SONGS make a Nation

The Proclaimers

And the poetry and art. Since the 60s Scots have been singing in their own Scots and Gaelic voices – first with Flower of Scotland on the football terraces, the resurgence of Scots folk protest songs such as Hamish Henderson’s Freedom Come All Ye and then with the Proclaimers songs. 

We might ask who is writing new songs for the union?

 

“Now everyone sings Scottish songs and if I were a unionist politician of whatever party, but especially the Labour party, I would be counting the songs, have a habit of making the laws also.” Ian Hamilton wrote. 

 

Since the 60s and 70s, the resurgence of Scots voices, culture and arts have had more impact on our hearts and minds - than the often hollow and ignorant political chat. Early in 1970s Edinburgh, traditional folk songs were flourishing around the folk clubs, bars and folk festivals – Girvan, Ayr, Arran, Sandy Bells and many more. 

Before this I had mainly listened to music on recorded albums, so the live local music scene was a revelation for me, with its foot-stomping fiddles, the strumming banjos, guitar and bohran, the perfect unaccompanied singers, and the traditional Scots ballads. 

 

The impact of the Proclaimers first tv appearance on channel Four’s music program the Tube – when they performed Letter to American in strong Scottish accent was immediate. They combined folk and punk music. Then we also have dougie macLleans powerful Caledonia and David Steele's Scotland Yet.

 

As attitudes towards the British empire changed after the war, in the mid 1960s at the men’s football game they started to boo and agitate and to sing their own songs as the band played the national anthem, God Save the Queen. In 1966-67 fans started to sing Flower of Scotland – and eventually authorities recognised this and dropped the UK National Anthem for Scotland.

 

The Corries

Ian Hamilton, who along with other student stole the Stone of Destiny from Westminster Abbey, wrote -

“Nobody sang in Scotland in the ­middle part of the century. To be more correct, those who sang did not derive their songs from Scotland. Their sources were ­foreign and what they sang was only an alien copy of other people’s ways of life.”    He saw a very different Scotland in the early 1990s compared to the past: “Now everyone sings Scottish songs, and if I were a Unionist politician of whatever party, but especially of the Labour ­Party, I would be counting the songs, rather than the votes. The people who make the songs of a country have a habit of making the laws also.”

Perhaps that is a little too romantic for some but it contains a kernel of truth. What we sing and who sings says something about who we see ourselves as ­being and how we stake our claim in the world. Maybe in his heart, Ally McCoist knows this too.

Extracted The Songs We Sing, Gerry Hassan, The Sunday National 17^th September 202 - 

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23794397.gerry-hassan-god-save-king-flower-scotland-unites-us/

 

 

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

Scottish Nationalism for a Progressive modern state

It’s a strange thing, I’ve been reading Tom Nairn ‘s excellent book the Break up of Britain (1977) and he makes many profound insights into the archaic nature of the British state – one being that unionists view all the supposed benefits of the state of Britain, and that some view Scottish nationalism as a backward-looking project. I’ve been told too that I should move beyond the Battle of Bannockburn (1314).

He writes, ’Nationalism is not a question of simple identity, but rather of something more – a catalyst.

 

What’s strange really is in my view the British state is the total opposite of unionist’s world view. I see Scottish nationalism and Scottish independence as a progressive, modern project to bring a more authentic democracy for progressive socialism and fair opportunities alongside a healthy capitalism, that encourages and protects small businesses, we need both. 

 

And I have longed viewed the British state as archaic and as a pre-democracy – as does Nairn and many other commentators. The British state as established 1688, of the Crown in Parliament, well before universal suffrage, Nairn writes, is a political cul-de-sac, unable to reform itself under its two party system and its first past the post voting system. 

 

Because of this Britain “is stuck in the past and not a modern state. Crucially FPTP voting means Bills at Westminster don’t get proper scrutiny. (New book, How Westminster Works and How it Doesn’t by Ian Dunt  how Westminster is not effective at governing). 

 

Nairn writes, “Although not of course an absolutist state, the Anglo-British system remains a product of the general transition from an absolutism to modern constitutionalism: it led the way out of the former, but never genuinely arrived at the latter,…..it is basically an indefensible and inadaptable relic, not a modern state form.” 

 

Perhaps it’s now time we stop hiding behind nationalism, but view it as the positive, progressive project it is. Nairn views nationalism as both good and bad, and as a process that happened across Europe in the 1800s. Scotland is only now trying to catch up. 

