"...but the desire for national freedom still ought to stir the blood"

Which is wht I am puzzled by your support for the EU.

MJ

My support for the EU has pretty dramatically reduced over the last couple of years. I always like the idea of international organisations, and of international law, to govern relations between nations and I support the principle of free trade. But the EU has developed into an institution it is increasingly difficult for a liberal to support, for myriad reasons.

Gie's a pint of Carlsberg/Heineken heavy?
Suggest Duechars, Innis & Gunn, or more appropriately Skullsplitter.
Then there's Heather Ale, for which the original recipe was reputedly lost for it is claimed that the holder of the recipe threw himself from the cliffs at the Mull of Galloway rather than reveal the secret to King Niall of Ulster.
Gie's a pint of Scottish-brewed and Scottish-owned strong beer, please. "Heavy" is corporate shite.
Or do real Scotsmen now only drink C&C Group plc owned Tennants Lager?

"The truly great Jacobite general, Lord George Murray, knew he was joining a disastrous enterprise, but felt he had to do it".

Very much like Robert E. Lee in similar circumstances, when he was invited to take command of the armies of the newly-formed Confederate States of America.

The EU is great in principle, but a huge disappointment in practice.

Anyone who recognises this feeling of disillusionment has grasped one of the essential ideas of conservatism, which is that grand visions are easy to construct but difficult or impossible to put into effect.

Dodoze

Heavy is the traditional term for 80/- beer. Belhaven make a great pint of heavy, for example. So do many other breweries.

Craig,

I'm highly sceptical about the concept of nationalism, in all its various guises.
I think in many ways it's a dangerous conceit that one should be very wary of indeed, especially, of all places, in Europe.

I think the very bedrock of nationalism itself, is suspect, and questionable. I shiver to think of people whose blood is stirred by nationalist symbols. I'm also highly critical of the construct we call the nation.

When, for example does the tribe become a 'folk' and then a nation? The word 'folk' or 'volk' also gives me the creeps. Is the nation, the peice of land where the folk live, those of the same blood, language, culture, or is it larger than that? Can one choose the folk one wishes to be part of, like you have apparently done, and this is normal and acceptable behaviour; one can, I suppose call oneself what one wants, within reason.

I, on the other hand, have absolutely no idea what I am, or what my national identity is. Perhaps I've travelled too much, lived in too many countries, to care. It's also connected to the extraordinarily chequered history of my family which makes a mockery of the core concepts of nationalism, in my opinion.

I used to have a fairly liberal attitude to the idea that a people should be 'free' and have their own country, or nation, if they so wish, now I'm not so sure, having studied how many of my family have suffered, been ruined, died in battle, and murdered, when nationalism gets out of control, which I think it has a strong tendancy to do.

This is probably boring you to tears, sorry. But I think modern nationalism is form of tribalism on steroids. The history of the nation state, and the creation of national identity, go hand in hand, and both of those hands are soaked in blood. I wonder, if it was really worth it?

The divorce of nationalism and liberalism was the great horror of 20th century Europe.

Excellent post Craig, and you are spot on the SNP has often played things too safe, not rocking the boat. We should be shouting from the rafter the virtues of having our own people run our own nation like any other normal country.

The books that you mentioned sound very interesting also, and one can only hope that they find their way into the largely British brainwashed historical revisionism of the Scottish school system. Truth appears to be what the Unionists fear most, and as the Scottish people learn the truth, a challenge though it is through the reams of British distortion, then the close Scotland will get to reemerging as an independent nation state.

Where can I trade in my Brit passport for a Scottish one !

Craig, We do seem to have something in common. Though born and brought up in Scotland with a Scots father, my mother was an English woman from Norfolk.

The ‘45 is indeed a great remembrance in song, story and romance. But they didn’t fight for any positive idea from the new enlightenment (liberty, democracy, republicanism, etc.) except to turn the clock back. Had the Jacobites won, they would have established themselves in London and forgotten about Scotland (as their predecessors did).

The Jacobites stood for absolute monarchy and had no interest in democracy, or in Scotland, or in the people – except when they needed to use them to fight. The truth is that the Stuart Monarchs and Jacobite Pretenders were largely a useless and selfish lot, though the Hanoverians were nothing much to write home about either, then or now.

Craig - do you have the ISBN number of "life of Charles III" ?

I thought Mel Gibson was quite good though, apart from the accent that is..

The Today programme on R4 recently carried a piece on Scots not demonstrating any enthusiasm for proper devolution at all. One would have thought that a vast majority of Scots would have to be firmly for the project for it to get off the ground at all, given Westminster's opposition.

The programme had gathered a number of ordinary folks to discuss devolution, especially in light of the bleak economic prospects for the area in the wake of the closure of a major distillery. All the people they interviewed were quite firmly against.

As an Englishman I am fully for proper devolution, mainly because I see the centre of Scottish politics sitting to the left of Westminster, and so cutting the ties completely would in theory free Holyrood and the Scots to forge their own political path. The abomination of the Iraq invasion and occupation would not have tarnished Scotland, in my view, if its Parliament had been in a position to decide on it.

It is conceivable that the report was an expression of Westminster Establishment opinion, and was designed to pour cold water on the project. But I don't think they made these people up, and those Scots were unanimously against devolution. I wonder how many Scots, then, really support it?

Perhaps it would be pertinent to send a copy of Bare Arsed Banditti to the's Culloden project co-ordinator, Alexander Bennett - who appears to still buy into British revisionism -

"The myth that the battle was a conflict between England and Scotland is still alive today"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7292138.stm

The only think that is a myth is British Revisionism and I look forward to the day that the Scottish people and particularly our children have the opportunity to learn about our true history.

Essex. I have always believed Bruce was born at Turnberry Castle. His well and cave are most certainly in South Ayrshire

Frazer, good points.

In terms of your question "I wonder how many Scots, then, really support it?". Outright independence swings at this point between 25% up to 40% and more powers including independence 60% to 80%. Devo Max (aka full fiscal autonomy) may be the next stepping stone to Scotland's independence, or perhaps we will go there directly, but either way there is no question that powers of the Scottish nation are being restored, it is just a question of timing.

The recession no doubt has had an impact, but so to has the misinformation from the British State which deliberately contorts information so that many Scots don't know the real truth in terms of the potential of our nation, and as Craig points out the SNP has not so far done a good enough job combatting this, albeit somewhat of a challenge given the obsessive British control over the media and politics. A few small examples of this manipulation are :

. Diomhair a BBC Documentary highlights British attempts to make the SNP look like IRA style terrorists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00g8hg3

. "Agents from MI5 and Special Branch infiltrated th party as part of a campaign to undermine support for Scottish independence"

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/secretservices/Files-prove-that-MI5-spied.3327519.jp

. Hiding potential of Scotland's oil wealth from our people for over 30 years.

"The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a
quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner. Just as deposed
monarchs and African leaders have in the past used the Swiss franc as a haven of security, so nowwould the Scottish pound be seen as a good hedge
against inflation and devaluation and the Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds."

www.snpyouth.org/documents/mccronereport.pd

. Still hiding the potential of our Oil wealth from the Scottish people. Ask most Scots now what they thing and they will often believe the British lie the Oil is almost gone - a lie which has been going on since the 80's.

"North Sea oil will last for 100 years"
see - tinyurl.com/54wl8e

. "Plan to hive off Orkney and Shetland"
see - tinyurl.com/bmjhlz

. Contingency plan to shift the Scottish Border to
move one third of Scottish Oil fields to England.

see - tinyurl.com/bmjhlz

If the Scottish people have access fully and unhindered to the truth there will be no question of Scottish independence, but at this point we need to fight through webs of British lies and deceit.

Nobody knows for sure, but in the year before he was born his parents were at the Bruce estate in Thurrock near Dagenham.

Fitzroy Maclean's Bonnie Prince Charlie (I was just stirring with the Charles III) is ISBN 978-0862415686

Thanks Dougie. Charles III has a better ring to it :)

Interestingly soon there will be a new heir to the Jacobite throne Sophie I :)

http://www.royalstuartsociety.com/succession.html

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sophie,_Hereditary_Princess_of_Liechtenstein

Roderick,

I am sorry but that is precisely the sort of unhistorical twaddle I am talking about. "Bonnie Prince Charlie" had no intention of overturning the 1689 constitutional settlement other than in restoring his family to the throne. He was, unlike his opponents, a genuine supporter of religious toleration - a key enlightenment value.

