I got a couple of comments on my Indyref post yesterday that I thought deserved a little more comment. I thought the first one (12.37) illustrates a lot of the problems of the yes campaign.
Firstly it assumes that I am English (I am actually half English/half Scots), and then goes into a tone of victimhood about the Scots and English. I think this actually includes quite a bad misreading of Scottish history. Anyone who thinks the Scots were simply passive victims of the British Empire should try visiting the "Common Cause" exhibition at the Museum of Scotland that I recommended a while ago. It gives a rather more convincing account of Scots be agents of change and inter-relating with all sorts of nations across the globe than the SNP "Scots as victims" line would admit. It is on until 12 October.
Secondly, it sounds as if the writer thinks that Scots are being denied a vote, which is remarkable in the context of a lengthy referendum campaign.
Thirdly, it seems to identify the English with the Conservatives even though most English people did not vote Conservative at the last election.
Fourthly, and most unpleasantly, it seems to imply that historical grievances (which I would argue are largely imaginary) justify xenophobia.
UPDATE
A very quick response from the commentator below. Northern Ireland obviously is part of the UK as everyone (including the Republic of Ireland) recognises. As to "Northern Ireland being made up, there are convincing arguments (e.g. Benedict Anderson in Imagined Communities) that all national identities are "made up". It is also true that unless you are a devotee of Norman Tebbit's notorious cricket test national identities can be multiple. Indeed, I think they normally are. I am perfectly able to fell British, English and Scots simultaneously. I think the idea that you can have only a single one dimensional identity is the central intellectual failing of nationalism.
ANOTHER UPDATE
The history of Ireland certainly looks pretty odd I admit. You now have republicans and unionists in a devolved government, making the republicans into minister of the British Crown. I wonder what the young Martin McGuiness would have made of that.
3 comments:
Not sure why you believe I am anti-English.NO problems with the English and they are very welcome to their independence too.
And should 'Northern Ireland' be a part of the union too? A 'made-up' bit of territory if ever there was one. And who did that union suit?
What choice did the people of Ireland have when a part of their country was partitioned - by a foreign country.
Scotland is not England -
'Northern Ireland' 'obviously' part of UK as everyone recognises???? Well, a bit of a fait accompli wouldn't you say? And I suppose the 'troubles' of the last thirty years would indicate that everyone is happy with that?
Go to bed one night you are Irish and the next you are British - on whose say so?
I think there was an election in the whole of (the one country) Ireland before partition that was conveniently ignored - that voted for the party that would guarantee independence for all of Ireland. 'Northern Ireland' was imposed on the Irish people. As I said who did it suit? Not the 'natives'. Who cares what the 'natives' think. Same now - those pesky Scots that want independence to run their own affairs - let's show them what's best.
What about a 'partition' for the Scots - just like for the Irish?
You could have a, sort of, 'Northern Scotland' for those that want to maintain the union, and then another bit for those that want independence - worked really well in 'Northern Ireland' didn't it?
And would mean parity.
Post a Comment