 

He also writes Scotland became bereft of a literary voice due to the false romantic myths of Walter Scott – of a Scotland gone forever – and due to emigration and the Kailyard school. Nationalism is also viewed as anti-globalization.

 

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

The reason is that when the nation states in Europe were transitioning in the 1800s, due according to Nairn, to the uneven nature of capitalism, Scotland was the only nation state to have previously jumped across during the enlightenment and the Edinburgh new town. 

 

But now today Scotland has been left behind, in the 20^th century, There has been no revolution, and the absence of change. 

By contrast in Europe 1800s, nationalism took hold with the demise of empires, and the rise of nation states.  As a nation Scotland jumped, ahead in the 1700s, with increased trade, the enlightened thought,  when Scotland moved very fast from a place of superstition and tribal warfare.

“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:”

 

***Tom Nairn’s book The Break Up of Britain

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

 

 

Walter Scott’s fake nationalism and false myths of Scotland

“pervasive, second-rate sentimentalist, associated with tartan nostalgia.”

 For Walter Scott - “the past is gone, beyond recall.” ….it evokes a national past never to revive it.”

.... no part of political or social mobilization of present by a mythical emphasis on

 

Walter Scott’s novels were read across the world, and his contribution to the rising tide of national romanticism, was a great one.  – “however it was great everywhere but in his own nation of Scotland.” Scott wrote of a  “romantic national culture and the rise of a kitsch Scotland.”

 

Tom Nairn, leading political theorist, denounces Scots novelist Walter Scott- ..”the destruction of Celtic Scotland was to haunt Lowlanders or the Scotland of Sir Walter Scott. He showed us “how not to be nationalist during an ascendant political nationalism. Its the language of Tory unionism and of progress”/ 

 

“From Ossian to Walter Scott played a large part in generating and defining romantic consciousness for the rest of Europe while degrading his own nation. Which led to rootlessness, a void, which cultural and literary historians deplore.  The continuity between (heroic) past and present.”…....  The heart may regret but never the head.”

 

Nairn writes of the failures of Scottish Nationalism, during the 1800s under the false romantic myths such as the writing of Walter Scott and of a bereft Scottish literature at this time.  Two examples – cultural emigration and the Kailyard school of vulgar tartanry.”,,, 

 

Scotland reverted to being a province 1800s, while prosperous and imperial. Why? Scotland became void and rootless. 1. Absence of political nationalism 2. Absence of a mature cultural romanticism. The poor Highland's world and comparatively prosperous Lowland world, and the total repression of Highland culture and social structure. The highland were once half of the population of Scotland.

Scott monument Edinburgh

By contrast the real purpose of romantic history was different – cultural nationalism was the mythical resuscitation of the past, to serve the present and the future. 

 

Scott caused disintegration of a great national culture. Elsewhere in Europe, “the middle classes felt the development for people was impossible without rapid mobilization of their own resources and rejection of alien rule.”

 

Nairn claims Scotland is unique in Europe, where nationalism struggled with its national identity and along with the rise of nationalism 1800s and the rise of nation states across Europe, as the "result of the uneven development of capitalism."

 

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. 

 

The real interests of Scotland diverge from the auld sang

Dependency Supporters

Choice between Scotland’s independent sovereignty and the politics of DEPENDENCY 

Language really matters. I agree with the Wee Ginger Dog we must stop calling those who “advocate dependency” - unionists, which implies a positive working together, when this is not happening  at all. Scotland is ignored, Scotland’s resources have been plundered, and her voice suppressed. Its crucial we stop using the false term “unionist” and instead call those who want to hold Scotland back – “dependency supporters.” This UK is very much not a partnership – the term unionist is fake and  misleading. A union refers to a partnership (or marriage) one in which each partner has an equal say - of compromise, collaboration, negotiations. 

 

Culture and language drive and are ahead of our politics. This is about Scotland’s voice.

The policy makers in London are using derogatory language against those who believe in Scots sovereignty. – they use terms such as ‘separatist’ and ‘nationalists’ to imply Scots are driven by ideological greed, ignorance, selfishness, divisiveness. While they know full well most Scots want to work in an indy nation in the EU trading block and be international, left of centre and outward looking. 

For centuries Scotland has been a seafaring international and trading nation with our great seaports (now mostly closed apart from apart from Aberdeen). Scotland does not need to trade via the bottleneck of Dover - we can trade direct to Europe as Ireland does.