He was a highly modern and educated man himself. The Jacobites included some of those who laid the foundations of the Scottish enlightenment, like Pitsligo, and Edinburgh was in fact (and again contrary to what you will have been taught) very largely Jacobite in sympathy.

If you want to look for evidence of modern civilised values, you only have to compare the Jacobites' treatment of their prisoners, including enemy wounded, with that of their "enlightened" opponents. The Jacobites' behaviour to prisoners was almost 100% exemplary, while Cumberland and his ilk have deservedly gone down in infamy.

"The divorce of nationalism and liberalism was the great horror of 20th century Europe."

I thought the whole point of nationalism was to divorce the individual from their own responsibilities, and to gather in strength prior to conflict with 'others'.

Is there anything but superficial differences between religions, football supporter firms, political parties, and national 'identity'.

If you want liberalism, then you have to be independently minded as the individual divorced from all groups.

Being part of a greater entity, only makes sense if you are preparing for conflict.

Sorry, the last post by "Dougie" was in fact by me.

JimmyGiro,

No, we need to live in social bodies to provide the rule of law, to stop large armed men from stealing our stuff and raping us. So society needs laws and institutions to enforce them, and the nation is for a whole variety of reasons the best level to agree those laws and found thise institutions.

Mmm... 'historical truth' now that's concept one can really get ones teeth into. I can hear the hearts and minds being stirred already, even at a distance.

For me one of the great lies, or myths, at the centre of nationalist fervor, is the questionable idea that things will be so much better for us once we get the, (?) (fill in the space yourself guys), off of our backs!

I've talked to many Americans about their 'nationalist revolution' and for the sake of balance I played the role of a royalist who wanted to stay loyal to his mother country and not join the rebels. After all we were in the majority, at least at the start of the uprising. This stance didn't make me very popular to say the least.

I keep thinking about that old song by The Who, 'Won't Get Fooled Again' all the time. 'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.' Can't get it out of my head somehow. I felt that my American friends only exchanged one ruling-class for another, and with only marginally better results to follow; at least for the ordinary workingman, the women, the slaves, oh, and the 'Indians'. Then there was the fate of those, perhaps as many as thirty percent of the settlers who were 'ethnically' cleansed and forced to leave the wonderful new republic. Civil wars are wonderful things, aren't they? Anyway at this point, as I could see their national pride was ready to burst out like an exploding volcano, I decided to shut my mouth.

Craig has beaten me to it in questioning Roderick's "The Jacobites stood for absolute monarchy and had no interest in democracy, or in Scotland, or in the people."

My expertise on this is limited to watching Neil Oliver's genuinely excellent History of Scotland series, but it was on telly only on Monday and Oliver clearly made the case that Bonnie Prince Charlie was promising everything supporters of the limited monarchy were asking for, more than they were already getting from the Hanovers. Whether that promise would have been kept, of course we will never know.

However, Oliver's take on the whole thing wasn't entirely to Craig's advantage either - on the question of "the truly great Jacobite general, Lord George Murray", Oliver clearly blamed Murray for the loss of nerve/cancellation of the march on London at Derby. He clearly felt that Murray had cocked up the best shot B.P. Charlie was going to get, even if it as a long shot.

To be fair to Murray, he didn't know that the news put to the Council of War that a force of 9,000 regulars was waiting at Northampton to face them, was in fact a lie from an English spy who had infiltrated their number - the true number was actually 9! (Am I alone in feeling a twinge of English pride that we managed to hoodwink the Scots so splendidly? he says, risking a flaming...)

Anyway, even if Craig can't agree with Neil Oliver on this particular one, I hope he'll agree that it has been a great series.

Putting on one of my other hats, as I often feel like a real victim of 'pure' nationalist mythology. I often think of the beautiful estate in the south of Ukraine that would have been mine, all mine, and the title to go with it, but for the scourge of nationalism gone into overdrive. What a waste. I've been robbed I tell you! My blood tells me that the land is still really mine. I want to be buried in that soil, the soil my ancestors spilled blood to carve out of the wilderness and the hands of the slavic tribe that were sitting on it. In fact, I think, as I've got a few bob, that I might organize a small army to reclaim the land that's rightfully mine.

I don't think that independence for Scotland goes far enough, personally.
I would like to see us organise along the lines of 'localise everything (that can be)' with regional, national and international decisions being taken only when appropriate.
I should mention that I see this within a framework of economic as well as political democracy.

Mmmm,

The Jacobites were probably down to 4,000 men by the time they got to Derby. That is not a huge force to attack London with, even in 1745. But the key point is that, unlike Charlie, most of the army wanted an independent Scotland and really weren't that bothered about taking London.

We will never know what would have happened. But Murray's plan not to fight Culloden, but take to the hills and fight a guerilla campaign with undefeated forces, was quite likely to have destroyed Cumberland's army in time. Dundee had shown what could be done, with far fewer men.

selma

agreed.

"The Jacobites were probably down to 4,000 men by the time they got to Derby. That is not a huge force to attack London with, even in 1745. But the key point is that, unlike Charlie, most of the army wanted an independent Scotland and really weren't that bothered about taking London."

I realise this must have been debating many millions of times, but it's new to me, so I'm enjoying it.

Yes, Neil Oliver strongly brought out the point that Charlie's Scots army was really only bothered about Scotland, whilst Charlie, as the fair & square heir to the thrones of England, Scotland & Ireland wanted all or nothing. Also that Charlie wanted a quick resolution of the matter one way or another in 1745, presumably an understandable reaction against James's inconclusive experience in 1715.

Oliver's point was, that as 99% of England was content to hedge and watch from the sidelines, it was worth a punt even with only a small force. The key new piece of information, that I had been less aware of, was as you origibally pointed out: that the Stuarts were offering the Anglicans, Scots Presbyterians and English non-conformists all they could have asked for - though whether they could believe it from a Rome-based Catholic exile was another matter.

I am not sure that I agree with Craig and Strategist's interpretation of history. Some of my ancestors who just wanted to be left alone had had a few problems with religious toleration in an earlier period from Charles 1 & 2 and, indeed, from Graham of Claverhouse. They were Covenanters and didn't find much religious toleration. The Stuarts, when in power, tended to absolutism. Perhaps Bonnie Prince Charlie had he achieved power may have been different from all of his forebears, and would have lived with the constitutional settlement that had come on the succession of William & Mary, but somehow I doubt it. Though I do agree with you that Bonnie Prince Charlie had shown many good characteristics in opposition. I also agree with you about Cumberland who was a revolting royal butcher, though the Stuart's sidekick Claverhouse (Bonnie Dundee) in an earlier period had been no saint to my ancestors in the South West of Scotland either.

Interestingly, one of the few other times in the series Oliver really let his own views come out strongly, was to have a big go at the Covenanters!

I stress that the series has been brilliant, exemplary and evenhanded throughout, and these expressions of a strongly personal point of view have been few. I have enjoyed it enormously and recommend it to anyone, including you!

Golly, now we leave the broad and well-lit path of 'historical truth' and move into the murky bushes of... military strategy in the 18th C, and what might have been, gipping stuff, when seen in a contemporary perspective I'm sure.

As we know communications weren't that good in 1745, so one can hardly criticize military leaders for not having all the relevant information they required to make the right tactical decisions. As far as I remember wasn't there something close to panic in London with the Hanovers ready to flee, the army collapsing, and London in reality more or less wide open.

Then there's the vexed question of whether taking to the hills and adopting guerilla tactics was a realistic option for the Scotts. What would have happened to their families, farms and estates with the men gone? I seem to recall that in this kind of asymetric warfare, things get very, very, nasty, especially for the unprotected civilian population, who the occupying army usual takes it out on with relish. Guerilla warfare isn't romantic at all. It's probably the worste kind of warfare, not something one would choose, rather something one is forced into, so one can see how almost any alternative might seem better. Cumberland's treatment of the Scotts after their surrender was bad enough, one call only imagine what it would have been like in an asymetric conflict.

Latest poll puts support for independence at 29%, while 57% say they will actively vote against it.

Beyond dubious sentimentality, just what hard-headed practical solutions would independence provide? And if these solutions are desperately needed, why would other people living on the other side of a line on a map be denied them?

