Scottish people, you are not British

[Odysseus]

Its the preserve of the ignorant unionist to dismiss a desire for independance as 'William Wallace/Tartan/Shortbread' mentality. Take a look at most of Scotland, does it LOOK like a healthy country to you? Its not. I'm not British, I'm Scottish, and your rather patronising stance is pretty pathetic Flarewearer. Ethnically, Scots folk (Celtic) ARE different from English (anglo saxon) to deny this is denying history.

We'd be MUCH better off being allowed to fashion our own identity, rather than have utterly false 'British' ethnicity (Don't the English WANT their own identity?) No doubt some mongo will have stopped reading by this point and will be replying how I'm a racist for saying we are different. I don't have a problem with Englishness, its the threat of Britishness (which attempt to envelop my own identity) which disgusts me.

[hr]

Walk into the bright lights of sorrow, oh drink a bit of wine and we both might go tommorow, my love...

[DrAlex]

Quoting flarewearer from 01:28, 15th Jan 2006
I like Alex's Texas analogy, it's perfectly possible to be Texan, live Texan, be proud of Texan history and want Texas ruled in a Texan way according to Texan value, but not to want Texas to be an independent nation state, and to be every bit as proud and supportive of the greater union.

Also, a part of my analogy that you may not have appreciated: When Texas was first captured from Mexico, it was offered the chance to join the Union. It declined, citing that it could do just as well, if not better on its own. So the young country went along its merry way, it formed an embassy in London, drafted it's laws and governance, etc. Then they heard that Mexico was coming to get them and they begged to be let back in the Union. The point I was trying to make was that Texas decided instead of making things better for itself within the Union, it would leave to try things on it's own. Things quickly went to shit and then it realised that separation wasn't as good as it seemed on paper.

[hr]

La loi est dure, mais l'aigle ne chasse pas les mouches.
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[Haunted]

I'm Scottish and I want British rule.

SNP suck.

Not quite as racist as the BNP but still just as cuntish

[flarewearer]

Quoting Odysseus from 01:37, 15th Jan 2006
Its the preserve of the ignorant unionist to dismiss a desire for independance as 'William Wallace/Tartan/Shortbread' mentality. Take a look at most of Scotland, does it LOOK like a healthy country to you? Its not. I'm not British, I'm Scottish, and your rather patronising stance is pretty pathetic Flarewearer. Ethnically, Scots folk (Celtic) ARE different from English (anglo saxon) to deny this is denying history.

Christ! it's you that's showing ignorance here, and shitloads of it. I'm no expert on Scottish social anthropology, but I can tell that you are less of one. To claim that there is some sort of Scottish 'celtic racial pedigree' is absolute bollocks. modern Scotland is a racial melting pot of many different people from all over the British isles and Europe. For a start, there are 2 distinct branches of Celts, the Q-celts (related to modern day Gaelic speakers) and the P-celts (descended from the Britons and possibly Picts, and encompassing modern day Welsh, Cornish and Breton.) These one might think of as the Scotti (Celts) of the West and the Picts of the North and East. Over the last 1000 years borders have moved fluidly and peoples and kingdoms have come and gone. For instance the Scots speakers of the South and East of Scotland share more in pedigree and heritage with the Northern English than they do with the North and West of Scotland, indeed Edinburgh was a principle castle of the Northumbrian Kingdom.

We'd be MUCH better off being allowed to fashion our own identity, rather than have utterly false 'British' ethnicity (Don't the English WANT their own identity?) No doubt some mongo will have stopped reading by this point and will be replying how I'm a racist for saying we are different. I don't have a problem with Englishness, its the threat of Britishness (which attempt to envelop my own identity) which disgusts me.

the 'British' ethnicity you refer to is no more false than the lumping of the ethnically heterogeneous peoples of Scotland as 'Scots'.
You aren't a racist, you are just so very, very wrong and delusional.
[hr]

Walk into the bright lights of sorrow, oh drink a bit of wine and we both might go tommorow, my love...[/quote]

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[The Cellar Bar]

Quoting flarewearer from 23:45, 14th Jan 2006And this is surprising considering England is the largest, most populous and closest of the home nations to most European countries?

