Monday, 25 July 2011 22:34
131 Comments
by Pete Wishart 
Probably one of the most passionate debates we’re going to have in the run up to the referendum will be around the whole idea of identity and Britishness. Like many proud nationalists I have struggled with the idea of being British and have never described myself as such. But what will happen to the whole concept as Scotland moves towards independence and can the idea make a comeback and even become respectable in nationalist circles?
Firstly, I suppose Britishness is as much about geography as it is about identity and history. Coming from Perth in the northern part of the island of Greater Britain I am as much British as someone from Stockholm is Scandinavian.
It’s when we try and add the other bits that we start to get into the difficulties. If Britishness is to work as a cultural idea a shared story as well as a shared geography has to be constructed. And that’s the hard part. No one has ever come up with a convincing definition of Britishness, because there probably isn’t one. And the concept has to be almost constantly rewritten – remember Gordon Brown’s clumsy and excruciating attempt and Michael Portillo’s recent nonsense about “anti-fanaticism”? Cultural Britishness is then a rather curious construct that can be almost anything, and usually is, hence the mom and apple pie attributes usually associated with Britishness when people are asked to define it.
But there is absolutely no doubt that people indeed do feel and identify themselves as British, even in Scotland. For me Britishness is so much more than the usual confused descriptions. For me cultural Britishness isn’t one thing but is the sum of the 300 years journey that we have enjoyed and endured on this island. It is what we have achieved and secured together in this partnership. It is about the great historic cultural achievements from the industrial revolution to our great rock and pop bands. It is about pride in our victories in the wars we fought together and the collective sense of shame in our historic crimes of colonialism and slavery. Britishness is in fact the social union, and being British belongs as much to me as a proud Scottish nationalist and Scottish patriot as it does to anyone from England.
Our gripe then isn’t with cultural Britishness, the social union, but with the current political arrangements within the United Kingdom. As civic nationalists we want the powers to grow our economy and make our own specific international contribution. We want to complete the powers of our Parliament and take responsibility for our own affairs. We have no issues with the past and our British inheritance is a crucial part of our own Scottish story.
Britishness will exist in Scotland long after we become independent. In fact I think that it could well be enhanced with independence. With independence we will get the opportunity to define a new Britishness, one based on equality and mutual respect. Britishness will still be all about our shared history and culture but it can also be about the new positive relationship we will seek to build.
I would also be happy to see any number of shared institutions being called British and it could and should be the brand name of our new enhanced and equal 21st century partnership. Who knows maybe independence can give Britishness a new lease of life.
So there you go, that’s me, British and proud of it in an independent Scotland.
Pete Wishart is the SNP Member of Parliament for Perth and North Perthshire
You can help maintain the site by making a small donation.
Comments
#
2011-07-26 08:43
An interesting article and I think the first time I've heard someone try to define what it is to be "British"
#
2011-07-26 09:08
The Spiral Arm of Britishness diminishes the further away from the central hub, inside the M25, you are.
The current ideology of Britishness is to suck the lifeblood into the centre and the destitute periphery can be anything they want to be. When I lived abroad, visits by Blair were always preceeded by him being described as Prime Minister of England. Of-course when the Queen visited she was always described as the Queen of England, which of course, she is!. Blair, as far as I can ever re-call, never saught to correct the anomily.
Britishness/Englishness, synonymous and easy for non Brits to fasten onto. Britishness/Scottishness doesn't. Apart from the kitsch, Scotland has almost no profile abroad apart from with the diaspora.
That is not a fault of the Scots that is the fault of being in a Union with a vastly bigger partner England. Their culture/identity or otherwise, will always prevail.
If London was situated closer to Carlisle then perhaps things would be different but it's not. It's in the SE of England where the identity rests, and always will.
Scotland - striding out onto the world stage needs to re-assert itself. Identifiable as a nation in ot's own right, divorced from England and the anglo centric view of Britishness we will set our own indetity out there. There will always be a romantic view of what Britishness once was but will never be again. Let the English keep their sense of Britishness and keep churning out the Empire medals for we all know, deep down that's where their mindset sits.
The Great British Empire where 2/3rds of the globe was Pink and an Empire medal actually meant something. Both, no more !.
The current ideology of Britishness is to suck the lifeblood into the centre and the destitute periphery can be anything they want to be. When I lived abroad, visits by Blair were always preceeded by him being described as Prime Minister of England. Of-course when the Queen visited she was always described as the Queen of England, which of course, she is!. Blair, as far as I can ever re-call, never saught to correct the anomily.
Britishness/Englishness, synonymous and easy for non Brits to fasten onto. Britishness/Scottishness doesn't. Apart from the kitsch, Scotland has almost no profile abroad apart from with the diaspora.
That is not a fault of the Scots that is the fault of being in a Union with a vastly bigger partner England. Their culture/identity or otherwise, will always prevail.
If London was situated closer to Carlisle then perhaps things would be different but it's not. It's in the SE of England where the identity rests, and always will.
Scotland - striding out onto the world stage needs to re-assert itself. Identifiable as a nation in ot's own right, divorced from England and the anglo centric view of Britishness we will set our own indetity out there. There will always be a romantic view of what Britishness once was but will never be again. Let the English keep their sense of Britishness and keep churning out the Empire medals for we all know, deep down that's where their mindset sits.
The Great British Empire where 2/3rds of the globe was Pink and an Empire medal actually meant something. Both, no more !.
#
2011-07-26 09:26
There maybe a union of the crowns. There maybe still, in part, a union of the parliaments.
But there never was a union of the peoples.
Scots are Scots
English are English
There is no such thing as Britishness.
But there never was a union of the peoples.
Scots are Scots
English are English
There is no such thing as Britishness.
#
2011-07-26 10:17
British was the term the Roman's used for English. Since then English and British have been mutually interchangable. You feel English well good luck to you.
#
2011-07-26 17:36
A dinnae think there wis ony English (Anlo-Saxons) in the British Isles whan the Romans arrived. It wis the Brythonic tribes (ancestors o the Welsh) that they cried British. The English (Anglo-Saxons) didnae arrive till the Romans stertit leavin.
#
2011-07-26 10:18
I really do find emotional nationalism baffling, Scottish no less than British.
The idea that I must automatically share values with Ian from Arbroath, or John from Northampton just because I happened to be born on very roughly the same patch of dirt as them just seems absurd to me, even primitive.
As far as I'm concerned, beyond my own family and friends everyone else on the planet is as much a stranger as everyone else.
My support for Scottish independence is essentially anti-nationalist in nature - Scottish nationalism being much less undesirable than the prevailing British nationalism, and the former being a price worth paying for the destruction of the latter.
The idea that I must automatically share values with Ian from Arbroath, or John from Northampton just because I happened to be born on very roughly the same patch of dirt as them just seems absurd to me, even primitive.
As far as I'm concerned, beyond my own family and friends everyone else on the planet is as much a stranger as everyone else.
My support for Scottish independence is essentially anti-nationalist in nature - Scottish nationalism being much less undesirable than the prevailing British nationalism, and the former being a price worth paying for the destruction of the latter.
#
2011-07-26 10:19
Actually Peter it took this article to realise what a **** you are.
Perhaps you are in the wrong party? Maybe you should step down and join the Conservatives or Labour their used to be another English Party but I can't quite remember their name apparently they are popular in the Shetlands?
Edited for use of abusive or offensive language. Mod Team
Perhaps you are in the wrong party? Maybe you should step down and join the Conservatives or Labour their used to be another English Party but I can't quite remember their name apparently they are popular in the Shetlands?
Edited for use of abusive or offensive language. Mod Team
#
2011-07-26 10:25
To me "Britishness" is now synonymous with economic failure and social collapse and has almost completely lost its reputation for honesty and fair play.
#
2011-07-26 11:21
I'm needing new glasses! I read "coming from Perth....I am as much British as someone from STOCKPORT is Scandinavian". Agreed I thought. Then noting the critique of the responses I reread, Ah Stockholm not Stockport. Not me Mr Wishart. I find English culture, historical and current quite foreign to me.And the fact that English history was what I was fed at school on reflection indicates to me now an intent by the English, British if you prefer,Establis hment to Anglicise the Scots.
#
2011-07-26 11:30
I would have thought any SNP MSP would have far more to exercise his brain on than the semantics of Britishness.
And, a passionate debate is akin in vacuity to and argument on whether a static ball bearing in down side up or upside down.
Mr Wishart the problem that should be exercising your synapses is the Union has a dysfunctional incompetent government that abuses it's democratic principles to the costs of the people it supposedly serves. Scotland - and, by the position you hold you seem to hold the same principles - wants to be rid of this uncomfortable and inefficient yolk that draws a shallow plough providing most for the least and little for the most.
That plough Mr Wishart is called Britannia while the yolk is the Westminster model; and not only do they not serve Scotland well, their provision is equally sparse for the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In short Mr Wishart Britain is a self induced failed state, teetering towards a Disneyland of tradition.
To paraphrase Kennedy - think not what will happen to Britain but what you can do for your country - its called positive thinking.
And, a passionate debate is akin in vacuity to and argument on whether a static ball bearing in down side up or upside down.
Mr Wishart the problem that should be exercising your synapses is the Union has a dysfunctional incompetent government that abuses it's democratic principles to the costs of the people it supposedly serves. Scotland - and, by the position you hold you seem to hold the same principles - wants to be rid of this uncomfortable and inefficient yolk that draws a shallow plough providing most for the least and little for the most.
That plough Mr Wishart is called Britannia while the yolk is the Westminster model; and not only do they not serve Scotland well, their provision is equally sparse for the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In short Mr Wishart Britain is a self induced failed state, teetering towards a Disneyland of tradition.
To paraphrase Kennedy - think not what will happen to Britain but what you can do for your country - its called positive thinking.
#
2011-07-26 11:32
I'm disappointed that an SNP MSP could imagine that we should be encouraged to think of ourselves as British..........I never have and never will, no matter how much twaddle is spouted by politicians.
I was born a Scot, and will die a Scot.
I was born a Scot, and will die a Scot.
#
2011-07-26 12:03
Norwegians think exactly the same, the are Norwegians first and foremost and will always be. But interestingly they and the Swedes and Danes consider themselves Scandinavian, are they any less to think that way?
By the way Pete Wishart is an MP, not an MSP
By the way Pete Wishart is an MP, not an MSP
#
2011-07-26 11:34
Yes Pete, Britishment is the Anglicisation of the Scots, nothing less than that - so drop this hot potato pronto.
There are many things to be collectively proud of, of course there are, but we Scots are being screwed by those who disdain the common-weal and as we're want to say "their tea's oot!"
There are many things to be collectively proud of, of course there are, but we Scots are being screwed by those who disdain the common-weal and as we're want to say "their tea's oot!"
#
2011-07-26 11:34
“Proud to be British in an independent Scotland; Probably one of the most passionate debates we’re going to have in the run up to the referendum will be around the whole idea of identity and Britishness.
Like many proud nationalists I have struggled with the idea of being British and have never described myself as such.
But what will happen to the whole concept as Scotland moves towards independence and can the idea make a comeback and even become respectable in nationalist circles?”
Pete, I think you are approaching the discussion from the wrong direction. What has been causing your struggle is that you consider yourself “A proud nationalist”
Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. In the 'modernist' image of the nation, it is nationalism that creates national identity. There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural or identity group, or that multinationalit y in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.
Broadly speaking a nation may refer to a community of people who share a common territory and government; and who often share a common language, race, descent, and/or history. It can also refer to the inhabitants of a sovereign state irrespective of their ethnic make-up. In international relations, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state. The United Nations, for instance, speaks of how it was founded after the Second World War by “51 countries” and currently has 193 member states. The word nation can more specifically refer to a tribe of North American Indians, such as the Cherokee Nation.
As you say everyone should feel free to state their identity however they wish. Scotland is a nation and it affects most of us not a jot what others call us.
The discussion to be had is not are we “British” or “Scottish” but do we wish to leave the Union of nations referred to as the United Kingdom and how are we to be governed after we leave.
Scottish Independence is the political ambition of some political parties, advocacy groups and individuals for Scotland to secede from the Union and become a self-governing state, separate from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Like many proud nationalists I have struggled with the idea of being British and have never described myself as such.
But what will happen to the whole concept as Scotland moves towards independence and can the idea make a comeback and even become respectable in nationalist circles?”
Pete, I think you are approaching the discussion from the wrong direction. What has been causing your struggle is that you consider yourself “A proud nationalist”
Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. In the 'modernist' image of the nation, it is nationalism that creates national identity. There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural or identity group, or that multinationalit y in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.
Broadly speaking a nation may refer to a community of people who share a common territory and government; and who often share a common language, race, descent, and/or history. It can also refer to the inhabitants of a sovereign state irrespective of their ethnic make-up. In international relations, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state. The United Nations, for instance, speaks of how it was founded after the Second World War by “51 countries” and currently has 193 member states. The word nation can more specifically refer to a tribe of North American Indians, such as the Cherokee Nation.
As you say everyone should feel free to state their identity however they wish. Scotland is a nation and it affects most of us not a jot what others call us.
The discussion to be had is not are we “British” or “Scottish” but do we wish to leave the Union of nations referred to as the United Kingdom and how are we to be governed after we leave.
Scottish Independence is the political ambition of some political parties, advocacy groups and individuals for Scotland to secede from the Union and become a self-governing state, separate from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
#
2011-07-26 11:47
To give some perspective to this
if you take the likes of Norway, Sweden and Denmark, they all consider themselves Scandinavian
That should be the template of thought for post Independence.
We really have to think of what our socio political landscape is going to be after we gain independence. Our relationship with the other countries in the British Isles. What our ideals will be, how we interact with the other countries around us. Again look at the examples of our northeastern neighbours acroos the North Sea. How do they function, colaborate, get on etc
We have to mature our way of thinking
if you take the likes of Norway, Sweden and Denmark, they all consider themselves Scandinavian
That should be the template of thought for post Independence.
We really have to think of what our socio political landscape is going to be after we gain independence. Our relationship with the other countries in the British Isles. What our ideals will be, how we interact with the other countries around us. Again look at the examples of our northeastern neighbours acroos the North Sea. How do they function, colaborate, get on etc
We have to mature our way of thinking
#
2011-07-26 12:04
What a pointless, gratuitous, remark. I hope the site moderators take you to task over it.