As I live in Canada I am not able to follow Strategists recommendation and view Oliver's program. I can't therefor comment on it, though it does seem to me that "historical truth" in Scotland varies from region to region, and it also changes from generation to generation to suit what is fashionable at the time. That's why I put the comment in about Bonnie Dundee since he is a great hero to some though not to others. Bonnie Prince Charlie is a hero to all now since the songs and scenery are so good; though he was not everybody's hero in Scotland at the time.

I am reluctant to get so immeshed in history with so many experts around who have viewed Oliver's program (whatever it is) but not all Scots supported Bonnie Prince Charlie. During the 2nd World War, my father served with 2 Scots Regiments, both of whom had fought on the Hanoverian side at Culloden.

"just what hard-headed practical solutions would independence provide? "

Hmm, well it would allow our nation to choose how it wants to be governed and subsequently determine all of the policies that that entails which focus on the best interests of the Scottish people first and foremost.

In the current situation Scotland gets an England imposed Conservative Government whenever England feels like lurching to the right, irregardless of how the Scottish people vote. The second chamber of the British 'democracy' is an unelected set of nobility appointees for life and the governing party of Scotland the SNP has ZERO representation !!

So what are some the benefits of independence for our nation- the ability to elect a government which represents the wishes and aspirations of the Scottish people first and foremost, dump an expensive an archaic house of Lords, avoid British imperialistic wars like Iraq, dump war toys/WMD like Trident. One other interesting benefit is that we would also leverage our own natural resources for the benefit of the Scottish people first and foremost - wind, tidal, coal, oil, gas, hydro, fishing, carbon capture with our the fear of theft from England as happened with the first 30 years or our Oil and Gas.

Not a bad initial list of benefits ? But there are many more , the Scottish people just need to open their eyes and minds to see what is possible. Will it be a Nirvana no - like any other nations we will face challenges, but the key difference is we will tackle them with the interests of Scots first and foremost rather than some supposed superior British interest.

"No, we need to live in social bodies to provide the rule of law, to stop large armed men from stealing our stuff and raping us. So society needs laws and institutions to enforce them, and the nation is for a whole variety of reasons the best level to agree those laws and found thise institutions."

The trouble here is that the law itself undermines society. Consider our 'nation', which is one of the most litigious in the world, and in its present history; yet we are by any standards at our least social, regarding nation and community.

If we build nations to defeat 'bogeymen', then those enshrined laws of the nation will entrap the people with perpetual fear of the bogeymen; which as sure as night follows day, will lead to citizens creating bogeymen from clay, just to perpetuate their own righteous national state of 'being'.

Consider our police, armed as if for war; even though our society has been denuded of criminals, as witnessed by our over-crowded prisons.

Law should not be shackled to the psychological neuroses of nationhood, but based on the universal needs of the world citizen. And to ensure that national law does not overwhelm international law, the universal principles of justice must be kept to the strictest minimum.

Only in times of war should we invoke 'national' law.

Finally, I believe that law will fail to preserve the individual from the bogeyman, but will protect the institutions from synthetic society. I believe that natural society would rarely grow beyond the village clan. Hence when law preserves itself, it has outgrown its primary function towards its host, and becomes the host, as in fascism.

Wouldn't it be lovely if Scottish independence really led to all the good things people believe, and hope it will, or could?

I wonder how an independent Scotland would have faired when it's banks failed last year? Would Scotland even have a banking system today, or an economy, if London, and that great Scott, Gordon Brown, hadn't bailed them out?

I know one can argue that Scotland could, in theory, have one of the strongest currancies in Europe, if it was independent and if it controlled it's oil, and if it could re-negotiate all the contracts and revenue rates, and the Shetlands didn't follow the mainland's lead and opt for independence...

Then there's the American bases in Scotland, will Scotland choose to assert its right to become nuclear free? How will the Americans react to that I wonder?

Then there's Britain's collosal national debt, how much is Scotland's fair share of that particular mountain? Has Scotland the resources and tax base to pay it off after independence?

It's not that I'm against the idea of Scottish independence in principle. Only I wonder, when one pulls the romantic veil aside, what will reality look like?

Writerman not sure where you come up with 'romantic veil' - I provided you a list of facts nothing more nothing less. All of these would be the minimum we would get anyway.

In terms of some or your other points which all interestingly appear to be rather negative -

. In terms of the Banks failing - perhaps they would not have failed had they been properly regulated. Certainly the banks could have hardly done any worse under and independent Scotland than they did another the British system under which they failed. Having a massively centralized FSA based almost exclusively in London is a huge part of the problem. It was a problem created under a British system so bailed out by it also - seems fair enough.

. Strongest currencies in Europe - certainly that was what the British Government concluded for Scotland in the 1970's and that the Scottish people would be 30% better off than their England counterpart. But rather than share this openly with the Scottish people it was hidden and marked secret. This is not type of Government Scotland needs to be represented by.

. In terms of Shetland you will find it is part of Scottish territory and there is no significant independence, but if one arose then Shetland self-determinatin could not be denied. However even for this the British showed how low they are and whilst they tried to surpress nationalism in Scotland they tried concoct it in Shetland -

"Plan to hive off Orkney and Shetland"
see - tinyurl.com/bmjhlz

. Contingency plan to shift the Scottish Border to
move one third of Scottish Oil fields to England.

see - tinyurl.com/bmjhlz

. "American bases in Scotland, will Scotland choose to assert its right to become nuclear free?" - Yep the Scottish people and our parliament has made it clear that WMDs are not wanted on our soil. No doubt the billions 'invested' in these WMDs go be much more postively invested in Scottish industry to more than offset the loss of some American bases.

. 'Britain's collosal national debt' - hmm so Britain is so bankrupt we can afford to leave - hardly a positive argument. Negotations would need to take place to divide up the various assets and liabilities. In terms of resources you will find that Scotland has an embarassement of resources for a country of 5 million many more in fact than most of the 50% of existing countries of similar size or less, and they all seem to survive quite fine with no clamouring to give up their independence.

"It's not that I'm against the idea of Scottish independence in principle"

Your posting certainly don't read that way at all - seems very against. I already gave you a number of significant benefits which you then seemed to dismiss as some romantic viel ?

I interesting site that you might want to read is www.realmofscotland.com which provides some more background on the potential of Scotland.

One more interesting sites worth looking through which explores potential directions for Scotland is -

scottishdemocraticalliance.org

Craig,

Does it not sometimes strike you as an interesting fact that your advocacy of nationalism, your opposition to wars of conquest in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., you inclination, I believe, to see Blair and Bush sent to the Hague, and many of your other beliefs bear striking parallels with the asserted principles of the BNP? (see this for example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smo8QAN3JWY).

It would be truly interesting to see your comment on these parallels -- Maybe you should join the BNP! If nothing else, it would raise the the average IQ of the membership and aid the party move nearer to the center as it must if it is to grow.

In my original post I said, "Beyond dubious sentimentality, just what hard-headed practical solutions would independence provide? And if these solutions are desperately needed, why would other people living on the other side of a line on a map be denied them?"

It is interesting that Traquir chose to ignore the second part of the paragraph above. Because to do so, he/she would have had to prove the moral superiority of those living north of the line on the map, and how they were more deserving of the benefits of independence than those living south of the line.

The nationalist position is, of course, that anything England has to offer is just worthless, socially, culturally or otherwise. Which kinda gets my dander up, seeing as my own antecedents come from the four main constituentsl. You see, I see my roots as including my father's English legacy, my grandmother's Welsh legacy, my mother's Scottish legacy and her father's Irish legacy. I feel that I have a right to it all, that they have value, that they have something to say to me. And the very core of that union of antecendents is the strength of unity, the feeling that there is no difference between a poor unemployed family in Dundee and one in Burnley, or Dungannon, or Cardiff, in the essentials.

That is not the Nationalist position. For them, Scottish needs are preeminent and must come first. I reject this utterly, because I know that I am stronger when I`m working with my English, Welsh and Irish brothers and sisters against the fist of authority. Goodness, how terribly naive, eh?

OK, Traquir, you have my permission to make some insular, self-serving remark (oh, yes, that was meant to prod you, sorry).

'OK, Traquir, you have my permission to make some insular, self-serving remark (oh, yes, that was meant to prod you, sorry).'

