Looking forward to the Olympics? The first time that we’ve hosted it since 1948 and all those tourists are coming here, to our country, to party with us.
How about the Eurovision? Britain’s finest performer singing for us on our combined behalves, showcasing the talent that we hold on these shores and stirring latent patriotic passions that lie deep within.
Or perhaps the Diamond Jubilee? How wonderful that our monarch has ruled over us for so long, a triumph that befits the festooning of local communities’ lampposts with Union Jacks and tea towels, all part of the street parties that I am sure you, yes you, are assiduously planning for next month.
Or maybe you don’t feel a part of any of it.
The Sunday Mail recently had a great story from Glasgow’s North East, an area scarred by deep unemployment. Two undercover journalists took only two days to find (unskilled) paid work in an area that has the highest levels of unemployment in the UK. Separate, but not unrelated to this, Arnold Clark yesterday lamented that 80% of young Scots are unemployable. Jeremy Clarkson likes to joke about lazy, feckless Mexicans, so maybe he should have looked only to the North for his tired gags? Well, I suspect the reasons for such apparent detachment are more complicated than either the Sunday Mail or Jeremy would have it.
We work for many reasons; mostly to pay the bills and improve the quality of our lives, but we also work as part of a national heave, as part of a team to better our society and provide our Government with the funds with which to create the country we wish to live in. Hitler’s Germany had zero unemployment in the run up to World War 2. An extreme example I grant thee, but having something for your country to revolve around gets people out and working.
So, what will the Scottish national heave result in under this coalition Government, after our hard-earned tax receipts are passed over to the Treasury? A reorganisation and part-privatisation of the NHS, another generation of nuclear weapons with the upgrade of Trident, a defence budget that balloons beyond other European nations per capita, a misguided High Speed rail link from London to Birmingham, a £24bn Olympic Games that will see a few football games up in Scotland or a new wave of nuclear power stations scatter over the mainland.
It’s enough to make one take their tie off on a Wednesday morning, sack off work and snuggle into the warm embrace of Jeremy Kyle and Cash in the Attic.
The analogy with the Eurovision Song Contest is nigh on perfect. If, heck, The Proclaimers were taking to the stage on Saturday under a Saltire banner, Scotland would be right behind them willing them onto success. However, this weekend’s British performer will suffer the same fate as Blue, Josh Dubovie, Scooch, Daz Sampson et al; utter indifference north of Gretna. There’s no pride in the badge, no playing for the team and the gap breeds an atrophy that has seeped into Scottish life for countless years.
Politically it is the same story. 16.7% of Scots are represented by a UK Government that they voted for (I’m going to ignore for this post the notion that Scottish Lib Dem voters got the Government that they wanted). For the Scottish Government the equivalent figure is 45%. Much healthier, if still not PR-proof given the parliamentary majority in place at Holyrood. What kind of nation accepts being so poorly represented and being so irrelevant for, at least, every other election?
Scotland is facing the prospect of a lost decade under Tory rule, where the direction that the vast majority of us want to move in is stymied and undermined by an opposite direction of travel by the British Government. Sure, we can wait for a Labour Government to be voted in which will align more closely with a Scottish view of the world, but will such a Government scrap the nuclear power stations that are due to be created, will they cancel Trident, will they sort out the money-sapping privatised trains, will they rebalance income taxes? Not while they have to win over the kingmakers of Middle England at the next election they won’t, and the election after that, and the election after that…
Stronger together, weaker apart the Unionists of various party colours call. Where does that leave us if we’re already apart?
After all, let’s be honest, David Cameron, George Osborne and other future British Prime Ministers represent us just as much as Engelbert Humperdinck will this Saturday.
#1 by BM on May 23, 2012 - 9:00 am
“Hitler’s Germany had zero unemployment in the run up to World War 2”
Hitler achieved zero unemployment by excluding women and “üntermenschen” from the workforce, and spending billions on arms production (yearly budget deficits in range of 65% of revenues).
I don’t really want to be part of that team.
#2 by Jeff on May 23, 2012 - 10:21 am
Fair challenge. It was always an analogy that risked overreaching, as James did warn me! Obviously, the point of the post is not ‘let’s be more like Hitler’s Germany’.
#3 by dcomerf on May 23, 2012 - 9:40 am
Given the circumstances it all seems so politicised too. In 2014 when the Commonwealth Games are in Glasgow will every supermarket in the land be festooned in saltires? Of course not – that would implicitly be seen as taking sides in the independence referendum debate. This year’s shenanigans must be a strong reason for the referendum timetable, since supermarkets with their head offices in London will not believe that plastering the place in union flags is a political statement – but they’re wrong.