#
2011-07-26 12:22
Nah, they're useful!!
Hey Pete, I hear Morris dancing lessons are cheap in Oxon right now!
Hey Pete, I hear Morris dancing lessons are cheap in Oxon right now!
#
2011-07-26 11:53
Once Scotland achieves independence I'm sure that I will look back more kindly on our shared history with England. At the moment, I think that we should be concentrating on getting that
independence. Out of the horror of recent events in Norway, one thing stands out clearly. The Norwegians are a proud and independant people, and will solve their problems in their own way. This article makes me feel that I'm being softened up for something. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm too old to be flexible.
independence. Out of the horror of recent events in Norway, one thing stands out clearly. The Norwegians are a proud and independant people, and will solve their problems in their own way. This article makes me feel that I'm being softened up for something. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm too old to be flexible.
#
2011-07-26 12:01
Don't hold back now.
A controversial view coming as it does from an SNP MP. Also one based in a version of britishness that doesn't really exist any more.
The notion of an honourable great britain espousing integrity around the globe is a nonsense, what fuels nationalism is the good things your country does and 'Britain' very rarely does good things any more. The term Great britain is now synonymous with sleaze, illegal wars and international arse-kissing.
It is tainted, the feeling I have whenever newsnight or some other UK-wide current affairs program comes on is one of disconnection, it just doesn't feel relevent to me anymore, which is pretty much how I feel about the idea of 'britain' these days.
A controversial view coming as it does from an SNP MP. Also one based in a version of britishness that doesn't really exist any more.
The notion of an honourable great britain espousing integrity around the globe is a nonsense, what fuels nationalism is the good things your country does and 'Britain' very rarely does good things any more. The term Great britain is now synonymous with sleaze, illegal wars and international arse-kissing.
It is tainted, the feeling I have whenever newsnight or some other UK-wide current affairs program comes on is one of disconnection, it just doesn't feel relevent to me anymore, which is pretty much how I feel about the idea of 'britain' these days.
#
2011-07-26 23:44
I couldn't have put it better myself ...
When Cameron came on the TV the other day to offer his condolences to the Norwegians and ensure us that everything was being done to ensure that the far right dont rise over here... etc etc etc etc
I thought to myself....
you dont speak for me, and more's to the point.... I dont want you speaking for me...
I genuinely feel patronised
We are perfectly capable of making those same statements and more importantly offering our own condolences to those concerned
When Cameron came on the TV the other day to offer his condolences to the Norwegians and ensure us that everything was being done to ensure that the far right dont rise over here... etc etc etc etc
I thought to myself....
you dont speak for me, and more's to the point.... I dont want you speaking for me...
I genuinely feel patronised
We are perfectly capable of making those same statements and more importantly offering our own condolences to those concerned
#
2011-07-26 12:05
Scotland is far older than Britain (UK). To me Britain will always have the dominance of England trample over the smaller nations.
Look what has happened to the Gaelic language, Welsh has survived better I think. It has and will always be an entity which tries to influence, control and dominate the smaller parts.
This is why independance is so important for our culture, economy and soul as a nation. I also have never fealt British. I`m Scottish , a celt and proud with more in common I think with my Norwegian or Swedish friends than many in the south.
Look what has happened to the Gaelic language, Welsh has survived better I think. It has and will always be an entity which tries to influence, control and dominate the smaller parts.
This is why independance is so important for our culture, economy and soul as a nation. I also have never fealt British. I`m Scottish , a celt and proud with more in common I think with my Norwegian or Swedish friends than many in the south.
#
2011-07-26 12:10
I don't think we should get hot or bothered about being "British". For many of us its a toxic brand, but in the fullness of time it may be as benign as "Nordic" but that may be some generations away.
#
2011-07-26 12:22
I hadn't thought if being british as in being Scandinavian.
It paints the whole article in a different light. I don't know if a Norwegian (for example) would refer to themselves as being Scandinavian though, if asked where they're from surely they'd just say Norway?
When refering to the wider geographic area, you could say British Isles, that to me is not a tainted idea because it refers merely to a land mass.
It paints the whole article in a different light. I don't know if a Norwegian (for example) would refer to themselves as being Scandinavian though, if asked where they're from surely they'd just say Norway?
When refering to the wider geographic area, you could say British Isles, that to me is not a tainted idea because it refers merely to a land mass.
#
2011-07-26 12:47
I thought when First reading that I understood what he was trying to say but I do think he has made a huge Gaff in this piece of Writing.
I have argued on many other threads that British is Not and never has been A national Identity.( it never has been, It is a Political Identity which unfortunately for Mr Wishart Conjures images of Imperialism/racism/Far Right Politics/ The Union Flag.......Boo Hiss !
Of Course we live on an Island Called Britain Mr Wishart or The Isles Of Britain as I prefer, But Unlike Scandinavia as A gegraphical Fact or Africa, Asia etc. We Here in Scotland have the Black Hand of a Parliament in England( a foreign Country upon us) None of the Above mentioned Geographical Facts have this situation and Thus being Scandinavian/ African/Asian etc is a Little Bit More cuddly to the average Joe.
Britain, The island is not Going To Break up any More than Scandinavia or Africa is After Independence we will still be a Nation Within The Isles of Britain.
The Name British/ Brit etc has been used and Abused and should be consigned to the Dustbin Of History.
Saying all this, I do understand that there Has to be a talk about this..This article I'm sure is 1 of many flawed accounts.
I have argued on many other threads that British is Not and never has been A national Identity.( it never has been, It is a Political Identity which unfortunately for Mr Wishart Conjures images of Imperialism/racism/Far Right Politics/ The Union Flag.......Boo Hiss !
Of Course we live on an Island Called Britain Mr Wishart or The Isles Of Britain as I prefer, But Unlike Scandinavia as A gegraphical Fact or Africa, Asia etc. We Here in Scotland have the Black Hand of a Parliament in England( a foreign Country upon us) None of the Above mentioned Geographical Facts have this situation and Thus being Scandinavian/ African/Asian etc is a Little Bit More cuddly to the average Joe.
Britain, The island is not Going To Break up any More than Scandinavia or Africa is After Independence we will still be a Nation Within The Isles of Britain.
The Name British/ Brit etc has been used and Abused and should be consigned to the Dustbin Of History.
Saying all this, I do understand that there Has to be a talk about this..This article I'm sure is 1 of many flawed accounts.
#
2011-07-26 12:54
They were having a talk about This on 'Labour Hame' Boo hiss.
One of the Remarks claimed that British was His National Identity and Scots/Scottish his Political Identity.
We need to fight against these Lies.
Scots/English/Welsh= National Identities.
Brit/British= Political Identity ie: Pro Westminster,Lon don, England Rule.....It's straight forwrd really.
One of the Remarks claimed that British was His National Identity and Scots/Scottish his Political Identity.
We need to fight against these Lies.
Scots/English/Welsh= National Identities.
Brit/British= Political Identity ie: Pro Westminster,Lon don, England Rule.....It's straight forwrd really.
#
2011-07-26 15:44
re: Leal
Scots/English/Welsh= National Identities.
Brit/British= Political Identity
That is a spot on definition.
Lord Parekh in a debate on Britishness in the House of Lords on 19 June 2008: "I am not happy with the term 'Britishness that we are debating today. We are not British because we embody something called Britishness; rather, we choose what we want to be as a nation. Britishness simply refers to whatever results from our choices. In other words, being British is not about embodying a transcendental essence; it is a political project. Basically, the problem underlying the debate is that we are a multinational state, made up of three, possibly four, nations."
We are all born Scots. Some Scots choose to be British, the majority now don't. The British political project is coming to an end.
Scots/English/Welsh= National Identities.
Brit/British= Political Identity
That is a spot on definition.
Lord Parekh in a debate on Britishness in the House of Lords on 19 June 2008: "I am not happy with the term 'Britishness that we are debating today. We are not British because we embody something called Britishness; rather, we choose what we want to be as a nation. Britishness simply refers to whatever results from our choices. In other words, being British is not about embodying a transcendental essence; it is a political project. Basically, the problem underlying the debate is that we are a multinational state, made up of three, possibly four, nations."
We are all born Scots. Some Scots choose to be British, the majority now don't. The British political project is coming to an end.
#
2011-07-26 13:33
The argument against "Britishness"
I find this article interesting - and would suggest a comparison story to prove its basis is in conditioning and indoctrination rather than solid fact. This is apparently a misplaced sentimental rose tinted glasses approach.
The comparison in mind is Ireland, the southern part.
They too are British, the greater British Isles de-facto comprises Ireland - even as little as 50 years after the shackle of imperialism was broken there were few in Southern Ireland that would describe themseves as "British" - publically anyway.
That shared story, Scotlands and Ireland's when nostalgia, propoganda and idealogy are stripped is one of forced Union, blackmail, Treason, Rebellion, and in many ways attempted Genocide. It is not too much to state Genocide as it is not only the attempt to destroy the inhabitants that counts, there is also cultural genocide - something to which I'd argue Scotland has been treated most liberally.
If you identify with the Union London-Centric based view of Britishness - a review of the symptoms of the Stockholm Syndrome might well be in order, perhaps they apply.
If you identify Britishness with simply being born in a group of Islands that geography threw up on Europas northern shore, that would certainly be accurate.
Geographical terms:
The British Isles is an archipelago consisting of the two large islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and many smaller surrounding islands.
Great Britain is the largest island of the archipelago.[1][2][3]
Ireland is the second largest island of the archipelago and lies directly to the west of Great Britain.
The full list of islands in the British Isles includes over 1,000 islands,[4] of which 51 have an area larger than 20 km².
en.wikipedia.org/.../...
I find this article interesting - and would suggest a comparison story to prove its basis is in conditioning and indoctrination rather than solid fact. This is apparently a misplaced sentimental rose tinted glasses approach.
The comparison in mind is Ireland, the southern part.
They too are British, the greater British Isles de-facto comprises Ireland - even as little as 50 years after the shackle of imperialism was broken there were few in Southern Ireland that would describe themseves as "British" - publically anyway.
That shared story, Scotlands and Ireland's when nostalgia, propoganda and idealogy are stripped is one of forced Union, blackmail, Treason, Rebellion, and in many ways attempted Genocide. It is not too much to state Genocide as it is not only the attempt to destroy the inhabitants that counts, there is also cultural genocide - something to which I'd argue Scotland has been treated most liberally.
If you identify with the Union London-Centric based view of Britishness - a review of the symptoms of the Stockholm Syndrome might well be in order, perhaps they apply.
If you identify Britishness with simply being born in a group of Islands that geography threw up on Europas northern shore, that would certainly be accurate.
Geographical terms:
The British Isles is an archipelago consisting of the two large islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and many smaller surrounding islands.
Great Britain is the largest island of the archipelago.[1][2][3]
Ireland is the second largest island of the archipelago and lies directly to the west of Great Britain.
The full list of islands in the British Isles includes over 1,000 islands,[4] of which 51 have an area larger than 20 km².
en.wikipedia.org/.../...
#
2011-07-26 13:34
Oh dear, Peter.
Let me define 'Britishness' for you. 'Britishness' is 'Englishness', and it always has been. Let's consider the values of this cultural 'Britishness' of which you speak, stiff upper lip (English), bulldog spirit (English), Red london buses (English), 'sense of fair play' (English), cream teas (English), Rule Britannia (English). All of these attributes are ENGLISH attributes, they have nothing to do with Wales or Scotland.
Frankly, I am horrified that Pete Wishart sees things the way he does. I am not British, nor will I ever be, even after independence. It is an artificial construct, engineered as a diversion throughout history of English colonial rule.
Interesting discussion, but astonishing that it was written by an SNP MP. I voted SNP for independence, not to be told I am somehow 'British'.
Good luck to Mr. Wishart at the next party conference. I do believe he has been in London town for far too long.......
Let me define 'Britishness' for you. 'Britishness' is 'Englishness', and it always has been. Let's consider the values of this cultural 'Britishness' of which you speak, stiff upper lip (English), bulldog spirit (English), Red london buses (English), 'sense of fair play' (English), cream teas (English), Rule Britannia (English). All of these attributes are ENGLISH attributes, they have nothing to do with Wales or Scotland.
Frankly, I am horrified that Pete Wishart sees things the way he does. I am not British, nor will I ever be, even after independence. It is an artificial construct, engineered as a diversion throughout history of English colonial rule.
Interesting discussion, but astonishing that it was written by an SNP MP. I voted SNP for independence, not to be told I am somehow 'British'.
Good luck to Mr. Wishart at the next party conference. I do believe he has been in London town for far too long.......
#
2011-07-26 15:02
Close RL but the lyrics, originally a poem, to Rule Britannia were written by a Scot, James Thomson.
#
2011-07-26 19:15
Quoting Ken Mac:
The point remains the same, that in general when people are asked to describe 'Britishness', they end up merely describing Englishness.
British = English = British. It 's really not that complex, really.
Close RL but the lyrics, originally a poem, to Rule Britannia were written by a Scot, James Thomson.
The point remains the same, that in general when people are asked to describe 'Britishness', they end up merely describing Englishness.
British = English = British. It 's really not that complex, really.
#
2011-07-26 14:12
Robert Louis 2011-07-26 13:34
“Interesting discussion, but astonishing that it was written by an SNP MP. I voted SNP for independence, not to be told I am somehow 'British'.”
What is so astonishing about anyone declaring that he/she identifies with a particular way of life (culture)?
If you hold a passport, you are described as “British Subject”. It affects my “Scottish culture” not one bit. I am allowed to vote SNP if I feel so inclined, but I am not of that “political persuasion”.
“Interesting discussion, but astonishing that it was written by an SNP MP. I voted SNP for independence, not to be told I am somehow 'British'.”
What is so astonishing about anyone declaring that he/she identifies with a particular way of life (culture)?
If you hold a passport, you are described as “British Subject”. It affects my “Scottish culture” not one bit. I am allowed to vote SNP if I feel so inclined, but I am not of that “political persuasion”.
#
2011-07-26 19:10
Yes, but just because my passport says British, doesn't mean I'm happy about it.