No need pal, like most Unionists you have done my job for me. Interesting how you went from a closet to be convinced supporter of Scottish independence to an ardent Unionist within a very small space of time :)

It's a very English thing, I think, to take it as criticism when a person simply doesn't want to be English.

Well, of course, what a despicable, vile thing it is to be in favour of working with people from other parts of this fairly small island in northern europe. How contemptible, to want to work against imperialists and corporate thugs alongside those Inglish folk...

After all, its all worthless, innit, that entire Westminster circus, corrupt and unfixable. So lets cut adrift from England and let it slide towards Toryism and right-wing-nuttery. I mean, cannae see how that could have a downside, eh? And of course, there'll be a few poxy Unionist/Loyalist nutters who might think it worthwhile to start setting off bombs and the like, but hey, it'll be worth it. Especially when Donald Trump brings his billionaire pals over to invest in Scotland, out of love for us, of course.

Sorry Mr Cobley,

I can't take you seriously when you can't get basic facts correct.

"this fairly small island in northern europe"

You will find the UK is 22nd largest out of the 223 countries in the world hardly small. And in fact an independent Scotland will rank about 113th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

In addition to that you inadvertently highlight a particular English rather than a Scottish problem, namely overpopulation including massive immigration.

"Within two years, England will overtake Holland as the most populous major country - and it will get progressively worse."

see - tinyurl.com/5h9yvh

You will also note that England has 2 BNP MEPS and dozens of BNP councillors , whilst Scotland has 0 BNP MEPS and 0 BNP Councillors.
It is rather typically British to assume we all share the same problems, challenges and indeed aspirations, but that is just frankly condescending twaddle. England and Scotland have separate challenges and aspirations best delt with by their respective peoples of their nations.

England lurching to the right is yet another England only problem, and you have my best wishes in solving it, we in Scotland have our own challenges to face. I suggest you stand up and face England only problems, rather than denying Scotland her independence to help try and mitigate some English problem.

If the British Nationalists, Unionist etc take up bombs then frankly that says more about them than us, and stands in contrast to the completely peaceful and democratic nationalist movement in Scotland.

In terms of Donald Trump you will note he is half Scottish (certainly much more than your good self) and is one of an extensive Scottish diaspora throughout the world that an independent Scotland looks forward to reengaging with both for their benefit and that of the Scottish nation.

Quote:
Where can I trade in my Brit passport for a Scottish one !

Posted by: Frazer at December 3, 2009 2:37 PM

Answer - see SDA web site where we are forming an alliance of pro-independence people who are willing to do the hard work on developing Scotland's future framework - nationality and citizenship policy is under consideration at present - no need to join but lets have some useful contributions.
www.scottishdemocraticalliance.org

More than 100,000 hits in the past three months.

Best regards,

Michael Hamilton (PS. I was in Dunbar and Belhaven this afternoon - in Melrose now.)

Curious in Canada,

As I don't give a damn about race and favour immigration, I doubt that the BNP would see me as an attractive recruit!

Dearest Traquir - the corrosiveness of your hauteur is almost bracing. Although I feel I should correct you on a minor point or two. Yes, I said fairly small island without, you`ll notice, making reference to the population which, you cheeky monkey, you chose to focus on. And of course, you will know that those pesky BNP meps and councillors were almost certainly voted in based on voter turnouts in the 30-odd percent range. BNP representation is a consequence of many factors, though not apathy I would suggest.

But these are minor points. What strikes me is the chilling despite you clearly harbour for England and, well, any English person. Erm, did you know that any nation - like any city - is essentially a patchwork of communities and regional cultures, even subcultures? This means that the range of cultures and opinions and feelings and political stances is actually very wide, in Scotland as well as England. It would be very wrong for either you or I to try and characterise either the Scots or the English as some kind of homogenous mass, wrong and insulting.

So this contempt for anything English betrays a certain irrationality, not to mention a lack of basic human empathy. Aye, sounds like I`m getting into a bit of pocket-psych but your single-mindedness demands an explanation. Ultimately, I guess, your Nationalism would see England as just another country, like Belgium or Italy. Never mind all the cultural and family and historical links - England? Pah, just another country.

And as for each having separate challenges to approach in their own ways - er, climate change? International corporate greed? But then that may not bother you too much, given your eagerness to welcome the poisonous Trump to these shores.

God, its late. I know there's zero chance of affecting your opinion, but your narrow, ignoble aspirations should be shown up for what they are. But hey - maybe Craig's had enough of us yacking away at each other. For the now, I bid you good night.

I spent many years in England, and as a good Reiver I brought back an English bride. I do not hate the English. Unfortunately however, on occasion I have found the reverse to be true. Let me give you a small example of just what it is like. My eldest, while serving in the RN, came across a group of matelots engaged in the racial baiting of a coloured colleague. My son used his rank to disperse them, and said to the victim "I'm sorry. Things like that shouldn't happen. Are you OK?" To which the reply was "I am OK thanks, but don't worry about me. You are a Jock. Worry about yourself. You experience much more racial hatred than I ever get!"
So, Mr Cobley, take the beam out of your eye, and the chip off your shoulder, and start looking at the world as it is. And when you see the faults generated by English attitudes, start thinking sensibly about what we can do to improve things - for everyone

writerman's 'romantic veil' is in fact wound many times around the Union. I have never heard a rational defence of the Union, and I am therefore left to assume that there is none.

Concerning nationalism generally, it is interesting that the word is so often (by a certain type of person) used pejoratively - usually qualified as 'narrow nationalism'. I think the aim is to drive the word into the same territory occupied by the phrase 'conspiracy theory', meaning an hypothesis too ludicrous to warrant serious discussion - a useful taboo if the hypothesis happens to be true.

My own support for nationalism is from comparison with its principle opponent - imperialism. Imperialism would be so much easier if the bloody natives would abandon their narrow nationalism and stop shooting back, the bastards. It was grimly amusing last night to hear a BBC 'news' announcer reporting that British troops could not be withdrawn from Afghanistan until the violence of the natives had been contained - it reminded me of that story about the notice board which says only 'it is forbidden to throw stones at this notice'.

The British body politic is in a very sick state. Perhaps it always was, and we have just begun to notice. Scottish secession from the Union (I always prefer to describe myself as a separatist on the grounds that it is more explanatory) would certainly help Scotland, but I believe it would also help England by pulling away one of the major supports of its hopelessly corrupt political system - its delusion of grandeur.

I agree with Craig the SNP could and should declare a more radical agenda - the party must generate excitement to fuel a 'yes' vote. That it does not is in part explained by anxiety about the question which would appear on a referendum ballot. The experience of others* (and the dictates of logic) show that a simple question has the best chance of success: the more ideas that are conflated or implied, the less likely that there will be a positive result. This stands in tension with the points Craig raises - simplicity easily becomes blandness.

~~

* For example: Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

I still think that nationalism is a form of romantic veil that has the purpose of diverting and disquising other, more important and fundamental social/economic relationships in society. For example, ones relating to class, and disparities of wealth and power.

Why do people, or a 'volk' believe that national self-determination will solve their problems, when there is so much historical evidence that, at the very least, points in the other direction?

Is this because, nationalism is an appeal to the emotions, the heart, often using symbols and language that stir the blood and the heart?

I know from the experience of my own family that they were an international family, with branches and substantial economic interests spread around europe. In each country they were well integrated, and apparently assimilated. They were part of the ruling-class. People with a real stake in the countries the resided in. However, I also know, I've read their correspondence, that at the same time they regarded their adopted countries, mostly as cash-cows, when one pulls aside the veil of nationalism.

In reality people like us have no country, or at least we pick and choose our country like investing in an enterprise. We have no permanent loyatly to any state, but we do have a permanent loyalty to our economic interests, and we are 'loyal' to the nation, or state, that best serves them. When doesn't, we move on to greener pastures.

I know for a fact that one branch invested large sums building what ammounted to a private army based on nationalist rhetoric with the sole purpose of creating a bulwark against what we perceived as a threat to our position coming from the Left.

For us, nationalism was, and still is, a useful conceit, another tool in our box of tricks to keep power for ourselves, we can turn it on and turn it off. Of all our tools, the myth of the nation and the 'volk' has probably been the most useful to us.

Perhaps I'm being far too honest here? Only this nationalist thing, has also proved to be a two edge sword for us. We have aruguably lost more than we gained, on balance, others disagree. After all, despite all the destruction, cost, and bloodshed, 'we' are still in charge and others are not.