 

Succession actor Brian Cox suggests the British isles can be a “Federation of sovereign states, one in which we can all b citizens and participate, and have an equal say and pull together for the common good of all.” At the moment this is not happening here UK, because this is not a partnership. Its about 3 smaller nations being dependent on all rules, policies and decisions set in London, for the benefit of the south of England, in a highly centralized monarchy/ parliamentary sovereignty/ power structure, where the Crown is used to assert power, for the benefit of the empire state not the people. And operates its dirty money London Laundromat. Much more centralized than a century ago.

(Please note – Labour and Conservatives are English political parties. After Scotland’s indy Scotland needs its own political parties, which would naturally evolve here, to cover differing views. Scotland’s indy is about more local and accountable government.) 

 

Some refer to England as the “parent state” and they believe they own Scotland. By contrast most Scots believe that back 300 years ago in 1707, Scotland, as one of the oldest nations in Europe, with its rich diverse history, and deep lasting connections to scholarly learning in Paris from the time of Reformation - as explorers, as mercenaries, and innovators. - that Scotland entered into a voluntary partnership with England for trading reasons. At that time Scotland had 1million people, England had 4 million. Historians tell us Scotland was never a colony – yet if surveys asked the English or Scots if they believed Scotland is a colony, they will surely say yes – as we do not have self government but are ruled from the capital of another nation. 

 

There’s been a general ignorance of Scots history and Scots culture is not celebrated by Dependence supporters. That’s if Scots know any of their history, after decades of being only taught English history in our schools. Scotland was not conquered in 1690, even though Cromwell tried and got as far as Dunnottar castle. In fact Charles II was crowned firstly at Scone on our Stone of Destiny. Culloden was the last pitched battle here UK – there were Scots on both sides, as well as French and Irish. These were religious battles. Crucially at Charles III ascension he pledged the freedom of Scotland’s church. 

The big question is, how efficiently does Devolution work – with civil servants in London making decisions? What does devolution mean, when Scotland is allowed to run only some of its affairs? 

 

It’s a confused, messy picture. Do dependency advocates think that devolution works well, because most Scots are totally confused - what is reserved, what’s run here? Does Scotland run its own energy policy (no, the UK runs energy but has had no energy policy), does Scotland run its economy and tax (no). After leaving the EU, the London government now interferes in many devolved matters. So its even more confusing. Tories appear intent on wrecking devolution settlements. 

 

Back before WW1 Scotland ran more of its own affairs. This isn’t about Edinburgh becoming another centralising London either but about greater local control. This isn’t about personalities – its about the wider yes and civic movement. A good plan is for a Citizens Assembly to grow our ideas for the way ahead, organically from the ground up. That’s the only way to grow support for our independence. It appears from studies that many Scots are very confused over what devolution means, what independence means in todays world of interconnections over trade (as in the EU). I believe it would be very helpful for all sides, ideas and views, to clarify what both these arrangements really will mean. 

 

It all depends on whether you see the UK as a free democracy or an empire state more concerned with the global empire – than the people who live here. The UK requires radical reforming on all levels and to put people first! This is a struggle between Westminster sovereignty and the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Since union 1707 Scotland has always been run separately with a Secretary of State. Of course the uK likes confusion and has no constitution. We need clearer and simpler details of what devolution and independence means for us. Most voters are confused and I am sure the UK encourages confusion just as there no clear constitution. 

 

 

Ukraines Fight to survive: The Freedom Orchestra

 

The Freedom Orchestra -  Ukraines Fight to survive

 

Putin’s aim is to not only annex, but to erase Ukraine’s unique and distinctive culture and language. 

Russia has been trying to destroy Ukrainian independence.

It is a battle of national survival. 

 

You cannot erase the culture.

To heal and bring unity

 

Ukraine gained its independence 1991, with the end of Soviet Union. 

There was corruption and close ties to Russia, and a hundred protestors were killed.

 

Silvesteros Ukraine composer.  Symphony number 7

 

Desperation of the soul

74 Ukrainian musicians.

The orchestra played for all the soldiers who have died in Ukraine – message of continuity and hope. To heal and express Ukraine’s voice. 

 

The Ukrainian orchestra performed at the BBC proms Albert halls in 2022. 

 

The Ukrainian Freedom Orchestra is an orchestra composed of Ukrainian refugees who have fled the Russian invasion of Ukraine  and Ukrainian members of other European orchestras. Canadian conductorKeri-Lynn Wilson, who has Ukrainian ancestry, provided the impetus for the creation of the Ukrainian Freedom Orchestra, which the Metropolitan Opera of New York. and the Polish National Opera immediately supported as a gesture of solidarity with the victims of the war in Ukraine.