I don't think the post actually mentioned specifically "Europeans" in the same context as "foreign" but if nothing else, for some of us, it's indicative of the view that they are interchangeable and the rest of the world is a tad too big to contemplate. Sort of like the Little Englander "Fog in Channel - Continent cut off" headline.

And in that respect, in more than a few years of travelling across Europe, I've found that the effect of discovering you're "Scottish" rather than "British" opens a helluva lot more doors and puts a helluva lot more smiles on "foreigners'" faces than the prospect that I was "English" or "British". The beauty is that they know the difference - and the sighs of relief are almost palpable when they discover the "truth".

Ethnicity has little to do with the notion of "Scotish" these days. And has more to do with social mores, views and attitudes that have pervaded our relationship with each other and with the rest of the world for years now. That is all too evident in our educational system, legal system and a host of other areas where our approach is different, less deferential and class-ridden and more inclined to the development of a society that benefits all rather than a chosen or fortunate minority. All of the which has dominated "English" culture for centuries.

I still don't understand the notion of "British". I can attach no value to it, I don't recognise my views in it and in any case it's a false, artificial construct that has no cultural or social basis to it. The term originally emerged to distinguish the two parts of William the Conqueror's "Bretagnes" and has taken on some mystic meaning that no-one can define in the first place. It's as genuine as seeing the unification of Spain and Portugal, for instance, and some numpt in Madrid suddenly embarking on a campaign to convince the two populations that "we are all Iberian now".

I know I am Scottish. I'm told I'm British. Happily I can make the distinction.

[novium]

In american english, England and Britain are synonymous. Sorry. It goes back over a hundred years, to a time when the terms were used interchangebly. Or so I have heard.

Quoting Parisintheautumn from 23:39, 14th Jan 2006
The term 'English' and 'British' are interchangable by most foreigners and i have to say some English people as well. If I say to foreigners 'I am British' the question to follow is usually 'where in England are you from?'

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[novium]

That sort of thing does really suck, but such is the nature of tourist destinations. Anywhere. Not that that is supposed to feel better. It's just a way of saying I feel your pain.

[b]Quoting flarewearer from 00:33, Secondly, I'm sick of this country constantly trying to sell itself under a banner of tartan, shortbread, whisky and "breathtaking scenery". It's patronising, condescending and makes us look like we are some sort of MacDisneyland playpark for tourists to come here and get spoonfed an incorrect hollywood-friendly version of our history.
[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[novium]

Those 'racial' lines were blurred such a long time ago, do you think it really even matters? Do you really want to base patriotism/nationality on ethnic lines? Especially given immigration, etc.

Quoting Odysseus from 01:37, 15th Jan 2006
Its the preserve of the ignorant unionist to dismiss a desire for independance as 'William Wallace/Tartan/Shortbread' mentality. Take a look at most of Scotland, does it LOOK like a healthy country to you? Its not. I'm not British, I'm Scottish, and your rather patronising stance is pretty pathetic Flarewearer. Ethnically, Scots folk (Celtic) ARE different from English (anglo saxon) to deny this is denying history.

We'd be MUCH better off being allowed to fashion our own identity, rather than have utterly false 'British' ethnicity (Don't the English WANT their own identity?) No doubt some mongo will have stopped reading by this point and will be replying how I'm a racist for saying we are different. I don't have a problem with Englishness, its the threat of Britishness (which attempt to envelop my own identity) which disgusts me.

[hr]

Walk into the bright lights of sorrow, oh drink a bit of wine and we both might go tommorow, my love...

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[flarewearer]

Quoting The Cellar Bar from 04:12, 15th Jan 2006And in that respect, in more than a few years of travelling across Europe, I've found that the effect of discovering you're "Scottish" rather than "British" opens a helluva lot more doors and puts a helluva lot more smiles on "foreigners'" faces than the prospect that I was "English" or "British".