A final word. Then I'll shut up. One course one can make a rational argument for the Union. To state that one has never heard such a defence, a 'rational' defence, as Vronsky states so boldly, is in my opinion absurd, a 'irrational'.

The Union made Great Britain possible. The Scottish ruling-class, the aristocracy sold their stake in Scotland for a price, saw that their was more potential in creating and being part of an expanding imperial power, and never looked back. The Scottish and English aristocracy became fully, well, more or less, integrated with each other. It was about creating a stonger state, where there was more power to be had and therefore money to be made. That is a perfectly understandable goal and fully rational.

Also the Scotts, like the Irish, were a very useful addition to the British army, which was so important in the expansion of British economic interests around the world.

The Scottish ruling elite, after the Union, did very well out of the deal, as they were now part of a successful and very profitable world empire that was expanding. There were real opportunities, far more than in a small and not particularly significant country on the edge of europe called Scotland.

Craig -

Off topic, sorry. Any thoughts on the high number of Nat blogs that have been shut down over the past week or two? Coincidence is starting to look thin as an explanation. Have you experienced any new presures?

As an aside, why do I feel (instinctively) that Scottish independence is a valid political movement but not Québecois seperatism?

Anybody help me out here?

Oh hang on, I got there in the end: because I think that Québecois seperatism is fuelled by some bollocks French supra-nationalism rather than part of a sincere desire for the realisation of a true, indigenous identity.

What was the first modern, nation state? I mean it's not as if they've always been around is it?

I suppose we can agree that the concept of the nation really didn't pertain in the Middle Ages, in a fuedal type society. It Italy and Germany, for example, I would argue they didn't really become 'nations' and a 'volk' until relatively recently, around 150 years ago, when nationalism, and the centralized state got a grip on things.

I think one can argue that France was arguably the first of the new, nation states, with all the trappings, which includes cultural appendages; why? This massively complex, subject and highly controversial, but I believe it had a lot to do with the logistics of putting a really massive army in the field. To do that it was necessarily to mobilize the entire country for war, and one of principle ways was to whip up patriotic fervor to defend the motherland and our 'uniqueness' from possible 'oppression' from abroad. Britain seems to have become a kind of 'mirror image' of France in this period, only instead of revolutionary fervour, the opposite was whipped up.

This, I think, started the nationalist ball rolling all over the place, and we all know where it led in the end don't we?

On Writerman’s comment of December 4, 2009 10:03 AM

Writerman comments that Scottish elites benefited economically from the Act of Union. I would suggest that the economic benefits associated with Union went far beyond just the elites of 1707. Glasgow went on to develop the first modern high tech industry (Shipbuilding & Engineering). The West of Scotland became a sort of “Silicon Valley” of the 19th and 18th centuries and this was reflected in increasing living standards.

I think it hard to argue that the Union did not benefit Scots until 1914. But then something went economically very wrong. I read somewhere that whereas in 1912 Glasgow’s working class had the highest average pay in the world, that by the 1970’s (within 60 years) their standard of living had declined to the 2nd lowest in Europe after Naples.

Today this great high tech engineering centre, that once was Glasgow, is only history. Economically I think it hard to argue that the Union did not benefit Scotland for 200 years, but it may be equally hard to argue that the Union economically benefits Scotland today.

This post is by Dougie (aka Craig?)
"Nobody knows for sure, but in the year before he was born his parents were at the Bruce estate in Thurrock near Dagenham."
Kind of watery explanation, don't you think? If I happened to be in England a year before my son was born, would that mean he wasn't born in Scotland?

Bruce's Cave and Bruce's Well are both to be found high on the slopes of Hadyard Hill in the South Ayrshire village of Dailly. For Bruce, an ideal hiding place. Further along the hill, on a shoulder above him was an old iron age fort where he could meet followers. Above the cave was a spring with the most beautiful water supply, and behind him to his right, a cashel or similar with monks who could feed him. It is still possible to find traces of their orchard. But best of all, from the cave he had a panoramic view of anything which moved almost over the whole of South Ayrshire. Almost impossible to be taken by surprise. And how did he know the cave was there? (You can only see it when you are actually standing in front of it) It is within the old Turnberry Castle's hunting grounds, where he would have roamed as a child.

Dougie

Nobody is doubting that Bruce was in Scotland in later life! But they weren't just visiting Essex, they lived there. The Bruces had greater estates in England than in Scotland, as did many of the Scots Norman aristocracy(accurately reflected in Braveheart, incidentally).

Interestingly, these aversions to "union" is always started by economic hardship. The Basques had no problems when they were making money from Spanish conquests, yet some now regret it.

So when the British Empire unfolded after WWII along with the loss of ship building trade to USA, Scottish independence was back on the agenda.

"Why do people, or a 'volk' believe that national self-determination will solve their problems, when there is so much historical evidence that, at the very least, points in the other direction?"-- writerman

Jesus, writerman, what do you know of Irish history? What did the Irish gain from being a British colony? What did they gain from having salted meat and grain exported from Irish ports while the peasants were left to die in their thousands? The Irish population was halved in the Great Famine, between death, and emigration in 'coffin ships'. What did we gain from having our language banned? From children being beaten in schoolyards for speaking it? What exactly did we gain from the Plantation of Ulster after O'Neill and O'Donnell were defeated at Kinsale? What did we gain from all those efforts to forcibly Protestantise our country? Have you actually considered what you're saying for more then 10 seconds?

"Also the Scotts, like the Irish, were a very useful addition to the British army, which was so important in the expansion of British economic interests around the world."-- writerman

Were they indeed? I think you'll find that the Irish were largely trodden on and beaten up by the British Army until much later on, when some enlisted to fight in the First World War, and were then maligned at home because many Irish thought they should have stayed to fight in 1916 - a rebellion against British control of Ireland. The Irish enlisted again to fight Hitler, despite Dev (in a, by then, independent Ireland) having announced that our country would be neutral in that war. They went to fight "for the freedom of small nations" -- those were the words my father used. Those were the words we were reared on.

I would dearly love to know where IS all this, "much historical evidence", that being under the heel of the English/British solved all of Ireland's problems and that we've been worse off ever since independence.

I have Australian friends. I know that it's considered a badge of honour in Australia to have arrived in leg irons as a convicted Irish rebel. Many of those without such in their history feel vaguely deprived. I wonder why.

It was nationalism that defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan. And it's nationalism that it keeping the US/UK forces at bay there now, after all these years. And I personally am glad to see it. The Afghan people are dying in their hundreds and nobody is bothering to properly count them. All because an imperial and a mini-ex-imperial power take to themselves the right to walk in wherever they choose and dictate their wishes to the local people. I'll leave it to you to guess who I'm rooting for.

Yes, I think writerman is in danger of conflating nationhood and nationalism. They are not the same thing and one does not necessarily lead to the other.

A very interesting case right now is that of Palestine. The Palestinian Authority is seriously considering circumventing the obviously pointless negotiations with Israel and simply declaring itself a nation unilaterally. It reckons a large enough number of other countries in the UN will recognise it and it will therefore become, virtually overnight, a fait acompli.

Mr. M's COMMENT ON LOSS OF SHIPBUILDING

Mr. M – Glasgow shipbuilding declined not just because of the depression of the 30’s, but because in the post 2nd World War period the yards could not raise capital to retool for the simple reason that Westminster had imposed such sky high taxes that the after tax return on such investments was often close to zero. This cataclysmic decline in our then high tech manufacturing industries was made in Westminster with some help from The City.

I recall a Glasgow businessman of the 1950’s (whom I could name) paying a marginal tax rate of 97.5% (19 shillings and 6 pence in the pound) on his income. At the same time the City of London had orchestrated schemes (using offshore trusts, etc.) where the wealthy could funnel their money abroad and pay practically no tax at all. So it was hardly surprising that people with wealth invested abroad rather than at home. The result of this lack of investment - the capital equipment wore out.

Indeed it seems to me that the City’s only interest in Scotland (and England outside the City & Whitehall) is to get its lion’s share of the oil money, and subsidies from Britain’s middle classes to shore up the cost of its own incompetence and corruption – from Lloyds (insurance) of London 2 decades ago, to today’s gargantuan banking fiasco. My own view is that both England and Scotland should find a way to declare independence from the UK’s very corrupt establishment – though perhaps my views are coloured by the treatment my family and I have had from this establishment.

alright, things are hotting up, good. The Irish part of my family were ardent nationalists, so I was weened on Irish nationalist 'mythology' so to speak.

