that fought and won a noble war, dismantled an empire in a generally benign and enlightened way, created a far-seeing welfare state - in short, did nearly everything right - and then spent the rest of the century looking at itself as a chronic failure''.

I know that many will miss the word ''generally'' and focus on the mistakes of the empire. He is, however, broadly correct.

The narrative of time...


The empire forms part of a wider narrative that we hear today: the union was originally a merger between two states which was beneficial to both. Over the years, we did many great things together but as the
 esprit de corps of the 2nd World War withers and as the Empire recedes into memory it is natural to think perhaps a de-merger is necessary? That such an act would be good for the people of England and for the people of Scotland? The Union was a useful construct but now it has no use.

I disagree fundamentally with this narrative and this analysis. I may view the union as a merger (I do not view Scotland as a surly or unruly tenant nor do I view England as a domineering husband) but the merger has 
changed each and every one of us and each of its constituent parts. Scotland is a proud place but it has shaped, and been shaped by, the union as has England, Wales and Northern Ireland. At its best, the union is four nations - and the people of them - working together for the betterment of all. That has been true for centuries and is just as true now. Those who argue that Britain is an artificial construct are surely correct but is it one that the majority of us care for. After all, most nations are artificial constructs.

We have achieved more than we could have done apart and that continues to be the case to this day. That is not something to be buried under the carpet. It is something to be cherished. Something to be damned proud about.

But what have we achieved? Well here are a few...

  • The NHS - the vision of an Englishman and a Welshman - has helped us all. Scotland benefited from the vision of Bevan and Beveridge. 
  • The BBC - the vision of a Scotsman - has helped us all, and many beyond our shores. 
  • The Civil Service - much derided as red tape and bureaucracy but, still, the finest around at its best. Kickstarted by a Londoner and a man from the West Country.
  • Our armed forces - you may disagree with the causes that they are often sent to fight in but they are, pound for pound, the finest forces in the world. Scots have always played an enormous part in that.
  • Our soft-power in the world - something that never gets mentioned. It is my understanding that Britain, for example, was the second largest donor (in terms of total amount) to the Haiti earthquake victims.
  • Our economy - built by us all, and as perilously balanced as it may be - is the 7th largest economy in the world. These little islands, this islands off France, house some of the richest people in the world.
And works continues across borders - and not just for headline projects like the Supreme Court. For one - a tiny one - the steady flow of Scottish brains to English universities and the steady flow of English brains the other way is a simple one example. People may say ''but we'd still be able to go the English Russell Group universities post-independence'' . Maybe. What I am getting at is that many in Scotland - without even thinking of it - apply to English universities without thinking they are going somewhere ''other''.
The Silent Partner?

The idea that Scotland is a silent partner, or a junior partner, or is domineered by England is anathema to me. This Scotland? This Scotland that has rocked the world in which we live? Domineered by England? Dominated by anyone? No chance. Why do these people talk Scotland down?

The Scotland I cherish isn't dominated or domineered by anyone. It has always played an enormous role in every aspect of British life. It continues to do so. We are all the richer for the impact of Scots in politics, law and other fields of public life - but let us not forget that whilst Scotland's influence in the main political parties, and in the trades union movement, is vast that Scots have equally benefited from the geniuses in other parties and other movements.

Listening to some of the proud Scots who trumpet the achievements of our sons and daughters - and we should be proud of them - you would think that no one from elsewhere in the United Kingdom has ever done anything.

We all benefited from the geniuses that Scotland has given the Union. And we are richer for Churchill, Darwin, Turing, Wilberforce, Bevan and Pankhurst.

Another narrative that has been cultivated - largely because Scotland has not returned many Tories in recent years - that Scotland is a more progressive, more social place where community somehow matters more than it does in rapacious, conservative England. England - and Southern England in particular - may be a more conservative place but remember, for a moment, that the co-operative moment started in Rochdale; the Trades Union movement started in Manchester; the WSPU was founded by Pankhurst in Manchester and Engels and Marx wrote in that Northern city. You may disagree with these movements. My point is merely that Scotland has embraced these and been affected by them.

So yes, Scotland has made a mammoth contribution but for every Keir Hardie, there is a Nye Bevan. For every Viscount Kilmuir, there is an A.V. Dicey. For every John Boyd Orr, there is a William Booth. For every Lord Reith, there is a Sir Charles Trevelyan. All Britons. All making Britain a better place.

