I think that the case for Scottish devolution is unassailable. I think that there is a strong case for Scottish independence (from the point of view of both England and Scotland). I think that both cases are spoiled when they are used as a cover for racism.
To return to my original question, are you content to be described as a European? Or are the French and the Germans beneath you as well?
And what of the 200-odd years before that? Really, quoting a spending deficit is, historically, irrelevant. My point was that the Union was devised to benefit the English, to use figures centuries later to counteract my argument is somewhat naive. Also, where do you get the opinion that I see the English as “beneath me” as you suggested I might hold that opinion on the French or Germans? My point is only to emphasise the VAST difference between the home nations, a point that is lost on the majority of non-Britons. I’m writing this as I run out the door at work, I’ll add more later.
My point is that the current state of affairs benefits Scotland. If you are only arguing that the Act of Union was originally intended to benefit England then I don’t disagree, but I don’t see what relevance it has to the modern world or to your insistence that you are not British. The Declaration of Independence was originally intended to benefit a bunch of slave-owning aristocrats who didn’t want to pay their way, but I don’t draw any inferences about the present-day USA from that.
You described England as “a country of such appalling morality”. It was on the basis of that statement that I assumed that you thought the English were beneath you.
By the way, I agree entirely that there is a vast difference between the home nations and that a great many foreigners are ignorant of it. When somebody says “British” when what they mean is “English”, it annoys me as well. I was recently told by a poster on this board that Alexander Graham Bell, whom I had described as British, was in fact Scottish. I had to laugh.
The situation is not helped by certain people who habitually describe the British Army as the “English Army”, the British Parliament as the “English Parliament” and so on. This is a convenient device for ascribing anything bad about Britain to “the English”. Of course, England, being part of Great Britain, has no army and no parliament. Like Scotland, England also lost its independence under the Act of Union, which was imposed on us by a descendant of Robert the Bruce.
Y’know I don’t think we are on entirely different wavelengths here. My assertion is that my inclination, as far as nationality is concerned, is towards Scotland and not the pseudo-political entity that is Britain. When I said that most people refer to England as Britain it was to underline how little relevance the concept of Britain has to Scotland (bit of a generalisation but what the hell). I accept that Scotland, for all intents and purposes, is subsidised these days. But I am of the opinion that it isn’t entirely our own fault. That much-vaunted source of income known as North Sea oil could have made this country billions. Scotland could and, in my opinion, would have flourished without any socio-political ties with England. My argument is about the cause behind the figures you mention, not disputing their accuracy. When I speak of debatable morality or whatever I said, I’m really referring to the Clearances, a sordid episode in the history of both countries that to this day is routed deep in the Scottish psyche.
I agree with a lot of what you say. FWIW, I am indifferent as to whether I am described as English or British. But then again, I realise that it’s annoying to be described as “English” if you’re Scottish or Welsh. I have no difficulty with describing myself s a European, either.
However,
The name Britain, applied to the Island itself, is as old as the Roman Empire, if not older. Great Britain is the name given to the “united kingdoms” (sic)of England and Scotland in the Act of Union. “British Citizen” is what it says on your passport and mine, like it or not.
You might as well describe the USA, Germany, Italy or South Africa as “pseudo-political entities”.
Reading all of these posts is giving me a headache.
I don’t have any problem with the Brits, unless they choose to start one with me and then the fun begins. Now, I have a major problem with most TEXANS and their ‘better-than-thou’ attitude, plus their previous ‘richer-than-thou’ mindset until OPEC closed most of their wells. (They were the ones, if I recall, during one harsh winter, when oil prices went nuts and the supply got low, drove around with bumper stickers saying the following – directed at the rest of the USA population : 'Let ‘em freeze’ and the ever popular 'let ‘em starve.’ If I hear about the Alamo one more time, I might barf and if one more older woman, with too much makeup on and big TEXAS hair comes up to me and tells me how Texas is better than any place else in her ANNOYING Texas twang, I might be pushed into homicide. (In New York City, it would be considered justifiable homicide and I’d be given a party.)