Claim of Right

  

Is the principle that recognises that the people of Scotland have the sovereign right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. First set out by the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. Before this Scotland had been governed by a succession 113  kings. Scotland was founded by Fergus Mor in the  5^th century, followed 9^th century by the union of the Picts and Scots under Kenneth I. 

In 2018 there was the case of McCormack vs the Lord Advocate  - “The principles of unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinct English principle has no counterpoint in Scottish constitutional law. This was later endorsed by the UK parliament. 

 

Scotland’s Claim of Right is not based on conquest, but under a Treaty under International Law, and two acts of parliament, that ratified and implemented the treaty. 

These measures can be rescinded as circumstances changed, if their conclusions no longer prevail, and the disadvantages that arise from the present political structure. The present Scottish government and parliament are competent to renegotiate a withdrawal from the treaty. 

 

At present Scotland is a country but not independent, within the framework/political union UK, yet retains strong national identity and sovereign rights. 

The UN international Bill of Human Rights, as a fundamental human right and binding on the UK on the right of self determination, which determines that -

“All people have the right to self-determination., . by virtue of the right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

 

In culture, Scotland’s distinctive music, dance, literature, architecture and uniquely preserves the Celtic culture.

  

I wonder that some in England wanted a Brexit, to bring the UK closer back together. They forgot about Scotland’s long standing historic ties to Europe, which has left many Scots feeling bereft to loose their place in Europe. But also the small indy nations in Europe are out performing. 

 

None of these claims are anti- Britain. The opposite – Yessers believe a more successful Scotland will make the UK stronger. As a family of nations rather than warring tribes.  #¥esScots

 

 

Saving the Scots Language

Iona Fyfe

There’s the issues of Russia’s recent imperialism invasion of Ukraine, is this cultural genocide or fear of the economic successes of a more democratic Ukraine, or both? Does Putin want to erase Ukrainian culture, language and arts?

In Ireland one of the biggest issues is the Irish language which - unionists are fiercely against. In Scotland its not so long ago that children were belted in class for speaking in Scots, and teachers here were told they would sound ignorant if they spokein Scots! Its about the imperial domination of one culture over another. This is totally fake as Scotland was and is a world leader. Its a disgrace the way Scotland is usually portrayed in films as an ignorant or backward country, when this is a lie.

Why can’t we have both a common language and also celebrate our differences? In Switzerland they have high German in university lectures but speak Swiss German in their breaks.

 

Billy Kay recently gave an address to the Scottish parliament in Scots. to which there was a backlash by Labour politicians, claiming Scots is not a language. He is the author of the book, The Mother Tongue, published in 2006?

 

After the Brexit failures, it is British or English nationalism that is the problem. Suppressions of your culture has a devastating effect and left Scots feeling second class and inferior. I had hoped the days of imperial vandalism and repression were behind us now. 

 

 

**Scots Language recognised

Scots singer Iona Fyfe campaigned recently to have Scots language added on Spotify.

She had noticed on Spotify that there were all other living languages – Welsh, Cornish, Gaelic, Irish,

But no Scots. She contacted Spotify, asking to have Scots recognised also, but was ignored. 

 Then she met a Spotify executive at a music event in America and told him of her request and within a few days Scots had been added. 

Result. Well done Iona!  I took photos of Iona at Celtic Connections and was impressed with her voice. Check her out here –  https://ionafyfe.com

 

 

**Scottish nationalism - doesn’t want a superior voice just an equal one. Its inclusive or civic and about all who want to make their home in Scotland – its about places, unique Scottish geography surrounded by open seas at the edge of Europe and close to our Nordic cousins. 

 

Shetland is a mere 140 miles from Norway -. Orkney is home to the Brognar of Ness – which was an ancient temple, visited by people from all over Europe. 

And also Scapa Flow Orkney, where the naval fleet was stationed in the war. 

Sadly though the Homecoming Scotland excluded Jamaican Scots 2014, we importantly need to reconsider our vast Scots diaspora. 

 

 By contrast the words ‘all in England’ or the English or viewed as more ethnic and doesn’t include all who live in England. According to leading psychologist Stephen Reicher, at St Andrews university.

Its important indy supporters make it clear Scotland’s independence Is not about ‘ethnicity’ but about all who live Scotland.    #¥esScots

Politics today is complex

I read that Norway has nine political parties – (re a letter National). This is complex and there are online questionnaires listing say 30 of the main issues that concern people, and after voters rate the issues that matter to them, they can then decide which party to vote for. Coalition government leads to more consensual, co-operative government and NOT “chaos” as put forward by the English Tories.