Didn't I write somewhere that this was a complex area? That means that there are conflicting versions and conflicting histories, that bump and ram up against each other. Just like in Palestine. This strange idea that there is something we know to be 100% right and true in relation to 'history' is a dangerous conceit.

Where exactly does one find history? I'd contend that history exists in the present, more than the past. In a way one could choose to call it 'nowstory' rather than history, because most of us look at the past through a contemporary lense. Surely this is, if one thinks about it, obvious. Only the world we 'know' in the present really 'exists' for us, and is knowable, everything else is a version.

Is protestant/unionist history in relation to Ireland really less valid than nationalist history? I don't know, I only asking.

What seems to characterise nationalists is that they have an extraordinary degreee of certainty about things that happened, let's call it history, that happened long before they were even born. Where do they derive this certainty?

Coming from an Austrian aristocratic family one of the things I've discovered is that there are forces pulling towards the centre and forces pulling away, there is a dynamic at work.

Didn't religious fanatism, far more than nationalism defeat the Russians in Afghanistan?

And anyway the idea that Afghanistan was ever a nation, or a people, is highly problematic and tendentious. I think one could see Afghanistan as kind of 'no-man's-land', a crucial fulcrum between rival great powers who clashed there.

And furthermore, of course I'm bloody conflating nationalism with nationhood, that's the whole point, that these terms and concepts blend into one another. Like nationalism can often lead towards totalitarianism.

Regarding Ireland, what do I know about Irish history? I wonder, whose history or story are we talking about here? Did the real Irish patriots loose or win the civil war after the British left? Was the republic a democracy or a dictatorship afterwards? Does it really make that much difference if the ruling elite are British or Irish? Isn't the real enemy the opressive elite, regardless of the colour of the flay they drape over themselves?

alright, things are hotting up, good. The Irish part of my family were ardent nationalists, so I was weened on Irish nationalist 'mythology' so to speak.

Didn't I write somewhere that this was a complex area? That means that there are conflicting versions and conflicting histories, that bump and ram up against each other. Just like in Palestine. This strange idea that there is something we know to be 100% right and true in relation to 'history' is a dangerous conceit.

Where exactly does one find history? I'd contend that history exists in the present, more than the past. In a way one could choose to call it 'nowstory' rather than history, because most of us look at the past through a contemporary lense. Surely this is, if one thinks about it, obvious. Only the world we 'know' in the present really 'exists' for us, and is knowable, everything else is a version.

Is protestant/unionist history in relation to Ireland really less valid than nationalist history? I don't know, I only asking.

What seems to characterise nationalists is that they have an extraordinary degreee of certainty about things that happened, let's call it history, that happened long before they were even born. Where do they derive this certainty?

Coming from an Austrian aristocratic family one of the things I've discovered is that there are forces pulling towards the centre and forces pulling away, there is a dynamic at work.

Didn't religious fanatism, far more than nationalism defeat the Russians in Afghanistan?

And anyway the idea that Afghanistan was ever a nation, or a people, is highly problematic and tendentious. I think one could see Afghanistan as kind of 'no-man's-land', a crucial fulcrum between rival great powers who clashed there.

Marx, was only half-right. Religion wasn't similar to opium for the masses alone. What was really the chosen drug, providing real visions of 'perfect' future world, with all the shackles shrugged off, was the myth of the nation. Nationalism is the opium of the people.

Craig,

You say: "As I don't give a damn about race and favour immigration, I doubt that the BNP would see me as an attractive recruit!"

I said nothing of race and believe, in fact, that the BNP position on race could easily -- and would wisely -- be translated into a doctrine of national interest, i.e., the duty of the government is to serve the interest of the citizens, allowing immigration only insofar as it meets a clearly identified national interest.

Do you disagree with such a doctrine?

If so, do you acknowledge that unrestricted immigration from the third world to Britain or any other first world nation could overwhelm the infrastructure, and in this and other ways lower the standard of living? And if you agree to that, do you say that this is an acceptable consequence of making immigration to
Britain a right of every citizen of the world?

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts.

"Didn't religious fanatism, far more than nationalism defeat the Russians in Afghanistan?"

Actually it was a bunch of US-trained and funded Islamic mercenaries called the mujahadeen. The US kept a database of its employees. That database was called al-Qaeda.

Re: Coconuts

I take it you don't like the democratic idea of folks being able to determine by a vote in, say, a Swiss style referendum, what the national interest is on a question such as the number of immigrants (which in Britain in 2006 was more than double Canada's target -- which we didn't reach -- although Canada is 30 times the size of Britain and has a trillion barrels of oil in the tar sands).

"What seems to characterise nationalists is that they have an extraordinary degreee of certainty about things that happened, let's call it history, that happened long before they were even born. Where do they derive this certainty?"--writerman

The Great Famine began in 1845, not pre-history. The Plantation of Ulster was 1609. There are documents. There are ship manifests. There are Court records. There are Parliamentary records. There are contemprary Irish accounts. You have to go back a very long way to come to a time when there was no pens or ink on either side of the Irish Sea.

I'll say no more, as I have no desire whatsoever to get into an Irish/British argument here, and wouldn't have, were it not for your amazing generalisations. I am here because of my interest in human rights, the bogus War on Terror, and my opposition to torture. In other words, the subjects over which Craig departed the FCO.

http://www.macjams.com/lab/music/17672.mp3

Goodbye Corus. Goodbye Teesside.

The north east sold down the river again. Land spoilt with chemicals. No grand history to win the sympathy of a 'nation'.
Many a Scott and Northman buried here.. turning in their grave from battles past.
For what? Profit? Shame!
"I am here because of my interest in human rights, the bogus War on Terror, and my opposition to torture."
Alright for some.

Writerman wrote:-

" I think modern nationalism is form of tribalism on steroids. The history of the nation state, and the creation of national identity, go hand in hand, and both of those hands are soaked in blood. I wonder, if it was really worth it?"

I think that anyone seriously interested in the subject of nationalism should read, this Israeli Professor's book:-

"The invention of the Jewish people"
By: Shlomo Sand

N.B. NO - I am not his agent - nor am I his publicist - but he has simply written a thought provoking book that will be of interest to everyone.

Writerman wrote:-

" I think modern nationalism is form of tribalism on steroids. The history of the nation state, and the creation of national identity, go hand in hand, and both of those hands are soaked in blood. I wonder, if it was really worth it?"

I think that anyone seriously interested in the subject of nationalism should read, this Israeli Professor's book:-

"The invention of the Jewish people"
By: Shlomo Sand

N.B. NO - I am not his agent - nor am I his publicist - but he has simply written a thought provoking book that will be of interest to everyone.

Mike Cobley,
"Goodness, how terribly naîve, eh?"

Very much so.

Writerman,
I can hardly believe you listen to John Martyn

dreoilin at December 4, 2009 11:46 PM
Very well put mo chara

My own view is that both England and Scotland should find a way to declare independence from the UK’s very corrupt establishment - posted by Roderick Russell.

Declaring independence is easy. All it takes is guts to stand up and be counted

Read this:

Preamble to THE TREATY OF EDINBURGH/NORTHAMPTON of 1329

Whereas we, and some of our predecessors, Kings of England, have attempted to gain rights of rule, lordship or superiority over the Kingdom of Scotland, and terrible hardships have long afflicted the realms of England and Scotland through the wars fought on this account; and bearing in mind the bloodshed, slaughter, atrocities, destruction of churches, and innumerable evils from which the inhabitants of both realms have suffered over and over again because of these wars; and having regard also to the good things in which both realms might abound to their mutual advantage if joined in stability or perpetual peace, and thus more effectually made secure, within and beyond their borders, against the harmful attempts of violent men to rebel or make war; we will and concede for us and all our heirs and successors, by the common counsel, assent and consent of the prelates, magnates, earls and barons and communities of our realm in our parliament that the Kingdom of Scotland shall remain for ever separate in all respects from the Kingdom of England, in its entirety, free and in peace, without any kind of subjection, servitude, claim of demand, with its rightful boundaries as they were held and preserved in the times of Alexander of good memory, King of Scotland last deceased, to the magnificent prince, the Lord Robert, by God's grace illustrious King of Scots, our ally and very dear friend, and to his heirs and successors.
Edward Rex

(Berwick-upon-Tweed was, and so still is, within those rightful boundaries above mentioned)

We are independent. That is the law. This treaty has, to the best of my knowledge, never been rescinded. Its just that politicians ignore the law. That being so, instead of a political party, perhaps what we need is a good lawyer to sue England for damages.