I argued above that the problems that our people face transcend the borders that criss-cross our country. 
Some will argue fairly that places in Scotland have individual, specific problems that need a more local parliament to address them. That is no doubt true and I welcome the additional powers that look to be coming to the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps what we should learn is that less power should reside at Westminster, less at Holyrood and more at the local level?

I have not written about the economy in this piece. That is for another night. Tonight, I've tried to focus on identity, history and why the union is a living, breathing matter. I've tried to focus on what stronger together actually means.

Scotland has always been somewhat separate with her laws and legal system, her educational system, her proud ancient universities and her Church. Scotland, equally, has always played a massive and integral in the Union. That Union is a living, breathing entity and one that is forever changing, and forever changing us all. 


As an Englishman, I am a unionist because I realise that we are better off with Scotland's immense contribution. As a Scotsman, I'm a unionist because I want to make that contribution and because I see the contribution that our friends and brothers from England, Wales and Northern Ireland have made.

I do not believe that this can be adequately replicated by the social union nor do I believe that the benefits of independence (and, of course, there are some) outweigh the feelings of identity that I, and many others, feel.



RCM

14 comments:

  1. A well written and well thought out post. You make valid points to be considered by both sides.

    This is the type of discussion that we should be having during indyref.

    I am a Nationalist emotionally but a realist politically. I want to see Scotland florish, I want to see England florish as I have lots of friends and family on both sides of the border.

    We should stop seeing identify as competitive. It is not as simple as picking a football team where you support one and reject all others.

    We will always be part of the British Isles so georgraphically we shall always live within Great Britain and as such be inhabitants of that place and be British to some extent. Would I like it to say Scottish on my passport Yes. Do I consider my nationality British no, but I understand there are many who do and we should be looking for the middle ground. The Indyref will allow us to judge the mood of the nation, clearly establish where we stand and what concessions need to be made and to whom.

    My preference for structure would be a focussed parliament in Edinburgh with all the powers of a sovereign nation state, the economic and fiscal levers in the interconnected global economy to react to and maximise the productivity, wealth and civic society of Scotland. A thriving Scotland with a political class focussed on it would provide a better platform to solving our issues and making our country a better place for our children.

    I agree with your point about local government and I do not want to replace one centralised power in Westminster with another in Hollyrood. I would prefer that decisions and power rested as close to the people as possible. I am no fan of the current toon councillor types. I have met many and been impressed by few.

    There is a certain type of person who dwells in committee's who have limited skill sets, ideas and experience of delivering positive change. I would like Government to be smaller, leaner and delivering services not political correctness, idealism and undeliverable utopian dreams. Too many crew mates not enough captains. There should be a level of life, commercial, civic experience required to stand for office. In Wick we had a 19 year old elected. I do not know him but 19?

    I feel that the current arrangement creates a circumstance where human nature and political power structures encourage economic power to constantly drift towards London & SE.

    I do not trust politicians at the best of times but a politician who can ignore the wishes of the entire population of Scotland, as is the case of current Tory party of Government, is not a government whom we can lobby at the ballot box. They simply have no political interest in what is best for us. They will focus on where they win their elections. A government you cannot vote in or out of power is a sham democracy

    There is an argument for a federal UK that is quite appealing to many and would eliminate many of the arguments for independence for many people as well as retain the Union for those who are so minded but London elite will never relinquish the levers of power.

    A renegotiated political structure will improve all our lives. The Union worked well in the 1700's as did the horse and cart, Lords, Elitism and centralised power.

    What we need today is a government that reflects a society of educated, professional, modern people who should be represented but not dictated to by politicians.

    As for the answers to how we get there. I honestly do not know. The only way is discussion, thought and innovation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well said! Saves me typing many of those things. One thing you've not said is to pick up on the argument that because we have relatives and friends in England we ought to be united with them. I have famliy in canada, in New (none in England as it happens), and I have friends in England, in Ireland, in Germany and in the Netherlands - I don't actually think that those countries having responsibility for their own affairs means that their people are prevented from having cross border relationships. It is simply a red herring - one might make the same argument to justify uniting into one European super state.

