I’ve been reading the Guardian and all I see is a barrage of pro-yes sentiment in relation to Scottish independence, which has lead me to think, why is the Guardian intent on promoting a narrative of being a Unionist equaling a bad thing?
I am against Scottish independence purely on the grounds that it will make both England and Scotland two smaller less relevant nations on the fringe of Europe, and will most likely produce a virulent form of English/Scottish nationalism due to the psychological shock of ‘Britain’ being ended. I don’t see how being British conflicts with being Scottish or English or Welsh.
The tone of the comments is that they seem to want to promote a Yes vote purely because of David Cameron, and that the nationalist message is a way of getting back at the ‘One Nation’ Tories, even though if Independence of Scotland came about, it could result in majority Tory governments for a long time.
Nothing wrong with being “less relevant”. I was the U.S. Was less relevant. Anyway, I believe the answer is FREEEDOOOMMM! Or at least that’s what Mel Gibson has led me to believe.
There might be some schadenfreude, people enjoying the diminishing of the once great British Empire, people with lingering resentments over British obstacles to a united Europe, etc.
But isn’t it mostly just a celebration of a peaceful devolution? It’s being handled without bloodshed. A “glorious revolution.” If it reflects the will of the majority, and if nobody gets seriously hurt by it… Why not?
It’s an issue of math and geography. The English dominate the UK, in terms of geography, economic might, and sheer numbers. They also dominate the culture and the historical narrative. This is understandably irritating to the Scots and the Welsh, who would like their own history, languages, and cultures to be represented fairly, rather than considered indigenous minorities.
That’s not saying whether independence would be a good thing, but certainly (in my eyes) shaking up the implicit idea that the English are the default British would be a desirable outcome.
Because it destroys a national identity we’ve shared for around 300 years and because it’s humiliating internationally. I don’t see any celebration other than the dancing on the ‘British’ grave.
But you haven’t shared the national identity for 300 years. You’ve just used the last 300 years to expand the English identity and call it British.
Admittedly, the worst of the cultural imperialism ended some decades ago, but it was quite aggressive in the 18th and 19th centuries and into the 20th, so the majority of that 300-year period. In other words, you may be okay with being a multiethnic nation NOW, but you weren’t always, and the non-English have long memories.
Expand the English identity? Strange, you’d of thought by that statement that Scotland and Wales were fully anglicized, do you have proof of this, I’m all ears. British identity encompasses all cultures of the Island, not a 'greater England, in fact, I’d go as far as saying that having a British identity dampens English nationalism to a degree, it being subservient to a greater identity of being British.
Again, this painting of British = English and therefore bad, is incorrect.
The Guardian is the United Kingdom’s left-wing newspaper; Scotland is the United Kingdom’s left-wing region. In a way, it’s as simple as that. Independence might give Scotland a chance to leave English conservatism behind and go for a more left-wing, welfare-state option. It’s no surprise that the Yes campaign insists on comparing Scotland with the Nordic countries.
What the Guardian should consider is that if Scotland becomes independent, the remainder of Britain would stay in the hands of the Conservative Party (or worse) for decades.
Which is what I stated in my OP, and yet the Guardian seems oblivious to this situation. Again lending credence to my theory that if Scotland goes, it will push England to the right even further and could bring rise to a virulent form of English nationalism.
We’ll take an easy one: language. The percentage of the population that speaks Gaelic or Welsh is down significantly from where they were in 1707.
English isn’t bad. It’s just English. There’s nothing wrong with being English, and the English did nothing the French and Italians and Americans didn’t do in equivalent circumstances, and nothing that the Welsh or Scots wouldn’t have done had the balance of power been in their favour. But the fact remains, English culture has been pushed at the expense of minority cultures, particularly in the period 1707–1945. I don’t see how you could argue that it wasn’t.
Nobody said that Scotland or Wales was fully anglicized, but they’re certainly partly anglicized. Wales was conquered in the Middle Ages, so it’s a different case. Scotland’s anglicization also began in the Middle Ages, long before the UK was created, so it would be incorrect to put all the blame on the English. Nonetheless, having a single nation with political and economic power concentrated in London has given a boost to English culture, particularly Home Counties culture, at the expense of the Scots, Welsh, and some of England’s regional cultures.
I still don’t see how it’s a repressive thing to learn the language of a much bigger constituent part of a Union, wouldn’t the unity of language facilitate a much better and cohesive identity.
I’m not arguing that English culture wasn’t promoted, but the tone in your posts is reflecting a negative association of Britishness in the way you convey your message, as if those blighted Scots were forced to accede to the bloodthirsty English into a Union, and then forced to learn and accept English customs and traditions as their own, as if they were the equivalent of the native Americans, except on the British Isles. I see it differently. I’m certain that more than likely the part Anglicization would of happened anyway even if we didn’t have any kind of political relationship with the Scottish purely due to geographical circumstance, and economic opportunism.
With all due respect, that is amazingly tone-def. Without union, probably most Scots would speed English just fine, but they’d probably also speak Whatever version of Gaelic was spoken there, too. As it is, it’s like a red-headed stepchild of a language. In a world where commerce is king, the EU exists, and European wars don’t seem so likely (except maybe in the East), there isn’t so much to be gained from union.
With due respect, that’s what the majority often think.
I’m not saying that the English are evil or anything. It’s just the tyranny of the majority: it’s often kindly meant or paternalistic. It’s often something the minority groups themselves are on board with, because of the economic and social opportunity. Nevertheless, it kills culture.
I’m a white Anglophone North American (US & Canada). My culture does the same thing as the English, with the same justifications. I’m not trying to criticize, just explain.
An independent Scotland would be able to give those same economic and social opportunities to Scottish cultures. Whether they would or not is a separate issue, and whether the trade-off is worth it.
Think about it, though. What do you know about the Welsh or Irish or Gaelic languages, languages of your own country (the UK)? What incentive do you have to support their cultures? I’m guessing zero. What incentive do they have to learn English and support English culture? Tons. It’s not balanced, is all. An independent Scotland restores some balance, though not 100%, and at a significant cost.
(Edit: this was to the OP, not the post above me.)
I’d say “enjoying” is an odd word to use in this context. There are certainly people who take the political position that independence would be best for Scotland, and a good number of English people who, having barely given Scotland a second thought for the last 300 years, have suddenly now decided they have strong opinions on the subject.
But I don’t think many people who are in favour of independence hold that view because they would “enjoy” seeing the end of the UK as it’s currently constructed.
I was under the impression that, while Scottish MPs certainly can vote on English/Welsh/Northern Irish issues, they have adopted a convention since devolution that they generally do not do so. Is this correct?
What about the percentage who speak Scots? (Which linguists mostly, though there is controversy on the point, consider a separate language, not a dialect of English; it is similar to English because of shared origins, but developed independently. Think Robert Burns’ poetry.)
Some parties are more principled than others.
Scottish National Party MPs in Westminster voluntarily abstains from voting on issues that don’t affect Scotland.
The Labour party however makes full use of its substantial Scottish contigent, and some extremely unpopular England-specific policies wouldn’t have passed without them.
I’m not sure what the lone solitary Scottish Tory MP does.