Back 19^th century it used to be the main concern of the English political parties was raising taxes to fight the French, over territory. Or how to get rich quick. (In the alternative reality, where the Jacobites won, Scotland would be looking for treaties and trade links across Europe. And 250 years ago Burns wrote – of the poison of untold wealth, and how we all deserve equal rights and opportunities. Nothing much changes!)

So this binary two-party, confrontational left or right English political parties, offers too simplistic a choice, with its out-dated first-past-the-post electoral system, that encourages this binary choice.

Meanwhile the English Labour party is seriously spilt between those wanting the elitist status quo and those wanting reform, as the party continues to hark back to the past rather than addressing the pressing issues of the present: and the English Tory party has morphed into Ukip!

The English Tories rather than co-operative, modern government, believe they have to Lord it over others! The Tory word is not its bond either: Johnson only signed the Northern Ireland Protocol to "Get Brexit Done" and get himself re-elected. Most insidiously the British propaganda machine implies an open, fair democracy, when its fairly obvious this isn’t the case.

BoJo claims he wants a high pay Britain by stopping immigration (??) – the real way is by closing private schools and greatly improving education and opportunities for all our children. It appears there is a serious lack of education of both History and Geography generally, never mind Business or Science! In English schools they specialize early to two subjects. In the Scottish system its long been considered important to have a broad education to better understand and have a wider outlook, before any later specialization.

Gerry Hassan writes of a ‘Progressive Alliance” that works seriously for reform of the out-dated UK political system, to get rid of first-past-the-post and embrace a PR (proportional representation) voting system. (This is how Tories can be taken out of government, National Oct 6, 2021) Of course in my view, there is too much tension and strain in this broken system of a “united” Kingdom, of enforcement rather than consent. The English Tories are dismantling democracy and devolution in the UK and working towards ever more destructive centralization. As this Westminster Tory government is not voted for by Scots, this is creating an unsustainable situation.

Today’s Politics is far more complex then in the past - with the environmental crisis, free trade deals, equal rights, security and cyber space, energy supplies, monetary and financial markets, trans rights, child protection, health provision, media and press, education systems, connectivity and infrastructure, industry and business, arts and culture, pandemics, welfare, pensions and social security, economy and tax systems, more I’m sure. Scotland’s independence is not about the English people butabout their out-of-touch ignorant elites.

The words of Burn’s song Scots Wa Hae were not merely about Bruce, but about all freedom fighters against oppression. Kevin McKenna (Its past time to open Pandora’s box) writes of the Tories as ‘extremists’ and of their control of the UK media and Press. Without control of news outlets, many will continue to be fooled by England’s Tory misinformation. And when Scotland gains its independence, we must ban foreign political parties. The biggest issue becomes how can we control the message? “Stronger for Scotland” is not good enough – who is stronger? HOW CAN WE BE “A NATION AGAIN”

Is Scotland Ready?

Irish Times writer Fintan O’Toole is an excellent, creative thinker and I enjoyed his essays, in the Sunday National. He writes that we must not idealize what independence will mean. Unlike Brexit, we have given Scottish Independence careful consideration, both by past artists and also in recent times.  

In the years leading to the historic 2014 vote on Scotland’s indy, one of the most significant changes that occurred was the rise up of renewed, energised and enthusiastic debates on all aspects of our views on how to build a healthier democracy, and with all walks of life here being more engaged. These debates led to creative imaginings of the type of country we might build here. This progress has been totally missed by the London based press. (And as Angus Robertson well points out, little attention is paid by the UK press to the UK regions, nations or to the European press) 

  

The twenty years of the Scottish Parliament has brought renewed confidence in our ability to govern ourselves, even while history tells us Scotland has always had some form of self government. Another big change was with young people. For the first time 16 and 17 year olds were given the vote, which meant political debate was considered in schools. Young people also take their news from diverse sources online. There has also been a reworking and recreating of Scotland’s arts, heritage and history. According to leading historian Tom Devine, until the 1960s Scottish history, particularly from Union to the present day, had been seriously neglected by academic study. 

My impression is all these discussions greatly moved Scotland on, with new creative ideas on how to make our own nation. Its been clear for decades now (as the polls point out) that Scotland has been moving in its own and different trajectory to those in England. 