Westminster could of course rescind this treaty, but I would think that would give rise to quite a few questions.

Curious in Canada asked:-

"…do you acknowledge that unrestricted immigration from the third world to Britain or any other first world nation could overwhelm the infrastructure, and in this and other ways lower the standard of living? And if you agree to that, do you say that this is an acceptable consequence of making immigration to Britain a right of every citizen of the world?"
What's interesting in this question is that it contains two elements, and one is hidden:-
1. The ones in the First World who are so determined to keep all the Third World people out are the very ones who have inherited great national wealth from the recent processes of colonisation and benefits derived from exploitative and highlly skewed trade relations with the Third World.
2. The WTO, IMF and other organisations supportive of the Washington Agenda, seem intent on perpetuating the poverty and trade imbalances with a lot of these countries from where the poor people seek to migrate to the wealthy countries.
Those seem to me to be the two sides on the coin. Immigration/migration takes place oftentimes for reasons of poverty; thus, address the global poverty issue and - as with the periods of Europeans outward thrust to the rest of the world, with wealth now in their own countries and the settler coloinies that they created, the Native Americans, Asians, Africans and others - just might stay at "home". "Home" however, might, if you reconsidered just be the single planet we all live on, with resources, labour and capital dispersed ( unevenly) -so - 'they' now come to 'us' as 'we' had gone to 'them' in times recently past.
With those thoughts in mind - my question is:-
What really is globalisation?
Is it capital freely moving where it's owners determine?
Or, is labour, and cheap Third World labour, or skilled and highly trained labour as well, to be afforded any opportunity to venture out for improvement, if same is not available at ‘home’?
Or, as "Curious in Canada" suggests - is immigration to be based exclusively on considerations of "national interest" - and if so - then how is "national interest" to be defined and determined in a world where 'globalisation' remains the economic mantra.
Over to you " curious..."
P.S. In a funny sense, despite the fact that you also say, “ ….unrestricted immigration from the third world to Britain or any other first world nation could overwhelm the infrastructure, and in this and other ways lower the standard of living?” – it was unrestricted migration from the First World to the Third World that historically, with attendant slavery and exploitation, that structured the highly skewed North/South divide of the wealthy few and the needy masses of ‘them’ that inhabit the planet today.

Courtenay,

History is a record of invasion, mass murder, rape and pillage. Read the Bible. Read Darwin.

One would be inhumane not to feel for the victims. One would be weak in the head not to wish to be on the side of the victors.

That the West momentarily dominated the world does not mean that the world it dominated will not take advantage of any opportunity to subjugate the West. The West is now being invaded by a mass of poor people of formerly subject nations -- plus China, which was never were subjugated by the west.

All invasions are resisted. Man is an territorial species. Without territory a population must cease to exist.

In recent times, the British resisted the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons (who wiped out most of the Celts), the Vikings who occupied, and still occupy, large parts of the country (this is evident in a comparison of the in the facial structure of many folks in Kent and those in Denmark), and the Normans.

Now Britain is facing an invasion on a greater scale than that of the (white-skinned) Vikings (53 percent of births in London are to foreign-born women). As with the Viking invasion, the current influx is aided by traitors, the likes of Jack Straw and company who see electoral advantage in siding with the money and the ethnic vote.

Nationalism, if it means anything of significance, surely entails preservation of the population that makes up the nation. In that sense I am a nationalist and have sympathy for the nationalist cause in places under western assault such as Palestine and Afghanistan.

For many in the BNP, nationalism seems to be a visceral, knuckle-dragging hatred of those who are obviously recent immigrants, i.e., part of the colonizing wave. This makes the BNP an easy target for the manipulators of ideas: Jack Straw, with his ridiculous comments about "fear of the other," or Craig with his remark about coconuts (I say that rudely, since I assume that Craig will delete this entire post anyway). But the interesting thing about the BNP is that it offers a platform of nationalism in opposition to globalism. How they could possibly pull that off -- kick the American military out of Britain, maintain an independent nuclear deterrent, avoid all foreign wars -- I don't know. But it is an interesting proposition.

Golly! Obviously, on a site like this one has a tendancy to oversimply, because often, in comment, one only scrathing the surface of complex issues.

But, as a rule of thumb, people who begin their comments, with word 'actually' are, in my experience, way off base. 'Actually' usually means that one has trodded on someoenes sectarian toes and caused a reaction, which is good, in a way.

One of my faults, among many, is that I have a tendency not to take peoples' national myths seriously, sorry.

December the fifth,

What does your comment, I can hardly believe you listen to John Martyn, what's that supposed to mean exactly?

writerman is exactly right that our enemy is the oppressive elite

Alfred,

You have said a mouthful, and I think you deserve one back.

I trust that I will appeal to reason, and not be unduly sidelined by the ‘kick’ of petty nationalism

The existence of a nation is a transient phenomenon. In the development of every Western nation, we find shifting lines of geographical demarcation, variations of ethnicity and languages over time, and with the evolution of a dominant group there is the accompaniment of a national myth of being the first people of the nation. A contemporary reference might be the “daughters of the revolution” in the US and those who claim that their foreparents arrived on the Mayflower. Thus a WASP(IST )claim to rights of original citizenry. On the other side of the Atlantic the sentiments are not totally different when it comes on to the paleness of a person’s skin. But let’s have a little look at recent immigrant history, post World War 11 to Britain:-

Poles arrived

Hungarian Jews arrived

Ukrainians arrived

And - exact for similarity of skin colour – are these people and their descendants of the original historical citizenry? So, on then to :-

The Caribbean immigrants at Enoch Powell’s invitation

And the Indians and Pakistanis etc.

People were lost in the Great War, and people were found, in truth to do a lot of the shit jobs that the Whites no longer wanted.

Let’s move on, and get a bit closer to this era of “globalisation”.

Quite frankly, I do not see so-called “globalisation” as new. Consider that Columbus arrived in the Americas and the European nations followed and settled, plundered, enslaved and made vast fortunes – which in essence was an earlier form of globalisaiton. Today, the traffic is two way, and those from those regions have arrived in Britain, as have Eastern Europeans etc. Without blowing a special trumpet for the thoughts of Karl Marx, it seems to me correct to say that economic considerations do play a major part in these migratory patterns. So, are we able to stop the tide of history; does one stop trading with the world; does one stop investing in other countries; does one stop banking the big deposits in the City of London – etc. as some of the financial/economic considerations which constitute a part of the bigger picture of the real world? Maybe we can cross the Atlantic again, for better understanding:-

Consider recent US economic history. In the early seventies the US went off the gold standard, under President Nixon. The result was a freer movement of global capital. China with a huge population and equivalent cheap labour, proved quite attractive for Western capital. Additionally, as China has grown economically, it has found itself with a mass of T-bills and other Western ( primarily US financial instruments). The point of course is that there is now, whether we like it or not, this symbiotic relationship. The West is obliged to deal with China and China’s self-interest dictates that it must react in a pragmatic way in it dealings with the West – which markets it wants the benefit of – and thus does not readily want the West to sink. East and West are in the same precarious economic bath tub – trying to keep it afloat.

Now – having said all that, try as we might to be purely nationalistic, we ought to understand that there are bigger global factors driving these global exchanges, and the migratory patterns are but an aspect of greater and more complex global dynamics.

You are incorrect in terms of Western involvement in China. The Chinese did suffer some recent humiliating experiences, inclusive of the Boxer period and the British introduction of the heroin trade with the consequential acquisition of Hong Kong. I seriously doubt that the Chinese have yet , in their national psyche, forgotten those instances. However, I seriously believe that a sort of hard-nosed pragmatism prevails. They are opening up to the world, as with the Beijing Olympics and heavy recent financial inputs into places like Africa and the South American continent.

When we look around the world we see regional groupings growing and blocs being formed of Asian, American and European interests. What we don’t see is any real viability for the state standing alone.

Alfred – I have gone this wide, far, and deep, to try and come to a realistic conclusion.