I probably come at this from an irrational West of Scotland starting point: when I see union flags and monarchist paraphernalia, I see orangism and loyalist paramilitarism. I recoil and my instincts cannot believe that large companies are endorsing such images (obviously I intellectually know that it’s just that my associations are not typical across Britain – though they may be typical in Glasgow).
#4 by scottish_skier on May 23, 2012 - 8:53 pm
For me the union jack conjures up the following images primarily:
– Thatcher, Tories (and the Labour Party recently, e.g. their last conference logos)
– The BNP
– Orange Order, bigotry, the thuggish group of rangers fans that spoil things for genuine fans
– The Scottish Defense League (all 20 of them)
– Dead soldiers coming back in coffins from wars after oil
I say this in all honesty – I rarely see the jack flying in Scotland. In contrast, I see saltires and lion rampants all over the place; it’s really common on lorry/van livery for example. Likewise everything up here is ‘Scottish’, e.g. SEPA, SFA, Historic Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, Historic Scotland… Then there are all the thistle symbols… tartan use in logos etc. If you were from outer space and landed in Scotland you’d struggle to realise you were in ‘Great Britain’ as symbols to indicate this are very few and far between these days.
Where I see the union jack is not in the streets generally, but in pictures in newspapers etc concerning stories about thing things listed above. Ergo, that is what I associate with it mostly. I don’t hate it, but feel nothing for it really as it is a bit ‘alien’ to me.
But then I am the devolution generation; I came of voting age in 1996, just in time to vote Y-Y for devolution because I was old enough by then to see and understand the horrific damage the British government had inflicted on Scotland for having the audacity to vote for its own parliament in 1979.
Note I have no problem with the people of England, N. Ireland or wales; it is the British political establishment that I hold in very low esteem.
#5 by GMcM on May 23, 2012 - 10:37 am
Do I hear violins playing in the background Jeff 😉
I think this may just be my last comment on BN. The obsession with looking for differences between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is doing my head in.
We have real problems in this country without looking for ones which don’t exist.
We have a governement in Scotland who have presided over an increase in poverty; a reduction in nurses and midwives; a reduction in teachers; centralised power from local government; misunderstood the ethno-religious nature of discrimination in this country; followed regressive populist policies; stood back and watched as youth unemployment soars; been in charge of the move to CfE which has turned into a shambles; released the only person convicted over the Lockerbie bombing; failed to deliver on most of their key manifesto pledges etc etc etc
Not only have they failed to deliver a fairer Scotland – they have failed to represent the people of Scotland and their interests as they would prefer to pick fights with Westminster.
They have undermined democracy in Scotland:
Centralising power from local authorities to Holyrood. They have abused the systems in Holyrood – after 2007 the first committee to be picked by the SNP, after the big 4, was Standards, which was then used to hound the MSPs of other parties and prolong the honeymoon (look at Wendy Alexander – found innocent by the PF and Electoral Commission but hounded out by the ‘positive’ SNP MSPs on that committee). They have abused their majority to undermine the ‘checks and balances’ of our Parliament – look at what they’ve done on the Welfare Reform Committee: gone against the wishes of EVERY group/charity that gave evidence who asked for the sub-leg to be opened up to scrutiny, meaning they won’t be able to check what the government are doing in response to the Welfare reforms from Westminster.
They have shouted down anyone who disagrees with them rather than listen.
Labour are accused of opposing everything the SNP bring forward – the problem is that the SNP nearly always bring forward half-baked ideas that create the impression they’re doing something to tackle problem ‘X’ but don’t work as effectively as they might (like giving paracetemol instead of morphine to tackle pain). Why do the SNP oppose so much of what Labour suggest?
If the people who comment on this blog truly believe in a progressive nation, or a better nation, they should be asking questions about what their governments are doing about the problems we face.
I just wonder what you’ll all be talking about when the referendum is lost by those who support separation – will that be when you focus on the things that matter?
I’ve enjoyed the blog over the last year but the obsession with the constitution is tiresome – I wish you all well and hope you continue to have success with better nation. 😀
Gerard
#6 by Doug Daniel on May 23, 2012 - 12:03 pm
At risk of sounding like I’m using argumentum ad hominem, it’s pretty difficult to take your list of gripes seriously when you – an unabashed Labour supporter – start off with “We have a governement in Scotland who have presided over an increase in poverty”.
