A classic July debate over identity has flourished on the blogs – starting with Kenny Farquharson‘s pop-based analysis of the emotional arguments for Britain, then continuing here with Pete Wishart‘s “British-identifying Scottish Nationalist” post which attracted a bit of MSM attention, including Newsnicht last night. Responses included David Torrance‘s rebuttal that Scottishness and Britishness are the same sort of thing, also here, then Lallands Peat Worrier thoughtfully identified the parallels between the positions Kenny and Pete set out. Stuart Winton also piled in with his analysis this morning of the debate’s implications for the actual constitutional question.
These are a very diverse set of views, if uniformly pretty blokey – and apologies for extending that last aspect. In order, they are: a look at an emotional fondness for Britain as one basis for remaining within it, a reclamation of British as a term to retain for the post-independence social union, a separation of burgeoning Scottish identity from a desire for independence, a consideration of problems with the general argument that national identity should drive state boundaries, and an effort to bring the debate back to the question of how it will affect a independence referendum. Any authors above who think I’ve misrepresented them, please let me know.
They all have one thing in common, though, a key assumption which is both mistaken and which suits the SNP. Consider (h/t Malc) the Moreno Scale used to assess attitudes (pdf, see p5-6), which in the Scottish instance, asks people which best describes them, without even, oddly, an “Other” option:
Which, if any, of the following best describes how you see yourself?
a) Scottish not British
b) More Scottish than British
c) Equally Scottish and British
d) More British than Scottish
e) British not Scottish
The journalists and bloggers above – again, apologies if I’m misrepresenting anyone – assume, like Moreno, that everyone has an equally strong sense of national identity. Imagine it like a cocktail glass which is equally full for everyone, just composed of a different mixture of elements or, in some cases, a straight draught of a single drink.
You can have a glass full of Scottishness, or one full of Britishness, or perhaps an equal mix of the two. You might make space for a dash of Europeanism (although none of the posts above consider that element), or perhaps for a regional identity – try telling a Shetlander that there’s no local identity there. Would Margo perhaps go for a mix of Scottishness and Edinburghness? You might even have a splash or more of actual Englishness, or a shot of Welsh in there. You might also, to mix the metaphors thoroughly, like some bhangra with your bagpipes. But the glass is the same size for everyone, the underlying argument goes, and everyone’s glass must as a matter of fact be equally full of something.
Mine isn’t.
A massive chunk of the issues I think are most important are either global (loss of biodiversity, climate change, resource depletion, peace and war, trade injustice and exploitative economics) or certainly partly international (poverty, threats to civil liberties etc).
I do feel more Scottish than European, and more European than British, but more global than all of those, pompous as that may sound. But largely I don’t think about it, and largely I don’t care about it. I’m sure I’m not alone.
National identity really doesn’t drive me at all, except for the odd 90 minutes. There’s very little of any sort in my glass. Identity questions are certainly entirely unrelated to my reasons for getting involved in politics. The fact that I feel more Scottish than British doesn’t even seem related to my support for independence – that’s about wanting decisions to be taken closer to the people, and about a rejection of the corrupt and intensely conservative Westminster system.
Debates about what our collective identity should be seem as absurd to me as a debate about what our collective sexuality should be. Both are personal, and both of varying levels of interest to different people. People mean different and personal things by these words – as Pete Wishart has demonstrated, which means debate about them is thick with misunderstanding and pointlessness.
As long as the contest is held on the woolly ground of identity rather than practicalities, and as long as the assumption keeps being made that identity of one sort or another is the dominant driver for the public and the parties alike, the SNP will be able to focus on their bogus claim to be speaking for the whole of Scotland and avoid all the tricky questions. And the Moreno Scale needs another option: “Frankly I don’t much care one way or the other – why don’t you ask me about something more important?”
#1 by aonghas on July 27, 2011 - 2:59 pm
Four glasses Scottish, 1.5 glasses British, 1/4 gill European, snifter American (no American relatives though).
#2 by Jennie Kermode on July 27, 2011 - 3:03 pm
I agree with you about the global thing. I have never understood why I am expected to care more about one group of people than another group simply on the basis that the former group live closer to me.
Beyond that, I’ve always identified as queer before identifying as part of any nation. I think this is because, growing up, I felt that my queerness made me unwelcome in most nations, not a part of society. I still feel deeply uncomfortable with certain Westminster politicians’ definitions of Britishness and British culture because I feel that they leave no room for me, for my priorities and concerns, for the way I live my life. I imagine it’s much easier to be a patriot (of whatever sort) in the UK if one is a middle-income, home-owning heterosexual white man.
That said, I’ve invested a lot of energy in Scottish politics and I’m ready to defend that investment. I value Scotland a great deal as a political (and even cultural) entity; I just don’t get why I should always ally myself with Scottish people at the expense of others.
