Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mizhara]

I'm pretty sure no one has tried to deny anyone else their right to an opinion here, nor actually invoked No True Scotsman other than in obvious jests. I think if some fairly casual talk about these things raises blood pressures as far as they're getting here though, it's time to take a few steps back and not take things quite so seriously.

It's a simple enough statement. There are Scots identifying themselves as such, quite the same as others are Englishmen, French, etc etc and it's not up to anyone, even other people from Scotland to deny them that. If someone came along and said I had no Norwegian identity because I'm a nordlending (we barely have the language in common with the southern fairies), I'd either be exceedingly confused or angry.

Feel free to disagree, obviously, but I think that sort of thing is up to each and every Scot rather than one individual deciding it for all of them.

[Louella Dougans]

Never said people didn't have A Scottish identity.

I said there wasn't a common Scottish identity that everyone can identify with.

[Louella Dougans]

I am from Ayrshire, I speak English, I read Burns poetry at school, I watch football on the telly, and wear clothes.

Duncan McLeod of the clan McLeod, is from Wester Ross, speaks Gaelic, read Gaelic poetry at school, watches shinty on the telly, and wears a kilt.

I've met Duncan. Other than being born in the same geographical area, according to the lines on the maps, I didn't have anything in common.

[Mizhara]

That applies to pretty much every country. There is not a single identifying feature, dress style, concept, value or whatever that I share with all other Norwegians other than being born and raised here. Hell, we don't even share that if we count adult immigrants, which I personally do. The nation itself has an identity though. One borne from history, internal and external, with conflicts, differences, unifying events and god this is a lot of commas. The identity of a nation may be difficult to pin down to a nice list of bullet points (or holes, in some cases), but I'm having serious trouble coming up with one that doesn't have one.

[Lyn Farel]

That's something I don't understand... If through History, a nation gets an identity, then why Scotland identity would prevail over UK's identity ?

Or are we speaking about the concept of Nation States ?

[Jace]

That's something I don't understand... If through History, a nation gets an identity, then why Scotland identity would prevail over UK's identity ?

I think the idea was for UK identity to stop prevailing over the Scottish one.

[Lyn Farel]

Politically I suppose ?

[Kala]

That applies to pretty much every country. There is not a single identifying feature, dress style, concept, value or whatever that I share with all other Norwegians other than being born and raised here. Hell, we don't even share that if we count adult immigrants, which I personally do. The nation itself has an identity though. One borne from history, internal and external, with conflicts, differences, unifying events and god this is a lot of commas. The identity of a nation may be difficult to pin down to a nice list of bullet points (or holes, in some cases), but I'm having serious trouble coming up with one that doesn't have one.

Yes.  Exactly.

Because that's very much what she was telling you - that there is no single identifying feature, dress style, concept, value etc in Scotland.

Though I'd disagree with your last part and your distinction between a nation itself having an identity, and there not being any single unifying feature.  This is the reason why it's difficult to pin down to a nice list of bullet points. I'm having trouble coming up with a nation that does have a solid unified unfractured idea of it's own identity - apart from ones where such ideas are actively enforced.

Thing is though, from the outside - a unifying National Identity can be formed by cultural stereotypes or othering.

For England, for example, those cultural stereotypes might be sarcasm, queueing and complaining about the weather.  And we might be othered (or other ourselves) as a unifier - for example, we are what these people are not, they are what we are not, etc.  Americans tend to see us as 'quaint' and polite in relation (certainly not the shared experience of certain popular European cheap holiday destinations) whereas the Aussie's tend to see us as stuck up poms.  Which are all generalisations, ofc, and depend on the subject position or who the comparison is with.

And yes, a nation's history and culture will shape an idea of itself.  But that as well cannot be pinned down to any one unifying perspective.  For example, many people will view the British Empire as one of pride and accomplishment.  Others a sense of shame for our colonial past.

But from the inside, that view changes somewhat.  You pick up on all the little differences (some quite big differences) that you refer to. Class is quite a big one.  The perspective of 'England' from the upper, middle and working classes are all going to be fairly different.  Race is another.  There might be an idea that England is a 'white' country (particularly from the far-right) who're being invaded by foreigners.  So how does that work if you're born in England, your family were born in England, you view yourself as English, but you aren't white so other people deny your Englishness? (which end up with some fairly ridiculous conversations like, "Oh, where are you from?" "Liverpool." "Yes, but, where are you from originally?" "...Liverpool?" "Yes, but, what I mean is, where do your family come from?" "...Liverpool?!") And how does it work when, if you look at our place names, we don't actually have a cohesive identity, but have been informed by various invaders, such as Normans, Saxons, Romans and Vikings?