      Delete
  2. I sometimes have sneaky suspicions that some believe that if Scotland becomes independent it will somehow float away into the mists of the glens and seas beyond.
    Having lived in England for over 20 years,as before,I could see good reason for independence.The most striking of these would be simply put,political independence.
    Politics have been in my mind stagnant and untrustworthy for always really,give or take a chosen few who appear from time to time.Chasing the pound sterling and bigger house owned is all very well,but it's no life.
    So for me,regardless that my son lives in Dorset,brother in north London,others in Scotland,I have no faith in the U.K making social decisions,economic or otherwise that could,would or even should aid in the development of the individual,the family,communities or 'countries' within the present state of the U.K!
    With Scotland and it's history pre early 1600's and it's shared history as part of the U.K much has been done for good or ill.Economies are similar and require one another to flourish.But the direction that the U.K is being dragged down with with these past governments,it's time I believe to simply call the game over,it's no longer good for either of us in this country of colliding politics and direction.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Referring to Manchester as a 'Northern City' says much about your perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good blog. Even if I don't agree with your conclusions I think many of the issues are important for the debate.

    I would identify myself as Scottish and European. I live in Edinburgh and work in Dublin (and lived in England for 19 years and Brussels for 4). I agree that many Scots see themselves as British to a greater or lesser extent and that this must be respected whatever we decide on Scotland's future.

    It is true that many Scots live in England and there are many English living in Scotland. There are also many Irish living in Scotland and many Scots living in Canada/New Zealand/etc. I see no reason why an independent Scotland would make me more cut off from my son and daughter in Bedfordshire. I am convinced that an independent Scotland would mean fewer young Scots would be forced to move South for jobs. Of course all Scots would be free to work throughout the EU.

    It is true that Scotland has benefitted from the ideas and achievements of non Scots but you could add to your list figures from Ireland, America or Catalonia (Enric Miralles), and of course Scots have made good far beyond Britannia's shores. You could add Dublin to Liverpool and Glasgow.

    Those in favour of Scottish independence are internationalists who want Scotland to join the world. We believe, I think with some reason, that independence will result in a country more open and more engaged internationally. And also that we will have a much better relationship with the other countries of the British Isles.

    ReplyDelete
  5. it's a piss take, right? you're a separatist cybernat having a laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good Blog??? Are you joking me???

    We should stay in the union because of our great NHS and BBC (The idea of a Scotsman!) Well he must be turning in his grave at the current biased propaganda broadcast by them. And the Current Unionist Government are doing their Damndest to destroy the NHS in England and Wales. (Which, by the way, will almost certainly result in privatisation in Scotland through the back door as the Block grant to Scotland will be greatly reduced!)

    “It is not a sense of shame that 'x takes from y'. It should be a mark of pride in any civilised society.”

    I absolutely agree, but only when X is poor and Y is benevolently helping him.
    When X is in power and takes everything Y has and then tells him to get a job despite the fact he's been disabled for over twenty years X can go take a running jump!

    We should stay in the Union for our Universities. Really? Who will be able to afford to go to Universities? Labour have ganged up with he Tories to oppose free education in Scotland. You speak of History and Tradition, well Free education has been a Scottish policy for over 500 years (Education act 1496) so are you only happy throw away history when it's the Scottish bits?

    As for Listing a Great Brit for every great Scot, you had 10 times as many to people choose from percentage wise you've only demonstrated that Brittain is one tenth as great as Scotland.

    "As an Englishman, I am a unionist because I realise that we are better off with Scotland's immense contribution. As a Scotsman, I'm a unionist because I want to make that contribution"

    I wrestled with this one myself. As a Socialist, I do not want to turn my back on the poor of the rest of the UK. If there was some way to Guarantee that Scotland’s contribution would not end up in the pockets of the likes of George Osbourne you might have a point. But I simply don't believe that will happen, so instead, I'll have independence Thank you very much. That way, we can offer the poor and the downtrodden of the UK a new Utopia full of social equality to come and live in. If they choose not to that's their decision, but at least this way we can guarantee that Scottish money will not go to the wrong people.

    Good Blog? Sheesh!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The NHS - the vision of an Englishman and a Welshman - has helped us all. Scotland benefited from the vision of Bevan and Beveridge."

    And now we benefit from not having to follow the "vision" of people like Alan Milburn and Andrew Lansley. The NHS is no longer a British construct, it's a sign of what divides Scotland and rUK, not of what binds us together.

    "The BBC - the vision of a Scotsman - has helped us all, and many beyond our shores."

    The BBC is of course good, but it's not perfect. Besides, other countries our size have public service broadcasting, and you need only look at Denmark's recent exports like The Bridge and The Killing to see what kind of brilliance can be achieved even by a small nation's public broadcaster when they put their mind to it.

    "The Civil Service - much derided as red tape and bureaucracy but, still, the finest around at its best. Kickstarted by a Londoner and a man from the West Country."