Erm, isn’t that precisely what your party did in their 13 years in power in Westminster?
Also, I’ll bite: “released the only person convicted over the Lockerbie bombing”
I’m not sure why allowing an innocent man to die with his family around him is a bad thing?
“the obsession with the constitution is tiresome”
Not half as tiresome as seeing even normally-reasonable unionists adhering to the “call independence separation at all times” mantra…
#7 by Aidan on May 24, 2012 - 3:24 pm
No, it’s not: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/IncomePoverty/povertystats0910pdf
#8 by Doug Daniel on May 24, 2012 - 10:20 pm
And that proves Gerard’s misspelt criticism correct how, exactly?
#9 by JPJ2 on May 23, 2012 - 1:35 pm
GMcM I vote yours the most stridently tribal comment that has ever appeared on this site 🙂
#10 by Barbarian on May 23, 2012 - 7:09 pm
Erm, have you read some of my posts? I’m a regular critic of the SNP government.
#11 by An Duine Gruamach on May 24, 2012 - 1:53 pm
Criticism of the SNP is not the same thing as tribalism.
#12 by Doug Daniel on May 23, 2012 - 10:49 am
It’s funny you should mention Hitler, because I read an article recently about all the demands the IOC places on a host country – all the accommodation they have to make available to Olympic personnel, ensuring the free flow of Olympics traffic, banning advertising from non-sponsors on Olympic routes etc – and one word came to mind: Lebensraum. And of course, it’s been well documented that the torch relay began with the 1936 Olympics, since Hitler liked the idea of passing the torch from one Aryan race (the ancient Greeks) to the one he was trying to create.
“What kind of nation accepts being so poorly represented and being so irrelevant for, at least, every other election?”
One that has constantly been told “this is the best you can afford – in fact you can’t even afford this because you’re a bunch of subsidy junkies.” Well, no more.
Incidentally, the argument being pushed that the Olympics will be a boon for tourism is, of course, complete hype. The reality is London has no trouble attracting tourists, but this year tourists will find it nigh on impossible to find anywhere to stay, so will be forced to look elsewhere. Even if there is room, either the prices will be extortionate, or they’ll find few activities on offer (and will find it difficult to reach those that are still available with all the traffic chaos that is about to ensue). For instance, when I was in Great Yarmouth for work recently, people on the radio were explaining that their boating activities wouldn’t be running this year due to the Olympics taking things over, and they expected a considerable amount of their usual repeat business to never come back.
It does kind of feel like the Olympics is taking over, and I don’t like it. I’ll watch the games on TV (well, the interesting bits – I don’t care about toffs on horses and yachts), but I don’t need the Olympics to be held in London for that. I certainly don’t need to be confronted by union jacks everywhere I turn, and to be perfectly honest, it’s reaching a point where I actually find the union jack offensive. As a nationalist, it feels an awful lot like I’m being coerced to celebrate unionism, just as the jubilee stuff offends my republican sensibilities.
Companies selling products in Scotland should think “you know, there’s probably quite a few people there who don’t like the union jack – maybe we shouldn’t plaster everything with them…”
#13 by Grahamski on May 23, 2012 - 12:11 pm
I’m sure it’s convenient for your argument to dismiss the votes of LibDem voters but I’ve got to say it’s a trifle harsh. It’s always a dangerous game playing the our mandate is bigger than your mandate card. Especially when we examine turnouts.
If you accept that the turnout is an indicator of how important the electorate see an election then all of a sudden the SNP’s mandate to speak on reserved matters begins to look very shaky indeed.
Finally, just as a point of information, the vile little piece on Springburn was carried by the reactionary Mail On Sunday, not the far more civilised Sunday Mail
#14 by scottish_skier on May 23, 2012 - 8:19 pm
“If you accept that the turnout is an indicator of how important the electorate see an election”
Sorry but to clarify, are you saying that SNP voters consider the Scottish parliament very important because it looks after such things as the NHS, education etc, so go out and vote. In contrast however, those who support Labour/unionist parties don’t care about these things enough to bother voting, ergo, that’s why the SNP won the May 11 election?
I rather suspect the turnout would not have changed the result in any significant way. After all, it was predicted in polls and they don’t depend on turnout, with certain to vote shares showing very little difference to all giving a party preference.