I long for the day when my passport actually states the truth, and describes me as Scottish, not as some kind of affiliate to an artificial English colonial construct called 'British'.
I long for the day when my passport actually states the truth, and describes me as Scottish, not as some kind of affiliate to an artificial English colonial construct called 'British'.
#
2011-07-26 14:20
Who is Peter Wishart sucking up to? 'British' originally designated all the Brythonic (ancient welsh speaking) tribes that existed at the time of the Roman invasion..hence Dumbarton (Dum Briton..castle of the Britons). It was only resurrected when the English tried to absorb us and make our identity disappear. For them English/Britain were synonymous..despite contradicting historical fact. Thus we ended up as 'North Britain' (South Britain never caught on surprisingly). That's why you still (might) see the occasional 'North British' hotel situated near railway stations..to re-assure the wary and weary Saxon visitor. No, 'British' is a colonial term designed to squeeze the identity out of every poor benighted 'subject' of this realm we live in. It deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of re-written history where it belongs. And so does Mr. Wishart's strange conceit of being proud to be 'British'... tho' I believe Perth was a Pictish stronghold....so maybe he's partially right, but out by a thousand years!
#
2011-07-26 14:35
All of us have our points of touchiness - some demonstrated in the intemperate and low level insult type remarks above (I have all the time in the world for a well thought out original insult in which the word arse may or may not be included).
Britishness is not something I give much thought to. However I was interested in the Scandinavian connection. Is there a similar disparity between Norwegians and Swedes about being described as Scandinavian, compared to how Scots or English people see themselves with regard to Britishness?
Is it much the same as making sure that you ask people with a certain accent if they are from Canada, or from New Zealand because you know that the elephants in the bed don't care if you get it wrong - they can just roll over and flatten the world with their self belief/importance?
Britishness is not something I give much thought to. However I was interested in the Scandinavian connection. Is there a similar disparity between Norwegians and Swedes about being described as Scandinavian, compared to how Scots or English people see themselves with regard to Britishness?
Is it much the same as making sure that you ask people with a certain accent if they are from Canada, or from New Zealand because you know that the elephants in the bed don't care if you get it wrong - they can just roll over and flatten the world with their self belief/importance?
#
2011-07-26 16:23
1314:
I'd agree that enmity, derision or insult does no good - facts often help.
I see the reference to Scandinavian nations as oblique and obfuscational - they are in an entirely different situation than we.
Were Norway still ruled by Sweden, I'd give the reference validity and credence.
I'd agree that enmity, derision or insult does no good - facts often help.
I see the reference to Scandinavian nations as oblique and obfuscational - they are in an entirely different situation than we.
Were Norway still ruled by Sweden, I'd give the reference validity and credence.
#
2011-07-26 21:18
I should have said the Scandinavian reference, not connection, slack use of words - sorry.
I have no idea what opinion Swedes, Norwegians, Danes have with regard to being referred to as Scandinavian - hence the question. And I thought I made my overall point clearer with the comment about Canadians and New Zealanders - i.e. those on opposite sides of the divide are likely to see things differently.
I remember some previous contributions from a Norwegian reader - perhaps she/he could enlighten us.
Overall however, I don't think this is worth much discussion and it's disappointing that Pete Wishart couldn't think of some more relevant contribution to the independence debate.
I have no idea what opinion Swedes, Norwegians, Danes have with regard to being referred to as Scandinavian - hence the question. And I thought I made my overall point clearer with the comment about Canadians and New Zealanders - i.e. those on opposite sides of the divide are likely to see things differently.
I remember some previous contributions from a Norwegian reader - perhaps she/he could enlighten us.
Overall however, I don't think this is worth much discussion and it's disappointing that Pete Wishart couldn't think of some more relevant contribution to the independence debate.
#
2011-07-26 14:39
Theres an advert on the telly just now for Pimm's. If you've seen it, to me that is British, it's also got nothing to do with Scotland. (Although I have in the past enjoyed a pimm's and lemonade with a slice of cucumber.)
Basically Britishness is a brand, nothing more. Like some brands it's fallen out of favour with just about everyone except the organisations to which it is inextricably attached, the BBC, Westminster & Pimm's etc. There have been one or two common endeavours which the component countries have participated that were not all bad but it's been so long and people are now far to cynical to fall for it any more, which I think is why there is such ennui for the olympics.
Basically Britishness is a brand, nothing more. Like some brands it's fallen out of favour with just about everyone except the organisations to which it is inextricably attached, the BBC, Westminster & Pimm's etc. There have been one or two common endeavours which the component countries have participated that were not all bad but it's been so long and people are now far to cynical to fall for it any more, which I think is why there is such ennui for the olympics.
#
2011-07-26 15:01
If the choice is to be a part of the British Isles or a part of Scandinavia, then I say hello my Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Finish, Faroese, Greenlander brothers. If you look deeper into our history, then we have been influenced very heavily from our Viking heritage. Probably more so than the forced Anglification we have had to put up with for centuries. Banning the bagpipes, banning the wearing of tartan, the Highland clearances, First night, the Reformation, raping and pillaging of our resources, need I go on? I feel closer culturally to Stockholm, Helsinki, Reykjavic and Copenhagen than I do to the thieving scum from inside the M25 ring. Anything north of Leeds I would be willing to accept as a part of our independence when it comes.
#
2011-07-26 15:37
I am not a great believer in politicians giving complicated arguments. They just complicate the issues and the argument given above is not one that most people would 'understand', unless they have an axe to grind.
There has been a series on 'British art' on BBC two. It has nothing to do with Britain in the wider sense. It is about English art so why don't they just be honest and say so. I mean, Scotland had nothing to contribute to art!
Why they have used Britain in the title I can only guess at. Maybe it's something to do with the BBC proving that they acknowledge other parts of the UK so that they cannot be slated for ignoring them.
There has been a series on 'British art' on BBC two. It has nothing to do with Britain in the wider sense. It is about English art so why don't they just be honest and say so. I mean, Scotland had nothing to contribute to art!
Why they have used Britain in the title I can only guess at. Maybe it's something to do with the BBC proving that they acknowledge other parts of the UK so that they cannot be slated for ignoring them.
#
2011-07-26 15:46
"British" history show are always about English history, too. Ones about Scotland, though rare, are clearly labelled as such - so why can't ones about English history be accurately titled in that way?
#
2011-07-26 15:43
Why do i feel as though i am being gently persuaded to moderate my (n)ationalism?
That said,i am not,have never been and never will be British.
I want nothing less than full independence;an y suggestion of a London-controlled economic,milita ry,foreign-affairs policy had better be part of a long-term strategy with an end-game goal of full,absolute independence.
I hope Mr Wishart is playing the long game here.
That said,i am not,have never been and never will be British.
I want nothing less than full independence;an y suggestion of a London-controlled economic,milita ry,foreign-affairs policy had better be part of a long-term strategy with an end-game goal of full,absolute independence.
I hope Mr Wishart is playing the long game here.
#
2011-07-26 16:00
TV shows on things british are an anomoly, a lot of English people just don't get Scottish Identity. Presumably because English is so synonomous with British, they see Scotland as a region of britain in a very literal way.
It never occurs to the program makers that describing a show as being british when it looks purely at English subject matter doesn't quite ring true north of the border.
Personally I don't care, if they want to label English stuff as being british then fair enough. It's when they describe Scottish things as being British and English things as being English that annoys me.
It never occurs to the program makers that describing a show as being british when it looks purely at English subject matter doesn't quite ring true north of the border.
Personally I don't care, if they want to label English stuff as being british then fair enough. It's when they describe Scottish things as being British and English things as being English that annoys me.
#
2011-07-26 16:32
Being a Nationalist should never be inferred as "rabid" or any of the other adjectives used to describe those of us who simply have a deep love of our Scottish heritage.
#
2011-07-26 16:52
Mmmmm! Passion is a great thing but it also blinds and limits.
In geographical terms most Scots live on Greater Britain (the main island) not to be confused with Lesser Britain (Brittany).
As for the term 'British' just what does anyone mean? Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass description of words fits the bill - 'British' means just whatever you want it to mean.
So Excel is 'British' in terms of his passport but does not necessarily see the term as pejorative because as far as Excel is concerned he/she (?) is Scottish by nationality, culture and experience.
Others relate the word 'British' with Scotland's sense of having been colonised and the associated cultural, loss of self esteem and linguistic erosion that 'colonisation' brings.
Peter, the SNP MP, uses 'British' as a term to describe our shared historical experiences since 1707 - an empire won and lost, two world wars, industrial hegemony and the rest which have had a direct impact on Scotland both positively and negatively and to deny this 'British' period warts and all is to air brush out a lot of the reason we are where we are now, on the edge of regaining our national identity and our self esteem.
Scotland's input to the 'British' period is one of a small state creating change and progress well in excess (proportionatel y) of any other part of the United Kingdom (aka Britain) as we still do to this day.
The reality for me is one where we Scots have long outgrown 'Britishness' as a coat to wear on the world stage and are far happier to be Scottish.
But remember Humpty's wise words at all times....
In geographical terms most Scots live on Greater Britain (the main island) not to be confused with Lesser Britain (Brittany).
As for the term 'British' just what does anyone mean? Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass description of words fits the bill - 'British' means just whatever you want it to mean.
So Excel is 'British' in terms of his passport but does not necessarily see the term as pejorative because as far as Excel is concerned he/she (?) is Scottish by nationality, culture and experience.
Others relate the word 'British' with Scotland's sense of having been colonised and the associated cultural, loss of self esteem and linguistic erosion that 'colonisation' brings.
Peter, the SNP MP, uses 'British' as a term to describe our shared historical experiences since 1707 - an empire won and lost, two world wars, industrial hegemony and the rest which have had a direct impact on Scotland both positively and negatively and to deny this 'British' period warts and all is to air brush out a lot of the reason we are where we are now, on the edge of regaining our national identity and our self esteem.
Scotland's input to the 'British' period is one of a small state creating change and progress well in excess (proportionatel y) of any other part of the United Kingdom (aka Britain) as we still do to this day.
The reality for me is one where we Scots have long outgrown 'Britishness' as a coat to wear on the world stage and are far happier to be Scottish.
But remember Humpty's wise words at all times....
#
2011-07-27 12:58
Mad Jock McMad 2011-07-26 16:52
“So Excel is 'British' in terms of his passport but does not necessarily see the term as pejorative because as far as Excel is concerned he/she (?) is Scottish by nationality, culture and experience.”
Exactly: but I do wish you would explain why you continually try to bait me by using the wrong “moniker”.
Or are you trying to send me a hidden message.
“So Excel is 'British' in terms of his passport but does not necessarily see the term as pejorative because as far as Excel is concerned he/she (?) is Scottish by nationality, culture and experience.”
Exactly: but I do wish you would explain why you continually try to bait me by using the wrong “moniker”.
Or are you trying to send me a hidden message.
#
2011-07-26 17:04
If it's ok with you Pete I'll wait until after independence before reviewing my attitude to Britishness.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling they've got so many nasty surprises in store for Scotland in the run up to the independence referendum that you might find your pride in being British is tested.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling they've got so many nasty surprises in store for Scotland in the run up to the independence referendum that you might find your pride in being British is tested.
#
2011-07-26 17:27
I will never consider myself British. I agree that British = English and frankly, there isn't much to be proud of in British history. If this is an attempt to shoot the Unionist fox by adopting "British" then it didn't work.
#
2011-07-26 17:48
Ireland haes been independent syne aboot 1921. A cannae see mony o thaim still feelin British.
#
2011-07-26 17:59
Many years ago as a young man in the RAF I had to fill in a passport application as the Squadron was going overseas. I filled in nationality as Scots, there followed various discussions, threats etc. I was marched in front of the CO. to explain why I would not write British despite being ordered to. My defence was that I wasn't British I was born Scots.
The Squadron Leader being a wise man ordered me NOT to fill in the nationality.
I got a passport and travelled widely with that Squadron.
The Squadron Leader being a wise man ordered me NOT to fill in the nationality.
I got a passport and travelled widely with that Squadron.
#
2011-07-26 19:16
Aucheorn 2011-07-26 17:59
“I got a passport and travelled widely with that Squadron.”
Why did you need a passport? I had a 1250 and also travelled widely.
“I got a passport and travelled widely with that Squadron.”
Why did you need a passport? I had a 1250 and also travelled widely.
#
2011-07-26 18:08
Come on Pete Wishart, what are you talking about? Scots will become more British even when we are independent... I struggle with that one. Britishness has always been defined through English eyes, that of control and superiority, and i can't go along with that. If Britishness was purely geographic, ie the island itself, then maybe, but the definition still has a strongly political tone so for me, I'm afraid i don't buy your argument.
#
2011-07-26 18:34
# Mac 2011-07-26 15:44
re: Leal
Scots/English/Welsh= National Identities.
Brit/British= Political Identity
That is a spot on definition.
I have always argued this. I believe that in reality it is Fact and that No person claiming British is a Nationality has to date been able to argue the opposite.
In the lead up to the Referendum I believe Westminster and her lackies in Scotland may try 'The Brit Nation Ideal' This must be Explained to Scots as No More than A political Identity of the Past :ie Pro London Rule Identity. As London Rule slips away so Must British/Brit as a Badge identity.
If British is a National identity. Please explain Persons Born In 1. The Falkland Islands. 2. Gibralter. 3.Ireland. None of these places is The Isle of Britain thus No one Born there can call themselves British. Ergo...It's a Political Identity.
If this argument is unsound, please could someone point out why?
Ken Mac 2011-07-26 15:02
Close RL but the lyrics, originally a poem, to Rule Britannia were written by a Scot, James Thomson.
There is a name for James Thomson Types.
re: Leal
Scots/English/Welsh= National Identities.
Brit/British= Political Identity
That is a spot on definition.
I have always argued this. I believe that in reality it is Fact and that No person claiming British is a Nationality has to date been able to argue the opposite.
In the lead up to the Referendum I believe Westminster and her lackies in Scotland may try 'The Brit Nation Ideal' This must be Explained to Scots as No More than A political Identity of the Past :ie Pro London Rule Identity. As London Rule slips away so Must British/Brit as a Badge identity.