Aside from *that* there's regional distinctiveness and all the cultural stereotypes that go along with that.  The different characters of our cities.  The different accents in our counties.  There's a reason, for example, why Yorkshire accents are used in advertisements.  For whatever reason, a Yorkshireman is considered trustworthy.  Maybe the rural idyll of one-man-and-his-dog from Last of the Summer Wine or something, I'm not sure.  And really, they were all part of separate Kingdoms anyways, once.  The Isle of Wight, for example, will happily other itself by describing the rest of the country in it's entirety as 'the mainland'. While Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland can rightfully call themselves other countries within the UK, Cornwall and Northumberland (and whoever else) also kind of seem like separate principalities or kingdoms.  (and in fact, Northumberland - being the borders, are in a bit of an awkward position in all of this being so close to Scotland.  It's not really like they have that much to do with the rest of England, given that the wealth and power is concentrated in London and the South East).

So yes, when unified or othered externally, all these disparate characters can be generalised, but that's not necessarily an accurate depiction of 'one' identity that everybody shares.  But you can't always see that from the outside.  When you just see the generalised characteristics.

So when Louella tells you, from the inside, what some of these differences are in the different areas that trouble the idea of one unified identity, and you dismiss that as talking for all Scottish people, I can see why that might get her goat.  I don't think you intended it that way, but yes, it did seem like you were saying that your idea of a Scottish national identity from an outsider perspective where you don't see all these individual details, are more valid than her idea of a more complex, detailed and distinct Scotland from the inside.

I get as well that you're doing it out of a positive place; love for Scotland and the Scots, and view it as a shared Scandinavian identity in terms of acceptance (i.e you can see some commonality), and that you've met and genuinely liked some Scottish people.  But if you're saying she can't speak for all Scots on what a national identity is or isn't, I would suggest that you can't either - and, in fact, if either of you were to generalise in this manner, she would be in a better 'place' to do so.

I think the idea was for UK identity to stop prevailing over the Scottish one.

Valid, but I don't think the issue is the UK gobbling up Scotland's identity and distinctiveness by amalgamation.
It's more, within the UK, England having a significant amount of power over Scotland, given the power base is concentrated in Westminster.

(Though frankly, if they could, I think a lot of England would want independence from Westminster also). 

Edit:

Duncan McLeod of the clan McLeod, is from Wester Ross, speaks Gaelic, read Gaelic poetry at school, watches shinty on the telly, and wears a kilt.

I've met Duncan. Other than being born in the same geographical area, according to the lines on the maps, I didn't have anything in common.

Fuck me, and I thought he was a fictional character 

[Louella Dougans]

Norway also has national service, which gives Norwegians of all sorts, a bond.

Scotland does not have national service.

[Mizhara]

National service is hardly universal. In fact, in later years it's the minority that serves.

Kala hit the nail on the head though, so I have little else to add.

[Kala]

Kala hit the nail on the head though, so I have little else to add.

Oh, cheers, that's nice to hear 
I actually just asked my partner to look over it, and he felt it was too wordy and I wasn't getting to the point.  When I asked what I should take out, he said "paragraph 3, 4, 5, 6..." but people have already seen it now so I won't bother editing it down 

[Mizhara]

No need. You went into the level of detail and nuance no one else bothered with, so kudos.

[Lyn Farel]

That's what I was hinting at through Nation States above. The only identity that Scots can gather behind currently is a political one, rising out of political necessity regarding their balance of power and representation vs Westminster. That's not a question of cultural identity.

Nation States started up XIXth century and went to their apex in the last century. The concept and very definition of it is a nation corresponding to its ethnicity perfectly. Well, in reality, it's quite fucked up since you will always find differences, unclear bonds, etc.

Actually all the Nation States that heavily leaned on that doctrine are not actual Nation States, aka the UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc. The national identity that rose up from the Nation State ideal was a constructed one, imposing an unifying identity over various ethnics, cultures, etc. Some went deep into it (France, Japan, Russia, Bismark Germany, etc) while others were a lot more moderate about it (UK, modern Germany, etc).