We can stuff our heads up our narrow little arses and pretend that Blighty still rules the waves, embrace the BNP b.s. – or – we can look at the world as it actually is and put the racism and petty nationalism to rest.

Another of my 'rules of thumb' is that if one thinks one 'knows' something relating to history, close to certainty; then one is probably 'wrong' about it. This is expecially 'true' if one is deally with some deeply felt, emotionally charged, national foundation myth.

And futhermore, because one questions the 'truth' or validity of various nationalist narratives; it does not follow that one is supporting the oppression of a people by an imperial power. On the other hand the 'folk-tales' of a people are not necessarily valid as history, though they aren't irrelevant, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

In the 19th century there was wave of 'nationalism' that surged in Europe. Suddenly, people who happened to speak the same language and live in the same geographic area, felt as if these factors were of extraordinary importance. This was something new, and was linked to the emergence of the nation state, and everybody seemed to want one!

This nationalism was closely connected to the dubious concept of 'race'. That is, the power and magic of ethnic exclusivity; 'us' are different, and superior, to 'them'. For example one seriously talked about a Gaulic race, a German race, a Polish race, the Slavic race, the Roman race, and on and on.

Art and litterature was enrolled in this cultural process of creating not just a nation but a people, or 'volk'. Every 'nation' had to have it's own national poet, writer, composer, sculture... who represented the soul and character of the 'volk'.

Clearly art, not being science, is designed, so to speak, to appeal to the emotions, to move people; but it's highly debatable whether this kind of nationalist art was ever really 'true', as most of it was, as is clear now, based on mythology, but incredibly powerful mythology.

One of the reasons, and surely, if one thinks about it for a second this is obvious; one of the reasons for all the bloodshed and wars in Europe, was that so many *CONFLICTING* nationalist myths began to crash into one another, with disasterous results to follow. For example; what about two, or three, 'volk' that claim special or exclusive rights to the same geographical area, based on their 'histories'. Where does one draw the borders to create these new states? How many of the 'others' the 'outlanders' are allowed to remain inside the new states? Do we force them to speak our language and adopt our customs, and accept our 'history' as theirs as well, or do we find an excuse to drive them out?

Don't the myriad wars and ethnic conflicts in Europe 'prove' that these questions relating to where and what a 'volk' is, are anything but clear and settled, and show how dangerous it is when 'volk' begin to take their 'myths' too seriously?

All I know with a high degree of certainty, is that my family manipulated these feelings for their own profit, often with terrible longterm results to follow. For example in both the great european wars of the last century, they even ended up being forced to fight one another, as they were variously in the military, of Poland, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, and Austria. It wasn't supposed to go that far? But, alas, these things have tendancy to get out of hand.

Courtenay,

My initial comment stemmed from puzzlement that there are people who espouse Scottish nationalism but who are happy to see the English ethnically cleansed from their own capital city.

Apparently, however, these things cannot be considered rationally because any idea that contradicts the prevailing propaganda is dismissed as racist nonsense from someone with their head up their arse, a rather sad form of argument if you think about it.

The are only two things I can think to suggest. One is that you reconsider your belief that the BNP’s policy of withdrawal from wars of conquest and occupation makes them imperialists. For if they are imperialists, what does that make the warmongers and war criminals like Blair, Bush and Obama?

My second suggestion is that you reconsider the notion that nations are meaningless entities. Is it, for example, really the case that a Scotchman is indistinguishable physically and culturally from a Jamaican, or that if they are distinguishable, that the difference does not matter? And how would you go about explaining to the few remaining native people of North America or the Palestinians or the Tasmanians (if there were any left) that their belief in the desirability of their continued existence on the face of this planet is, or was, a silly mistake?

Alfred,

I suppose the "English" will continue to exist in England, be it that their parents come from England/England; Pakistan/India; Jamaica/England; Ireland/England; Ghana/England; Ukraine/England; Poland/England; Germany/England; Egypt (England)/Finland ( had to get ol' Al-Fayed in there somehow - and - even Scotland/England - and I could go on with several other conceivable combinations of men and women and vice versa - producing "English" persons in England. That old Alfred is the "lay" ( pun intended) of the land.

I do support an end to imperialist wars. However, if the ruse is to be an end to those wars for the objective of a greater isolationism – then I suppose that is where racism dove tails with a misguided and narrow minded nationalism. I don't support racism in clever guise.

Kind regards - and I do accept that my head up the arse hole comment, ( while graphic -and- not as dainty as the alternative ostrich reference) - was somewhat harsh.

Courtenay

PS. If you fear that national identity will be lost because of immigration - America is a good example of why a national identity under circumstances of intense immigration does not destroy a national identity. I think it lends to diversity - and that's the world as it is. National identity is not, and never was, a static phenomenon.

In any absolute biological sense – really – who are the “English” Alfred? Will be pleased to have your rational definition of same.
If the idea of “English” does not lend itself to “race” then let me have something that turns to ethnicity, identity, and the social categories that fit the purpose and cause that you defend – rationally – of course - Alfred

Courtenay,
Be as abrasive as you like, but try to make it rational. As for the argument about invasion etc., your trouble is you don’t understand biology. The logic of life is reproduction and colonization. In a crowded world some groups expand while others are overwhelmed and sometimes made extinct. The Beothuc in Nova Scotia were hunted by the early setters. Now they are no more. Ditto the Tasmanians. A local Indian leader here in Canada remarked not long ago (referring to european settlers) “we should have killed them all when the first arrived.” From an Indian point of view, how can one disagree? Admittedly, it would have been impossible, the Europeans had rifles, the Indians didn’t.

As for the English, true they are all immigrants, but some have been there a lot longer than others, with British ancestry stretching hundreds or thousands of years. My contention is that in a democracy, those indiginous Britons have a right to say whether there should be millions of people of a different culture and ethnicity allowed to enter Britain and occupy large tracts of the country. How can anyone who is not a totalitarian disagree with that? (People like Jack Straw, who is a Stalinist, do not agree, of course.)

When I was born, in 1943 while my father was serving in the RAF in the war against Nazism, there were more than 8 million Londoners of whom probably fewer than 500,000 (including the refugees from Nazism) were not of English descent. Today, that number is under 4 million. that is the basis for saying that the English are being ethnically cleansed from their own capital.

Alfred,

You have argued around my question:-

"In any absolute biological sense – really – who are the “English” Alfred? Will be pleased to have your rational definition of same.
If the idea of “English” does not lend itself to “race” then let me have something that turns to ethnicity, identity, and the social categories that fit the purpose and cause that you defend – rationally – of course - Alfred"

I sense what you are trying to say:-

"The logic of life is reproduction and colonization. In a crowded world some groups expand while others are overwhelmed and sometimes made extinct."

And thus your "biological" premise seems to me to support those who are seeking to relocate in England. A form of "colonization" ( your choice of word - not mine)- which upon your own reasoning is natural and thus acceptable.

Still have not had the definitions sought from you, but you can accept that what you actually wrote is funnily in support of the opposite of what you were trying to argue.

Kind regards.
Courtenay
P.S. Truly gentle reply - and - not at all abrasive.

Hi Courtenay,

I thought this discussion had come to an end. But you ask a question so here's the answer.

The English nation has many tributaries. Those who followed the retreating glaciers, and in much more recent times, the Celts, the Romans the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans, and many others.

Whenever people came as colonists they were resisted for the obvious reason that colonists come as conquerors. They take what they can, drive out the native people, i.e., those already present, and attempt to establish a political hegemony.

For legal purposes, I would define the English as all those who are native born or legally naturalized British citizens resident in England. It is to those people that the government of a democracy must serve, in the matter of immigration or anything else.

Is that not straightforward?

Alfred

Hello everyone. You can only cure retail but you can prevent wholesale. Help me! Can not find sites on the: Vardenafil over the counter. I found only this - vardenafil order. Vardenafil, easily, he impairs her constricting. This is immediately the food to reward about increasing clinical hyped levels, specifically, vardenafil. Thank you very much :-). Mckale from Bhutan.

Понимает ли кто-нибудь кроме меня, что

существует связь...

Понимает ли кто-нибудь кроме меня, что

существует связь...

Jest mi jednak trochę głupio, że nie pomyślałem o tym wcześniej feel.

Czasami jest to takie proste, prawda?

Great idea, thanks for this post!

Hi buddy, very informative post. Please keep them coming.