If British is a National identity. Please explain Persons Born In 1. The Falkland Islands. 2. Gibralter. 3.Ireland. None of these places is The Isle of Britain thus No one Born there can call themselves British. Ergo...It's a Political Identity.
If this argument is unsound, please could someone point out why?
Ken Mac 2011-07-26 15:02
Close RL but the lyrics, originally a poem, to Rule Britannia were written by a Scot, James Thomson.
There is a name for James Thomson Types.
#
2011-07-26 18:47
Me oh my, what a stooshie about this wee article. So intriguing I feel I should toss in my tuppence worth.
Pete Wishart's thoughts seem fairly reasonable, temperate and sound. I suppose this means I must agree with most, if not all, of what he says.
The entertainment value is in the commentary though. Fury and ire poured on the writer's head for daring to accept that he, like all of us whether we like it or not, has a connection to Britain. Untold prejudices are being spouted here to the extent that I feel unsure about being too closely associated with much of it. The image conjured up is that of the oft-derided "swivelley-eyed-cybernat" type.
All this excitement and insult over one person's choice of one word to describe himself and little heed paid to one of the main points made, to wit: the need to redefine "Britishness" in the light of independence. To say that it will be merely consigned to the bin of history is foolish and blind. We may not like all of it, as Pete Wishart makes clear he doesn't, but it is our island's shared history, our shared cultures and our shared social experiences. To disown it is to disown our own history.
Pete Wishart's thoughts seem fairly reasonable, temperate and sound. I suppose this means I must agree with most, if not all, of what he says.
The entertainment value is in the commentary though. Fury and ire poured on the writer's head for daring to accept that he, like all of us whether we like it or not, has a connection to Britain. Untold prejudices are being spouted here to the extent that I feel unsure about being too closely associated with much of it. The image conjured up is that of the oft-derided "swivelley-eyed-cybernat" type.
All this excitement and insult over one person's choice of one word to describe himself and little heed paid to one of the main points made, to wit: the need to redefine "Britishness" in the light of independence. To say that it will be merely consigned to the bin of history is foolish and blind. We may not like all of it, as Pete Wishart makes clear he doesn't, but it is our island's shared history, our shared cultures and our shared social experiences. To disown it is to disown our own history.
#
2011-07-26 19:05
wlq
Got to agree. Who gives a stuff what we call ourselves when our nation regains its independence?
Scots, British, Albannach, Pict, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, African, Pole, Loon, Heilander, Lannaner, ......?
The nation will still be be Scotland, though.
Got to agree. Who gives a stuff what we call ourselves when our nation regains its independence?
Scots, British, Albannach, Pict, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, African, Pole, Loon, Heilander, Lannaner, ......?
The nation will still be be Scotland, though.
#
2011-07-26 19:17
Granted west_lothian_qu estioner there are those of a Scots Nationalist Persuasion who may at times use innapropriate language when the word Brit/British/ Britishness is spoken of.
In My opinion It does conjure images of Rule over Scotland from Westminster London England . And perhaps of those expressing Britishness as being all for Foreign Rule.'The swivelly eyed skinheaded type' In some cases but not all.
I would argue that it is not a shared History'Britishness' But a Forced History.
Africans/Scandinavians/Asians/South Americans all have a form of Shared History.
In Scotlands Case that so called shared history is one of 'Foreign Governance brought about and held through black handed Propaganda and sycophantic dealings with the Foreign Ruler.
We will still inhabit an Island Called Britain Post Independence but the Political and Colonial identity of Britishness will wane and eventually cease to excist.
In My opinion It does conjure images of Rule over Scotland from Westminster London England . And perhaps of those expressing Britishness as being all for Foreign Rule.'The swivelly eyed skinheaded type' In some cases but not all.
I would argue that it is not a shared History'Britishness' But a Forced History.
Africans/Scandinavians/Asians/South Americans all have a form of Shared History.
In Scotlands Case that so called shared history is one of 'Foreign Governance brought about and held through black handed Propaganda and sycophantic dealings with the Foreign Ruler.
We will still inhabit an Island Called Britain Post Independence but the Political and Colonial identity of Britishness will wane and eventually cease to excist.
#
2011-07-26 19:19
Quoting Vakov2000:
i know the moderators have already jumped in, but this is precisely the sort of comment that diminishes the nationalist cause.
What is the point in slagging off anyone who dares put forward a point of view that you don't like?
It is also detrimental to Newsnet. If that is the sort of response a writer is going to get, then they simply will not bother.
Actually Peter it took this article to realise what a **** you are.
Perhaps you are in the wrong party? Maybe you should step down and join the Conservatives or Labour their used to be another English Party but I can't quite remember their name apparently they are popular in the Shetlands?
Edited for use of abusive or offensive language. Mod Team
i know the moderators have already jumped in, but this is precisely the sort of comment that diminishes the nationalist cause.
What is the point in slagging off anyone who dares put forward a point of view that you don't like?
It is also detrimental to Newsnet. If that is the sort of response a writer is going to get, then they simply will not bother.
#
2011-07-26 20:06
Quoting enneffess:
Are you suggesting that we should not challenge an Opinion piece?
Pete Wishart is as entitled to give his opinion as I am to answer it.
I agree that offensive language gets none of us anywhere, and defeats the purpose when so many people have taken the time to write an appropriate response. I'm certain Pete Wishart's shoulders are broad enough to shrug off criticism of his opinion, after all he has been in the same debating chamber as Ian Davidson!
[quote name="Vakov2000"]
What is the point in slagging off anyone who dares put forward a point of view that you don't like?
It is also detrimental to Newsnet. If that is the sort of response a writer is going to get, then they simply will not bother.
Are you suggesting that we should not challenge an Opinion piece?
Pete Wishart is as entitled to give his opinion as I am to answer it.
I agree that offensive language gets none of us anywhere, and defeats the purpose when so many people have taken the time to write an appropriate response. I'm certain Pete Wishart's shoulders are broad enough to shrug off criticism of his opinion, after all he has been in the same debating chamber as Ian Davidson!
#
2011-07-26 21:02
brusque:
I don't think anyone is suggesting Pete Wishart isn't entitled to his opinion.
As enneffess so rightly states - its absoultely fine to disagree, and have a reasoned, educated dialogue.
I happen to agree with him/her that "slagging off anyone" is inappropriate.
The one thing every person believing in freedom and a future strong Scotland does well to bear in mind is that a vote alienated is a vote lost, whereas a vote educated may not be.
I don't think anyone is suggesting Pete Wishart isn't entitled to his opinion.
As enneffess so rightly states - its absoultely fine to disagree, and have a reasoned, educated dialogue.
I happen to agree with him/her that "slagging off anyone" is inappropriate.
The one thing every person believing in freedom and a future strong Scotland does well to bear in mind is that a vote alienated is a vote lost, whereas a vote educated may not be.
#
2011-07-26 21:32
British is when times are desperate and we're all needed.
The rest of the time it's shelved, except when somebody other than an English national wins a game or a race.
The rest of the time it's shelved, except when somebody other than an English national wins a game or a race.
#
2011-07-26 21:53
Spanish tv considers Londres as the capital of the island-England. We are a region like Galicia in international thinking. Ingles/Brit same thing.
España is scared of it's own multiple divorces.
España is scared of it's own multiple divorces.
#
2011-07-26 21:40
A very interesting article and one which I can happily concur with. If/when the break comes we will still have a very close relationship with England; obviously because it will be the only country that we will border.
I have no problem with 'shared institutions' being called 'British'. I think it is a good idea to help foster relations with our southern neighbour.
We have a lot to thank England and the English for they have given as well as taken. I hope the cultural aspect of being 'British' [which in reality was mostly English] will continue in roughly the same vein. While the Union lasted a lot of people made money [apart from those at the bottom] but I think it's time that we went on our own as our paths are not the same any more, if they ever were.
I have no problem with 'shared institutions' being called 'British'. I think it is a good idea to help foster relations with our southern neighbour.
We have a lot to thank England and the English for they have given as well as taken. I hope the cultural aspect of being 'British' [which in reality was mostly English] will continue in roughly the same vein. While the Union lasted a lot of people made money [apart from those at the bottom] but I think it's time that we went on our own as our paths are not the same any more, if they ever were.
#
2011-07-26 21:58
Are you Pete "########" Wishart in disguise?
Edited for use of abusive or offensive language. Mod Team
Edited for use of abusive or offensive language. Mod Team
#
2011-07-26 23:00
@Alex Ua
Why exactly is Pete Wishart a '########'?
One of the things that drew me to the SNP was the fact that they were a church, NOT a religion...
People are entitled to their own views and opinions whether you agree with them or not...
I suggest you drop the name calling....
You're not on the Hootsman now and it moves the debate forward not one bit...
Why exactly is Pete Wishart a '########'?
One of the things that drew me to the SNP was the fact that they were a church, NOT a religion...
People are entitled to their own views and opinions whether you agree with them or not...
I suggest you drop the name calling....
You're not on the Hootsman now and it moves the debate forward not one bit...
#
2011-07-27 04:30
No, I am someone who has a different perspective from you, but still wants independence. As you are entitled to your say then I suggest that you give that same respect to those who do not, fully, share your views.
#
2011-07-26 22:15
I'm not sure how British can become respectable in nationalist circles because the reason I'm in the SNP is that I don't feel British at all. I'm not sure what Britishness has, "achieved and secured", for Scotland because as far as I can see, east across the North Sea, south over "La Manche" and even west to Ireland, is that the countries which haven't been part of the British political union are in a much better state than Scotland. My gripe is with cultural Britishness because it has been used as a tool in Scotland to try and remove the idea of Scotland as a nation and a culture and even in England there are grumblings about the Westminster Government's reluctance to say or recognise England.
I'm not sure why fighting together in the Second World War should make us feel British because there were plenty of other countries who fought in that war such as India who supplied an army which was over 2.5 million strong at the end and more than half a million African troops served with the British Army in campaigns in the Horn of Africa, the Middle East, Italy and Burma, and some 15,000 of them were killed in action but none of these countries wanted to stay with the Empire after the war ended.
I'd be interested to see what list of shared institutions could be British after independence. Even the royal family will have to change because we're not some colony gaining independence as we're a founding partner of the UK and the Scottish crown was never unified with the English crown despite all the talk about the, "Union of the Crowns". Army? No because dual control of an army/navy/airforce is bound to end in disaster. Civil Service? Two masters, same problem. Broadcasting? The sooner Scotland controls its own broadcast media the better. NHS? It's already separate. Legal System? It's already separate. Education? It's already separate. Tax? Control of tax revenue is fundamental to a country's independence. Not a lot left is there?
I am not at all interested in defining a, "new Britishness", or to give it a new lease of life. I joined the SNP to create a new Scotland.
I'm not sure why fighting together in the Second World War should make us feel British because there were plenty of other countries who fought in that war such as India who supplied an army which was over 2.5 million strong at the end and more than half a million African troops served with the British Army in campaigns in the Horn of Africa, the Middle East, Italy and Burma, and some 15,000 of them were killed in action but none of these countries wanted to stay with the Empire after the war ended.
I'd be interested to see what list of shared institutions could be British after independence. Even the royal family will have to change because we're not some colony gaining independence as we're a founding partner of the UK and the Scottish crown was never unified with the English crown despite all the talk about the, "Union of the Crowns". Army? No because dual control of an army/navy/airforce is bound to end in disaster. Civil Service? Two masters, same problem. Broadcasting? The sooner Scotland controls its own broadcast media the better. NHS? It's already separate. Legal System? It's already separate. Education? It's already separate. Tax? Control of tax revenue is fundamental to a country's independence. Not a lot left is there?
I am not at all interested in defining a, "new Britishness", or to give it a new lease of life. I joined the SNP to create a new Scotland.
#
2011-07-26 22:54
I remember a few years ago being on holiday in Tenerife, one of the group i got friendly with from England knew i was Scottish but spoke casually of how we had to put up with the rain so much back in England! So i know for a fact that English means British. I then came to the realisation that Scotland to them was just a region of England. This is but one example.
As long as my passport says British, to me this supresses my real identity of where im from and who i am. I too, long for the day when my passport reads 'Scottish'. I think Pete Wishart should be concentrating on discssing how Scotland should be taking its rightful place on the world stage rather than this disappointing effort.
For years theyve tried to spoon feed Scots to take their medicine and be British through all manner and means. The more they force us the more we will say no. Its human nature and more importantly its our birth right. It really is as simple as that.
As long as my passport says British, to me this supresses my real identity of where im from and who i am. I too, long for the day when my passport reads 'Scottish'. I think Pete Wishart should be concentrating on discssing how Scotland should be taking its rightful place on the world stage rather than this disappointing effort.
For years theyve tried to spoon feed Scots to take their medicine and be British through all manner and means. The more they force us the more we will say no. Its human nature and more importantly its our birth right. It really is as simple as that.
#
2011-07-26 22:56
and the topic on Newsnicht the nicht is....
Brewer was salivating when he was doing his wee intro...
Lets see how they spin this non-story...
Brewer was salivating when he was doing his wee intro...
Lets see how they spin this non-story...
#
2011-07-26 23:01
This "Alex Ua" worries me.
He has already acused me and gedguy2 of being "quislings", and in his other 3-4 posts given the impression that he is not of this planet (albeit temporarily).
Alex Ua - give us some reasoned arguments or desist.
He has already acused me and gedguy2 of being "quislings", and in his other 3-4 posts given the impression that he is not of this planet (albeit temporarily).
Alex Ua - give us some reasoned arguments or desist.
#
2011-07-26 23:11
Scots are British in the geographical sense of being inhabitants of the British Isles. However it is impossible to use the term British without a political meaning being applied. Britishness and British identity are inseperable from the Empire and the imperialist project that Scotland bought into at the expense of independence. The modern re-emergence of Scottish nationalism is, in part, a product of the collapse of the empire and the demise of Britain as a global power. Emperial success reconciled Scots to London rule and underpinned the economic case for union. Attempts by the SNP to get those Scots who feel British to vote for independence by re-defining a new Britishness are misguided. British identity in the post-imperial age is destined to die a slow death. For Scottish nationalists to try to shore it up or to subvert it for our own short term campaigning purposes is perverse. We need to be building a new inclusive Scottish identity linked to European and global citizenship. Post-imperial Scotland has a positive role to play in the world but we cannot do it wrapped in the butcher's apron.