    Seriously? This is an argument for the union? Well, even if we run with that, devolution has made it completely redundant - who do you think deals with Scottish governance? That's right - Scottish civil servants.

    "Our armed forces - you may disagree with the causes that they are often sent to fight in but they are, pound for pound, the finest forces in the world. Scots have always played an enormous part in that."

    Imperialist hogwash. Next.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Our soft-power in the world - something that never gets mentioned. It is my understanding that Britain, for example, was the second largest donor (in terms of total amount) to the Haiti earthquake victims."

    Never gets mentioned? People never shut up about the UK's supposed "influence" on the world stage. You’re arguing from the wrong perspective, but you clearly know that as you stipulate "(in terms of total amount)". Who's to say the UK wasn't one of the lowest per head donors? How did we compare proportionally against small countries? In fact, for all we know, the entire UK contribution could have come from Scotland. Clearly it didn't, but the fact is statistics like this are utterly meaningless without context.

    But the biggest flaw here is that, unless you're arguing that Scotland would suddenly stop contributing to charity as an independent country, this argument is utterly meaningless. Besides, we all know Scotland is more charitable than the rest of the UK.

    "Our economy - built by us all, and as perilously balanced as it may be - is the 7th largest economy in the world. These little islands, this islands off France, house some of the richest people in the world."

    That just means the UK is a fairly successful nation with a massive population, because the more people you have, the more wealth you generate. Who's second on that list of biggest economies? China. If we take your argument at face value, China must be the second greatest country in the world to live in. But it's not, is it?

    The UK is only 22nd on the list of countries by GDP per capita, which is the far more important measure. After all, this reveals that China is only 88th, which is much more realistic considering the levels of poverty they still have. Let's look at it the other way. Norway - a country EVERYONE knows is excellent - is only 24th in terms of pure GDP. But that's because it's a population of under 5 million. In terms of GDP per capita, it's right up in 3rd place. Incidentally, who's that above the UK? Oh look, it's much-maligned Iceland, who have never had a higher unemployment rate than the UK throughout the whole financial crisis, and who are well on their way to recovery, unlike the UK which is continuing to buckle.

    Size isn't everything, but it's telling that unionists think it is. Big is almost never better, and this kind of "good old Blighty, with our massive economy" attitude really should have died along with the empire last century.

    With any luck, after 2014, British nationalists will finally realise the empire died a long time ago, and that the UK (or rUK as it will be) is no better than any other country.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Many thanks for all your comments. It is great to see engagement on this issue.

    John Lyons:

    ''We should stay in the union because of our great NHS and BBC (The idea of a Scotsman!) Well he must be turning in his grave at the current biased propaganda broadcast by them. And the Current Unionist Government are doing their Damndest to destroy the NHS in England and Wales. (Which, by the way, will almost certainly result in privatisation in Scotland through the back door as the Block grant to Scotland will be greatly reduced!)''

    (a) I quite clearly stated the Beeb was the vision of a Scotsman
    (b) I am not arguing that we stay together because of these matters. I'm making a point about identity and what identity is (to me, at least, a combination of history, tradition, culture, values and so forth). Perhaps you could tell me what is different about Scottishness as opposed to Britishness?

    ''We should stay in the Union for our Universities. Really? Who will be able to afford to go to Universities?''

    Again. Not what I said. I was getting at that many Scots do not think of rUK (so to speak) as a foreign country in the way they clearly do with Ireland and so forth.

    ''You speak of History and Tradition, well Free education has been a Scottish policy for over 500 years (Education act 1496) so are you only happy throw away history when it's the Scottish bits?''

    Not at all. You are equating my support of the union with the support for all current governmental policies. As I say, Scotland's ideas have had massive impact. This is one area where I wish we listened more.

    ''As for Listing a Great Brit for every great Scot, you had 10 times as many to people choose from percentage wise you've only demonstrated that Brittain is one tenth as great as Scotland''

    Oh for goodness sake, I could easily name hundreds of great Englishman, Welshman and Northern Irishmen. I was merely trying to show that all have contributed.

    ''I wrestled with this one myself. As a Socialist, I do not want to turn my back on the poor of the rest of the UK. If there was some way to Guarantee that Scotland’s contribution would not end up in the pockets of the likes of George Osbourne you might have a point. But I simply don't believe that will happen, so instead, I'll have independence Thank you very much. That way, we can offer the poor and the downtrodden of the UK a new Utopia full of social equality to come and live in. If they choose not to that's their decision, but at least this way we can guarantee that Scottish money will not go to the wrong people.'