I have to agree with you there, Scots do seem to have a far better reputation abroad than the "English" or "British". How much of this is due to the national ambassadors of legions of football fans is debatable, but old stereotypes die hard.

Ethnicity has little to do with the notion of "Scotish" these days. And has more to do with social mores, views and attitudes that have pervaded our relationship with each other and with the rest of the world for years now. That is all too evident in our educational system, legal system and a host of other areas where our approach is different, less deferential and class-ridden and more inclined to the development of a society that benefits all rather than a chosen or fortunate minority. All of the which has dominated "English" culture for centuries.

Again I have to agree with you, my point was not only was the notion of some sort of Scottish ethnicity absurd, but the basis that Odysseus claimed if upon was historically and anthropoligically innacurate.

I still don't understand the notion of "British". I can attach no value to it, I don't recognise my views in it and in any case it's a false, artificial construct that has no cultural or social basis to it. The term originally emerged to distinguish the two parts of William the Conqueror's "Bretagnes" and has taken on some mystic meaning that no-one can define in the first place. It's as genuine as seeing the unification of Spain and Portugal, for instance, and some numpt in Madrid suddenly embarking on a campaign to convince the two populations that "we are all Iberian now".

Isn't the whole point in Britishness that it is just some sort of mythical concept / ideal that you can make of what you please? You aren't forced to conform to it or accept it, it lets you be Welsh / English / Cornish etc. yet still be British. I for one certainly DO NOT like the apparant attempts to instil something like this in people by Government.

I do get the feeling however that you, and many other on your side of the argument, look upon history subsuming Scotland into England rather than England and Scotland uniting, especially considering it was a Scottish monarch who took up the English crown.

I do not doubt that England is the dominant partner in the Union (hardly surprising, really), but Scotland maintains its own banking, legal, religious and education systems quite free of "English interference". I'd argue that Scotland is far more meddling in English affairs (via the West Lothian question and the dominance of Scottish MPs in senior positions in Parliament) and excerts a disproportionate influence in matters of union.

I know I am Scottish. I'm told I'm British. Happily I can make the distinction.

I know I am Scottish, and that I am also British, I just don't like being told I have to be one or the other and that the two are irreconcilable.

Out of interest, I am always curious to see where Nationalists stand on the issue of Monarchy, is it a return to the Kingdom of Scotland and the days of Bruce and Loyal Wallace (should we track down the heir to the house of Stuart?) or is it a republic under President Salmond?

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[Al]

First, I am not sure what you are attempting to prove, flarewearer, when you state that the educational and technical advances in Scotland took place after the Union of Crowns and Parliaments. They undoubtedly did. That, however, does not mean there is a causal link between the two events. One could just as easily posit that the peace that would have arisen if England had stopped attempting to conquer Scotland would have led to such an outbreak of discovery.

Second, the distinctly Scottish elements that were preserved under the Act of Union were not free from English interference. They were separate from the English system. The two are quite different.

Third, lowland Scots do have more in common with the Northern English than with Highland Scots. That is not an argument against Scottish independence. If anything - as the Northern counties were part of Scotland - it is an argument that parts of Cumbria and Northumbria should be in Scotland.

No one is denying that the Union had some benefits for Scotland. But when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages...

[Iain]

The SNP's stance on the monarchy officially is that of a referendum to become a republic.

A large majority in the SNP think the monarchy is outdated and it is time for Presidency but we have realised that the people should decide on this one; there are people out there who would vote SNP and still keep the monarcy if only we got more financial freedoms.

This isn't turncoating from the traditional Scottish governance either, this is moving with the times.

Flarewearer I've tried to be nice about this but despite your detailed points you've been nothing short of cynical the whole way through - this may be your style but we need less of cynicism in politics.

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc

[puzzled]

If a vote was held on independence, and the majority of the scotland votes for independence, but some of the southern counties of scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the Union, does the SNP think that they should have to bend to the will of the rest of scotland or should their democratic views be respected?