#
2011-07-26 23:24
Just watched Newsnight. I understand Pete's line but for those that don't follow the debate and rely on the headlines I think it is all too confusing.
Suggesting that we could have sensible cross-border arrangements makes it to easy for unionists to dismiss since no one can force the English to buy into it.
Let's keep it simple.
Suggesting that we could have sensible cross-border arrangements makes it to easy for unionists to dismiss since no one can force the English to buy into it.
Let's keep it simple.
#
2011-07-26 23:24
to wit: the need to redefine "Britishness" in the light of independence. To say that it will be merely consigned to the bin of history is foolish and blind.
I can simplify that for you by using sport as an example.
A Scot wins hes British.
A Scot loses hes Scottish.
Britishness disappears in seconds.
A comment from an Englishman around Wimbledon time about Murrays nationality.
Does it matter if Murray is British, English or Scottish.
I asked him why on earth would he class Murray as being English when he was born and bred in Dunblane, Scotland. What he really meant was British/English was the same thing.
Petty eh? but also real.
I had an English GF some years back and according to her in school they were basically taught that we/Scots live in a region of England. Her attitude was very different once she lived up here and took note that was anything but the truth. When i discussed Scottish independence with her the first thing she asked me was if we left the union who would protect them (England). Cannon fodder another Union Dividend and a great bit of Britishness to be proud of
from our past.
I have never classed myself as British and i never will. After reading this article several times i serioulsy struggle to see where Mr Wishart is coming from. Its like being happy to be British but not wanting to be British, nuts, void of sense and ignores all the reasons i believe have lead to the independence movement coming about in the first place all of which can be described as British issues that have been Anti-Scottish.
Another thing who decided in the first place we where part of the British Isles? Once we gain our independence just like the union the British Isles will be a defunct and distant memory.
Another thing about this comparison to Scandanavia(n's). Would a Pole or a Frenchman be classed as a Nazi because they shared the same patch of mainland Western Europe with Germany?
I can simplify that for you by using sport as an example.
A Scot wins hes British.
A Scot loses hes Scottish.
Britishness disappears in seconds.
A comment from an Englishman around Wimbledon time about Murrays nationality.
Does it matter if Murray is British, English or Scottish.
I asked him why on earth would he class Murray as being English when he was born and bred in Dunblane, Scotland. What he really meant was British/English was the same thing.
Petty eh? but also real.
I had an English GF some years back and according to her in school they were basically taught that we/Scots live in a region of England. Her attitude was very different once she lived up here and took note that was anything but the truth. When i discussed Scottish independence with her the first thing she asked me was if we left the union who would protect them (England). Cannon fodder another Union Dividend and a great bit of Britishness to be proud of
from our past.
I have never classed myself as British and i never will. After reading this article several times i serioulsy struggle to see where Mr Wishart is coming from. Its like being happy to be British but not wanting to be British, nuts, void of sense and ignores all the reasons i believe have lead to the independence movement coming about in the first place all of which can be described as British issues that have been Anti-Scottish.
Another thing who decided in the first place we where part of the British Isles? Once we gain our independence just like the union the British Isles will be a defunct and distant memory.
Another thing about this comparison to Scandanavia(n's). Would a Pole or a Frenchman be classed as a Nazi because they shared the same patch of mainland Western Europe with Germany?
#
2011-07-26 23:39
I have to admit it...
having watched Pete Wishart on Newsnicht tonight he was really poor and, if anything has moved the debate backwards and not forwards....
What exactly is his point?
I'm struggling to get it...
My beef is with the British establishment and political elite who for centuries have held Scotland back and deprived her of the chance to grow economically, culturally and internationally ...
I have no problem with any one else, of any colour, creed or nationality who inhabits these islands...
Someone in the SNP must have sanctioned this performance by Pete Wishart tonight...
I suggest they change tack... and quickly...
having watched Pete Wishart on Newsnicht tonight he was really poor and, if anything has moved the debate backwards and not forwards....
What exactly is his point?
I'm struggling to get it...
My beef is with the British establishment and political elite who for centuries have held Scotland back and deprived her of the chance to grow economically, culturally and internationally ...
I have no problem with any one else, of any colour, creed or nationality who inhabits these islands...
Someone in the SNP must have sanctioned this performance by Pete Wishart tonight...
I suggest they change tack... and quickly...
#
2011-07-26 23:53
Quoting Alex Ua:
There's another one.
This is precisely why the media pounce on the online sites. They look for such comments, publish them and then associate them with the SNP leadership.
Try using the "########" argument when trying to convince someone to vote for the SNP.
I think he is making an effort to try and show that supporting independence does not necessarily mean you must not declare yourself as British. Using this argument might actually sway some voters who still have reservations about the SNP.
If people cannot describe themselves as British if they wish to be considered true independence supporters, then the same must apply to all other nationalities.
I'll repeat what I posted a couple of days ago: the greatest danger to independence seems to be some of the nationalists themselves. One hopes that the SNP itself does not start infighting over such trivial matters.
One question: what would have been the reaction if Alex Salmond had written the article?
Are you Pete "########" Wishart in disguise?
There's another one.
This is precisely why the media pounce on the online sites. They look for such comments, publish them and then associate them with the SNP leadership.
Try using the "########" argument when trying to convince someone to vote for the SNP.
I think he is making an effort to try and show that supporting independence does not necessarily mean you must not declare yourself as British. Using this argument might actually sway some voters who still have reservations about the SNP.
If people cannot describe themselves as British if they wish to be considered true independence supporters, then the same must apply to all other nationalities.
I'll repeat what I posted a couple of days ago: the greatest danger to independence seems to be some of the nationalists themselves. One hopes that the SNP itself does not start infighting over such trivial matters.
One question: what would have been the reaction if Alex Salmond had written the article?
#
2011-07-27 00:17
To be honest NFS, and if you check some of my earlier posts on this thread, if AS had written this it would have elicited exactly the same respoonse from me and I'm sure many others...
I think that Pete Wishart is trying to reach out to some of those 'British Scots', that people like John Curtice continually talk about and he is trying to assuage their reservations about independence...
Unfortunately, in my opinion, it has left him looking silly and pointless and has presented an open goal for the Unionists to take pot shots at him, and by default, many who post on here...
Very poor judgement indeed...
I think that Pete Wishart is trying to reach out to some of those 'British Scots', that people like John Curtice continually talk about and he is trying to assuage their reservations about independence...
Unfortunately, in my opinion, it has left him looking silly and pointless and has presented an open goal for the Unionists to take pot shots at him, and by default, many who post on here...
Very poor judgement indeed...
#
2011-07-27 00:28
Quoting enneffess:
Sorry to say but I fail to understand you as much as the author of the article on this matter. If someone classes themself as British and did not trust the SNP as you put it then they are hardly likely to support the SNP or vote for independence.
I'll agree with you that infighting gets our cause nowhere. In this incidence however its the author of the article that should have thought more about what hes wrote.
As for your point on Salmond - i'd have told him it was time to go. That is exactly how poorly i rate this article.
Quoting Alex Ua:Are you Pete "########" Wishart in disguise?
There's another one.
This is precisely why the media pounce on the online sites. They look for such comments, publish them and then associate them with the SNP leadership.
Try using the "#######" argument when trying to convince someone to vote for the SNP.
I think he is making an effort to try and show that supporting independence does not necessarily mean you must not declare yourself as British. Using this argument might actually sway some voters who still have reservations about the SNP.
If people cannot describe themselves as British if they wish to be considered true independence supporters, then the same must apply to all other nationalities.
I'll repeat what I posted a couple of days ago: the greatest danger to independence seems to be some of the nationalists themselves. One hopes that the SNP itself does not start infighting over such trivial matters.
One question: what would have been the reaction if Alex Salmond had written the article?
Sorry to say but I fail to understand you as much as the author of the article on this matter. If someone classes themself as British and did not trust the SNP as you put it then they are hardly likely to support the SNP or vote for independence.
I'll agree with you that infighting gets our cause nowhere. In this incidence however its the author of the article that should have thought more about what hes wrote.
As for your point on Salmond - i'd have told him it was time to go. That is exactly how poorly i rate this article.
#
2011-07-27 09:41
Must agree with you clydey. If this had been written by Salmond, it would most definitely have been time for him to step aside.
Perhaps, to give him the benefit of the doubt, Pete failed to articulate what he actually meant - he does after all say in the opening lines, quote;
"Like many proud nationalists I have struggled with the idea of being British and have never described myself as such."
The real difficulty, is that I do not know many nationalists who look fondly on the concept of being 'British'. They invariably see what it is, another name for Englishness.
I know from personal experience, that whilst living in London, it is easy to fall into the 'soft focus' nostalgic view of Scotland and Britain. It is too easy to just say, well, it's not so bad, is it, being 'British'. The bright lights and dizzying power of Westmonster can overwhelm rational thinking in many Scots, as has been evidenced by Gordon Brown's obsessive (Tourette's like) Britain, Britain, Britain dispositions.
A good visit back to Scotland usually clears the head. I hope it works for Pete Wishart too.
Perhaps, to give him the benefit of the doubt, Pete failed to articulate what he actually meant - he does after all say in the opening lines, quote;
"Like many proud nationalists I have struggled with the idea of being British and have never described myself as such."
The real difficulty, is that I do not know many nationalists who look fondly on the concept of being 'British'. They invariably see what it is, another name for Englishness.
I know from personal experience, that whilst living in London, it is easy to fall into the 'soft focus' nostalgic view of Scotland and Britain. It is too easy to just say, well, it's not so bad, is it, being 'British'. The bright lights and dizzying power of Westmonster can overwhelm rational thinking in many Scots, as has been evidenced by Gordon Brown's obsessive (Tourette's like) Britain, Britain, Britain dispositions.
A good visit back to Scotland usually clears the head. I hope it works for Pete Wishart too.
#
2011-07-27 00:51
Gobblediegook!!
"British" is either an historical description, of which the English quite simply are not a part, or it is a polical term, the intention of which is to totally subliminate the Scots (albeit accepting that some Scots were part of the horrors of the brutish Empire).
The rest, Dear Pete, is mental!
"British" is either an historical description, of which the English quite simply are not a part, or it is a polical term, the intention of which is to totally subliminate the Scots (albeit accepting that some Scots were part of the horrors of the brutish Empire).
The rest, Dear Pete, is mental!
#
2011-07-27 00:54
I've read the article a few times here and on Better Nation and I'm sorry I can't see what’s wrong with it. I'm pleased to see the SNP move the debate on Britishness along and I agree with most of what is said. An independent Scotland will still be part of Britain, in the same way as its part of Europe. What we can't do is try and pretend that the last 300 odd years didn't exist, they did and we played a major role in creating modern Britain for good and bad.
#
2011-07-27 00:56
Whilst I think I know what Mr. Wishart is trying to say, he hasn't put it across well at all. I'm sure we all acknowledge that many Scots flourished as part of Great Britain, particularly during its days of Empire, making their mark far beyond these islands.
It is those people we can thank for our good reputation around the world, which still (mostly) holds good today. But they remember us as Scots, not as Brits, and that is perhaps something Mr. Wishart should have borne in mind.
Cultural Britishness is a strange one, which I could only possibly define as being a mutual love of Coronation Street - what other common ground was there? It's not about war, or industrialisati on, although the latter is something we,as Scots, can be proud of.
However, if it made him happy to consider himself British in an independent Scotland, then I would defend to the death his right to do so.
He'll need a lot of luck with it though...
It is those people we can thank for our good reputation around the world, which still (mostly) holds good today. But they remember us as Scots, not as Brits, and that is perhaps something Mr. Wishart should have borne in mind.
Cultural Britishness is a strange one, which I could only possibly define as being a mutual love of Coronation Street - what other common ground was there? It's not about war, or industrialisati on, although the latter is something we,as Scots, can be proud of.
However, if it made him happy to consider himself British in an independent Scotland, then I would defend to the death his right to do so.
He'll need a lot of luck with it though...
#
2011-07-27 06:03
Read a book recently, entitled "The Country Formerly Known as Great Britain", by Ian Jack, a Scot, and journalist for the Guardian.
The title is a bit misleading, because he really doesn't get into the nitty-gritty of what I thought it was going to be about, it seems to be more nostalgia for a time when he sensed there was a greater feeling of "Britishness" than there is today.
However, one sentence from the introduction sticks in my memory. "There is hardly a British institution - the monarchy, the BBC, the Royal Navy - that doesn't fear for its future".
In my view, as the concept of "Britishness" subsides, Scottish Independence will become inevitable.
The title is a bit misleading, because he really doesn't get into the nitty-gritty of what I thought it was going to be about, it seems to be more nostalgia for a time when he sensed there was a greater feeling of "Britishness" than there is today.
However, one sentence from the introduction sticks in my memory. "There is hardly a British institution - the monarchy, the BBC, the Royal Navy - that doesn't fear for its future".
In my view, as the concept of "Britishness" subsides, Scottish Independence will become inevitable.
#
2011-07-27 10:10
Following on from the article by Pete Wishart, I just feel the need to say the following;
Quick reminder to the MP's and MSP's of the SNP.
You are supported by people like me and were elected, not to enjoy being an MSP, MP or even First Minister. You were elected to Govern Scotland and achieve the restoration of Scottish independence. Yes, the media are biased, and yes they will completely over react when you publicly stand up for Scotland, and yes they will try to stir up distrust. Yes, the media and unionists will try to suggest you do not have a mandate for this, that or the other, but that is hubris!! That doesn't matter, you have a parliamentary majority, you likely never will again, so how about using your power.
Ignore the media, we all know what their agenda is anyway. Nobody ever said it would be easy, nobody ever said Westminster would not play dirty, and use every manipulative trick in the book. We all knew that. They have done it all around the world for centuries.
You have a truly massive democratic mandate to Govern Scotland for the benefit of Scotland and Scots, you do NOT NEED PERMISSION from the media or from London. Stop being so timid, otherwise people will start to think that you are all just fearties, who have gotten just a touch too, too comfy with your ministerial mondeos.
