A Scots Media

That’s the big question I ask myself often. Why are at least half of Scots still supportive of the clearly failing union, when we’ve recently suffered so many disasters and chaos in recent years? I believe it’s all about the lack of so few representative Scottish media. I remember my son made this comment in 2014 “ how can we win independence with no media? “  

Of course younger Scots get their media and press from a variety of sources and their support for Indy is around 70%. But the over 50s still look to the mainstream unionist media and press. BBC Scotland for instance totally ignores any serious failings in England, such as England’s disastrous water scandal. (This is covered by channel Four news which is more balanced than the BBC, with Dark Waters.) 

Back in 1707, Scotland kept its own Kirk - which in those days was the media (they preached against the French terror!)  We had Scottish newspapers by 1800s. The problem started with broadcast media around the 50s, which is totally controlled from London. Even Catalonia has four tv channels, two news and two entertainment. The UK is now a highly centralised state, which is not healthy for the north of England either. 

By the late 1700s we had a Scottish Kirk and Scottish newspapers but since the war we’ve had totally biased news reporting that focuses on London and the UKs foreign owned press, that is not balanced. John Swinney should pursue legal means to regulate for a balanced press! They do this in other countries. I went to a talk at Edinburgh book festival about this issue: Ruth Wishart was there. 

Today Scotland only has the one Indy supporting Newspaper, the National that represents half of Scots. There are not one, but four English political parties in Scotland who support the union. It’s all quite bazaar and unbalanced. With Reform a far right, English nationalist party. (Why don’t we stand a Scottish political party in England? The Democrats for instance!)

Scotland is asking for normal self-determination, that’s normal across the developed world - then again Edinburgh must not be a new centralising London. The central government should only decide on federal roads, foreign policy, certain economic levers - otherwise decisions should be made at a local level on say education, health, local infrastructure etc. The economy should work for the people not against us! The politicians in London are totally out of ideas and controlled by dirty money and Trump's America. 

Why are there so many Scots in thrall to the supposed ‘union’ with England? A good read is “DeColonizing Language” by Ngugi Wa Thiong’O recommended by Alan Riach - how language repression is much cheaper and easier than military control. Colonisation of the mind. I think of how children were belted if they spoke in their native Scots at school, how clan chiefs had to have their son’s educated in England. This also happened in Africa - where children had to learn ‘To a Daffodil’ even though they had never seen one! 

Is there a reason Scots vote to be a colony of London? I’ve been trying to find out. Scotland used to benefit from the exploiting of the British Empire countries, but since the Second World War the BE has ceased to exist. Now Scotland is the last colony being exploited. Some Anglo Scots view advancement through getting a seat in the House of Lords. Is unionism about your tribe? It used to be about religion. 

Scotland could be as successful as Ireland, Norway or Denmark - instead we’re held back as part of a failing UK model. Don’t tell me the lies of the made up and fake GERS figures - these are the figures Scotland endures being shackled to the UK and treated as a branch economy. London only cares about London property prices and London voters. Westminster is shutting down Scotland. 

Since this election 2026, the prospects of the three Celtic nations working together is so positive. Crucially Swinney must appeal to all of Scotland and speak to all Scots, to counter the rise of divisiveness of Reform and the rise of the far right. 

anglo,

Tom Nairn’s “The Break up of Britain” is another great read on the archaic politics here. Where are the books on the benefits of the union, where are the songs or celebrities for the union? We are basically fed a bunch of lies constantly by the unionist press - SNP bad in among the gossip headlines. it’s very demoralising and isn’t good for anyone all this negativity. Where is the hope?? 

So how does Scotland prosper as part of the UK, what are the benefits? The crash of 2008, showed clearly how the neoliberal economic model is failing people. The politicians in London only claim, “They’ll do more of the same but better.” 

They are stuck in the 80s thinking rather than looking at new ways of modelling and moving to a modern state. This is not good enough when most people here see their standard of living falling. Scotland is stuck in an archaic Britain that is unable to move forward. ….. If you don’t believe me watch the BBCs Question Time each Thursday to hear the lack of any constructive ideas from Westminster MPs! Scotland’s freedom and sovereignty in Europe now!!    

Correcting Scotland’s history mistakes

 

So often, so many mistakes and errors of Scotland’s recorded histories are either ignored, or over written by the powers that be. In encyclopaedias the words Britain and England are conflated constantly – as they are often for Americans. Interchangeable terms, who don’t know their geography.