    Fair enough. I don't agree but I can see where you are coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Doug Daniel - thanks for your comments.

    You fall into the same trap as John. I'm not saying that NHS, Civil Service etc are reasons for the Union. I'm saying that these are examples of things that we have done together and, moreover, are part of the nation that we currently are (institutions, after all, matter).

    Again, you may disagree with the way our armed forces are asked to act. Fair enough. I'd wager that the majority of Scots have rather more affection for the army than you.

    I think there is a sense of Britishness. You may disagree. I offer you the same challenge. What is Scottishness and why is it different to Britishness or, I suppose, Englishness or Welshness?

    The point I was trying to make was that identity matters. I think identity matters a lot in this debate. Rather than debate the wrong point perhaps you could (a) tell me why identity doesn't matter (b) if it does, what is different about the Scots?

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Doug Daniel again.

    ''Never gets mentioned? People never shut up about the UK's supposed "influence" on the world stage. You’re arguing from the wrong perspective, but you clearly know that as you stipulate "(in terms of total amount)".''

    I think it is fairly remarkable that we managed to outgive France, Germany, Spain, Italy, China, Canada, and so forth. I'm proud of that. I'd be prouder still if it were also by head of population. I am unsure on that matter but where you think mendacity I promise I am writing what I know rather than attempting to deceive you.

    ''But the biggest flaw here is that, unless you're arguing that Scotland would suddenly stop contributing to charity as an independent country, this argument is utterly meaningless. Besides, we all know Scotland is more charitable than the rest of the UK.''

    Is it? On the one hand you accuse me of no facts but then make a statement that ''we all know'' without any evidence!

    ''That just means the UK is a fairly successful nation with a massive population, because the more people you have, the more wealth you generate. Who's second on that list of biggest economies? China. If we take your argument at face value, China must be the second greatest country in the world to live in. But it's not, is it?''

    I don't know I've never been. I don't have any great affection for their system of governance, admittedly. Again, my point is that we've achieved a lot together. Could we achieve more separately? Possibly (assuming identity doesn't matter). Aberdeen could achieve more if it became an independent city state and stopped the flow of oil money to anywhere south. Why shouldn't they?

    ''The UK is only 22nd on the list of countries by GDP per capita, which is the far more important measure. After all, this reveals that China is only 88th, which is much more realistic considering the levels of poverty they still have. Let's look at it the other way. Norway - a country EVERYONE knows is excellent - is only 24th in terms of pure GDP. But that's because it's a population of under 5 million. In terms of GDP per capita, it's right up in 3rd place. Incidentally, who's that above the UK? Oh look, it's much-maligned Iceland, who have never had a higher unemployment rate than the UK throughout the whole financial crisis, and who are well on their way to recovery, unlike the UK which is continuing to buckle.''

    I agree. What are the common features of Norway and Iceland with the Scotland that we are being sold? Both are - for now - in control of their currency. Both are - for now - not in the European Union. Both seem to have a better understanding of ''independence'' than those proposing it in Scotland!

    ''With any luck, after 2014, British nationalists will finally realise the empire died a long time ago, and that the UK (or rUK as it will be) is no better than any other country.''

    We'll see the end of the ''Scots invented the modern world'' stuff then - after all, many other contributed to many things and we aren't better (or worse) than any other nation.

    I'm not sure I was making an imperial argument but clearly you think I was - fine.

    It seems to me that - increasingly - Scottish nationalism is based on some level of economics and technocratic thoughts on relative devolution. That's fine but it is hardly a rallying call to the masses. ''Don't vote for us because we believe in some form of Scottishness that links us together. Vote for us for more local governance and - possibly - a pound or two more per week''!

    Thanks though. Very interesting comments and much welcomed.

    RCM

    ReplyDelete
  12. I really don't understand this "we should stay in the union because of the NHS, BBC etc." Ignoring the fact that both are going down the toilet and the Tories would love to flush them away for good, what difference does it make which country invented something? If some citizen of Iceland, Botswana or Paraguay comes up with a great invention or idea we should adopt it, just like everybody else. Doesn't matter if a Scot was involved. I'd be quite proud but that's it. And Reith was by all accounts a truly horrible man (with considerable animosity to Logie Baird), he's not one of my Scottish heroes. If we break away nobody here will come up with new ideas - is that the gist of this? I'm afraid my main predominant definition of Scottishness these days is a lack of self-belief. We don't wave the union flag, we hide behind it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sad, in a way, that this blog has died. I thought you made some good points.

    ReplyDelete