How about ignoring the London inspired 'Scotland Act' currently being discussed, and just start with some primary legislation in Scotland for Scots, taking back control of money from the crown estates. Sc**w Westminster, you were elected to do what is best for Scotland, period.
If you choose to pass the Scotland Act, and it takes even ONE shred of power away from Scotland, you will lose my support.
GET ON WITH IT!
p.s. I'm Scottish NOT British!
Quick reminder to the MP's and MSP's of the SNP.
You are supported by people like me and were elected, not to enjoy being an MSP, MP or even First Minister. You were elected to Govern Scotland and achieve the restoration of Scottish independence. Yes, the media are biased, and yes they will completely over react when you publicly stand up for Scotland, and yes they will try to stir up distrust. Yes, the media and unionists will try to suggest you do not have a mandate for this, that or the other, but that is hubris!! That doesn't matter, you have a parliamentary majority, you likely never will again, so how about using your power.
Ignore the media, we all know what their agenda is anyway. Nobody ever said it would be easy, nobody ever said Westminster would not play dirty, and use every manipulative trick in the book. We all knew that. They have done it all around the world for centuries.
You have a truly massive democratic mandate to Govern Scotland for the benefit of Scotland and Scots, you do NOT NEED PERMISSION from the media or from London. Stop being so timid, otherwise people will start to think that you are all just fearties, who have gotten just a touch too, too comfy with your ministerial mondeos.
How about ignoring the London inspired 'Scotland Act' currently being discussed, and just start with some primary legislation in Scotland for Scots, taking back control of money from the crown estates. Sc**w Westminster, you were elected to do what is best for Scotland, period.
If you choose to pass the Scotland Act, and it takes even ONE shred of power away from Scotland, you will lose my support.
GET ON WITH IT!
p.s. I'm Scottish NOT British!
#
2011-07-27 11:51
Quoting Robert Louis:
Spot on !
Following on from the article by Pete Wishart, I just feel the need to say the following;
Quick reminder to the MP's and MSP's of the SNP.
You are supported by people like me and were elected, not to enjoy being an MSP, MP or even First Minister. You were elected to Govern Scotland and achieve the restoration of Scottish independence. Yes, the media are biased, and yes they will completely over react when you publicly stand up for Scotland, and yes they will try to stir up distrust. Yes, the media and unionists will try to suggest you do not have a mandate for this, that or the other, but that is hubris!! That doesn't matter, you have a parliamentary majority, you likely never will again, so how about using your power.
Ignore the media, we all know what their agenda is anyway. Nobody ever said it would be easy, nobody ever said Westminster would not play dirty, and use every manipulative trick in the book. We all knew that. They have done it all around the world for centuries.
You have a truly massive democratic mandate to Govern Scotland for the benefit of Scotland and Scots, you do NOT NEED PERMISSION from the media or from London. Stop being so timid, otherwise people will start to think that you are all just fearties, who have gotten just a touch too, too comfy with your ministerial mondeos.
How about ignoring the London inspired 'Scotland Act' currently being discussed, and just start with some primary legislation in Scotland for Scots, taking back control of money from the crown estates. Sc**w Westminster, you were elected to do what is best for Scotland, period.
If you choose to pass the Scotland Act, and it takes even ONE shred of power away from Scotland, you will lose my support.
GET ON WITH IT!
p.s. I'm Scottish NOT British!
Spot on !
#
2011-07-27 16:06
As it stands the Scotland Act gives away a lot of power. I must admit I'm watching the SNP closely on this one to. If they give away one single power it will be an act of betrayal in all they stand for and for the people who voted for them.
#
2011-07-27 11:23
I think Pete Wishart's comments were unhelpful coming as they do in the midst of all the "independence lite" nonsense invented by the Brits in Scotland as a comfort blanket to try and reassure themselves that we're not really serious about independence.
I'm not even sure which audience the article is intended for as it appears to anger many SNP supporters and to give those who agree with Pete Wishart a platform to air their distaste with those who disagree with him in the style of WLQ who wrote,
"Untold prejudices are being spouted here to the extent that I feel unsure about being too closely associated with much of it. The image conjured up is that of the oft-derided "swivelley-eyed-cybernat" type."
The unionists at Labour Hame clutching for any crumbs of comfort these days must have thought their birthday had come early with this article as they got two hits on the dreaded nats for the price of one.
I'm not even sure which audience the article is intended for as it appears to anger many SNP supporters and to give those who agree with Pete Wishart a platform to air their distaste with those who disagree with him in the style of WLQ who wrote,
"Untold prejudices are being spouted here to the extent that I feel unsure about being too closely associated with much of it. The image conjured up is that of the oft-derided "swivelley-eyed-cybernat" type."
The unionists at Labour Hame clutching for any crumbs of comfort these days must have thought their birthday had come early with this article as they got two hits on the dreaded nats for the price of one.
#
2011-07-27 18:50
My distaste isnt for the disagreement. I believe all points of view deserve an airing and proper discussion and, or rebuttal. That form of discourse can't happen very well when the air is being poisoned by vicious and unfounded personal insults and empty rhetoric.
The undoubted passion of people's feelings and opinions on this thorny wee matter of Britishness is wonderful, the language used to express it is a wee bit dubious and sadly the level of insult is pretty simply uncalled for, advancing nothing in the process of its utterance.
If LabourHame manage to make anything of this I'd be very surprised. The only way they could do so is by twisting and skewing their report.......... ok.. that might well be their way, since they have little enough else to go on.
Just as a matter of record, since the "swivelly eyed cybernats" remark has been tossed into a couple of comments after my use of it... I first read the phrase here, on newsnetscotland . I have no idea of its provenance, I dont care who said it first, I know such people.. im sure you all do.. not all of them are nats (cyber or otherwise) but the whole "swivelly eyed fruitcake" analogy amuses me.
The undoubted passion of people's feelings and opinions on this thorny wee matter of Britishness is wonderful, the language used to express it is a wee bit dubious and sadly the level of insult is pretty simply uncalled for, advancing nothing in the process of its utterance.
If LabourHame manage to make anything of this I'd be very surprised. The only way they could do so is by twisting and skewing their report.......... ok.. that might well be their way, since they have little enough else to go on.
Just as a matter of record, since the "swivelly eyed cybernats" remark has been tossed into a couple of comments after my use of it... I first read the phrase here, on newsnetscotland . I have no idea of its provenance, I dont care who said it first, I know such people.. im sure you all do.. not all of them are nats (cyber or otherwise) but the whole "swivelly eyed fruitcake" analogy amuses me.
#
2011-07-27 19:05
Quoting west_lothian_qu estioner:
You don't consider that your use of the expression was insulting and offensive (or vicious and unfounded if you prefer) to those of us who do not agree with Pete Wishart's Opinion piece??
All points of view do, indeed, deserve an airing, so why is it that you have difficulty in accepting that I, and others, don't agree with Mr Wishart's ill conceived attempt to "Britishise" us. As I said already, Mr Wishart was quick enough to speak about Gordon Brown's "clumsy and excruciating" attempt to "Britishise" us, I can't think of any reason why he would be surprised that many people disagree..................and not exclusively Nationalists.
I believe all points of view deserve an airing and proper discussion and, or rebuttal. That form of discourse can't happen very well when the air is being poisoned by personal insults.
the "swivelly eyed cybernats" .. amuses me.
You don't consider that your use of the expression was insulting and offensive (or vicious and unfounded if you prefer) to those of us who do not agree with Pete Wishart's Opinion piece??
All points of view do, indeed, deserve an airing, so why is it that you have difficulty in accepting that I, and others, don't agree with Mr Wishart's ill conceived attempt to "Britishise" us. As I said already, Mr Wishart was quick enough to speak about Gordon Brown's "clumsy and excruciating" attempt to "Britishise" us, I can't think of any reason why he would be surprised that many people disagree..................and not exclusively Nationalists.
#
2011-07-28 02:15
If i felt insulted by the label I wouldn't have used it. If it offends you, I'm sorry for the upset. It still amuses me though.
I have nodifficulty in accepting that opinions differ. My point was not about that. Instead, my point is that the view of Britishness is very much a personal thing and depends on many factors of circumstance to give it shape. Pete Wishart suggests that people's attitude toward their own Britishness may change after independence. I think he's right, some of us will cast it off like an unwelcome stink, others, I suspect fewer, will let it slip away with a modicum of faintly nostalgic regret. Either way, the definition of British IS an agenda item in all corners of the island these days. A new evolution of the term is on its way... this acrimonious wee splurge here is part of it.
I have nodifficulty in accepting that opinions differ. My point was not about that. Instead, my point is that the view of Britishness is very much a personal thing and depends on many factors of circumstance to give it shape. Pete Wishart suggests that people's attitude toward their own Britishness may change after independence. I think he's right, some of us will cast it off like an unwelcome stink, others, I suspect fewer, will let it slip away with a modicum of faintly nostalgic regret. Either way, the definition of British IS an agenda item in all corners of the island these days. A new evolution of the term is on its way... this acrimonious wee splurge here is part of it.
#
2011-07-27 12:08
Mind you, Pete Wishart has caused many of you to give some thought, and air your view on Britishness,
Well spoken Robert Louis however I feel confident that Alex Salmon and his team aren't going to rush across an open battlefield.
I doubt that the SNP can ignore the Scotland Act and Alex Salmon has already declared some of his content requirements of the Act. Once returned there is the opportunity to fully debate and expose the devious entanglement intent of Mr Calman et al. I'd expect that the Act will be "solemnly" passed via Westminster, and be effectively rejected by means of a comprehensive re-write defining the Scottish Government's requirements of the Act.
First major skirmish between Westminster and Holyrood on who governs Scotland?
Well spoken Robert Louis however I feel confident that Alex Salmon and his team aren't going to rush across an open battlefield.
I doubt that the SNP can ignore the Scotland Act and Alex Salmon has already declared some of his content requirements of the Act. Once returned there is the opportunity to fully debate and expose the devious entanglement intent of Mr Calman et al. I'd expect that the Act will be "solemnly" passed via Westminster, and be effectively rejected by means of a comprehensive re-write defining the Scottish Government's requirements of the Act.
First major skirmish between Westminster and Holyrood on who governs Scotland?
#
2011-07-27 12:18
I noticed Pete Wishart replied to David Torrance on Better Nation thanking him for being so generous about his article.
Hope he doesn't consider entering the fray with the "swivelly eyed cybernat types" here to be beyond the pale.
Over to you Pete.....
Hope he doesn't consider entering the fray with the "swivelly eyed cybernat types" here to be beyond the pale.
Over to you Pete.....
#
2011-07-27 12:34
If we are to be kind here... and believe that Pete Wishart was actually trying to reassure 'Scot Brits' and/or English people, that independence is not harmful then he's not making a clear case. Despite the odd comment on here, most contributors are not 'swivelly-eyed nats' but sincere civic Scottish Nationalists. We just don't need the push forward muddied by sentimental tosh about a shared heritage (mainly consisting of blood and conquer). If he'd written about his fondness for English culture,place or people, I could happily agree and add my own contributions. It is because I regard myself (already) as a separate nationality who admires and likes others, that I object to a harking back to my country being a de facto colony for the last 300 years. That's not to say nothing good happened in that period, it's just not relevant right now. I'd rather examine 'Britishness' in the afterglow of Scottish independence!
#
2011-07-27 12:50
lochside wrote,
"If he'd written about his fondness for English culture,place or people, I could happily agree and add my own contributions."
agree, well said.
"If he'd written about his fondness for English culture,place or people, I could happily agree and add my own contributions."
agree, well said.
#
2011-07-27 12:58
Seconded...
Unfortunately, until sometime in the not too distant future (hopefully) when the SNP start outlining their plans for independence in a more coherent and detailed manner, then outbursts like this, however well intentioned, can only have one outcome
and it's not a positive pro-independence one...
It's more confusion, even muddier waters and grist to the unionist mill...
It almost feels like he is encouraging the very thing that we are rallying against....
We need one voice, one consistent message, that is simple and easy to comprehend as we drive towards the referendum...
We dont need this....
Unfortunately, until sometime in the not too distant future (hopefully) when the SNP start outlining their plans for independence in a more coherent and detailed manner, then outbursts like this, however well intentioned, can only have one outcome
and it's not a positive pro-independence one...
It's more confusion, even muddier waters and grist to the unionist mill...
It almost feels like he is encouraging the very thing that we are rallying against....
We need one voice, one consistent message, that is simple and easy to comprehend as we drive towards the referendum...
We dont need this....
#
2011-07-27 13:23
Ah Pete, Pete...We can frighten the horses now. We have a majority in the Scottish parliament in face of the Dewar System designed never to allow anyone other than the Labour Party to do so.
Sorry, I wouldn't be proud to be British in the same way that somebody from Portugal wouldn't be proud to be called Iberian. Yes, we share these "British" islands with the Irish, English and Welsh. That's a fact of Geography. We share a language and much of a culture, but that was then. This is now.
"British" comes with too much baggage for me.
It comes with Empire at the end of a bayonet, a culture ruthlessly imposed and dissent oppressed.
It comes with an immediate arrogance and assumption of supremacy and primacy, that "Britain" still rules the waves, and "punches above its weight".
It comes with an active ignorance, distrust and even hatred of other cultures and places and people.
Tale follows from my time doing missionary work amongst the heathen Darn Sarf in the Darkest East End.
I was at an interview and an interviewer raised the fact that under "Nationality" I had put "Scottish". Why, he asked, Hadn't I put "British" ?
I asked him if he had asked the same question to anybody who had put "English" as their nationality.
There was a blush, no answer and the interview moved quickly along.
(I did actually get the job BTW)
And Pete, sorry mate, if you're happy to be British, even in an Independent Scotland, either you're in the wrong party or I am.
Sorry, I wouldn't be proud to be British in the same way that somebody from Portugal wouldn't be proud to be called Iberian. Yes, we share these "British" islands with the Irish, English and Welsh. That's a fact of Geography. We share a language and much of a culture, but that was then. This is now.
"British" comes with too much baggage for me.
It comes with Empire at the end of a bayonet, a culture ruthlessly imposed and dissent oppressed.