So I would maybe dare say that Scots that actually think about a national identity might be flirting with the idea again. Because otherwise, it's just various people living in the same place, especially now in our age of globalization.

Because if you get far enough in the past, you have tribes, ethnic groups, that compose certain regions. For example, Scotland, with Highlanders and so on. Which added Scotland as an upper layer after through feudal regimes and kingdoms. And then got integrated into something bigger, the UK, that replaced Scotland as a national identity. Or, did it ? Not totally.

Here in France, I was speaking about Brittany that is a similar case. Well, it got integrated a few centuries ago into the kingdom, and the national identity of France completely replaced the Britton one. It's different due to the national leverage and environment.

But you can also leap a bit into the future, or even today, and look at Europe as a whole new identity starting to emerge above. I may be taking a big leap of faith in saying so, but maybe someday we will be europeans and not brittish, germans, etc. And those will actually be the ones trying to emancipate, and we are already starting to see such movements emerging right now in various right wing parties.

Norway also has national service, which gives Norwegians of all sorts, a bond.

Scotland does not have national service.

We had national service too and it never really gave any bond. All people that speak about it speak about it very negatively.

[BloodBird]

I am from Ayrshire, I speak English, I read Burns poetry at school, I watch football on the telly, and wear clothes.

Duncan McLeod of the clan McLeod, is from Wester Ross, speaks Gaelic, read Gaelic poetry at school, watches shinty on the telly, and wears a kilt.

I've met Duncan. Other than being born in the same geographical area, according to the lines on the maps, I didn't have anything in common.

I met an Osloværing once, born and raised in my own nations capital. His weird clothing sense, his weird dialect (I swear I've never heard that barely understandable thing he spoke anywhere else in the country, NOT EVEN IN OSLO (seriously I understand SWEDES better than I understood this guy)), his bizarre taste in foods and the political leaning and understanding he had was completely alien to me.

I live several hundred kilometers north of the polar circle, I dress in a simplistic and practical manner, I enjoy a lot of fish and meat products, and I speak in a thick 'typical' Nordlænding accent that's a dead give-away anywhere I go in the kingdom that I am from the northern half of the nation.

I'd never say anything like

I disagree that the ScotsNorwegians have a national identity.

when what I mean is

..there [isn't] a common ScottishNorwegian identity that everyone can identify with.

because well, that can easily be misunderstood. And I would never even consider the idea that the dude from Oslo and me don't have anything in common that we can both relate to.

Because at the end of the day, if nothing else, Nationality itself is a part of culture. I have as much right to call myself a Norwegian as the dude from Oslo does, and I honestly believe that with very few exceptions anyone born and raised in a nation get nothing less than a BIRTH-RIGHT to call themselves citizens of that nation.

If anything, having a culture so wide that people from one end of the nation is completely different from another end is a strength born from diversity, not a reason to openly question if you should even be considered to have a national identity at all.

---

Now, for the topic at hand:

I was the second to vote Yes - If the political situation doesn't look like it will change

This is because in my opinion what's Good for Scotland and it's people is not automatically what will happen if they remain as part of Britain. I voted this way AFTER it was clear that the Yes side lost with about a 45% vs 55% population divide.

The only thing this tragic event (yes, tragic - it's basically divided the whole nation politically almost along the middle) will do for the future is remind the people who voted yes why they did so in the first place, regardless of how it goes. Same goes for the no voters. If the UK manage to slowly fix whatever conditions that led nearly half the population of Scotland to want out of the UK to begin with, then good on them, the Scots will be relieved that they stayed. But the very fact that they saw the need to vote round a GTFO option to begin with and the fact that this divided the population as much as it did is nothing short of tragic.

I can only hope that the yes voters won't feel a need to be angry with their no-voting brethren in a decade or two, cause at this rate if nothing is solved it's likely going to come to another vote like this come a decade and the yes side will be bigger that time around.

The UK has had very long to prove itself an effective political solution for everyone in it, and I for one hope for all citizens of Britain that it proves itself vindicated of the faith that those 55% of Scots have placed in it following this whole affair. The majority voted, basically, to let the UK fix this as a unified entity. Let us hope that that actually happens. Fast.

[Mizhara]

Heard rumblings about Westminster apparently backpedaling on their promises already. I haven't found a reliable source on it as of yet, but I wouldn't be surprised. Time for an England referendum to try and gain independence from Westminster, yeah?