 

In the National,10 Feb 2026, there was an article on a book entitled: 

Queen James, the Life and Loves of Britain’s first King. 

 

Error! Britain did not come into existence until 1707 after the Union of the Parliaments.

James Stewart (1567-1603) was King of the 'kingdom of Scotland' -  and after the Union of the Crown, was king of both the 'kingdom of England' and the 'kingdom of Scotland'  from 1603 to 1625.  (James worked to encourage a Britain, to secure his position on the English throne no doubt (after the death fo Elizabeth Tudor of England.) 

 

The Scottish Parliament had sat for 200 years before this union – latterly sitting in St Giles.  

When I look back and read of the Scotland before union 1707, the once independent Scotland is a different country. Its a place of a confident trading nation, with the exchange of people and ideas across the continents – to Flanders Japan, the Americas. Historian Tom Devine says that Scotland has for centuries has long been an outward looking country. 

 

The Wars of Independence with Wallace and Bruce 1314, were in fact Wars of Succession, ad civil wars. Because before this Scotland had always been an independent nation! Scotland’s first king was Kenneth I was King of dal Raida (841-850) and King of the Picts (848-858)

From the time of the Scottish Reformation (1560- 1640)  Scotland’s scholars went to Paris university to study and to teach. Education was greatly encouraged for all young boys. Form 1750 to 1790 there was the Scottish enlightenment. Scots were part of the American founding fathers.

 

The Big Questions facing Scotland today are – is this is a union of two kingdoms supposedly, there therefore must be a route out of this failing union. 

Its time we pointed out these important and crucial errors, which happen constantly. Ignorance of the past does not help our views of the present realities or our futures. There is not enough history taught in schools across Britain -  compared to elsewhere. So that both sides of the border, people have more knowledge and understanding of the true histories of both Scotland and England.

Kenneth I

Olde England as Britain?

 

I picked up a Sunday Times magazine recently – and there was an article with the headline In Search of Olde England - under a photo of Olde England Morris dancers, which reviewed the book - Finding Albion Myth, Folklore, and the Quest for a Hidden Britain by Zakia Sewell. Sewell writes that she is the “least likely person to go searching for Olde England, or to give it its grown up name Albion.” 

She speaks of the ‘stale history” of Albion or England as Britain – but is she writing of an unreal “Britain” or the 4 nations of the UK? Perhaps stale because this 'Britain' she searches for is not real, not a country with a defined identity, and has no hinterland. Britain is actually four ancient nations!

I looked up the meaning of ‘Albion’, which is supposed to stand for ‘Britain’. Its no wonder many are confused, the terms England as Britain are interchangeable and the same. (On the very same page a respected Irish author spoke of Elizabeth as the Queen of England!) 

Most Americans interchange England and Britain, as meaning the same nation. Its hardly surprising as encyclopaedias, radio, tv and media articles and broadcasts do the very same thing! Where does this leave the other three nations of the UK? As mere regions of England/ Britain?  

Where on earth do the ancient nations of Scotland, Ireland and Wales fit into this narrative - with not one mention, as if their contribution, language, culture and music are of no significance. 

 

Sewell is searching for Britain as England’s “stale old island story” 

She feels there is wisdom to be found in tradition. In the Hebrides she visited Imbole, a Celtic festival to mark the winter solstice and spring equinox. She celebrated Samhaim in haunted York, and attended the Notting hill carnival.

Sewell’s love of urban music drew her to a career as a presenter on Radio Six music. Her father is Welsh and her mother from the Caribbean. 

She wants to counter balance the far rights use of the English flag, to follow Albion as Britain folk ways in order to resolve her mixed heritage. In the Caribbean Granadines, the locals have long played down folk practices of the ‘other world’ such as ritual dance or drumming, not wanting to appear backward. This is colonization of the mind, were language was used to suppress different cultures. And the portrayal of local cultures as less worthy or “backward.”

 

England as a nation certainly appears to have lost is sense of itself – it still has its Constitution of 1688, castles, monarchy, Tudors - all from !600s. but with London now being a melting pot, I’m not sure – what is England/ Britain’s, national identity, lost in this empire building, what is its national costume? Or national sense of itself outside of football or the red cross of St George? 