It comes with an immediate arrogance and assumption of supremacy and primacy, that "Britain" still rules the waves, and "punches above its weight".
It comes with an active ignorance, distrust and even hatred of other cultures and places and people.
Tale follows from my time doing missionary work amongst the heathen Darn Sarf in the Darkest East End.
I was at an interview and an interviewer raised the fact that under "Nationality" I had put "Scottish". Why, he asked, Hadn't I put "British" ?
I asked him if he had asked the same question to anybody who had put "English" as their nationality.
There was a blush, no answer and the interview moved quickly along.
(I did actually get the job BTW)
And Pete, sorry mate, if you're happy to be British, even in an Independent Scotland, either you're in the wrong party or I am.
#
2011-07-27 15:37
Watching Pete Wishart on Newsnight last night prompts me to use his own words against him. "Clumsy and excruciating". If it's relevant to Gordon Brown, then it is doubly relevant to this opinion piece.
#
2011-07-27 15:47
Are we speaking in code now?
Oh! it's disappeared, I didn't imagine it, honest:-)
[NNS Moderation Team]
[Is just us leaving notes to ourselves]
Oh! it's disappeared, I didn't imagine it, honest:-)
[NNS Moderation Team]
[Is just us leaving notes to ourselves]
#
2011-07-27 16:28
Does everyone here think at the point of Independence, the British Monarchy will become "Our (Scotland's) English Monarchy"?
I don't think some of you have really thought as deeply about this as Pete Wishart has.
There has already been discussions on sharing British Military resources including bases in Scotland for the British defence as Pete made clear last night (but it was again interrupted by the rude LibDem. Yes Britain will cease to exist as a state but it must continue as an agreement. Who here prefers to read of the Anglo-Scottish agreement?
Quote:
.
.
Hmmm, on second thoughts, perhaps it is I who must still review the situation?
Anglo-Scottish or even Scottish-Anglo agreements sound acceptable now.
I don't think some of you have really thought as deeply about this as Pete Wishart has.
There has already been discussions on sharing British Military resources including bases in Scotland for the British defence as Pete made clear last night (but it was again interrupted by the rude LibDem. Yes Britain will cease to exist as a state but it must continue as an agreement. Who here prefers to read of the Anglo-Scottish agreement?
Quote:
# chiefy1724 2011-07-27 13:23
"British" comes with too much baggage for me.
It comes with Empire at the end of a bayonet, a culture ruthlessly imposed and dissent oppressed.
.
.
Hmmm, on second thoughts, perhaps it is I who must still review the situation?
Anglo-Scottish or even Scottish-Anglo agreements sound acceptable now.
#
2011-07-27 16:32
I think you should all give Pete Wishart a break. He’s obviously not trying to reach the ‘converted’ or ‘experts’.
He is trying to reach the wee lady who was interviewed on Newsnight who said- British –Scottish, its nice to be both.
She is unquestioningly accepting the position of the inferior partner, for as things stand, she believes she can only be British by accepting the status quo- UK.
However, if asked if she thought it would be nice to be both- Scottish and British- and that in ‘her Britain’, Scotland and England would be ‘equal’ and would run their own affairs and that cultural links would remain- there is every chance that she would say ‘yes’.
I think Peter Wishart is trying to cultivate the ‘we can be equals’ message. It is a stepping-stone of encouragement to those who don’t think too deeply about the ins and outs of independence. His approach could remove the ‘fear factor’.
I don’t think too much navel gazing is helpful. Most people are well aware that many independence minded people are rightly not inclined to the ‘British’ concept. If a novice read this thread they would probably be put off independence- and not from anything that Mr Wishart has said.
He is trying to reach the wee lady who was interviewed on Newsnight who said- British –Scottish, its nice to be both.
She is unquestioningly accepting the position of the inferior partner, for as things stand, she believes she can only be British by accepting the status quo- UK.
However, if asked if she thought it would be nice to be both- Scottish and British- and that in ‘her Britain’, Scotland and England would be ‘equal’ and would run their own affairs and that cultural links would remain- there is every chance that she would say ‘yes’.
I think Peter Wishart is trying to cultivate the ‘we can be equals’ message. It is a stepping-stone of encouragement to those who don’t think too deeply about the ins and outs of independence. His approach could remove the ‘fear factor’.
I don’t think too much navel gazing is helpful. Most people are well aware that many independence minded people are rightly not inclined to the ‘British’ concept. If a novice read this thread they would probably be put off independence- and not from anything that Mr Wishart has said.
#
2011-07-27 16:57
Perhaps more interesting for me than Pete Wishart's comments have been the reactions of those who don't like the way he is being criticised.
It put me in mind of an old blog post by Power and its Minions and some interesting comments which followed it.
powersminions.blogspot.com/.../...
It put me in mind of an old blog post by Power and its Minions and some interesting comments which followed it.
powersminions.blogspot.com/.../...
#
2011-07-27 18:23
Quoting GrassyKnollingt on:
Yes, and it is also significant that those who do not agree with any criticism are the ones being most offensive!!
"swivelly-eyed Nats" could be a quote directly lifted from LabourHame.
Perhaps more interesting for me than Pete Wishart's comments have been the reactions of those who don't like the way he is being criticised.
It put me in mind of an old blog post by Power and its Minions and some interesting comments which followed it.
powersminions.blogspot.com/.../...
Yes, and it is also significant that those who do not agree with any criticism are the ones being most offensive!!
"swivelly-eyed Nats" could be a quote directly lifted from LabourHame.
#
2011-07-27 17:40
The British Isles is not a ‘Geographical fact’ it’s merely a name for an area of land. As far as I am concerned it is a name that was invented by the unionists in an attempt to eradicate Scotland from the map. Guess what? It failed. As a Scot, do I feel British, do I want to be British, do I consider myself British, do I see British as something to be proud of, do I understand what Britishness is, NO!
You can weigh up the pros and cons of the union until your hearts content or not. We can easily as an independent country take the good things we did and gained from the union while part of it. Like wise we should take our share of the bad. In my opinion we have lost and paid for far more than we ever gained.
After 300 years of union we are sailing towards independence. The very fact we have an independence movement after 300 years of union suggests to me that Britain, British, Britishness has failed. Does it look like it’s been a happy union? I find the Scandinavian comparison another which is flawed. If I remember rightly the countries of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark have all wished each other well as individual nations and they cooperate as equals. Was there ever the same bitterness between these countries or did any of them deliberately try and eradicate the other from history? Does anyone believe the English will truthfully wish us well or cooperate as an equal partner? I’d suggest anyone who thinks so should really read their own history. As they say history has got a bad habit of coming back and biting ones bum. To me there is far more that I don’t like about Britain, the British establishment or Britishness (I could go on and on). What I don’t get here is why Mr Wishart would want to refine/redefine a failed ideal, Britishness? Why on earth in an independent Scotland anyone would want a new refined concept of Britishness is beyond me.
Gobblediegook, indeed!!!
You can weigh up the pros and cons of the union until your hearts content or not. We can easily as an independent country take the good things we did and gained from the union while part of it. Like wise we should take our share of the bad. In my opinion we have lost and paid for far more than we ever gained.
After 300 years of union we are sailing towards independence. The very fact we have an independence movement after 300 years of union suggests to me that Britain, British, Britishness has failed. Does it look like it’s been a happy union? I find the Scandinavian comparison another which is flawed. If I remember rightly the countries of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark have all wished each other well as individual nations and they cooperate as equals. Was there ever the same bitterness between these countries or did any of them deliberately try and eradicate the other from history? Does anyone believe the English will truthfully wish us well or cooperate as an equal partner? I’d suggest anyone who thinks so should really read their own history. As they say history has got a bad habit of coming back and biting ones bum. To me there is far more that I don’t like about Britain, the British establishment or Britishness (I could go on and on). What I don’t get here is why Mr Wishart would want to refine/redefine a failed ideal, Britishness? Why on earth in an independent Scotland anyone would want a new refined concept of Britishness is beyond me.
Gobblediegook, indeed!!!
#
2011-07-27 19:35
I would find it extremely difficult to be proud of being British because there is now little or nothing for the British to be proud of.
#
2011-07-27 20:59
The SNP are absolutely correct when they re-state the indisputable fact that the British or Britons are the indigenous peoples of the nations of England, Scotland, and Wales; and that Scots will remain forever British or Britons after Scotland becomes fully independent in exactly the same way as the indigenous people of Norway continued to be Scandinavians after a 1905 referendum saw Norway re-gaining its full independence from Sweden.
#
2011-07-27 21:07
Quoting Marian:
We are all entitled to our opinions but you nor the SNP will wrongly tell me what or who i am. I'd also like you to explain in detail how the British/Britons are the indigenous people of the four seperate nations which currently make up Britain? Possible troll of course but thats what should be expected when articles like this appear.
The SNP are absolutely correct when they re-state the indisputable fact that the British or Britons are the indigenous peoples of the nations of England, Scotland, and Wales; and that Scots will remain forever British or Britons after Scotland becomes fully independent
We are all entitled to our opinions but you nor the SNP will wrongly tell me what or who i am. I'd also like you to explain in detail how the British/Britons are the indigenous people of the four seperate nations which currently make up Britain? Possible troll of course but thats what should be expected when articles like this appear.
#
2011-07-27 21:13
Pete Wishart should do the honourable thing and step down. He is undermining the whole of the SNP and the case for Scottish Independence.
#
2011-07-27 21:28
I disagree, as a card carrying member I may not agree with his view. But I don't have a major problem with it. I also disagree with some of my SNP euro MP's views, but I don't howl for him to be kicked out. We all have strong views about the future of Scotland, but you should try and avoid falling into the "tartan taliban" cliche so beloved by the denizens of labours hame.
#
2011-07-27 22:36
Quoting Islegard:
Up until now i have stopped from saying the same. The problem with this sort of article is it gives out the complete wrong signals and allows idiotic posts to be made by trolls who have no knowledge of Scottish history.
I would also now agree that Mr Wishart should either explain what he means (i doubt he knows) or say goodbye.
This sort of article should not be kicked into the long grass not by anyone including NEWSNET Scotland who have tried to hide it in a section where it won't be seen too much. Instead Mr Wishart and his ilk should be met full on over this sort of article.
After all the Nationalist/Independence movement have won and got to where we are by openess and meeting things like this head on with arguement,fact and debate.
Please move this topic to a area where it can be easily seen by all. This is better being dealt with now than later.
[NNS Moderation Team]
[123+ comments and you think Online Eds are trying to hide it?]
Pete Wishart should do the honourable thing and step down. He is undermining the whole of the SNP and the case for Scottish Independence.
Up until now i have stopped from saying the same. The problem with this sort of article is it gives out the complete wrong signals and allows idiotic posts to be made by trolls who have no knowledge of Scottish history.
I would also now agree that Mr Wishart should either explain what he means (i doubt he knows) or say goodbye.
This sort of article should not be kicked into the long grass not by anyone including NEWSNET Scotland who have tried to hide it in a section where it won't be seen too much. Instead Mr Wishart and his ilk should be met full on over this sort of article.
After all the Nationalist/Independence movement have won and got to where we are by openess and meeting things like this head on with arguement,fact and debate.
Please move this topic to a area where it can be easily seen by all. This is better being dealt with now than later.
[NNS Moderation Team]
[123+ comments and you think Online Eds are trying to hide it?]
#
2011-07-28 08:58
I regard myself as Scottish not British.However,the reason for that is that the London dominated media has made Scotland the invisable nation,the Scottish Parliament is not equal to the London Parliament,we do not have control over our own economy,and we are seperated from the rest of the wrld.If Scotland was independent and these concerns were rectified,I would probably,like my Finnish relatives (who are comfortable with Finnish and Scandanavian) be willing to think of myself as Scottish and British.However,even after that,when asked about my nationality,I would never say British.
I think that some people are being unfair to Pete Wishart MP.Pete does not regard himself as British,and he is certainly in the right party.He is only acknowleding that among those likely to support independence in a referendum,ther e are a diversity of views.That fact is evidenced by the diversity of responses on this site today.A lot of people supporting independence but coming from different positions.We have to take all of them with us.For that reason ,Pete Wishart is being quite smart.I might not agree with everything he says,but I know that he wants the same outcome as me.I also recognise that it is healthy and informative to examine issues from every possible angle.We need to do this in order to ensure that the independence referendum results in a Yes vote.Remember that many potential Yes voters might feel Scottiah and British so lets just accept that and use our energy on figuring out how to persuade them to vote for independence.
I think that some people are being unfair to Pete Wishart MP.Pete does not regard himself as British,and he is certainly in the right party.He is only acknowleding that among those likely to support independence in a referendum,ther e are a diversity of views.That fact is evidenced by the diversity of responses on this site today.A lot of people supporting independence but coming from different positions.We have to take all of them with us.For that reason ,Pete Wishart is being quite smart.I might not agree with everything he says,but I know that he wants the same outcome as me.I also recognise that it is healthy and informative to examine issues from every possible angle.We need to do this in order to ensure that the independence referendum results in a Yes vote.Remember that many potential Yes voters might feel Scottiah and British so lets just accept that and use our energy on figuring out how to persuade them to vote for independence.
#
2011-07-28 12:43
"Pete Wishart killed my granny". Well of course he didn't but you would assume from the tone of some of these posts that he had killed someone's granny!
All he has said is that after independence, some people will still feel British. He did not ask anyone to feel British or indeed that they should.
More than that, he did not insult anyone or call anyone to resign from posting on this site for disagreeing with him like some of the intemperate posts here. This is someone who dedicates his life to independence. He's out there every day fighting for it and to suggest he's not, is insulting and wrong. Folk don't need to agree with his views but instead, argue about why people will not/should not have the right to feel British post independence if you disagree.
Pete Wishart has got everyone talking about independence again including on Labour Party forums. Do you think that Newsnicht would have been talking about independence if it hadn't been for the SNP keeping it in the news? For those that think it will do the SNP harm to air these issues - how do you think we are going to convince people of the case for independence? By airing the issues to which people have questions, we are moving the debate on.