Re Brexit – I’m getting worried now for the state of things here UK. Gerry Hassan, who has a new book, Scotland the Brave, thinks we’ve come to the limits of devolution and where do we go now?  The new guy Adam Price leading Plaid Cymru in Wales is very interesting too. He’s lived over in the States and believes we might all be stronger here with 4 diverse nations working together, as comparable to the Benelux countries of Netherlands, Luxemburg and Belgium which thrive independently but also co-operatively. Perhaps we need to define better what indy means and that the four British Isles nations would work closely together to build security, trade etc.  In todays internet world its such a different business to the days of ship travel! Worryingly UK politics appears in melt down, and with the hoping Brexit is some impossible quick fix.

On our social challenges. My view is we need to close private schools. The trouble is a big shift in culture like that can't really happen over night. After centuries of empire building and a Them versus Us culture, real social change will take some time I believe. We should seriously look at the Finnish education system - which believes in a "co-operative culture" rather than a "survival of the fittest" of creaming off an elite you nourish while the rest are disregarded. Because Scots history tells us we thrive when we are all given a chance, re libraries and education here.

There was an interesting write up in the Sunday Times June 21 (I like to read the right wing press also!) on Dr Geetha Marcus, professor of education Glasgow who advises the Scottish government. She advocates abolishing private schools in favour of a high-quality comprehensives model, and in line with the approach by Finland after the second world war, as required to reduce our nations attainment gap.Marcus argues segregated education is holding Scotland back. She also advises masters degrees for all teachers. Finland with a similar population, is recognised as an education success story since it replaced private and selective schools with ‘common’ schools on the basis that a society divided by class and poverty would weaken the country.There are 30K pupils in 74 independent schools in Scotland, around 4%, which encourages a privileged few.

It is vital we close the attainment gap. This can only be achieved, through a radical shift in attitudes. All children deserve a fair chance in life. We must also have mixed ability groups in primary schools and a Montessori type of education with mentoring. 

Worryingly the establishment and media continue to be run by private school elites. They want to protect the status quo and are rigidly against change, but this flies in the face of progress and of a real future of younger generations. So the question is, what do they really stand for? Those in London need to listen to more diverse voices, and not only to an isolated Tory party or a dysfunctional Labour. Huge changes are coming and I certainly don’t see the Brexit party or Lib Dems as an answer.

We need to look for the bigger pictures. Too many are only concerned for the personal and party issues. Why are the unionists running away from discussing Scotland’s pressing issues in a Peoples Assembly/? What are they scared of? Those on all sides of Scottish politics agree we need control of our immigration, drugs policies, and are against any Westminster power grab. We must find consensus – we can have an ever stronger British isles, just not one where all is controlled at Westminster. 

I am presently reading Fintan O’Toole’s recent book, Heroic Failure, on the Brexit carry on, and what an excellent story teller he is in this well researched tale of this highly confusing break down. He states that Brexit is really not about the EU, but an existential crisis. 

Scotland sits on the edge of Europe and for centuries has been an outward-looking nation. We must embrace this now – and become the welcoming, non-hostile nation, most who live in Scotland wish to be part of. 

The Nature of Nationalism

Excellent article by Isobel Lindsay National July 2018 on the nature of nationalism. 

Lindsay writes that, “nationhood  is morally neutral – like say parenting. It ranges from commitment to place, self-government, national identity and to enthusiastic internationalism in which nations co-operate within agreed structures. 

At the football World Cup we saw a display of nationalism that was good natured – both internationalism with competition and co-operation among the nations, promoting their national interest within a set of agreed rules an shared objectives." 

The commitment to a specific place and people is an essential part of the human condition. The group is essential to our survival and the development of culture. Below the surface we are all nationalist. Nationhood is about shared values, distinctive identity, civic culture, shared experience and mutual understandings. What is the alternative to nationalism and the nation state?  

Uniquely, and unlike populist far right national groups in Europe. Scotland's nationalist movement, going back to the 19th century, was led by people whose values were egalitarian, liberal and internationalist - Roland Muirhead, Cunningham Graham, Compton Mackenzie, Neil Gunn, John Maclean. In other words a fight for civil and social rights. 

Lindsay writes, “It has been one of the failings of the left in England to ignore national identity issues and it gives the opportunity to the right to impose their interpretation on nationalism.”’ 

Therefore “England has allowed the right to define Britishness and Englishness in their own image - of monarchy, military and of a mythical rural idyll.” 

Isobel Lindsay on the nature of nationalism, The Nation July 2018

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/16357986.isobel-lindsay-why-we-need-to-talk-about-nationalism/