 

Britain is in fact a landmass, not a country. Britain only came into existence after the union of the parliaments in 1707. But what is Britain or UK as a country? It is not a country with any hinterland or sense of itself – apart from the world war one and the Victorian empire. But the British empire is bland and about elitism and barely taught in schools, even as the empire existed for many centuries and shaped how this Britain as England sees itself.

 

She claims there are signs of a “weird renaissance” bubbling in Britain as England, but her grasp of historical context is severely missing, as she skims the mere surface here. I guess she is searching for a lost 'England as Britain'. In urban London much culture is a cosmopolitan world culture – as heard in the Americanisation of the Brits award show, in London Pop culture and elsewhere. 

 

In this narrative there is not one mention of Scotland, Ireland or Wales – as if they don’t even exist or have any relevance or impact. Ignorance of history in this ‘Albion’ is clearly deep rooted.

England as Britain urgently needs to move from being an archaic state to a modern one – one that no longer controls and exploits an empire. 

“Scotland is a country NOT a county!”! Alex Salmond

 

**BOOKS*: For a deeper history of Scots and Celtic cultures I recommend 

Stuart McHardy’ Scotland’s Future History, 

Tom Devine, A Scottish Nation 1707 to present

Alan Raich - Arts of the Nation

Scotland’s Lost Mandates

 

Quebec often comes up, even the newly formed UK Supreme court comparing our ancient Scotland nation to the Canadian state. 

 

If you look up ‘secession’ – it takes many forms – from quietly agreed separations or federal governance to fierce tribal warfare, for example in Africa. So following on from the keenness to compare Scotland to the state of Quebec, (rather than other small nations such as Iceland or Finland) Its interesting to note that after Quebec’s independence referendum, Canada agreed to more self determination for Quebec. 

 

Unlike the British state or UK, which immediately turned to English votes for English laws and Brexit - and to restricting Scotland’s self determination even more. So the British state attempted to pull even tighter with muscular unionism! – leading to all the “stresses and strains” across the UK, and the calls of reform, which are all akin to a parent refusing to allow their fifteen year old to grow up!

 

Looking back to the calls for both Scotland’s and Ireland’s home rule before the great war 1914 – the British state across the 1900s became ever more centralised. This has held the UK back, no longer able to exploit its lost empire, most of the wealth has been held in the south east while the rest of the UK declines. Of course Scottish secession, as a threat to the British state, will be keenly on MI5s radar.

 

Nicola Sturgeon, was she too managerial? The SNP had large mandates, with 56 of the 59 Scottish MPs in 2015…why was this not enough – what more of a mandate is required? We really must wonder. Did she get bogged down in detail rather than seeing the bigger picture?

 

Journalist Ian MacWhirter wondered why the two biggest political figures of Scotland’s 25 years of devolution, have ended their political careers mired in police investigations – and that Scottish politics is far too intertwined with the Scottish justice system. 

 

But surely the Big Debate across the UK is between a centralized state and a more federal one? If we compare to say Spain or other European nations, in Spain each state collects their own taxes. Quebec collects its own taxes and VAT, immigration policies, laws, trade etc. etc. 

 

Independence is a journey – as Scotland already has it own law system, Parliament, central bank, civil servants – it is partly on its way. Scotland only has control of 20% of its welfare, expenditure and 40% of tax. 

 

The happiest and most successful countries are those based on fairness of opportunities where private schools have been abolished and there’s not a two tier system – that is the small nation of Finland. 

 

“Economic Growth”, the favourite slogan of Starmer’s Labour, is not the successful formula for a happy nation. Would federalism work here UK, with so much power centralised in Westminster? Probably not. The debate is therefore between – where does sovereignty lie – with Westminster or the people?

 

British Peerages and Titles

 

The British House of Lords is the second biggest unelected second chamber in the world – after China! Britain’s archaic constitution of 1690. Britain is an outlier in Europe – the only nation that continues to give nobility privileges such as tax avoidance. 

 

Is Britain the only nation that continues to revere and believe in a hierarchy with the monarch at the top? In Great Britain, nobility and titles are part of the peerage, which is a social class of titled people who share in the responsibility of government. The five ranks of British nobility, in descending order of precedence, are:

 

·       Duke: The highest and most exclusive rank

·       Marquess: The second most senior rank

·       Earl: The third rank

·       Viscount: The fourth rank

·       Baron: The lowest rank 

Titles can be hereditary or granted. Until 1999, peers were exempt from jury duty and entitled to sit in the House of Lords. Some things to know about British nobility and titles include

French Revolution!