However, it would seem likely though that many of the people who have been nasty and small minded in their comments are of a unionist persuasion, especially when calling for Pete Wishart's resignation. That is a classic tactic towards independence and people in the SNP. Must be quite frightening to them that the SNP are open and interested in what people's feelings are towards independence and what it might mean. How angry must the unionists feel that you can feel Britishness if you want post independence? If they say it is impossible to feel both Scottish and British post independence then why don't they come on here and discuss that?
Good to know that whilst the unionists may want to act as the thought police by telling people what to think and promoting a "can't do" attitude, the SNP are setting out a positive and aspirational vision for the people of Scotland and are encouraging people to join in the debate.
All he has said is that after independence, some people will still feel British. He did not ask anyone to feel British or indeed that they should.
More than that, he did not insult anyone or call anyone to resign from posting on this site for disagreeing with him like some of the intemperate posts here. This is someone who dedicates his life to independence. He's out there every day fighting for it and to suggest he's not, is insulting and wrong. Folk don't need to agree with his views but instead, argue about why people will not/should not have the right to feel British post independence if you disagree.
Pete Wishart has got everyone talking about independence again including on Labour Party forums. Do you think that Newsnicht would have been talking about independence if it hadn't been for the SNP keeping it in the news? For those that think it will do the SNP harm to air these issues - how do you think we are going to convince people of the case for independence? By airing the issues to which people have questions, we are moving the debate on.
However, it would seem likely though that many of the people who have been nasty and small minded in their comments are of a unionist persuasion, especially when calling for Pete Wishart's resignation. That is a classic tactic towards independence and people in the SNP. Must be quite frightening to them that the SNP are open and interested in what people's feelings are towards independence and what it might mean. How angry must the unionists feel that you can feel Britishness if you want post independence? If they say it is impossible to feel both Scottish and British post independence then why don't they come on here and discuss that?
Good to know that whilst the unionists may want to act as the thought police by telling people what to think and promoting a "can't do" attitude, the SNP are setting out a positive and aspirational vision for the people of Scotland and are encouraging people to join in the debate.
#
2011-07-28 17:55
Quoting mlay:
So according to your divine wisdom three quarters of the posters on this thread who disagree with the article are infact unionists. Classic.
it would seem likely though that many of the people who have been nasty and small minded in their comments are of a unionist persuasion,
So according to your divine wisdom three quarters of the posters on this thread who disagree with the article are infact unionists. Classic.
#
2011-07-28 19:12
What it shows is that nationalists don't always agree with what they are being fed, irrespective of who is feeding it. A healthy situation I think.
#
2011-07-29 15:20
Quoting Clydey:
I did not say that anyone who disagreed with me was a unionist.
What I said was that the nasty and small minded comments were made by unionists. It is their MO to be negative and insulting.
Would unionists rather we talked in a mature fashion about any feelings of Britishness people might have post independence or would they prefer that there were insults thrown and the matter was not discussed properly? Of course they would prefer if it wasn't discussed in a mature way.
They hate Newsnet Scotland for giving a non unionist more balanced view of the news in Scotland and would like nothing more than see Newsnet Scotland fail. If one way they can do that is by posting up comments that are insulting and ill tempered to put people off getting involved in a proper debate about Scotland's future, then of course, they will.
Quoting mlay:it would seem likely though that many of the people who have been nasty and small minded in their comments are of a unionist persuasion,
So according to your divine wisdom three quarters of the posters on this thread who disagree with the article are infact unionists. Classic.
I did not say that anyone who disagreed with me was a unionist.
What I said was that the nasty and small minded comments were made by unionists. It is their MO to be negative and insulting.
Would unionists rather we talked in a mature fashion about any feelings of Britishness people might have post independence or would they prefer that there were insults thrown and the matter was not discussed properly? Of course they would prefer if it wasn't discussed in a mature way.
They hate Newsnet Scotland for giving a non unionist more balanced view of the news in Scotland and would like nothing more than see Newsnet Scotland fail. If one way they can do that is by posting up comments that are insulting and ill tempered to put people off getting involved in a proper debate about Scotland's future, then of course, they will.
#
2011-07-28 13:33
Good point of view MLAY - Sometimes we need to look out of the box and to an assured future.
#
2011-07-28 18:41
I have access to quite a few Scandinavians and several Fins.
I decided to ask them about the general attitude they have on being classed as Scandinavian.
A Swede - yes I am Scandinavian but firstly I am Swedish.
A Norwegian - I have no problem with both but my country is Norway.
A Dane - its fine to class as both but most importantly I am Danish.
A Fin - Danes make butter jajajajaja.
A Dane on Fins - they sleep for two thirds of their life and are drunk for the other third.
A Swede on Fins - They are NOT they are Norse. I got the same response from Danes and Norwegians which I’d say was an 'abrupt' response.
A Norwegian on Swedes - they still think they are our big brother, you know what, they are wrong.
A Swede on Norwegians - I don’t mind Scandinavian but sometime the Norwegians are plain assholes, they obsess over money.
A Norwegian - in response. Swedes can be arrogant and I think they have much resentment to the modern wealth we now have.
Too many comments to type but funny and interesting to hear this directly from the horse’s mouth.
There seems to be a recurring theme of three things. 1. The three Scandinavian countries are quick to tell you Fins are not them. Funny that since they border Sweden and basically share the same peninsula of land. 2. They don't seem to mind being called Scandinavian but at the same time they all state their individual countries come first. 3. Danes make butter jajajaaja.
I decided to ask them about the general attitude they have on being classed as Scandinavian.
A Swede - yes I am Scandinavian but firstly I am Swedish.
A Norwegian - I have no problem with both but my country is Norway.
A Dane - its fine to class as both but most importantly I am Danish.
A Fin - Danes make butter jajajajaja.
A Dane on Fins - they sleep for two thirds of their life and are drunk for the other third.
A Swede on Fins - They are NOT they are Norse. I got the same response from Danes and Norwegians which I’d say was an 'abrupt' response.
A Norwegian on Swedes - they still think they are our big brother, you know what, they are wrong.
A Swede on Norwegians - I don’t mind Scandinavian but sometime the Norwegians are plain assholes, they obsess over money.
A Norwegian - in response. Swedes can be arrogant and I think they have much resentment to the modern wealth we now have.
Too many comments to type but funny and interesting to hear this directly from the horse’s mouth.
There seems to be a recurring theme of three things. 1. The three Scandinavian countries are quick to tell you Fins are not them. Funny that since they border Sweden and basically share the same peninsula of land. 2. They don't seem to mind being called Scandinavian but at the same time they all state their individual countries come first. 3. Danes make butter jajajaaja.
#
2011-07-28 19:03
I cannot believe that Mlay has gone so far as to "accuse" the many people who are not in agreement with Pete Wishart; are ""nasty and small minded in their comments are of a unionist persuasion,"".
There are over 120 comments and the majority disagree, so it looks like those of us who have been with Newsnet Scotland since the very early days and who have been SNP Members since nearly 40 years in my case, are now thought to be "fifth columnists".
Deary me, what a sad state of affairs.
There are over 120 comments and the majority disagree, so it looks like those of us who have been with Newsnet Scotland since the very early days and who have been SNP Members since nearly 40 years in my case, are now thought to be "fifth columnists".
Deary me, what a sad state of affairs.
#
2011-07-28 20:05
Actually brusque you're mis-quoting, mlay said:
Quoting mlay:
Contrary to what you seem to have read, I interpreted mlay's post as a call for informed debate rather than the petty name-calling which you see in a lot of these comments.
IMO one of the strengths of this type of piece is that it creates debate and lets us all air our views on what is, lets face it, a controversial issue. Whereas a lot of people seem to just use it as an excuse to call people names. Not cool and gives us all a bad name.
We are going to have a lot of these debates and issues to resolve before we can be independent. In order to convince the uncertain we need to be positive about the benefits of independence, with informed and well thought out opinions. To that end, thanks to Pete and many of the commenters for giving me something to think about.
Quoting mlay:
it would seem likely though that many of the people who have been nasty and small minded in their comments are of a unionist persuasion.
Contrary to what you seem to have read, I interpreted mlay's post as a call for informed debate rather than the petty name-calling which you see in a lot of these comments.
IMO one of the strengths of this type of piece is that it creates debate and lets us all air our views on what is, lets face it, a controversial issue. Whereas a lot of people seem to just use it as an excuse to call people names. Not cool and gives us all a bad name.
We are going to have a lot of these debates and issues to resolve before we can be independent. In order to convince the uncertain we need to be positive about the benefits of independence, with informed and well thought out opinions. To that end, thanks to Pete and many of the commenters for giving me something to think about.
#
2011-07-28 21:07
Where is the misquote Liz? I copied and pasted, no room for error.
I have not used any kind of "nasty" or "small minded" comment, I've not made any reference to the "persuasion" of those who agree with the article - I would never get that personal.
People are entitled to their opinion and I'm entitled to disagree with it; find one single example of me insinuating that anyone who agrees with this is either wrong or worse, a unionist?
I've stated my opinion, I really don't need some bystander to imply that my disagreement makes me a Unionist. It is not on.
I have not used any kind of "nasty" or "small minded" comment, I've not made any reference to the "persuasion" of those who agree with the article - I would never get that personal.
People are entitled to their opinion and I'm entitled to disagree with it; find one single example of me insinuating that anyone who agrees with this is either wrong or worse, a unionist?
I've stated my opinion, I really don't need some bystander to imply that my disagreement makes me a Unionist. It is not on.
#
2011-07-29 09:19
"However, it would seem likely though that many of the people who have been nasty and small minded in their comments are of a unionist persuasion.."
All I said was that people who have made nasty or small minded comments are likely to be unionists. If you do not see yourself as writing these types of comments then why would they apply to you?
However, groundlessly accusing people of being "bystanders" does not further the debate. You seem to be spending much of your time on this thread attacking people that don't agree with you rather than debating the issue of whether you have the right to feel British if you want.
I always like to finish on a positive note though so if, as I'm assuming from what you say, you support independence, why not do something positive today to support that aim? As someone who tries to do that every day, I can thoroughly recommend it!
All I said was that people who have made nasty or small minded comments are likely to be unionists. If you do not see yourself as writing these types of comments then why would they apply to you?
However, groundlessly accusing people of being "bystanders" does not further the debate. You seem to be spending much of your time on this thread attacking people that don't agree with you rather than debating the issue of whether you have the right to feel British if you want.
I always like to finish on a positive note though so if, as I'm assuming from what you say, you support independence, why not do something positive today to support that aim? As someone who tries to do that every day, I can thoroughly recommend it!
#
2011-07-29 08:13
As I said on an earlier posting,I consider myself to be Scottish,not British.Therefore my position is compatible with many other contributors on this site.however,I believe that many of them are overeacting,and being extremely unfair to Pete Wishart,an SNP,MP who stands outnumbered in the London Parliament to speak up for Scotlands interests.He does not have the luxery of a large group of SNp parliamentarian s,or a majority government to support him.I understand a lot of the emotions and feelings expressed (I have been there myself) but I would urge people to think about it,and conserve their energy for the tasks that lie ahead.
Irrespective of whether we agree with Pete Wishart,his motives are good.His point is that many people who consider themselves to be Scottish and British,could be persuaded to vote Yes in the independence referendum.He is arguing that many people want to be reasured that the social relationship with the rest of the British Isles will be maintained after independence.We probably all know people like that.For instance I know a family from Rosshire who are currently in Zambia.They have set up a website to stay in touch with friends at home.on the website they frequentely refer to us Brits abroad.However they vote SNP and are not oppossed to independence.They will return to Scotland next year and will have a vote in the referendum.I suggest that we need to be very careful how we respond to such individuals if we hope to win the referendum.That is Pete Wisharts point.
Personally,I do not care how people wish to descibe themselves.My goal is independence.I also believe that this is a generational thing.It is quite likely that after independence,Sc ottish people will feel Scottish and European.Alternatively some may feel Scottish and British,in the way that Finns feel Finnish and Scandanavian.Thus the concept of being British has a different meaning from some people who are living today.
Whatever people believe,do not attack people who want to achieve independence.Critique is fine,but take care about the manner in which it is conducted.
Irrespective of whether we agree with Pete Wishart,his motives are good.His point is that many people who consider themselves to be Scottish and British,could be persuaded to vote Yes in the independence referendum.He is arguing that many people want to be reasured that the social relationship with the rest of the British Isles will be maintained after independence.We probably all know people like that.For instance I know a family from Rosshire who are currently in Zambia.They have set up a website to stay in touch with friends at home.on the website they frequentely refer to us Brits abroad.However they vote SNP and are not oppossed to independence.They will return to Scotland next year and will have a vote in the referendum.I suggest that we need to be very careful how we respond to such individuals if we hope to win the referendum.That is Pete Wisharts point.
Personally,I do not care how people wish to descibe themselves.My goal is independence.I also believe that this is a generational thing.It is quite likely that after independence,Sc ottish people will feel Scottish and European.Alternatively some may feel Scottish and British,in the way that Finns feel Finnish and Scandanavian.Thus the concept of being British has a different meaning from some people who are living today.
Whatever people believe,do not attack people who want to achieve independence.Critique is fine,but take care about the manner in which it is conducted.
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- Scottish Independence: The Dar...
O/T I see Joan MacAlpine has got into tr... - The 'Great Debate' isn't just ...
Ahem... the SNP won its first parliament... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Getting ahead of yourself Newsnet report... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Absolutely Govanite, but listening to th... - The 'Great Debate' isn't just ...
Good points Nautilus. Lesley says, “Depr... - Late, Late appearance for Salm...
The pantomime horse is called 'Secretari... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Can't wait until they start moaning to t... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
o/t great news for the people who voted ... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
One point I would like to make is in reg... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Aplinal 2012-05-17 13:17 I take your poi... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
When they act in concert and have a lead... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
This is bizarre. Loony Labour councillor... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
I never watch FMQs on telly. Far better ... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
It's interesting - but not alarming. My ... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Really? Apart from the 1945-50 governme... - The 'Great Debate' isn't just ...
Lesley says, “Deprivation for example is... - Late, Late appearance for Salm...
Thanks for these three. I viewed the Ale... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
bbc website first minister questions! bb... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Ha ha, I know that - no worries. Just aw... - Conservatives at war over Came...
They should have gone with Murdo !