It is certainly very sad what british politics has done; i.e. make many people feel voting is not worth it. I mean, if we look back to the 2005 GE, labour won a majority on 35% of the vote but that only represented 22% of the electorate. In fact this was a lower share of the electorate than the SNP got in May 11, yet Labour were running the entire UK! At least the SNP got 45% of the vote, not 35%! Scary huh – Labour running the country even though 65% of people voted against them! Right pig’s ear they made of things too.
#15 by Indy on May 23, 2012 - 12:25 pm
I find the Union Jackitis absolutely fascinating. Because a lot of it is totally inappropriate.
It’s as though they have forgotten that it’s actually a flag. It’s simply the brand and they are putting the brand on everything from nappies to – I kid not – toilet rolls.
Toilet rolls! Now I am a Scottish nationalist but even I am thinking eh hold on a minute. If you think about it wiping your derriere on the Union Jack is a greater act of disrespect than burning it. This is after all the flag they lay over the coffins of people who have died for their country.
An extraordinary state of affairs. I would suspect there is probably going to be a bigger backlash down south than up here actually.
#16 by Doug Daniel on May 23, 2012 - 2:09 pm
Good point!
Why does it need to be the Union Jack anyway? If she is indeed the queen in this country, then why can we not celebrate her reign with our national flag, the Saltire? The union flag is not intrinsically linked to the monarchy, and indeed, when the Queen is in residence at various places, the union flag needs to be swapped round with the royal standard, so it’s not like waving a union flag is instantly saying “I’m a monarchist”. When she’s in Canada, they fly the Maple Leaf, so why shouldn’t we fly the Saltire in Scotland?
As a result, it’s pretty difficult not to see the needless flaunting of the union flag as mere propaganda. “Oh yay, let’s all feel British! You’re not Scottish, English or Welsh – you’re British! British, I tell you!”
#17 by Iain Menzies on May 23, 2012 - 2:27 pm
Well we are part of the union….so some union flags are reasonable.
Also tbh i think the Saltire is a really dull and boring flag….Maybe we could have a few Lion Rampants?
#18 by Doug Daniel on May 24, 2012 - 12:52 am
I’m not suggesting there be absolutely no union jacks – I’d like that, but I’m not a complete fantasist – so yeah, I accept there will be some.
As for the Lion Rampant, I believe there are issues over the usage of that, as it’s a royal flag. The SNP got into trouble years ago for using it. Same sort of rubbish that dictates when the royal standard needs to be flown and all that. I was actually going to suggest that until I checked that there weren’t silly rules about it, and lo and behold, there are.
Kind of typifies the pomposity of the monarchy. Mind you, at least we don’t force people to dispose of flags in special boxes, like they do in America…
#19 by Rory on May 23, 2012 - 4:32 pm
Jeff, the points you make here are absolutely essential. *Goes into full-on cybernat mode* Margaret Thatcher refocused the political concept of ‘Britishness’ around south England, the services sector and the aspirational little-englander mentality, leaving Scotland as a periphery to be patronised and, as many in Westminster claim, ‘subsidised’ by our metropolitan overlords.
Devolution softened that blow, giving us the ability to express our own national identity politically, but as long as we’re told to celebrate the monarchy, support Team GB in London and root for Engelbert in Eurovision, people in Scotland should rightly expect to be recognised as part of a wider national identity in return. As you demonstrate here, I see very little evidence of that happening in any cultural, sporting or political expressions of ‘Britishness’.
#20 by Douglas McLellan on May 23, 2012 - 4:44 pm
Some people really do need to calm down a bit.
The point about Scot Lib Dems not getting the government they voted for is just a silly shot. If Labour and Lib Dems had created a government then 36% of Scots would not have got the government they voted for. But wait – the SNP never wanted to form a UK government so why bother counting the votes for them in either side of this silly equation?
I live in Muirhouse in Edinburgh but despite that I live in a country that I want to live in and I really don’t think that those who dont even look for work are not doing so just because they dislike Scotland being part of the UK. No amount of positive messages about Scotland would change that.
I really have to disagree with your analysis that there is an atrophy in Scottish life that is the fault of being in the Union. There is certainly a disdain for anything English which often slips over into outright and vitriolic anti-Englishness. If Scotland does achieve independence then for how many generations will people like yourself blame being part of the Union for the issues that will continue to plague parts of Scotland.