 

**France – There is no nobility, its legal status was abolished 1789, while there are titles with no privileges.

There is no such thing as nobility in France today. French courts have held that the concept of nobility is incompatible with the equality of all citizens before the law proclaimed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, part of the Constitution of 1958. There are titles, which are considered part of the legal name, and entitled to the same protections in French civil and criminal courts, even though they give no privilege or precedence (the way they do in Great Britain). Regulation of titles is carried out by a bureau of the Ministry of Justice. The President has ceased to confer or confirm titles, but the French state still verifies them,  civil courts can protect them, criminal courts can prosecute their abuse.

 

History - 

1.     the abolition of feudalism and privileges in 1789, which did away with the legal status of nobility,

2.     the restoration of titles in 1808 by Napoleon, and their confirmation by the successive monarchical regimes until 1870

3.     the fact that the successive republican regimes have never passed any laws on the subject of titles.

The Revolution did away with nobility and titles, titles were restored (not nobility), and the Republic has not done anything about titles. French nobiliary law is mostly based on court cases. At present, titles have not been abolished. The final establishment of a Republic in 1875 left them in a kind of limbo, and it took a succession of court cases to define the jurisprudence, which is now well established. 

 

 

*Germany  - Abolished the legal recognition of nobility in 1919, while titles are still used. The Weimar Constitution of 1919 removed legal privileges and disadvantages of birth or rank. Current status - Titles of nobility are only valid as part of a name and may no longer be conferred.

 

August 1919, at the beginning of Weimer Republic (1918 – 1933) Germany's new constitution abolished royalty and nobility, and the respective legal privileges and immunities appertaining to an individual, a family or any heirs. Today, German nobility is no longer conferred by the Federal Republic of Germany (1949–present), and constitutionally the descendants of German noble families do not enjoy legal privileges.The Nobility of the German Empire was similar to nobility of the Austrian empire developed during the Holy Roman Empire and both ended in 1919 when they were abolished, and legal status and privileges were revoked.

 

*Austria - In 1919, Austrian nobility was abolished under the First Austrian Republic (1919–1934) and the and legal recognition of hereditary titles and aristocratic particles and use as part of surnames was banned. Today, Austrian nobility is no longer conferred by the Republic of Austria (1945–present), and the official use of noble titles, is a minor offence under Austrian law for Austrian citizens

 

* Denmark - The Danish constitution of 1849 stripped the nobility of its privileges, though the titles remained.

History - The Danish nobility was granted social, economic, and political privileges in the 16th century in exchange for their military service to the king. Some of the families still own and reside in castles or country houses. A minority of nobles still belong to the elite and they can be guests at royal events, are objects of media coverage, for example Kanal 4s TV hostess Caroline Fleming née Baroness Luel-Brockdorff. Some of them own and manage companies or have leading positions within business, banking, diplomacy and NGOs

 

 

*Holland – After Constitutional reform 1848 the privileges of the Dutch nobility were abolished and they lost their constitutional roles. The only privileges they were alllowed were titles and coats of arms. They became civilians with a noble title. Nobility became a small elite class consisting of families recognized as noble, and with or without a title in the Kingdome of the Netherlands

Questions of Identity

 

Tory MP Tony Hayes claims that, Welsh and Scottish identities devalues British identity.

Scottish self-determination is about how we are governed – not from the centre but locally, by those who understand Scotland’s needs and concerns. Cleary though if England/ Britain regard Scotland as a colony – and not an ancient nation – they want Scottish identity supressed. Just as they did across the empire.

 

But also if we look across the world, we can see that identities can co-exist. In Scandinavia there is a strong identity as a Nordic states, but people also feel Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Finnish. They learn many languages from a young age.

 

In America, people firstly feel New Yorkers, Texans, mid Westerners, Californians – while they also hold a firm allegiance to their country of American states – united in their belief in liberty for all and the pursuit of happiness, freedom and democratic principles.