By the way, in England, in the town of ** Chester** you can only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside the city walls and after midnight, while in Hereford
you can shoot a Welsh person all day, but only on Sunday, with a Longbow, in the Cathedral Close. ***A law, still on the books, in England. ***
That might explain some of the Welsh/English dispute in terminology.
Being of Yorkshire extraction I’d just like to point out that the War of the roses’ is almost,but not quite,a misnomer.
The houses of York and Lancaster were not,as
most think,regions that coincide all that well with the present day boundaries.
It would be probably better to compare the conflict between that of an existing power,York,and upstart Lancaster.Much of Yorks power was based toward the southern England whereas Lancasters was mostly northern it was nearly as much a north/south conflict as east/west.
I know a few folk who spend their time hunting for evidence about the battle of Towton moor and one remaining mystery is what happened to the remains of the est40000 casualities only a few charnel pits have been found.
For such a small island Americans might be surprised at the number and scale of regional differances,round here English is often taken to mean anyone living south of Watford them being 'southern poofters’the only thing we seem all to agree on is that we don’t like the French.
This is true in general, casdave, but there has been some very interesting work done by American historians linking American regional differences to English regional differences.
David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed, for example, argues that the traits that we Americans consider typical of New Englanders and Southerners can be traced back to the groups of settlers that came from East Anglia and the areas south of London, respectively. He uses a variety of evidence to support his model, from place names to foodways to architecture. Many valid criticisms have been raised about Fischer’s work, but the book is quite effective in forcing us to remember that the colonists were British, and thus behaved like Britons. [MadHun–see note below before you get mad at me] It also forces us to pay attention to the significant differences between the groups that colonized North America.
Again, I agree with you, casdave. Americans tend to be insensitive to regional differences in the areas that make up Great Britian. The field of colonial history is becoming ever more concerned, though, with examining the variations between the groups of volunatry and involuntary North American settlers. Hopefully, as the state of the scholarship changes, the more nuanced view will filter into the general populace. But I’m not holdin’ my breath.
Note to MadHun–we historians often refer to the main group of colonists as British. As much as it pains me to admit this, we do this out of convenience. I am aware that to call 17th century people “British” is a presentism. I am also aware that the majority of the earliest colonists came from England and Wales, and that later groups came from the border regions between England and Scotland, from Scotland proper, and from the northern part of Ireland.
[Steps away from the lectern, much to the relief of the denizens of the BBQ pit]
Sorry, but since I’m not illiterate and neither is TomH, I think I’m entitled to stick to my principle that “irony should not be decorated with motherf*cking ‘smilies’”.
And as for the Wars of the Roses, I knew that wasn’t right when I posted it, but I couldn’t think of the battle that servea as an apropos reference. Bannecockburn, or something like that?
Cool! Well, yeah certain parts of America would tend to have English traits because, like was stated, we started out as an English colony initially. The English – or British – influence is somewhat obvious in the North East in construction, attitudes, street names and so on.
Now, we’re still not sure who is responsible for Minnisotians with their curious accent and some of us are still trying to find someone to blame Georgia on so we can send them back.
Cool!
Now, if you’ll just explain the Bahstonians to me, who, in their own way, are ruder than New Yorkers.
In Georgia, they’re still fighting the civil war, seem to be pissed off at everyone who is not born in Georgia and are real SOBs to work for.
A couple more interesting British laws:
It is illegal for a Member of Parliament to enter the House of Commons wearing a full suit of armour. (From what I have heard of the usual British politics, he might need a suit of armour there.)
Anal sex is prohibited.(Hmmm. That might explain a few things.)
You may not make out in public.* (Gosh! No wonder the Brits seem rather ‘stiff’!)*
It is legal for a male to urinate in public, as long it is on the rear wheel of his motor vehicle and his right hand is on the vehicle. (In the middle of London? Cool!