#3 by Indy on July 27, 2011 - 5:38 pm
I might surprise you by saying I agree with you. You are certainly not alone in largely not thinking about your national identity and largely not caring about it. In my opinion the vast majority of voters quite sensibly have better things to do with their time than go in for that kind of self-analysis. Whatever people feel about their identity is probably largely subconscious and no political party – even the SNP – is clever enough to tap into that.
I can understand why people may be surprised by me saying that because the SNP historically has been very concerned with Scotland’s national identity. But there was a reason for that and that reason no longer exists. We no longer have to remind or persuade people that Scotland is a distinct nation which ought to have some degree of democratic decision-making powers because pretty much everyone agrees with that. There is no significant body of opinion which is in favour of ditching devolution and going back to the way things were.
Having said that I am not persuaded that many people really think of themselves as global citizens either. I think for most voters personal considearations take precedence – what is best for them, their family, their community. As always, that is what drives people.
#4 by Stuart Winton on July 28, 2011 - 12:12 am
“The journalists and bloggers above – again, apologies if I’m misrepresenting anyone – assume, like Moreno, that everyone has an equally strong sense of national identity.”
For simplifying the argument, yes, but not as regards individuals. As I said in a rambling post the other week we all have adopt identities from different facets of our lives and to that extent someone might perhaps have a weak sense of national identity and instead consider themselves to have more of an identity as a heavy metal fan or environmentalist, say.
By the same token, I’ve never felt particularly British – indeed would resent the tag when I was younger, but my sense of Scottishness has dissipated now as well, probably along the lines of that outlined by Jennie above vis-a-vis Britishness, albeit for different reasons.
Thus I’m now more of an ‘agnostic’ in relation to national/regional/supra national IDs, if that makes any sense.
Therefore apart from the fine details and our politics I think we’re essentially thinking along the same lines, James, so excellent post ;0)
#5 by Dr William Reynolds on July 28, 2011 - 8:37 am
I would go for option a) Scottish not British. Having said that,I suspect that my choice is strongly motivated by the attempts by the mainstream media to force the concept of Britishness on me,the prevention of Scotland from taking part in the worlds institutions (as Scotland) and the domination of the London focused media.I have a sense of Scotland being an invisible nation,everyone has heard of us,but many out there in the real world are not aware that we are a nation.I have experienced this during business that has taken me to more than 20 countries and four continents.One example occurred during a video link between Turku University of Applied Sciences (Finland) and the former University of Paisley.The Finnish IT person thought we were linking with England.An anecdote but a problem I have experienced many times.The problem is the confusion about what Britishness means,or is comprised of.Since the confusion exists among inhabitants of Britain,you can appreciate why it is widespread among people of other nations.
I guess peoples personal experiences have moulded their views.Mine have driven me towards Scottish not British.However,if my experiences were similar to my Finnish wife(who regards herself as Finnish and Scandanavian) I probably would go for Scottish and British (like Mike Weir SNP,MP).Whatever,I do agree with the SNP’s concept of civil nationalism and I do agree with Mike Weir that,following independence,Scotland will continue to have a close relationship with England.The only thing that will change is that the Edinburgh and London parliaments will be equal.I also believe that an independent Scotland will be very international and view and interact with a world beyond the UK.As someone who believes in Scottish independence,and who is also an internationalist,I like that idea.It is very positive and outward looking.
#6 by James on July 28, 2011 - 9:11 am
And there was me thinking this one would kick off massive arguments – only to find a range of agreement..
In particular, Jennie, if you ever wanted a guest slot to expand on any of those issues, just drop us a line.
#7 by Dr William Reynolds on July 28, 2011 - 9:12 am
in my earlier blog I wrongly called the SNP MP pete Wishart ,Mike Weir.I aplogise Pete.I know that Mike Weir is the MP for Angus.
#8 by BM on July 28, 2011 - 9:24 am
The point of such question is to gauge Scottishness vis-a-vis Britishness, not Scottishness vis-a-vis European-ness, Global-ness, or Pakistani-ness. Neither is it designed to assess how important your identity is to you. All of these questions are different, and measure your place on a line between two different poles. To conflate the different questions would be bad poll design.
Of course, a 2D-line can always be plotted with the ‘importance’ question to give a fuller (and dare I say useful) analysis.
#9 by John Sutherland on August 6, 2011 - 10:07 am
I find the debate stifling one-dimensional. Yet, with the break-up of the UK apparently imminent, it is a clearly important dimension. What worries me is that the Scots do tend to be literally fascist: we want to be bound up in a single strong bundle. The problem always has been that many of us don’t want to or can’t be bound up in the global-warming+liberal+inclusiveness agenda as regularly splurged by The ScotsPerson, BBC Jockland, et al.
My concern is that an independent Scotland will be stifling and will lack that room for maneouvre that the English allow with their embrace of eccentricity.
For example, whither the pro-Israeli, heterophile who wants an English passport in the Noo Scotland? Chased across the border … ?