 

So what of the British isles? We will always be connected by geography and family ties. A major factor is the narrative of the British empire over recent centuries – with the British monarchy still head of state today across the English speaking world. Britain imposed its culture on many far away lands and islands. Teaching Caribbean islands poems such as Wordsworth To a Daffodil, even though they’d never seen one! Teaching Irish children about English rivers and Scots about English kings. Britain became dependant on exploiting other nations. Instead of replying on its own resources.

 

There’s this narratives of empire here UK – from the Romans, Ottoman, Hapsburgs, from our historic past. Many of us now hope the EU is a new model – one in which each nation retains its sovereign laws and rights of self determination, while working together collaboratively for trade, defence and security. While there remains threats of out-dated dictatorships across the world, which threaten our democracies.

 

Scottish independence is in no shape or form about Scotland not wanting to be good neighbours and friends with England, Ireland and Wales. The present voting system in Britain is not a democracy. It’s a fake.

 

Some here in Britain continue to believe in ‘centralized’ governance, as being most efficient. Surely what’s required is environmental regulations and some joined up thinking, with laws, training and quality assessment (NHS say) and high standards in education. They believe in top-down control, rather than equal rights. We are all equal under the law – or should be. With the familiar cries of the “previous government has ruined the economy.”

 

But where is the money if Britain is a rich country?? Labour continue the austerity project and false claims of no money. 

Union with David Olusoga BBC Review

 

While Olisoga is an informed historian, and consulted many experts and this is a highly watchable  if it times biased program.

However he at times skims over relevant sections of the 320 years of the union between Scotland and England 1707 and later of the four nations to form the United Kingdom is 1801.

For instance he focuses on the hardships in Ireland and of their being bribed to join the United kingdom union in 1801 – but does not mention the mass murders and of the obliteration of the highland way of life in Scotland after the Jacobite 45, when the clans were disarmed. There is also no mention of the Scottish 'Parcel of Rogues' who sold Scotland for bribes.

The only way to be able to wear the kilt was to join the British highland regiments. 

Union flags designs of James VI

After the JACOBITE 45 rebellion Olusoga states “ the British state, with the help of some clan chiefs, launched a campaign to repress the Scots” –what they really did was mass murder of women and children and the destruction of the highland way of life. the huge contribution Scotland, as the workers of the empire made to the empire is ignored, while England were the rulesr is ignored. 

By the 18^th century – one in 10 lived in London – which became the centre of Printing, key port, trade artery, parliament, monarchy, finance, banking, theatre, arts and culture. Why is it good that so many had to travel to London to make their fortune?

Then there’s the episode Four on Union and Disunion – which focuses on Wales and Ireland, with only a mention of the closing of Ravenscraig steel work at Motherwell – but no mention of Scotland’s oil which was used by Westminster to increase spending on London. 

Olusoga had a chat with A professor from Oxford who stated, ‘There isn’t a long history of power being spread outside the capitol…the starting dates of universities in the north, many are just over a 100 years old. Civic buildings are not that old.” This by implication gives the strong impression that the rest of Britain, outside of London, is backward and uncultured. This is basically untrue. 

Scotland boasts 4 of the UKs oldest universities – Oxford and Cambridge were initially centres of clerical teachings late 1090s: in the 1400s it was Scottish universities which were the four leading centres of learning – St Andrews 1410, Glasgow 1451, Aberdeen 1495, Edinburgh 1583. And it wasn’t until the 1800s that England set up its universities - Manchester 1824, London 1826, Durham 1832.

Olusoga also misses the crucial point that Scotland’s self-determination is about democracy and democratic rights and NOT identity at all. 

The Rise of Ireland - small is Beautiful

Ireland’s population will reach 5.1 million, the highest it has been since the great famine of 1848 – when the British administration allowed food to be exported, when thousands in Ireland were starving. Many emigrated to America then, resulting in the influential American-Irish contingent today, including President Biden. Many also emigrated from the north over to Scotland, in search of a better life in the UK – more stability and better living standards. Twenty years ago Ireland decided for its future to invest in education. 

 

Joining the EU has been transformational for all of Ireland – both north and south. Only 8% of Ireland’s trade is now with the UK, most of its trade is with the EU and the US. Today major global businesses have set up their European headquarters in Dublin - Google, Facebook, IBM, Apple, Pfizer. Dublin is also a main transfer airport. Ireland’s GDP is now at 5%.  Ireland is now setting up a Wealth fund, similar to Norway, of 65 Billion, to protect for the future. 

 

Our own personal experience defines us and shapes our attitudes to the policies and politics of today. its with a sense of dismay I read of Ireland’s success, while happy for the Republic of Ireland and our relatives still living over there, I feel sad and regretful for Scotland. I loved our visit to Dublin a few years back – our singing tour guide, the impressive writers museum, the historic Trinity university and book of Kells. Sadly my last memory of Belfast and County Down, is one of military checkpoints, hovering helicopters and heavy overcast clouds. I hope to travel over soon enough and find a more prosperous and settled north. I read that one of the main reasons for sectarian problems there is poverty. 

 

Ireland was partitioned in 1921, to allow for the setting up of the independent Irish Republic. I have an old black and white photo of my grandfather who was captain of the Ards football team and won a few caps for the Irish football team, before partition (dated 1909 I believe) So its within living memory not so long ago. My parents left the north to settle in Edinburgh and my husband’s father also left the south too for Scotland. 

 

We moved to America for a decade after the depressing debacle of the 1979 referendum for a Scottish parliament. Britain’s joining the EU brought much needed economic stability and prosperity, and we returned to Scotland. However the British establishment/ state felt threatened by new EU laws over transparency over tax havens. Nigel Farage was put on the BBC Question Time week after week to persuade the undecided on the merits of leaving the EU – take back control meant us all being richer, our NHS being well funded – instead we get reduced trade and less funding. 

 

This year we had King Charles coronation and a concert celebrating the work of those “who serve” – the carers, the teachers, the nurses, and doctors, social workers etc. During the pandemic we all clapped for them but Britain cannot go on offering those who serve mere crumbs, when what these dedicated workers need is decent pay for their hours of hard work. Most voters want investment in our services (health, education, energy) and not in weapons of mass destruction. 

 

Most of us have now travelled far more than our parents generation, and can see clearly there are other options available to us, than a failed British model. Many of us have known for decades that things are wrong in the UK – with declining living standards, the young unable to buy their own homes. While many ignore these serious problems, they should and could be fixed. As a teenager I spent two weeks in Imatra Finland, even then I wondered where the slums were – everything was very clean and the air fresh with the smell of those very tall pine trees. Most families enjoyed their weekend retreats. And in my time living in America I saw that each state had totally different identity, institutions, laws, trade, regulations, and most decisions are made at local level (such as taxes for schools). That’s not to say there are many problems in America – one being lax laws on pollution, another the way healthcare is delivered. 

 

I was devastated with Brexit and Scotland’s enforced exit from Europe, when the majority of Scots support being inside the EU. Sadly the realities for Scotland are that we have a Scottish Parliament which is essentially the construct of Westminster and controlled and constrained by Westminster policies. QC Joanna cherry tells us Scotland does have the right of self determination under the UN charter. In Scotland historically the people sovereignty outweighs the sovereignty of Westminster – is this true?.

 

The UK government controls our economy and imposes its will, austerity policies and Brexit on Scotland.  During the Brexit debates the profound issues of our island nations were not even considered by the English/ British people. I don’t know I understand why Scotland doesn’t have the right to self determination. But I know independence needs to be ‘taken’ with both arms out stretched – we can’t simply ask or request to be free!

 

Now the Tories are attempting to constraint devolution further, rather than allow Scotsself-determination.

Tom Nairn why Scotland missed the European national revival 1800s

 

 

Tom Nairn why Scotland missed the European national revival 1800s

 

Scotland’s greatest political theorist of the modern times. 

Tom Nairn’s brilliant Break Up of Britain (1977), is one of the best reads on how and why the archaic institutions of the British state and its pre-democracy are failing us. How Scotland lost its way and its literary voice over the 1800s and of the fake tartanry of Walters Scott’s novels, of a Scotland that’s lost and can never return - “the heart regrets, but never the head.” Of the destructive and false nature of the Labour party. 

 

He writes on why Scottish nationalism is different to the rest of Europe. 

“All I’m arguing for is nations, minus the dratted “ism”; democratic natural, independent, diverse, ordinary, even boring rather than the museum pieces, or dictatorship or hustlers like Blair of Berlusconi.” Tom Nairn, Free worlds End, opendemocracy, Dec 4^th 2004. 

 

Nairn writes of the misfit of the British state to the modern world and not from the express of romantic tartanry, which the author excoriates – and the centrality of the nation in political change. 

That the Scottish Enlightenment was very much a Tory project. While Scotland prospered during the 1800s with manufacturing, its literary voice became bereft. He sees Walter Scott’s work of a mythical Scotland and Scots heroes, as very much glorifying a past that was gone and to be forgotten. Scotland became north Britain. While Scott’s romantic and mythical novels were highly successful across the world. 

**Those Myths of Blood and spirit, such as Jacobites, Rob Roy, Robert the Bruce.

Nationalism, Nairn argues is always both good and bad. ’ And originated from that derived in – the impossibility of escape from the uneven development of capitalism.’ Nationalism is not a question of simple identity, but rather of something more – a catalyst. Nearly all modern nations have a myth – a key to their nationalism and regeneration. But not England… :with an astonishing resistance of a fossilised and incompetent political order.  

“England’s peculiar form of nationalism  hopelessly stultifying inheritance of the state.…The main character of English history since 1688 “of which English ideology most proud is, her conditional and parliamentary revolution. “

“the mobilising myth of nationalism is an idea of the people … an emotive notion anchored in popular experience of love” – the revolution, war of liberation.”

 

He writes, “What counts is later mass beliefs. These are amplified into an inheritance, broadcast in ballads, written into documentary history text-books, novelized, sermonised and institutionalized into street-names and statues. From the process there derives an always latent conviction of popular will and capacity. That the people could always do it again.” 

 

**By contrast in Europe 1800s, nationalism took hold with the demise of empires, and the rise of nation states. “Only one country “stepped over before the Europe of 1800s – Scotland politics and culture was decisively and permanently altered by the great awaking of nationalist consciousness – Scotland or north Britain …due to the uneven development of capitalism. “

 

“After the black the unspeakable 17^th century was 1688 which marked the real dawn of Scotland, after the dark bloodshed years of religious conflicts across Europe. – William Robertson, in his book History of Scotland. When the Scottish bourgeoisie exploited the results of the English revolution. Scotland progressed from fortified castles and witch burning, to Edinburgh new town and Adam Smith in only a generation:”

Highlander Adam Fergusson, saw this contrast around him. “The Highlands were under-developed and didn’t have pre-requisite for nationalist existence. The Highland life was destroyed after 1745. The Scottish Enlightenment ended early 1800s. The Scottish literary tradition paused 1825 – 1860. Instead there was the Industrial Scotland of Glasgow-Edinburgh- Dundee – engineering, shipbuilding and iron stone. 

Scotland reverted to being a province in the 1800s Victorian times, while prosperous and imperial.  Why – because of the absence of political nationalism and a literary voice. The Scottish bourgeoisies pre-possessed the country’s distinctive and proto-national features – they believed in a universal and enlightened civilization .Therefore Scotland remained stuck betwixt and between - too much a nation to be a mere province, yet it could not develop into a nation-state on the basis either via nationalism. 

Nationalism, Nairn argues is always both good and bad. ’ And originated from that derived in – the impossibility of escape from the uneven development of capitalism.’

There is a duty to progressive England to positively urge Scotland onto independence in Europe.

England-Britain where, perhaps because Westminster no longer has a genuine interior life that links to public self-belief, almost everything that is political is unauthentic.

 

”national-democratic character of the need our self-government to ensure meaning on self-belief.”

Nairns approach is both international and rooted in Scotland and he wrote for the new left review London. He explores the nature of nationalism. In UK more confused by the overlay of British-ness, a nationalism without a nation. His case of Scottish independence advocated becoming LIKE other countries. The self-abasement of the union.

A Future???   A British isles or federation, confederation or modernised multi-national states.’

**DONATE to the conference to celebrate the work of Tom Nairn, organised by Peter McColl (Scottish Greens) , Janice Maxwell (co-editor), Pat Kane, Joyce Macmillan, Anthony Barnett (English democracy activist)

 

His most famous BOOK Tom Nairn’s brilliant The Break up of Britain 1977, is well worth reading and one of the best reads on the archaic nature of the British states’ pre-democracy. https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23475146.impact-tom-nairn-great-let-slip-quietly-away/

The most influential book on British politics to be published in the last half century,”  writes Anthony Burnett