I don’t detect an epic rising in England about the Eurovision Song Contest so I dont think Scotland is less excited about it (although my Facebook timeline has a number of Scottish women and gay men preparing Song Contest Parties). I feel the same detachment from the Olympics as I do the Commonwealth Games yet my twitter feed was, at the time, full of Scottish people who didn’t get tickets so there was some interest. And as a Republican I dont want a monarchy but I see that Alex Salmond does so the Jubilee isn’t an Unionist wheeze is it?
Like McAlpines list of 10 reasons (all of which pretty much blamed England for something that she didnt like about Scotland) for indy, this article looks not for a positive vision of an independent Scotland in the future but instead chews over the stale vomit of continued displeasure at England and the past.
#21 by Indy on May 23, 2012 - 8:12 pm
Oddly enough I have been re-reading Alasdair Gray’s “Why Scots should rule Scotland” and he quotes Irvine Welsh on anti-Englishness “the Scots oppress themselves by their obsession with the English which breeds the negatives of hatred, fear, servility, contempt and dependency”.
I have always believed that we will be ready for independence when we care about the English to the same extent that they care about us. Which is to say a bit – but not to the extent that it would influence their decisions.
That’s why it’s so frustrating for many nats to get the old anti-English thing thrown at them. You feel like shouting “But we are the ones who have MOVED ON.”
You can only hate the English if you believe they exercise some kind of malignant power over you, and they can only exercise any power over you – malignant or otherwise – if you let them.
Alasdair Gray put it very well himself when he said that true friendship can only be based on equal dependence or equal independence. Scotland and England can never be equally dependent on each other due to their respective sizes but they can be equally independent.
And then what would there be for the deluded and narrow minded bigots to hate?
And a final point – am I alone in having come across more casual anti-English racism from unionists than from nationalists? I don’t mean political attacks, just casual racist stereotyping? I genuinely think that is more common among unionists than nationalists partly because once you have made the break in your head and you know not only that the English don’t oppress us, don’t want to oppress us but that it is entirely within our own power to alter the relationship to one of equals then it would no more occur to you to be anti-English than to be anti-French or anti-Irish or anti-Danish.
#22 by Barbarian on May 23, 2012 - 7:13 pm
Most people don’t give a toss about the Olympics, including the English, Welsh and Irish.
I like watching athletics, but particularly those from poor nations who ahev worked their backsides off without sponsorship or expensive training facilities.
What I hate is patronising twits like Seb Coe and others who tell us its all a good thing.
The money being spent is horrific, given the current economic crisis. The only people who will benefit are hoteliers, taxi drivers and *ahem* ladies of the night.
#23 by Laura on May 23, 2012 - 11:02 pm
The analogy with the Eurovision Song Contest is nigh on perfect. If, heck, The Proclaimers were taking to the stage on Saturday under a Saltire banner, Scotland would be right behind them willing them onto success. However, this weekend’s British performer will suffer the same fate as Blue, Josh Dubovie, Scooch, Daz Sampson et al; utter indifference north of Gretna. There’s no pride in the badge, no playing for the team and the gap breeds an atrophy that has seeped into Scottish life for countless years.
I find this kind of argument very strange. I am not English or Scottish but I live in Scotland and would be entitled to Scottish citizenship under the current proposals for independence. What place would there be for me in an independent Scotland if I felt nothing for the Scottish band representing Scotland at the Eurovision song contest or other cultural equivalent – no pride in the badge, no playing for the team? I don’t see how ‘in an independent Scotland, Scots would feel more Scottish’ is an argument for independence but it is certainly something that makes those of us who do not feel Scottish and live in Scotland very wary.
Most people I know in Ireland are not backing Jedward because they think they exemplify all that is best about an independent nation or out of patriotic pride either.
#24 by Indy on May 24, 2012 - 3:51 pm
What place would there be for you in an independent Scotland if you felt nothing for the Scottish band representing Scotland at the Eurovision song contest?
Er – with the vast majority of Scots?
Jeff specifically said it’s an ANALOGY. Not meant to be taken literally.
#25 by Jeff on May 25, 2012 - 4:29 pm
Laura,
There would be plenty of space; liking The Proclaimers would (I hope) never be a prerequisite for being a citizen of an independent Scotland.
However, if we’re going to have a Eurovision, is it not better to have a contestant that more people (if not necessarily all people) in a member nation will get behind and support? And, similarly, if we’re going to have a country, is it not better to have a country that more people are behind with a national heave, even if it means breaking up islands into two countries rather than one? I think the nationality with Cameron/Humperdink & Salmond/Proclaimers stacks up, even if someone in Scotland right now doesn’t like any or all of the aforementioned four.