[Iain]

Firstly we'd see that problem coming by the voting patterns of the people in the Scottish elections for there is a strong enough correlation between independence fans and SNP votes.

Most likely the Central belt could vote to stay in the Union; it wouldn't be overwhelming but...

...to answer your question. If the majority votes for independence; we open negotiations with Westminster no matter the regional pattern as far as I can see. As above; overwhelming rejection in a part of the country is unlikely.

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc

[flarewearer]

Quoting Al from 09:50, 15th Jan 2006
One could just as easily posit that the peace that would have arisen if England had stopped attempting to conquer Scotland would have led to such an outbreak of discovery.

Or perhaps if Scotland hadn't constantly needlessly tried to pick a fight with its larger and more powerful Southern neighbour? That is of course when it wasn't busy fighting itself.

Third, lowland Scots do have more in common with the Northern English than with Highland Scots. That is not an argument against Scottish independence.

I didn't say it was, but its' certianly an argument against Odysseus claiming that there is some sort of Scottish race or pedigree and that we are somehow distinct from our neighbours in anything apart from history, culture and sporting abilities.

And Iain, you're damn right I'm cynical. I'm cynical about the sort of Scotland you and others would like to see, i'm cynical about Odysseus and his blithering idiocy and i'm sick and tired of having people of a nationalist bent thinking they are somehow more Scottish than a Unionist. There's nothing pro-Scottish in being anti-English, and there's nothing anti-Scottish in being pro-British.

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[Al]

"Or perhaps if Scotland hadn't constantly needlessly tried to pick a fight with its larger and more powerful Southern neighbour?"

Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to exactly what you are talking about?

[Iain]

I never said I was more Scottish than you, I'm probably less. I am more pro-Scotland than many.

The point I will make is that being pro-British is to support the things that are good for Britain or good for Scotland within Britain. That is fundamentally anti-Scottish for me; since good for Britain is almost invariably good for the south-east.

I'm not anti-English I'm anti British so you can cut that phrase out! Anti-Englishness is reserved for the football pitch.

And I too ask about "pointless fights with the southern neighbour" because I think you'll find we had to fight to stop ourselves being dissolved.

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc

[Guest]

Ethnically, Scots folk (Celtic) ARE different from English (anglo saxon) to deny this is denying history.

Oh my God, how ignorant are you? I think you'll find that the Lowland Scots are actually Anglo-Saxons. And if you knew ANYTHING about Scottish history you'd know that Lallans is "purer" Anglo-Saxon than English 'cos we didn't have the Normans inserting loads of Franco-Latin words.

As for the Celts stuff, are you referring to the P-Celts or the Q-Celts or in fact, do you not have a clue about anything to do with Scotland?

Sad. Go back to your SNP tartan biscuit tin jamboree and leave the debate to real Scots who know what's what.

[Guest]

Quoting Iain from 00:23, 15th Jan 2006
Point about the SNP not actually winning elections is the moment we take positive steps all the Unionists step up to rubbish us

Oh you poor things, are all the children in the play ground nasty to you as well?

[Cain]

Quoting Iain from 13:31, 15th Jan 2006
And I too ask about "pointless fights with the southern neighbour" because I think you'll find we had to fight to stop ourselves being dissolved.

I'm personally tickled at the idea of the English army advancing towards Scotland with pikemen, archers, knights, and at the back a fleet of horses pulling a 20 foot long disintegrator cannon.

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[Iain]

Quoting from 12:44, 15th Jan 2006

Quoting Iain from 00:23, 15th Jan 2006
Point about the SNP not actually winning elections is the moment we take positive steps all the Unionists step up to rubbish us

Oh you poor things, are all the children in the play ground nasty to you as well?

Considering the tone of that I would hasten to suggest that the user who prefers to remain anonymous is the bully. A perfect example of the stupid ideology that drives those who hate the SNP. Wonderful; such lovely people. So I'll be the cynic then.

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc